User talk:Kvng/Archive 10

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

Articles for Creation discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Review_of_a_reviewer regarding your reviewing for the project. You are welcome to comment or not as you see fit. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: What you have posted are actions that have been reversed in AfD. You have listed 12 covering a 10 month period. How many mistakes am I allowed? Acceptance criteria is 50% chance of being deleted. I'd argue that reviewers that rarely accept something that is subsequently deleted are avoiding marginal cases (I always review from the back of the queue so am dealing with a lot of these) or are applying a criteria more stringent than AfC policy dictates.
It seems one sided to not include, in your post, some information about any good work I have done for AfC. How many drafts have I accepted that have been nominated for deletion but not deleted? How many have I accepted in total? How many have I declined? You have included my AfD stats as a 13th piece of evidence as if 73% is a bad stat. Is it? ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not posting this beacuse I personally feel that you are not doing a good job; I am posting it because there have been multiple requests for your reviewing to be looked at. You are welcome to defend yourself with your statement above; it might convince the other reviewers that you are doing good work and have just made a few mistakes along the way. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I have taken some of your concerns into account and have included more general information about your reviewing history in the post as well. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: Thank you for doing that. You have posted anonymous complaints. It would be more fair if complaints were posted directly those who have complained. You mentioned that previous review the reviewer discussions went off the rails. I don't know why you expect a different outcome here and I don't appreciate being injected into to a time-consuming process with a history of bad outcomes. ~Kvng (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that. I set up this process of the "anonymous complaint" system after the fiasco with Legacypac (and yes, I'll admit that it wasn't my finest hour). I felt that one person with an axe to grind would just create a time-consuming process where no one would ever want to do reviews on the off chance that someone disagreed with them. So, I decided that if enough people complained about a specific editor, there might be something worth looking in to. Clearly the process needs a bit more refinement, as you're right that the overall percentage of issues is relatively minor (though there may be more that come to light). Maybe we shouldn't do reviews of reviewers except in the case where it's clear they're just a complete idiot and have no idea what they're doing... that seems to have worked out pretty well so far. Primefac (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I've closed the discussion - you're exactly right, a few issues are not enough to merit this much drama. My apologies for the hassle. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Digital Signal Processing

Hello, I recently edit Digital signal processing article, but you revert my changes [[1]],that was fact statement in Signal Processing which you revert (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC))

@Mr.Mani Raj Paul: We like facts but we like verifiable facts better, also need to be able to understand them and if you're going to add something to the WP:LEAD of an article, it should be added first in the body somewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

rough translations

Just a hint: Usually, when I encounter a draft (or new page) that is in the sort of English produced by Google translate but is otherwise acceptable , such as Pietro Carbone, either I fix it myself, or add a Rough translation tag from Twinkle (which is what I did for this one) The key clue is often the use of inappropriate tenses. Of course, if it's really bad I don't accept if a Draft, or Draftify if an article. It's not useless to add a Rough translation tag--there are some people gradually working on these. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. ~Kvng (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
At long last... Trillfendi (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Grant Sabatier

Hello Kvng!

I have updated the draft and added more citations. Please can you review and let me know your feedback. Thank You! Codydberman (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:CitySprint

Hi Kvng, thanks for looking at this page. I've listed the three best sources of notability on the talk section, please can you review and let me know if you need anything further? Thanks, Cstulip (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cstulip: Except for extenuating circumstances I don't review the same submission more than once. Another reviewer will have a look in due course - may few months due to our current backlog. ~Kvng (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Just dropping a note to let you know that I've started an AfD for Malaria and the Caribbean to gather more opinions on whether or not the content should be deleted. Your thoughts are, as always, most welcome. Discussion here. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyphenol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyphenol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fader creep, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

NACA Report No. 106

Hi Kvang, I see your point on not using a PROD for this article, but to consider the entire series. Thank you Rogermx (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Political positions of Fred Thompson

  • I just noticed that you deprodded Political positions of Fred Thompson too. I agree with your action and reasoning. I'd have done it myself but the topic seemed quite political and I wasn't keen to get embroiled in a tiresome AP dispute so I just put it on my watchlist. Anyway, I noticed that you also placed an {{oldprodfull}} template on the talk page and used its parameters to document the details. I usually place that template too when deprodding though I notice that Twinkle now tends to place it when the prod is first placed. I've tried using the parameters to document the details too but found doing this to be quite slow and tiresome. Do you have any tips or tricks for making this easier, please? Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a manual process but a lot of copy-paste. To speed things up I use multiple browser tabs, some macro programming on my keyboard and Ditto clipboard manager. ~Kvng (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution Party Collection PROD notice

Just wanted to say a "thank you!" for being one of the nicest WP:DEPROD users around, everything being explained why or how and even suggesting alternatives. Kudos. Though I don't find your suggestion a great thing, because...it's unsourced. As a WP:V fail (which a policy), it is not a good thing to merge it to (Dance Dance Revolution has no info on the collection). There is another possiblity, redirecting to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games. Problem I have with this is WP:RFD#DELETE Criteria 10 which says "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met...the target article contains virtually no information on the subject". As a list it just offers a release date of the game, which is some information, but hardly what a reader would be looking for. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There's not much more information than release date in Dance Dance Revolution Party Collection. Redirecting to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games seems like a very good solution. I have implemented it. Wikipedia is not a directory so if readers are looking for more (unreliable) information on obscure topics like this, they probably should be looking elsewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! Just wanted to check with you on what would be the best way to go through, and I agree with the WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument you are giving here! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of pending review for article Draft:Francesca Tasini

HiKvng, I´ve posted the sources in the article talk page. Thanks for suggesting it. Can you please also take a look ? Many thanks --Abarin (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented at Draft talk:Francesca Tasini. The cited sources did not meet WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please review Kess Film

Hi Kvng ,I´ve created another article. Do you think it meets the criteria ? Many thanks --Abarin (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Hi Kvng . Can you please review Kess Film? Many thanks --Abarin (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That will need to await its turn. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

revert

I wont revert you...however,not sure why you did this[2]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Can you explain what you were trying to improve with these changes? You didn't leave an edit summary. ~Kvng (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
placing as much information in the infobox makes it easier for our readers(such as the synonym)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: But you also removed the main name from the infobox. Your changes also eliminate the alternate acronyms. ~Kvng (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
your correct about the acronyms, my mistake--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding compilations

You suggested merging or redirecting when you deprodded a June Christy compilation album. It's a good idea in some cases to merge or redirect. But not here. We usually discourage including compilation albums even in the main discographies and main articles. This is because compilations are usually not significant. Particularly in pop and rock, for example, compilations are usually repetitious, as in a Best of or Greatest Hits album, and provide nothing new or significant or notable. Articles created about those albums, when they have any content, provide nothing new or significant or notable. In fact, creating an article to announce the release of a compilation album appears a lot like advertising to me. The fact is, there are many places that announce these albums, and WP is not in the business of selling or promoting. WP is not the place to go for the latest thing.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

When an article is deprodded and you still want to delete it, you need to take it to AfD. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions and this one requires some discussion. I'll be happy to have a look at this argument at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:THREE best sources that establish notability

Dear Kvng, This is just to let you know I've posted three sources in the article talk page Draft:Anita_Andreis as suggested. Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Supraphonic (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Livewire Badge.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Livewire Badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Racelle Kooy

Hello, Kvng. Please review the changes I have made to the notability list and references on Racelle Kooy`s page and let me know what else I can do to speed up the review process. Thanks! --[[User:|CLStarlet]] (talk)

What your really name Ekejija destiny (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What your really name Ekejija destiny (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ekejija destiny: Thanks for making the improvements. I do not rereview submissions. If you think the issues have been resolved, please resubmit and another reviewer will take another look in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on History of Mechanical Engineering?

You approved the article for creation through the process and I believe there was a consensus. Another editor User talk:Polyamorph an hour later reviewed it, promptly destroyed the article, without consulting the talk page and redirected it.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter? I am in discussion with poly on his talk page and have made a section on the Talk:History of mechanical engineering - AH (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

History of mechanical engineering has been restored. ~Kvng (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:59:48, 9 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jschalow


Good day, I appreciate the time you took to review my article on Joerg Hasford and I reread guidelines for notability and authoritative references. You stated: "No WP:INDEPENDENT sources cited. It is possible the subject is notable based exclusively on his publications but we would like to see an independent assessment of that and I don't find it for this subject on PubMed or Google Scholar."

It seemed to me I covered this with the citations for his awards and his induction as a fellow into the Society of Clinical Trials. The statement on the Society for Clinical Trials page is quite strong: "He has been a leader in the field of cancer leukemia clinical trial research. Together with his coworkers, he developed and validated a prognostic model for chronic myeloid leukemia that is named for him by pooling individual patient data of many trials and prospective studies from around the world. He has contributed significantly to the standards of clinical trials in CML and AML in the German and European Leukemia Networks. He has been very influential in the study of safety of drugs and pharmacoepidemiology. He was one of the first biostatisticians to look at reliably compiled drug dosing history data in light of pharmacometric consequences. He developed new quantitative indices and tailored interventions to improve adherence in RCTs." http://www.sctweb.org/fellow.cfm?id=32

If I just go ahead and quote from the society and award pages, is this enough to strengthen the article or do you think we need more evidence of how well he is regarded in his field? I appreciate your help in improving the article and thank you. -John Schalow

Jschalow (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jschalow: please have a look at WP:NPROF#Criteria and let me know which item(s) apply to this subject and what evidence supports this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have edited and resubmitted the Hasford article. Thank you for pointing me to the criteria list for academics and I think criteria 1, 3 and 8 are met. He has written highly cited works. The significance of his impact on his field is confirmed by his awards and that he was selected to be a Fellow of the Society for Clinical Trials, a prestigious society. He serves on editorial boards, study groups, and commissions. He is quoted in prestigious publications such as Science (AAAS) and gives expert testimony as part of the process of creating legislation for the German government. (Do I need to document these activities in the article?) He served seven years as editor for Europe of the pretigious journal Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley. Hasford currently is having an impact outside of academia as he leads efforts to create and enforce governmental regulations in Germany and Europe in the area of medical ethics. Wikipedia needs to deepen its coverage of the health fields and I think an article on Hasford helps achieve this. Someone someday can add an article about CML scores such as the Hasford factor which will complement this article., I hope I have addressed your concerns and please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Thank you for your work. -John Schalow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschalow (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time

Hello Kvng!

I recently saw that you had taken your time to review and publish one of my articles, thank you for doing that. I do have several article draft on similar topics which have got stuck in "very-old-draft" category still awaiting reviews and publications. If you feel like it and have the time, feel free to take a look at them. If not, that is just as fine by me and in that case I wish you to have a nice day! :) Best regards!

The articles are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarzan:_The_Complete_Russ_Manning_Newspaper_Strips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:For_Better_or_For_Worse:_The_Complete_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Complete_Steve_Canyon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rip_Kirby:_The_Complete_Comic_Strips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Complete_Little_Orphan_Annie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Phantom:_The_Complete_Comic_Strips — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.181.169 (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry there is such a long backlog at AfC. We are working our way through it. I am personally reviewing drafts from the very old category in random order and will continue to do so as my time allows. ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I certainly understand, thank you for replying to my query. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.181.169 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Projection Design

Regarding your rejection of Draft:Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Projection Design. While the subject may not be noteworthy on its own, it is merely a list of award recipients in a particular category which, given the number of categories, would quickly crowd the Lucille Lortel Awards page. It seems no less noteworthy than a Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Play, a Tony Award for Best Scenic Design in a Play or an Academy Award for Best Cinematography . This seems to be a fairly standard format for awards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.165.78 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume a best actress award gets more press coverage than projection design and Tonys and Academy Awards get more coverage than Lucille Lortel Awards. In any case, I don't decide. Whatever multiple reliable sources decide to cover, is what Wikipedia considers notable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:THREE best sources

Dear Kvng, as you requested I published the WP:THREE best English sources for the article Draft:Andrea_Marinelli. Hope it may help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.53.38.14 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have replied at Draft talk:Andrea Marinelli ~Kvng (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kvng, I chose those WP:THREE because mostly all other sources are in Italian. I'm afraid it's not enough. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.53.38.14 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Foreign language sources are acceptable. Though I don't speak italian, I'm often able to evaluate them using Google translations. ~Kvng (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's try again then! :-) I added three sources in Italian. Thanks Kvng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.53.38.14 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the errors as well, also on the draft's page. Everything was working a few days ago, I'm trying to figure out what happened. In the meanwhile I attached the WP:THREE on the Draft:Andrea_Marinelli's draft talk. Thanks again. (Apparently the problem comes from this revision, but there is nothing I can do: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AAndrea_Marinelli&type=revision&diff=911710648&oldid=911710278)

Hi Kvng, thanks for your patience and for taking the time to review the Draft:Andrea_Marinelli. I added two more references on the talk page: one is the web version of the story you couldn't evaluate, the other is a story similar to La Repubblica. Have a nice day!

Draft resubmitted on your behalf and accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

You are very kind! Thank you. Kbrose (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

regarding Raul Jimenez Tellado rejection

where is the copyright material? I cannot find any! could you highlight the offending material so I can remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantizan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cantizan: Here's the tool. Flagged content is here. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The offending material has been removed. Your tool now reports no overlap with anything else on the web (that google can find). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantizan (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cantizan: feel free to resubmit and another reviewer will have another look in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability Criteria - Draft:The Zangwills

MMyll (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Draft_talk:The_Zangwills and responded there. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MMyll (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Update posted on Draft_talk:The_Zangwills - Many Thanks

Draft:Racing Team Nederland Rejection

Moved to Draft talk:Racing Team Nederland#Draft:Racing Team Nederland Rejection and responded there ~Kvng (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Century

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Eric Floehr

Can you please clarify the copyright issues that caused you to decline Draft:Eric Floehr? Lmaynard16 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmaynard16: Content potentially copied from [3].See CV report ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Notable sources: Draft:Crowdin

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to review my article, I've added a few sources, that might be the most notable ones (if choosing from the ones I listed). Cold you please take a look and let me know if that helps? They're mostly online sources, not books because the product I'm describing is the one developers use, so they mostly cover and discuss things online. But still, I found several books covering the topic, and chose one that seems to cover the topic best. Please let me know if this works! Thank you :) Meli.roden (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Raymond Ferris Abelin

Greetings Kvng,

Newly introduced to Wikipedia article publication, this is my first communication with a genuine Wikipedia editor. The WP:THREE information requested has been published on the Draft talk:Raymond Ferris Abelin link graciously provided. Many thanks for your efforts and help!

Thanks Kvng, I responded to your message concerning WP:INDEPENDENT sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.101.174 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, I took one last try at the WP:THREE response. Hopefully, the references are relevant, but if not, understood. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.101.174 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Eric Floehr

The content being flagged by CV report is actually a blog post I wrote on Eric Floehr's company website. I used excerpts from the copy I wrote for the Wikipedia submission for the blog post. If I take down the blog post will that eliminate the conflict with the submission? Lmaynard16 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmaynard16: The cleanest thing to do is to release the material under a Wikipedia-compatible license. Instructions and information is at WP:DCP. ~Kvng (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

About Draft:George Tyndall

Hi Kvng,
I have some qualms about moving that accepted draft into article space. While there are many reliable sources about the subject that WP:VERIFY the many accusations, I have not found any reliable sources for any actual conviction for a crime. Perhaps you could tidy this up?
Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Shirt58 The article never says he has been convicted. What do you have in mind in terms of tidying? ~Kvng (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
You are right, I was wrong. Actual convictions appear not be required. See WP:BLPCRIME
I have obligations external to the Wikipedia project, and must recuse myself from making this page move.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Eric Floehr

I have released the material by following the Wikipedia guidelines. I put permission explicitly on the site where that material is posted and is now documented on the talk page of Draft:Eric Floehr. The only issue is that webcitation.org is currently not accepting archiving requests. I was not able to complete that requirement. What is the next step? Lmaynard16 (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lmaynard16: When you think you have the copyright issue resolved, the next step is to resubmit the draft for another review. Be aware that the most common reason for declines of drafts like this is notability. Please make sure you have WP:42 well covered before resubmitting to avoid a long wait followed by disappointment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Thank you,

--ManuelGamio (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@ManuelGamio: I ended up evaluating your cited sources myself and declined your submission. Feel free to improve it and resubmit and another reviewer will have another look. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ok, thank you

--ManuelGamio (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Synths

Hey, sorry for being a bit militant on the synthesizer article. But my rationale is this.

This article is in bad shape. It has reams of uncited information and poorly organised sections, and is missing vital information in areas like the impact on popular music. I eventually plan to attempt a thorough overhaul of the entire article, perhaps aiming for GA or FA (like I did with TR-808). In the meantime, I am trying to tackle low-hanging fruit; uncited sections are easy targets and, as the article is overlong already, help bring a bit of order, even if it's short-term. By relying on WP:BURDEN I am trying to encourage other editors to help cite things. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will look for a source. I have been slowly working on the article as part of my User:Kvng/RTH project. At this point I have only reviewed through section 1.8. I probably won't have any ideas about big-picture reorganization until I get a bit further. Don't let my activities stop you from making bold improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Audio signal processing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intonation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

OG Cuicide's Wiki Page (AKA Darnell Price) THANK YOU

Thanks for commenting on the page, I've left a new comment containing the "3 Best Sources" establishing notoriety for the subject.

Please let me know if you have received notice of the "New Section" - I am new to Wikipedia and sometimes it's not entirely clear if I've successfully left a comment/message or not. Also, I left a note at the bottom of that section explaining a previous ordeal concerning this page. If you have any information on that, I would appreciate your assistance.

Thank you so much,

Ace woe (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply at Draft talk:Darnell Price ~Kvng (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ludwika Ogorzelec entry now has 5 sources

Hello, my article about Ludwika Ogorzelec was rejected because I relied only on one main source. The reason for this is that she is a global artist, and hence many of the sources about her are in languages other than English. Anyway, I have now revised the entry and expanded my sources to FIVE. Can you please take another look and, hopefully, approve this entry? I'm certainly willing to make further improvements, if necessary, although after working on this for more than 20 hours, I hope I am seeing the end of the tunnel soon. :-) Thanks for the great work you are doing on behalf of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin54 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new lead section for Leap second

You probably have leap second on your watch list but just in case you miss it and can find a moment (SI standard moment, of course) to review it, I have posted a draft replacement lead section at talk:Leap second#Proposed new version of the lead. I would appreciate your comments. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I care about leads and I care about leap seconds. I have commented. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Thomas Tobiasz" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomas Tobiasz. Since you had some involvement with the Thomas Tobiasz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The copyright violation was from a book review that I wrote

I will promptly add a license to the book review Ylevental (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kvng: I just added a license to the source at Draft talk:Thomas Clements (writer)/Temp. The source is at https://corticalchauvinism.com/2019/07/29/autism-updated/ Anything else I need to do to get the article approved? Ylevental (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ylevental: Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously so unfortunately there's a bunch of red tape that needs to be dealt with. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems and specifically Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 November 5 where I listed this issue. It usually takes a week or more to get this all sorted out. If you want to try and push it along you may be able to find someone at the WP:TEAHOUSE to help you. Once the copyright issues are resolved, you'll need to resubmit your draft and wait for another reviewer to have another look at it. Be aware that copyright violation is one of our quick-fail criterion. I did not give your draft a comprehensive review. Please make sure that notability requirements are met before resubmitting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Confused about instructions

Hello Kvng,

Thanks for helping reviewing my submission. You provided some instructions but I'm not really sure what you mean. Article in revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Blue_Sky_Architecture

Are you asking for me to provide the three best sources according to WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV? Then I should add a new section in the talk page of the article?

Cheers! Quettal (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Quettal: that's basically my request. Best to post in a new section on the draft's talk page. This submission must meet WP:NCORP. Let me know if you need any further help. ~Kvng (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

pings

Just FYI, regarding pings, they typically can't be fixed -- it closes the template but no notification is generated. For a ping to create a notification it needs to link to be on a new line, link to a userpage, and include a fresh timestamp with four tildes. Adding a link to an existing line, adding a link and replacing one signature with another, etc. don't actually work. You may already know this, but FYI anyway. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll add a new ping of DGG here to set up a treasure hunt. ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll say this: people focus on all sorts of content gaps on Wikipedia, but not enough people are working to combat the serious lack of treasure hunts in user/projectspace. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gravity Noir THANK YOU

Thanks for commenting on the page, I'm hoping I managed adding WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of my subject Gravity Noir (WP: Band).

I would appreciate your assistance if there is anything else I can do to improve my article. Hoping it won't be deleted?

Thanks again, kind regards and best wishes.--Trix18365 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gravity Noir THANKS AGAIN

Thank you for helping me out with the wikipage article about Gravity Noir. I was holding my breath, but so happy, because thanks to your help the page was saved from deletion. Really appreciated and I promise I will try my very best to keep improving the page.--Trix18365 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 03:04:04, 25 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Greghenderson2006


Hi Kvng,

Thanks for your review. I've made some changes per your suggestion and was wondering if you want to take a look at it now or should I resubmit it. You say in your review of Elwood Walter, No. 7 draft article that, "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Sandy Hook pilot."

I have tried to address these issues and feel it now has sufficient content because (a) the pilot ship was one of the earliest pilot boats that was built duing the 1860's. (b) It is an example of a Sandy Hook pilot boat that was given a pilot number seven by the New York Merchants' Pilot Association. (c) The text and sources are on par with other wiki articles, e.g. William Bell, No. 24, Pet, No. 9, etc. (d) I've added a citation to the burning of the ship Wabamo, which was rescued by the pilot boat Elwood Walter.

I feel it cannot be merged with an existing article Sandy Hook Pilot because (a) That article is focused on the pilot. (b) There is a need to have articles about specific vessels, seperate, as seen in the list Service vessels of the United States. Greg Henderson 03:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Greg Henderson 03:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: Your changes have indeed focused the article on the vessel so it is now more difficult to make a good case for merging the content to Sandy Hook Pilot. Standalone articles must meet WP:GNG. There are a lot of offline sources cited but the online material I see here does not give the required in-depth coverage of the vessel to meet this requirement. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation why the existence of similar articles is not necessarily a good argument for creating this one. Your work has improved the draft and I would suggest you resubmit it to have another reviewer take a look at it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rajiv Rattan

Hello, Kvng. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rajiv Rattan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hypergiant Industries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hypergiant Industries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Kvng!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitted article on Ludwika Ogorzelec

Hi, I have fixed the problem with sourcing in my article on the sculptor Ludwika Ogorzelec, and I have resubmitted the article some weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ludwika_Ogorzelec I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin54 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarin54: thanks for the improvements. With few exceptions, I only review submissions once. Another volunteer reviewer will have another look in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

/* Draft:Aleksandra Rudes */

I resubmitted the article and added numerous sources and references, including interviews with those who worked with her/heard her perform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aleksandra_Rudes

Thanks.

PBLB (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@PBLB: thanks for the improvements. With few exceptions, I only review submissions once. Another volunteer reviewer will have another look in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International A Match

Hello. You contested a PROD on this article a few months ago and may be interested in this AFD. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmitted Draft:MasterCard Foundation

Hello, I improved the article references and resubmitted for AfC, would you care to review the article? I've been waiting for a new reviewer for awhile. Thanks! LilaMorillo (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Accepted ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please look the article

Hi, my name is Carina, how are you?

I already fixed the article and removed the words that were not neutral. Please review it and accept it since I lasted many hours doing it. Consider my request. I also take into account any advice from you and whether I should remove or put words. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emil_Cerda Eltiguere300 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Eltiguere300

Discussion on the Draft namrespace

As a user who has expressed an interest in the Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC, you are invited to join a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rethinking_draft_space. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal at the Village Pump to streamline the welcome template

 As a participant at the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Sdkb (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

400GBASE-ZR

I deleted the 400GBASE-ZR port type from the 400G list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabit_Ethernet because it is no longer being done by the 802.3ct project. 802.3ct is just standardizing a 100GBASE-ZR long reach PHY.

It is fair enough to leave 400GBASE-ZR in the list for the time being as it will be standardized by the 802.3cw project in due course.

See: http://www.ieee802.org/3/ct/ProjDoc/3ct_Objectives_190911.pdf and: http://www.ieee802.org/3/cw/proj_doc/3cw_Objectives_190911.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.212.46 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources in Draft:Jorge S. del Villar

Thank you for working on my article. Hereby are some sources that entirely comply with Wikipedia's standards

Thank you, --ManuelGamio (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed by Calliopejen1 and found lacking. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I just made my first article fighting my quarantine boredom, I picked a politics person. Would you care to review it? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicole_Christoff JavTehran (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@JavTehran: we have a three-month backlog of articles. I usually review oldest first. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Precision Agriculture for Development Article

Hi Kvng,

I'm revisiting an article I submitted a few months ago. I think the reason it was not accepted was that it didn't have enough independent sources. Could you verify this? If this is not the case, could you let me know how I can improve it otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniac0312 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Braniac0312: There are a couple of arguably WP:INDEPENDENT sources ([4], [5]) but there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV in these sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hello Kvng,

I hope you are doing fine, you reverted my edits in the Network address translation (NAT).

Infact I am developing the article in Arabic (check), I designed images for the article both in Arabic and English 1 2 3 4 ... etc. and I added some of them that are relative to the text. However, you mentioned that "Purpose of these changes unclear", and I am explaining why I did add them.

I am waiting to hear from you,

Best wishes !--MichelBakni (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@MichelBakni: The new diagrams don't seem to have the same information as the old one. Yours only show address mapping but no port mapping. Is there any problem with the existing diagram you're trying to fix? ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I was going to add the one with the port number Here, but I had to fix several errors before that (check the image history). The first two images explain the Basic NAT, they are necessary for the reader to understand how technology is changing.
@MichelBakni: To replace the existing diagram, the new has to be better. How are the new diagrams better? Is there any problem with the existing diagram you're trying to fix? ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok no problem with the old PAT, it is the same information, but I need to add the first two images in the basic NAT before it.--MichelBakni (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rue Mouffetard (Photo)

Hello Kvng. Regarding your decision here. Can you clarify if you are objecting to copying of text from other sites, or the linking to particular web sites for copies of the photograph? (I am guessing you think those sites don't have permission to show the photo). My own research indicates that the photo can be found in some other places where the usage seems legitimate. If that's what needs fixing, I could probably do it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

See this report ~Kvng (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Le sigh

I'm sure it was purely coincidental that in reverting Gettys' blog back into CoDel you also reintroduced the same non-authoritative blog you have bveen spamming at bufferbloat. That one is clearly inappropriate. As for the two links to Gettys' blog, per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should avoid blogs in general. Gettys is known, but in a niche way. It's far better to link to his published work in the IEEE journals and elsewhere, because in the end self-p[published sources are self-published, they are not peer reviewed, they are prone to error and they are also prone to opinionated takes that do not enjoy mainstream support. Wikipedia is not a link directory. External links are supposed to be sources that would be valid if worked into the article. Blogs, even by noted authorities, are not supposed to be used as sources other than on the article about the subject, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Please keep blogs out of Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 15:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:EL #4 these types of sources can be considered for inclusion as external links. You seem to believe they should never be included anywhere. How do I reconcile this? ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for appreciating my edit on article about MIDI RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ethernet

Hi, thanks for working to bring this major article towards Good Article standard. However it still has 19 places (some whole paragraphs) where citations are needed. These should really be addressed before going into the GAN queue as the reviewing instructions permit a quick-fail under such circumstances. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked the requirements carefully. What I have done is addressed all issues raised at the last GA review. If that's not good enough then I should remove it from the queue. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt reply. I think there are two choices: add citations quickly, or pull from the queue, add them in your own time, and resubmit. Since it's only been in the queue a short time, personally I'd do the latter, but it depends how quickly you like to work. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I have looked again at the criteria and don't see anything about every paragraph requiring a citation, just the expected WP:V requirement. What are the 19 issues you've identified? ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I've marked the article with citations needed tags. The GA criteria permit a quick-fail when tags are outstanding. Tags are per WP:CITE as well as WP:V as you rightly note. Were I reviewing the article now I would certainly consider a quick-fail, though I would try as here to ascertain the nominator's intentions first. If I found that he or she was intent on pressing ahead without the citations then I would certainly fail the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't work quickly. I have withdrawn. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, many thanks. I hope to see it back at GAN when you're ready. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: My other potential candidate is Moore's law. Would you mind having a quick look at that before I do anything rash? ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly much more fully cited; there are some uncited statements but perhaps the GA reviewer will overlook those. If they are covered by the preceding inline refs then it'd be helpful to readers and reviewers to repeat the refs for clarity; if not, the safest procedure is to find refs for those statements. I know the GA criteria don't look as though everything must be cited "unless challenged"; but any uncited statement can (and in many editors' view, should) be challenged. After all, if not from a cited source, where did they come from? I do not believe any of the editors who have reviewed my GANs would have overlooked, or did actually overlook, any uncited claims. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Already tagged"

The purpose of tagging a sourcing issue is not to leave the tag in place, but to resolve it. If you think the content needs some kind of source, and you've seen the tags showing this sourcing to be unacceptable, then please either remove the content or find an alternative source, don't reinsert sources that have been tagged as failing our sourcing guidelines for months without anyone doing anything about it. That really isn't an improvement. Thanks, Guy (help!) 16:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Please don't remove the tagged marginal sources; they are useful references for editors who replace them with better sources. There is WP:NODEADLINE for getting the work done. I've been working on improving technical articles for years; it simply doesn't happen in months. ~Kvng (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, This is how it works. A source is tagged as unreliable. It sits there for a while. If nobody fixes it, the source (and potentially the text) gets removed. At that point you're more than welcome to reinstate the text based on reliable sources, but the unreliable sources have had their day in the sun and need to go. The reason is simple: long experience indicates that {{citation needed}} gets fixed much more often than {{self-published source}}. In fact, I have watched sample lists of hundreds of articles with self-published sources without any of them ever been fixed in years. Guy (help!) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: can you show me where there's consensus about the workflow you've described? ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, see WP:RS. All content must be drawn from reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for a discussion between editors describing the workflow. If it is something you've taken upon yourself based on your reading of WP:RS, I applaud your boldness but disagree with these actions for the reasons I've given in my first reply above. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, it's implicit in policy. All content must be drawn from reliable independent sources. There are multiple discussions at WP:RSN about what we do with unreliable sources. This is completely in line with policy, in a way that reinstating an unreliable source - especially when without the tags showing it to be unreliable - is not.
You are framing this as a quixotic personal reading of RS. It is not. As I say, go to WP:RSN for more details on this. Guy (help!) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to remove the tags or permanently retain these sources. I am asking for time for these issues to be addressed. I do not think several months is enough time.
All edits should improve the article in some way. I don't see how removing a tagged marginal source and replacing it with {{citation needed}} is an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, as noted above {{cn}} gets fixed very often by wikignomes and readers, in a way that {{sps}} really does not. You have the same amount of time and the same options with both, but one attracts fixes and the other doesn't. Guy (help!) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that and I accept it as your experience. {{sps}} is, however, the more appropriate tag for these cases and I know, based on my work fixing these issues, that retaining the marginal source is often helpful towards finding a better source. I don't think we should be making these edits if the goal is to attract editors working to resolve {{cn}} tags (but not other sourcing issues for some reason). We should be spending our time fixing these problems, not twiddling tags. ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, it has been tagged for months without being fixed (which allows for your optimistic view). It has not been fixed, therefore I am going to {{cn}}, which, in my view, is more likely to be fixed. We appear to differ only on how long it should be left to languish with a "marginal" (read: unacceptable per WP:RS) source. That's a philosophical question on which reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 23:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair but incomplete summary. The final resolution for these things is a determination that the associated material doesn't actually need a citation and the tagged citation is removed, the tagged citation is replaced with a better one or the tagged citation and associated material is deleted. We disagree about whether twiddling tags brings us closer to a final resolution. ~Kvng (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
These responses from JzG consistently refuse to acknowledge that his interpretation/crusade is not actually what Wikipedia:Verifiability says about self-published sources; in fact, I've never managed to get him to acknowledge that Wikipedia actually has a specific policy on self-published sources. Changing the language to "marginal" because the usages you're removing are clearly allowed by Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't make the material you're removing any less allowed or your edits any less detrimental. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, what WP:V says is:
  • The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
  • Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
  • Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
And more. Framing this as a "crusade" is an attempt to turn a standard Wikipedia editing practice into some kind of malefaction. Of course the fact is that the vast majority of crap sources are never removed - but that is not a reason for not removing them. And the vast majority of removals are never challenged, because in the end unreliable sources are unreliable.
So the only message I can take from these discussions is that you prefer to retain material drawn from sources that are abject failures of WP:RS and have been tagged as such for at least months and often years. That would clearly be insane, so maybe you can explain where I am going wrong there. Guy (help!) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I have, in general, no specific preference there. You are more than welcome to remove the {{cn}}, to remove the text, or to open a discussion on Talk as to whether the text requires an inline citation. All of these are absolutely fine by me. All I am trying to do is reduce the backlog of tagged crap sources. Because very few others actually do. I'd add in passing that my approach has been discussed at WP:RSN and generally agreed to be about right, but of course there are going to be occasional cases where specific subject knowledge would deliver a different outcome, such as leaving text unsourced because it's "sky is blue" level obvious to anyone with domain knowledge. Guy (help!) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you've specifically ignored that Wikipedia:Verifiability has guidelines about self-published sources as to when and in what circumstances they are acceptable, which are, strangely enough, not the text you just tried to quote to show me what for. I'm not a newbie, and quoting random bits of policy while deliberately ignoring the stuff that directly pertains to what you're doing doesn't work on me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The final resolution of these issues depends on the context. The main point of my previous reply was: We disagree about whether twiddling tags brings us closer to a final resolution. I review changes and revert edits that don't clearly make an improvement. You have not convinced me that these edits are an improvement and I am not the only editor who takes issue with your approach so I will continue to revert. I hope you try to find a more agreeable way to work through the {{sps}} backlog. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, One final time. You just reverted back in the link to freemanav-ca.com. It was added in this edit by MONICAFARNANDES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet and part of a prolific refspamming nest, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RiffFinch/Archive. Self revert or WP:ANI? Your choice.
Your definition of "agreeable" parses as "to my personal satisfaction". You don't get to be arbiter. We can discuss this further at WP:RSN if you like. Guy (help!) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the overt threat. I have removed the spam ref. You didn't indicate that was spam the first and second time you removed it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, because I didn't know. But you restored it knowing it to be unreliable, and failed to check that it was not spam when doing so. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." In other words, you have to check it's reliable, and in fact you acknowledged it was not. So you are breaching policy, as you also did at bufferbloat, where you restored another unreliable source. It appears that you interpret the "consider" language in WP:PRESERVE as overriding the "must" language of WP:V. That is... problematic. Guy (help!) 23:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok. We've been over this already. Go ahead and bring it to WP:ANI if you like. I predict that won't make things better for anyone.
What I meant by "agreeable" was that there are other ways to go about improving sourcing that may be more effective and would be more compatible with the way other editors prefer to work (I'm not the only one having trouble with your approach). Is there a WikiProject dedicated to improving sourcing that can be rallied to help out? ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: this has flared up again at Bufferbloat. My position has not changed. I don't appreciate the ongoing hostility. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, neither has mine, and neither do I. It's an unreliable source, it will never be anything else. Guy (help!) 19:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Why are you objecting to referencing an unreliable or primary source in an HTML comment? ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, a better question is, what on earth is the policy-based reason for including an unreliable source in an html comment after it has been challenged and removed as a source in the article? It invites the supposiottion that somehow looking at it in the future will render it reliable. The [{tl|cn}} tag is there to remind you to source the statement, and it seems uinlikely to me that you, personallly, will forget that blog post, so the only possible outcome would be to confuse future editoris and potentially lead them to reintroduce it. Guy (help!) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Thanks for answering. From here it appears you are either manufacturing arguments to win this dispute or hold editors in low esteem contrary to WP:AGF. I thought holding these potentially valuable but disputed sources as comments would be a good compromise. Is there no possibility for compromise with you on this? ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, what part of "unreliable source" is a failure to assume good faith? Don't add unreliable sources to articles and we have no dispute. Guy (help!) 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: So no compromises. I guess we're done here (again). ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, in what way is your insistence on including the blog a "compromise"? This is blatant sealioning. Guy (help!) 18:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I hadn't heard of sealioning. This is not a productive discussion. I'm done. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Campaign_to_remove_unreliable_sources to try and get some input from other editors on this. ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, and despite the clear consensus that oroispakr.ca is not reliable, you reinserted it at CoDel anyway.
Here's how it's supposed to work: someone inserts something, someone else removes it, and it then stays out until there is consensus on Talk for inclusion. Guy (help!) 16:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion in EL section are different than the criteria for use as a reference. See User_talk:Kvng#Le_sigh. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moore's law

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Moore's law you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridging reversion

I strongly disagree with this revert. The editor who reverted has misjudged. The material added was discussed in depth with one of the ASIC implementors of a leading line of CISCO switches. The content was correct. Furthermore, the motivation for adding the content was that the information added was not previously on the page. I would not have spent the time adding the information if it were repetitive. I feel the person who reverted was not respectful of audiences who come to this material new. Wikipedia is a place for people to learn. The only audience for a wiki-page is not experts who already know the material. Please check again, and consider what the edits add, for those who do not have a full background. If you believe there are factual mistakes, please correct them, do not simply wholesale delete the entire contribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridging_(networking)&oldid=prev&diff=953315025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhalle (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seanhalle: Please see WP:BRD. This objection should be discussed on the article's talk page (Talk:Bridging_(networking)). ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moore's law

The article Moore's law you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Moore's law for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Kvng, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

your rv (BRD) at VPN

I swapped in what I think is a better title: ==<span id="Commercial VPNs"><span id="virtual private network services">VPN services</span></span>== because of a few reasons. First, for the thing being discussed in that section, the general public has come to mainly use the term VPN service or just VPN. Second, when VPN technology was first in wide use, the main use case was the one seen here: https://images.app.goo.glSLASHgsJunXirPvKivfNi6 - which clearly is a VPN and is clearly commercial, and yet is, to a user, nothing at all like what's being discussed in this section, so the old section title, which you restored, "Commercial VPNs", was lousy. Thirdly, Comparison_of_virtual_private_network_services is thusly named, hence that span ID. Fourthly, the link at the top of that page should be to this section. Lastly, I left the old span id to avoid breaking links. Please consider a self-rv and/or reply wherever. Cordially. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I replaced your raw span tags with the prescribed approach using an {{anchor}} tag. Largoplazo (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moore's law

The article Moore's law you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Moore's law for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kvng

Hey, I saw that you are and AFC reviewer and I am looking for a second opinion on my Draft:Mark Kendall (Director). It was reviewed a month ago and declined but I've made some small fixes and updated sources. If you could do me this favor I would appreciate it immensely. Thanks Johnysiemes (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dhoby Ghaut MRT station on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:80 Plus on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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 08:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment

Why was the proposed deletion tag removed without explanation? The institute is unquestionably fake, not even a single citation except to their own website. Also, reported in media as running a fake degree racket. Discuss on talk page and provide reason for keeping the article. Neurofreak (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Neurofreak: It looks like you've sent this to AfD. That's the right venue. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. This one is a bit complex. ~Kvng (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frequency dependent negative resistor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Interstate 840 (Tennessee) 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 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Digital signal (disambiguation)

Even if "digitus" means finger, one can not find any proof that "digital signal" could solely mean The finger. An index finger or a pinky swear suggestion would be then also digital signals. And would digital fingerprint only mean the obscene fingerprint? Everybody would be happy if someone shows a digital signal, which unambiguously means the bird. Thanks in advance! --Geysirhead (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was a clever association that readers might appreciate. I didn't come up with it, just was amused and chose to let it be. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"a pattern unjustified deprodding should be handled as WP:DISRUPTIVE"

You wrote it at WT:PROD but as far as I know, complaints about serial deprodders who don't use any rationale have not led to anything in the past. And I don't mean you, you usually make an argument. I can show you diffs but you probably know whom I refer to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I don't know. I don't want to get involved. That's what WP:ANI is for. I think what I said or was trying to say was that depproding without having a reason is disruptive. This is different than deprodding without giving a reason. ~Kvng (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The "reason" is pretty obvious if you look at the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandor (comics), for example. Although past history at ANI shows there is unlikely to be any consensus on this, so I guess this POINTless abuse will continue. :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That looks like WP:ZEAL. What am I missing? ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Something of a garbage deprod there.

"GNG failure unsubstantiated. Other reasons given are not valid WP:DEL-REASONs." Seriously? Since only ONE reason was given, what other reasons would you care to suggest were proffered? And that being said, since you cannot prove a negative, if you believe that the subject meets the GNG, kindly disclose the reliable sources providing substantial coverage to the subject you have found. Ravenswing 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Did you look for any sources yourself? You didn't give any indication that you did. WP:BEFORE applies to prods. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
No kidding it does. I found no reliable sources giving substantive coverage to the concept of previews. Go ahead, your turn. Once again, kindly disclose the reliable sources providing substantial coverage to the subject you have found. Ravenswing 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be more productive to discuss this at AfD than here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Translation = you got nothing. And now your charming revert at The Spaceship Martini. You know something, if you didn't actually support a redirect, you shouldn't have advocated one. I rather think we'll try this another way. Ravenswing 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: Sorry for being terse. We're having an unnecessarily hostile AfD discussion here that we would repeat (presumably with less hostility) at AfD.
WRT The Spaceship Martini, I apologize for not carefully comparing content with Steven Martini to assess whether merge or redirect was the right way to go. It doesn't look like you put much thought into it either. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Citrix Workspace

Hi Kvng! I hope you're well. Thanks again for your help and input in clearing up confusion on the Citrix Workspace articles. Reaching out to see if you'd still be willing to carry out the interim step you suggested in our discussion at the Citrix Workspace App Talk page? Let me know if there is anything you would need from me to help with that. Thank you in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 01:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, you tagged this with a CCI request several months ago, but never actually filed it. I ran multiple checks against the sources and I can't find a single copyright violation. Can you elaborate on where the copyvio is? Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: here's the report. Sorry if I missed a step in handling this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that's not a copyvio. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
OK. Sorry for the false alarm. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread link

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 Hostility towards tag and prod removers from Ravenswing. Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Matchbox Educable Noughts and Crosses Engine 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 12:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

SocialChorus (Software)

Hello Kvng, I noticed your username coming up in a range of articles about software, and was wondering if you may be able to help with a question I have.

I put together a draft of an article about a software company, SocialChorus, which can be found at Draft:SocialChorus,_Inc. I happen to know the founder of that company (someone who has since left the company) so instead of creating the article myself I disclosed my conflict of interest here on WP:COIN and another editor there helped submit the article through the Afc process. I've also disclosed my WP:COI with the major contributor/close connection template at the top of that draft, on the Talk page of that draft, and on my user page.

I've done a fair bit of homework to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The company has been reported on in the media rather consistently over the ~12 years since it was formed, and I've cited sources in this draft from TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Silicon Valley Business Journal, etc. to help establish that. I also cited a few trade publications like HR Technologist but did so only to back up minor points vs. establishing notability.

My question -- since you are familiar with articles about software companies, would you consider reviewing this draft? Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Two final and hopefully simple questions for you:
--Are you able to remove the close connection template from the mainspace article? My understanding from other articles is that my COI disclosure and the connected contributor template should remain (and has remained) on the article Talk page but the main article itself should no longer require that flag at the top. Is that accurate?
--Are you able to add "SocialChorusLogo.png" (already on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SocialChorusLogo.png to the logo section in the infobox? I originally had it in the draft but a bot removed it since that type of file is not permitted in draft space.
Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Without doing a complete editing pass on the article, I am not comfortable removing or moving the {{COI}} banner. Other editors may feel differently but I think COI is too big of an issue to bury on the talk page.
You should be able to add the logo yourself. If you need help, you can visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Understood--thanks very much for the direction you've provided. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kvng, it appears that this article has been nominated for deletion and there is a discussion going on about it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialChorus,_Inc.. Would you be able to weigh in on that discussion, since you took the time to review this draft during the Articles for Creation process and gave it a "C" class after putting it through the approval process? Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Renkus-Heinz Advert Tag

Hi! Hope you're doing well. I noticed you added an advertising tag to the Renkus-Heinz page back in May, and I'm wondering if you could give a little more context behind it. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so wanted to help however I can. Thanks! --Erin.buck (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Erin.buck, On review, I think I was being overly sensitive to WP:PROMO and resume-like issues. I have made some WP:NPOV improvements and removed the tag. Sorry about all the WP:SHORTCUTs in this reply hopefully clicking these will give you the context you've requested. Let me know if you have any further questions. ~Kvng (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, Thanks for providing the WP:SHORTCUT links! These are very helpful, and I see why you made the changes. Thanks for your help. --Erin.buck (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Kvng/Archive 10,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

extra negative?

You removed my comment on Joost de Valk AfD with the summary "rm extra negative". I don't understand what "extra negative" means? Please explain. Thanks, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, sorry, WP:EDC I assume. Should be cleaned up now. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"LILAC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LILAC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 27#LILAC until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. PamD 08:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No proof that the finger is a digital signal

Discussion Please, correct Digital signal (disambiguation)! --Geysirhead (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Geysirhead, thanks it was archived from my user talk page.
Why do you think proof is required? ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Nobody should think. It's rules.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Geysirhead: Yeah, policy. But what policy. We have WP:V for article content but I don't think that applies to disambig pages. IME the content there is at editor descretion and by consensus. I can try to get another editor involved or do an WP:RFC if we can't resolve this ourselves. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
There is obviously no consensus.--Geysirhead (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Geysirhead, which generally means that we leave things as they are. I did not add this so there is at least one other editor out there who thinks this is a valid entry and I don't think anyone but you has suggested it be removed. On reflection, I don't think it is an important enough point for an WP:RFC but you may disagree and want to set one up or otherwise look for more input. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! But, why are pinky swear approach and index finger not digital signals?--Geysirhead (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Geysirhead, I think it is usually best to focus on the question before us, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Kvng (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Japan National Route 58 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 08:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Aspose.BarCode AFC process

Hello. I have answered about notability in talk page. Could you review and comment answer? Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for delay. I updated discussion with new arguments.Alexandr.gavriluk (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:39:38, 4 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by LaurieNorton1


Re: article submitted on Adam Swanson, pianist. Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I will edit the article in accordance with your suggestions and resubmit ASAP. Best wishes! LaurieNorton1 LaurieNorton1 (talk)

LaurieNorton1 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

LaurieNorton1, this submission will need to wait for its turn. I'm sorry that we don't currently have enough volunteers to review submissions in a timely manner. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. 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 05:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your advice on Creatio article

Hi. Please give your expert advice on Draft:Creatio. This is an article on low-code development platform that I changed from the company article to the software article. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution. Since you have great experience of editing and reviewing computer-related articles, I decided to ask for you advice on what could/should be improved in this article. Thank you in advance! --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bbarmadillo, first thing I would ask is for you to identify the WP:THREE best sources you've cited that establish notability of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It will probably be: 1) ZDMet article on CRM Idol 2011 award, 2) 2020 PC Magazine review and 3) 2020 Stevie Awards. But, obviously, Forrester Research and Gartner reviews are good sources as well. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That looks good and I have left a note on the draft to that effect.
The other hurdle is WP:NPOV. Because of your WP:COI, that will need to be looked at carefully. ~Kvng (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kvng:, are there any particular issues related to WP:NPOV that you see? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Bbarmadillo, the shorter the draft is, the less likely it will have these problems. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Kvng I shortened the article per your suggestion, removing less important facts and awards. Please check. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on Enhanced_Transmission_Selection

Dear Kvng, I have done a Draft page on a "Enhanced Transmission Selection" (ETS), which is a network scheduler scheduling algorithm that has be defined by the 802.1Qaz working group.

Could you please have a look ? Regards, MarcBoyerONERA (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Scott Teal

Hello,

Just saw the recent feedback as to my submission for the article 'Scott Teal'.

Is there a Help Desk (or through you) that I can just field a general question? I'm still really confused on the credibility of some sources, yet on another page for someone prominent in the wrestling business (Gary Michael Cappetta) - there's 2 citations TOTAL and one of them is a dead link. I'm just trying to understand why my sources and citations on a published author are having trouble passing review.

Thank you.

(AkiraZueshi (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

@AkiraZueshi: you can request general help at WP:TEAHOUSE. AfC specific help is available at WP:AFCHD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF if you are tempted to compare your draft to other articles. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The artist has agreed to the CC BY-SA 4.0. (Draft:Hu Zhiying)

Hi Kvng, The artist (Hu Zhiying) has agreed to the CC BY-SA 4.0. see here. Thank you.--Jujiang (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Jujiang, I have noted this where I reported it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 September 2 ~Kvng (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
So, what can I do now? Thank you.--Jujiang (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Jujiang, you can start by checking your "see here" link above - I'm just getting a login page there. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems for a description of the process. If you want to add any other information to the case, edit the draft's entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 September 2. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added information to the case. How long will it take to resolve this issue? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Jujiang, getting the copyright issue sorted may take a week or two then you'll need to resubmit the draft and get through the queue of other submissions waiting to be reviewed which may take over two months. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
After the copyright issue is resolved, you have reviewed the article. If there are no other issues, can you please publish it to avoid waiting for 2 months more? Thank you! ~ Jujiang (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't re-review submissions. You will need to wait for a new reviewer. I'm sorry that we don't currently have enough volunteers to review submissions in a timely manner. Before resubmitting, please make sure you meet WP:N and WP:NPOV requirements. These are our most commone reasons for rejection. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for your reply. I think the draft should conform to WP:N and WP:NPOV requirements.--Jujiang (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kvng, Can you tell me why three weeks have passed and the issue has not been solved? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not know but you might try asking MER-C who seems to do a lot of this WP:COPYVIO work. n case you are not aware, everyone working on Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER improving the encyclopedia as we individually choose with WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot host CC BY-SA 4.0 text. I also choose not to copyright clear COI or promotional content on principle and don't have OTRS access. MER-C 16:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@MER-C:@Kvng:Can you send back the draft for me to submit it after making changes? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jujiang: Your quickest way forward is probably to request that this draft be deleted (see WP:HOWTODELETE) and start again without using any copyrighted material. Also, if you have a conflict of interest you need to WP:DISCLOSE that up front or risk getting snagged once again. ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
After deleting, can I keep the rest of the draft the same? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jujiang: It is OK to reuse any non-copyrighted material. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest. How to delete the draft? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jujiang: see WP:HOWTODELETE ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Farhan Malhi

This is with reference to your comment on draft page Farhan Malhi

Farhan Mali is an actor and instagram star, As desired by ~Kvng , i am sharing the THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject:

1) [1] 2) [2] 3) [3]

Thanks --Smilesinlife (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10745705/
  2. ^ https://www.phupo.com/2019/09/14/farhan-a-malhi-biography-age-career-body-measurement-family-wife-affairs-dramas-movies-much-more/
  3. ^ http://video.dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/pv/Mazaq-Raat/9684/ep-22157/ALL/2019-08-07
Responded at Draft talk:Farhan Malhi ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


Thanks --Kvng (talk), as per your guidance i have redrafted the page with updated links of authentic news websites and leading TV Channels websites mentioning Farhan Malhi for his work in TV industry of Pakistan,I shall be thankful if you can review again the draft.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilesinlife (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Smilesinlife, I do not rereview drafts. Another of our reviewers will be by in due course to have a look. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Moving {{FOLDOC}} to talk pages

Template:FOLDOC says "This template should be placed in the "References" or "External links" section."; has that policy changed? Guy Harris (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Harris, I believe we have consensus for a change at Template_talk:FOLDOC#Readers_don't_care_about_this!. Feel free to weigh in if you like. I will make a WP:BOLD change to the template documentation. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A-2 (Michigan county highway) 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 18:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios

Please stop marking whether a page passes its copyvio check. While I've only seen it happen once so far, a user can make a big edit to the page after you edit and introduce copyvio material; we should not be giving other reviewers the implication that something is clean when it might not be. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, Ok ~Kvng (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nene A. O. Amegatcher (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Nene Amegatcher instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Surface differential reflectivity has been accepted

Surface differential reflectivity, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of conflicts in Québec (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:
Lists a lot more than just Quebec-based conflicts. Trim it to just the Quebec ones and resubmit.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Bkissin (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canopy soils has been accepted

Canopy soils, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harriet Zinnes has been accepted

Harriet Zinnes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MapleSoy (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yango (ride sharing) (October 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
still needs further revision to remove promotional tone.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: African-Caribbean Leukaemia Trust has been accepted

African-Caribbean Leukaemia Trust, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Snowycats (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Beenham murders has been accepted

The Beenham murders, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


AfC notification: Draft:Chief White Eagle has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Chief White Eagle. Thanks! Bkissin (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chief White Eagle has been accepted

Chief White Eagle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I try ...

Any time you want to review a draft differently than I, you can do so without telling me. In fact, I usually try not to review a second time unless I'm following up something. But of course, if you also want to tell me what I could have done better, please do so. One of the problems of every experienced editor is is that people sometimes don't wish to correct us, or to tell us we messed up. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, if I do stuff without telling you about it, neither of us gets any better at this. You've said you're receptive to correction. I don't do that very often but I do ask questions and hopefully, that serves the same purpose for both of us.
I want to follow up on your comment at Draft:John Kilner. I don't think the draft is the right place to continue the conversation. I do not agree that if I accept a flawed article as a reviewer, I'm obliged to improve it. Articles in mainspace are improved by the community. I do a lot of article improvements in my areas of expertise. Much of my reviewing is outside these areas and so it is better for others to make the improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I should have said more exactly, that if it's in my central field, I usually try to at least minimally fix it, but very rarely to rewrite it. (however, that's also true to a considerable extent if I come across any article on a university or professor that needs work); if it's out of my central field, I often try to make at least one copyedit to indicate that I actually have read the draft, in contrast to the reviewers who are approving (or more likely, declining) without having done more than look at the lead paragraph or even just the title.
I at least in principal try to rewrite extensively at least one a week. In practice, I can't really do more than that, though long ago I more ambitiously tried to do one each day.
All of this seems compatible with your approach. The main difference between us is that I very much do focus reviewing on my specialty--but also on obvious promotionalism . I can do many more that way and I feel the pressure of getting them done.
In a different direction, there's distinctions between people doing something differently, people doing things chronically wrong, and someone doing an isolated error. For myself, with respect to isolated errors, I do not at all mind being told about my isolated errors, but I don't at all think that it's at all necessary, as long as it gets fixed. Reciprocally, when I fix someone else's error, if it is just an error, I usually don't tell them. If they are looking at their watchlist, they will see them. (I don't look at mine--I think almost nobody very active --it's just too much). If I am making repeated or chronic errors, I certainly want to know. It's quite easy to drift from the consensus or the usual interpretation without realizing it. I will sometimes but not always notify others--again, there's too much to do and I try to keep track mentally of when someone is doing something frequently enough to comment; i experiment with various hopefully gentle styles of doing the commenting. The real difficulty comes when two people each think that they are right and the other person wrong--I am very selective in trying to deal with these; it is much too easy here to spend all one's effort in fighting. . As for comparing different ways of doing things thata re equally right this is always helpful, but again, there's time to do it only very selectively. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Max Moreno (writer)

Dear Kvng Please check some new referencies. Thank you so much.

[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ https://tasabendo.com.br/cultura/max-moreno-fala-de-sua-obra-a-outra-sombra-em-evento-literario/
  2. ^ https://www.bocasanta.com.br/index.php?p=YWxyb3RsaXMvbWlyb3RhaUB6aHo6666YWQ9NjcwMzYzJmx1bW90ZV9vZGFjaWU9NTY4NQ/
  3. ^ https://saci.utfpr.edu.br/data/clipping/pdfs/02169_00.pdf

Mariana Cordeiro de Lima (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mariana Cordeiro de Lima: the first looks like it is based closely on a press release. The second is very brief and doesn't have a byline. In summary, neither are clearly WP:RELIABLE sources. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59

Your submission at Articles for creation: Löve (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Löve (game engine) instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please compare the two articles and add any information to the article that is in the draft and not in the article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Cooray has been accepted

Joseph Cooray, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oliver Laric (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
could we do a few more? :)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abdallah Ougazzaden (October 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abdallah Ougazzaden has been accepted

Abdallah Ougazzaden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Snowycats (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samarppanam (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Jeevana Jyothi (1987 film). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
One article should be able to cover the two versions of the film. The draft includes a plot description that is not in the article and should be folded into the existing article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: M. David Rudd has been accepted

M. David Rudd, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nueva Guipúzcoa (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:
The submission appears to be written in Spanish. This is the English Language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English Language. Please provide a high-quality English Language translation of your submission. Otherwise, you may write it in the Spanish Wikipedia.
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Nueva Guipúzcoa. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of this draft appears to be in Spanish. If this draft is resubmitted after either removing or translating the Spanish, it should explain why a separate article is needed rather than including this information in Davao Region.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Oops I had automatic Google translate on in my browser when I reviewed this one. Sorry about that. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Land stewardship (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Snowycats: I had already made the decision to accept this and was waiting for a redirect in the way to be deleted when you declined it. The redirect has been deleted. I have resubmitted and accepted it. Although it may be rough and not expertly referenced, adequate sources exist and in my assessment, it is unlikely to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My response

Hello, Kvng,

I posted a long reply to your inquiry to me on my user talk page. I don't know whether you saw it so I thought I'd alert you. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I saw it. I excuse and forgive all mistakes. I'm sorry the categories are messed up and making things harder for you. ~Kvng (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, we're good, that's what I cared about. I see your good work, reviewing stale drafts, and am happy to see AfC folks rescue promising work, pages whose creators often seem to have disappeared the day after they created the draft article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fibrous reinforcement (October 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Snowycats (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Žiga Petrič (October 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Snowycats were:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Why do we need such a large excerpt from [6]? I don't believe this adds value.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Citrix Virtual Desktops

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Citrix Virtual Desktops requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://goodcertified.eklablog.com/xendesktop-free-edition-a183478974. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 10:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho. Thanks! Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gregg Hotel (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeromeenriquez was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Jeromeenriquez (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Divine Office (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeromeenriquez was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Divine Office instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Jeromeenriquez (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathematical Theory of Democracy has been accepted

Mathematical Theory of Democracy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Film Hawk has been accepted

Film Hawk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jost Kobusch (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:
Please review our policy on external links and clean up your sources as much as possible so we can best verify the information.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fibrous reinforcement (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Generally speaking, WP:THREE should be met.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Snowycats (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Divine Office has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Divine Office. Thanks! Snowycats (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wonggu Mununggurr has been accepted

Wonggu Mununggurr, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:K-63 (Kansas highway) 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 15:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gregg Hotel has been accepted

Gregg Hotel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Smart Metrology has been accepted

Smart Metrology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joost Rekveld (November 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
This submission appears to be taken from https://monoskop.org/Joost_Rekveld. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. - RichT|C|E-Mail 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Call setup moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Call setup, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Modussiccandi, please revert this move. I am not going to work on it in draft space. If you don't think the stub is suitable for mainspace, please send it to WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The stub didn't have any sources, but I did not find it obvious that the subject is non-notable. I appreciate that moving to draft is not an alternative to the deletion process. The combination of potential notability and a lack of sources caused me to draftify. What's wrong with incubating the article in the draft space? Since it doesn't have any sources, I don't think it should be restored to the mainspace.
Modussiccandi, I am not going to work on it in draft space. I doubt anyone else will either. If you don't think the stub is suitable for mainspace, please send it to WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Dhuwarrwarr Marika has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Dhuwarrwarr Marika. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it would seem to me that "see that page's history for attribution" would be reasonably self-evident to anyone familiar with how Wikipedia works but it is an explicit recommendation so I will try to follow it going forward. ~Kvng (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I won't disagree with the notion that it is blazingly obvious to anyone "familiar with how Wikipedia works" but Wikipedia is read by a lot of people who don't pass that threshold. While anecdotal, I've talked with a number of people who have access Wikipedia many times, but many of those people had never seen a talk page nor a history page. I think people with a lot of experience may underestimate how little the typical reader knows. If we were debating public guideline should read, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I were persuaded that your formulation should be considered adequate. However, the current guideline starts out "at a minimum" and goes on to propose wording. It even goes on to suggest some optional additional steps, cementing the notion that the proposed wording is minimum guidance. Perhaps the community should reevaluate whether this guideline is asking too much. On occasion, I've mauled over how to make this guideline better known, but it comes up really enough that I can't justify much effort to raise its profile. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I agree that there are very many who just read Wikipedia and have no idea how it works. You do, however, have to be familiar with how Wikipedia works to see the "see that page's history for attribution" message. For those that know enough to find this message, the message is arguably unnecessary. For other readers, it is unseen, so also unnecessary.
The nut of it is, to preserve proper attribution, it is critical that editors give a wikilink when copying from another article. Anything beyond may be unnecessary. In some cases, it may even be counterproductive. The {{copied}} template, for instance, repeats information in the article histories. This raises the potential, through human error, that the template doesn't match the history which, I'm sure you can appreciate, is a bad thing. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, You make some great points. I'm intrigued that you say a link may be critical. I've seen situation where the "from" article in in plain text, and I've let that go. Your argument makes sense, though. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, sorry, I didn't mean to be that specific. What's critical is identifying the source. As long as it is clear from the comment which article the material came from, the critical requirement is satisfied: wikilink, URL or unambiguous article name in plain text may all be satisfactory ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Plain style in literature has been accepted

Plain style in literature, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rodzinka.pl has been accepted

Rodzinka.pl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Palmer Harding has been accepted

Palmer Harding, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keezhara (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please provide sources that are WP:INCITE to support each paragraph or sentence in the draft.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
CNMall41 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Judge Thenjiwe Khambule has been accepted

Judge Thenjiwe Khambule, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kathleen Foley has been accepted

Kathleen Foley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Kvng/Archive 10,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mollie Lieber West has been accepted

Mollie Lieber West, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and related matters

Information icon Hello, Kvng. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Having a conflict of interest disclosure on your user page does not exonerate you from following policies and guidelines. JBW (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

JBW, is this notice in relation to anything specifically? ~Kvng (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw your COI declaration on your user page, and I thought that some of your recent editing on other articles looked as though you might have a conflict of interest there too. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of which articles they were, and a quick look over your recent editing history hasn't thrown up anything obvious, but if I manage to find which edits I had in mind I'll come back and let you know. JBW (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Clar Weah has been accepted

Clar Weah, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ethernet: Revert of my edit

Hi,

Please let me know why you reverted my edit for the page Ethernet. Generally, people are used to seeing representations of data (and their rates) in bytes, not bits. I felt that adding the speeds in bytes as notes was a good compromise.

Thanks.

DesertPipeline (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DesertPipeline, thanks for the inquiry. I have copied this and responded at Talk:Ethernet#Alternate_units. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennsylvania v. Muniz has been accepted

Pennsylvania v. Muniz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: J.B. Murray (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hatchens was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at John Bunion Murray instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hatchens (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Meike Peters (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Meike Peters instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
An article on the subject was accepted on 3 June 2020. This draft appears to have been either left in draft space by script error or copied into draft space by bot error. The article has been updated in the past six months, so that this draft does not appear to contain any new or additional information. This draft will be redirected to the article. This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Kvng, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm glad to see you followed up on my offer. When rescuing draft women's biographies or creating articles of your own, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Given your interest in computing, it occurred to me that you might be interested in creating biographies of some of the women working in AI ethics. It's an increasingly important field and one in which women are quite active. You'll find some red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/AI Ethics. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grace Van Dien (December 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, we are unable to accept this submission due to its lack of notability and/or sourcing. Feel free to resubmit once you fully source the article using sources ABOUT the subject such as:
  • Magazine articles
  • Newspaper articles
  • Television interviews
  • Books or publications, from reputable publishers, about the subject

Note, the articles should feature the subject extensively - not just passing mentions. Also, blogs, rotten tomatoes, Famous Data, other wikis, and gossip magazines cannot be used.

If that is not possible, then it may be too soon for your subject to have their own article. However, I encourage you to edit other areas of Wikipedia - there are countless articles that can use improvement.

Thank you again for your contributions!
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: CUX1 has been accepted

CUX1, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Call setup

Notice

The article Call setup has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uncited, delete as per WP:DICDEF.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 TT me 14:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rational Tau has been accepted

Rational Tau, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Soling World Championship results (1990–94) has been accepted

Soling World Championship results (1990–94), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fayette County Civic and Welfare League has been accepted

Fayette County Civic and Welfare League, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Samuel Ilesanmi Alade (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Samuel Ilesanmi Alade instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sharecare article assistance

Hello Kvng, SCbhaynes from Sharecare here. You recently helped to update the number of employees in the current Sharecare article. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make changes to the article myself, in-line with the site's guidelines. I'm looking for additional assistance with an open request to update the article's listed Subsidiaries, and it remains unanswered so far. Would you be willing to take a look? You can see my full request on the Sharecare Talk page here. Thanks in advance for any consideration. Cheers! SCbhaynes (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

SCbhaynes, I did look at that and it did not look like a quick project and this is outside my normal areas of activity so I passed. ~Kvng (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Kvng, I completely understand. Your help and feedback is much appreciated as I'm learning the editor community. Thank you! SCbhaynes (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Marion Gambescia Sr. (December 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by I dream of horses was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The only change you made when resubmitting was removing a comment by Timtrent. I guess there's no changes to be made.
I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 19:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black Metamorphosis has been accepted

Black Metamorphosis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nobel disease (December 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This hasn't been amended significantly enough since Sulfurboy's comments that this is largely WP:OR.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Chetsford (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacek Szepietowski (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Additional references in independent and reliable sources are essential. Currently, entire draft is sourced to single reference.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hitro talk 06:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dhuwarrwarr Marika (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scrooge200 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Scrooge200 (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carbon Dioxide Angiography has been accepted

Carbon Dioxide Angiography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Ville Sbertoli Draft

Hi Kvng! I'm a student working on the project Draft:Ville Sbertoli. I'd like to kindly ask you if you could give a look at our project page to give us your feedback about what we could improve in order to have our page online before the 31 December, the deadline of the project. We submitted the page at the beginning of December and we have been said that it should have been online within two or three weeks maximum, but it hasn't been accepted yet. Thank you in advance. Alagna2000 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Alagna2000, nice work! I have accepted the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kurt A McCammon (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Darren-M were:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Darren-M talk 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger Network Science and Network theory

Hi! I would like to reopen the discussion about merging Network theory into Network science. You were previously involved in this discussion so your thoughts would be useful here! Thanks.

Hello, Kvng. You have new messages at Talk:Network theory.
Message added 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Fractalfalcon (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Proportion extend sort has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Proportion extend sort. Thanks! Eumat114 (Message) 00:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Proportion extend sort has been accepted

Proportion extend sort, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eumat114 (Message) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019–20 Australian Figure Skating Championship has been accepted

2019–20 Australian Figure Skating Championship, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Maralngurra has been accepted

Gabriel Maralngurra, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:CalFile

User talk:Tagishsimon is suppressing Draft:CalFile, can you help? This is an article is about a free government service. Thus not an advert. I created [Draft:CalFile]] as a companion to ReadyReturn.

Draft:CalFile was proposed for deletion by User:AleatoryPonderings on 12 October 2020 with the comment: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMANUAL It was contested by User:Kvng on 2020-10-18 with the comment: See ReadyReturn. Removed WP:NOTMANUAL material.

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cobranet AES67 WaveFrame AudioFrame

Is streaming audio "broadcast" from one wifi router to many wifi-enabled cell phones possible? Sorta like UDP for wired networks...?

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kim Deok-ryeong has been accepted

Kim Deok-ryeong, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christie M1931 has been accepted

Christie M1931, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kasper Hornbæk has been accepted

Kasper Hornbæk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Carolina Highway 79 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 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Oldest Edmontonians has been accepted

List of Oldest Edmontonians, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja (January 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Resideo Technologies has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Resideo Technologies. Thanks! Hitro talk 07:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lyubov Yablochnik has been accepted

Lyubov Yablochnik, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthropocene Sea (January 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
Sea or era?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Asijiki Coalition for the Decriminalisation of Sex Work has been accepted

Asijiki Coalition for the Decriminalisation of Sex Work, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kuhls: Communal Irrigation Systems of Himachal Pradesh (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chicdat was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Tribal Community (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SK2242 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs to be rewritten entirely from a neutral point of view. Last 3 sections are also unsourced
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SK2242 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gerald Chan (professor) (January 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft has only one source, which is the subject's employer, and so is not an independent source.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Saudia Flight 163 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. 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 18:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Drago Bregar (January 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Drago Bregar has been accepted

Drago Bregar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You can ignore the decline of this draft above. It was totally my mistake. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catwoman: Soulstealer has been accepted

Catwoman: Soulstealer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

2pou (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Avraham Avi-hai (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I think he's notable. Buyt the article is written in a promotional manner, to support the causes he works for. This isshown by using quotations from him about the importance of his own work, and using terms like "close relationshjip". with respect to political leaders he supports. This needs not just some adjustment , but complete rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Thaddeus Fairbanks 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 12:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Walking the Camino: Six Ways to Santiago has been accepted

Walking the Camino: Six Ways to Santiago, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Tsokos has been accepted

George Tsokos, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trevor Nickolls (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Modussiccandi was:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This subject may be notable but it needs more than one citation to back up a biography.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Modussiccandi (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:University of the People on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. 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 22:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Spirit of Israel

Hello there, I'm writing you in hopes you can and willing to review my draft... I added a few sources and I would like to point out a few of them please: maariv, jewishagency, dnb, govextra.gov and ynet are all huge sites in israel and two are very big and well known news sites (Maariv and ynet).. isnt that enough? Please have anouther look, its an amazing very big non-profit organization in Israel and helps so many kids and youth (myself included back then) as well known thorghout the world. If still its not enough, please be king to let me know what I should do... thank you, Shir2020 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Shir2020, thanks for improving your draft. I'm afraid that, unless I'm convinced I've made a mistake, I only review drafts once ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
so what should i do? and I think you have since the sources are very good... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shir2020 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Shir2020, it is in the queue. You wait for another reviewer to have a look. ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bojan Počkar has been accepted

Bojan Počkar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xeropan (February 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aseleste was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There are too much text about the features. Consider summarising them.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 22:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Extreme Networks "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." Template

Hi Kvng - I saw you recently edited Extreme Networks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Networks. I wanted to get your thoughts on removing the templated message at the top about the article being written like an advertisement. That message looks like it was added in 2010 - over 11 years ago. Extreme Networks has acquired several companies since and the page has been rewritten numerous times. As such, I feel as though this statement is outdated. What is your advice for removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaytn (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lisaytn: You should repost this at Talk:Extreme Networks and see if any other editors have input. I have been trying to address this issue with recent edits. There's still more work to be done so I'm not sure whether we're ready to remove the banner. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kvng: Thank you for the input! I added the question to Talk:Extreme Networks. ~Lisaytn

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katie Witkiewitz has been accepted

Katie Witkiewitz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 11:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prophet Charles Kwablavi Nutornutsi Wovenu (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Paul Kay (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
An assertion such as "The artist has collaborated on global campaigns and private commissions with major brands such as Montblanc, PayPal, Cadillac, Equinox and others" can be stripped of "major": if a brand is major, the reader will know this. (Incidentally, I don't know which of the many Equinoxes this is.) And it must be referenced: Which reliable source backs this up for Montblanc? which for PayPal? etc. If his surname is Kay, we call him not "David" or "the artist" but "Kay". If Kay's work "has been featured in Forbes, Architectural Digest, Vogue Italia, Wallpaper, Haute Living, Gotham Magazine, AM New York, Journal du Design, VAMP Malta and more", then either (A) point to this, or (B) cite a reliable source (RS) for its appearance in Forbes, a RS for its appearance in Architectural Digest, etc. FULL CAPITALS should not be used (other than for abbreviations).
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hoary (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pamapuria School Sexual Abuse Cases (February 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MJL was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Pamapuria. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Bar-Eli has been accepted

Michael Bar-Eli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dial911 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trevor Nickolls has been accepted

Trevor Nickolls, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 52-week high anomaly (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Firefly was:
This article appears to be largely original research, rather than an encyclopedia article summarising what independent, reliable sources say about its subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Estonian pavilion (March 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by NoahDavid771 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: It is not clear why the pavilion is notable, and the sources are almost all primary.
Noah!💬 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlos Cruchaga (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Noah!💬 16:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Theo Kalomirakis (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NoahDavid771 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Noah!💬 18:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Multitier programming (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NoahDavid771 was:
This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Noah!💬 19:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Outbreak response has been accepted

Outbreak response, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MarioJump83! 06:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BAI Communications (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Blablubbs was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
A blatant ad, originally created by a spam sockfarm.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Blablubbs|talk 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho has been accepted

Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah!💬 19:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sweet Pea Festival (March 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Sources do not show this subject meets Notability guidelines- see WP:GEOSCOPENightenbelle (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nightenbelle (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

TomTom business structure follow-up

Hi there, Kvng, thanks for weighing-in at the TomTom Talk page about changes to the section about its business structure. If no other editors weigh-in, would you be willing to implement the proposed changes as you see fit? I will not do so myself because of my conflict of interest as an employee. I understand it may be appropriate to allow volunteer editors more time to weigh-in, I'll defer to your judgment as to the best timing, if you are interested to help. Thanks again for your thoughts, and in advance for any further consideration. Best, Murley from TomTom (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kominato Station 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 05:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: EQualitie has been accepted

EQualitie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah 💬 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Wikipedia mini globe handheld
Wikipedia mini globe handheld

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pasir Ris MRT station 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 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Multinational Pooling (April 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seraphimblade was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Pooling (resource management) instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
An article exists on the concept of pooling resources. That page could certainly do with improvement, but I do not see how this is a substantially separate subject rather than a subtype of that.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: José Mejía Vides (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Additional references in independent and reliable sources are essential to demonstrate notability per WP:NARTIST.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hitro talk 06:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Review of OpenVMS article

Thank you for your recent review of the OpenVMS article, and upgrading it from a class C to class B article. I am wondering if you have any specific feedback or recommendations on things that could be done to improve the article further? Vt320 (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Vt320, the next quality grade is good article. If request a GA review, you'll get detailed suggestions. Although I've been through the GA process a few times with articles I've worked on, I haven't participated on the reviewer side for anything better than B - I guess don't enjoy the bureaucratic and detail-oriented work required. ~Kvng (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nene A. O. Amegatcher has been accepted

Nene A. O. Amegatcher, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Comparison of Buddhist Nikāya and āgama texts (April 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cerebellum was:
Most of this content seems to be copied from Āgama (Buddhism). I recommend expanding that article instead of creating a new one.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Cerebellum (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I know you didn't write this article! Couldn't stop the script from notifying you. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brian Calle (May 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I see the same issues as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Calle
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spectrum: The Best In Contemporary Fantastic Art has been accepted

Spectrum: The Best In Contemporary Fantastic Art, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jaime Gómez Velásquez has been accepted

Jaime Gómez Velásquez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of edits in Line code entry

Dear Kvng,

I'd like you to review your undo at my contribution in the Digital_signal article as "not closely related". I'm associated professor at the University of Malaga and I have taught Digital Data Communication over 15 years, including the OSI physical level and extensively explaining the use of Digital Signals and Digital Analog Modulations and every perturbation caused by the medium. The simulator that I linked to the page was written precisely to allow students to understand and experiment by themselves with coding of messages using digital signals and analog modulations. If you review the simulator, you will see that each exact topic of the article is reflected there as it was written following the contents the university level course on data codification.

Also, any suspicion about spamming can be discarded, as the simulator was written as a free HTML tool with an Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike) as my intention is that it can be used in Universities and Schools with minimum resources to teach technology. I think it is closely in synchrony with the spirit of Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate if you restored my edit as I'd like not to start a ping-pong of undo and reverts. Best regards, G-DACUMA (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

G-DACUMA, I have copied your comments to Talk:Digital_signal#CodSim_link and restored the link. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Kvng, Thank you. I'm beginning my collaboration in wikipedia and I'm not completely sure about the right procedures to discuss possible contributions. A very ancient version of the program was welcome by University teachers who asked permission to use it. 20 years after that, I discovered that no pedagogic software exists yet to study digital encoding. I think it's worth the interest of students looking for information in wikipedia.~User:G-DACUMA (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
G-DACUMA, thanks for your contribution and welcome. Let me know if you have any questions about how Wikipedia works. ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Moynihan Train Hall 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 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting your support

Hi Kvng. I saw that you have an interest in tech/software pages and was involved on the Comparison of CRM systems. I requested a few changes to the Zendesk page a month or so ago and was hoping you might be willing to give them a lookover? Let me know. Best regards. Tskillin (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Geneva International Model United Nations has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Geneva International Model United Nations. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ben Harris

Information icon Hello, Kvng. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ben Harris, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sofia Ameli Gojić has been accepted

Sofia Ameli Gojić, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Operational amplifier

Could you take a look at this edit of yours? It broke something causing a header to render as Internal circuitry of 741Page Template:Visible anchor/styles.css has no content.-type op amp, but I can't see what the problem is. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, the problem was here. You can't use numbers as unnamed parameters. I've fixed it. ~Kvng (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Johan Neyts has been accepted

Johan Neyts, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creepTalk 18:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Geneva International Model United Nations has been accepted

Geneva International Model United Nations, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Resideo Technologies (June 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
scope_creepTalk 16:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Kvng! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creepTalk 16:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Richard Sapper 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 17:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Boulder, Colorado

Thanks for starting a discussion about the rankings at Boulder, Colorado. I occasionally get pushback when I delete rankings, and ideally would like to take this to an RfC. You're an experienced editor, so hopefully there will be some good discussion. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677, Thanks for the comprehensive explaination at Talk:Boulder,_Colorado#Rankings_section. It's likely you'd get less pushback if you used less dismissive edit comments for these deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Vertical axis wind turbine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vertical axis wind turbine 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/Vertical axis wind turbine 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.

Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ben Harris

Hello, Kvng. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ben Harris".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Seeking help with edit requests on Vizio page

Hi, I work for Vizio. I saw that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics and was hoping you wouldn't mind examining my recent edit request at Talk:Vizio, which are updates and improvements to the page, and are not controversial or promotional. If you agree they are helpful edits, I hope you can please implement them according to the clear instructions in the request. Thanks so much for your help. Jeremy885511 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kvng. I'm following up here as you may have missed my ping at Talk:Vizio from a few days ago. I appreciate your help with the first part of my edit request there, and I hope you won't mind returning to the Talk page and evaluating the remaining two parts of my request, which relate to the "Sound bars" subsection and a new proposed "SmartCast" subsection. Thanks a lot! Jeremy885511 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Winsted Municipal Airport 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 20:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Kvng:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Expliseat has been accepted

Expliseat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:18, 17 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin


You declined to accept my article Town Lake Park Alliance, questioning its lack of original references. The problem is that most of the original references would be to newspaper articles that are no longer on line via the original publisher, the Austin American-Statesman. To counter this problem, I cited a Wordpress piece, History of the Town Lake Park Alliance, which I, the author Larry Akers, cited in the Wiki. For the Wordpress piece, I scanned hundreds of original newsprint articles, created PDFs, and linked them, with context, to the Wordpress piece. The bibliography of this piece has over 200 references to original documents, which are stored in conjunction with the piece and NOWHERE ELSE ON LINE. Other source materials for the piece were original newsletters published during the 1980's and which now exist only in the archive that was assembled to support the Wordpress article. Some, including Statesman articles published after 1988 and a handful from the Austin Chronicle, are on line via those newspapers' archives, but most of the material is unavailable anywhere but via the Wordpress package for the history. The entire package has been submitted to the Austin History Center, where it will be posted on their new on-line portal when they get around to it, which could take a long time, as they have an entire city's history to post. Until then, most of the original supporting documents for this Wiki article appear only via the Wordpress piece, which is a definitive, scrupulously researched and authoritative, detailed work of history.

So, if you would like me to enhance the bibliography of the Wiki page, I would be happy to include the entire bibliography of the Wordpress piece. The bibliography text alone would run ten pages or so. But if you would still not accept it, because many of its cited pages exist on line (for the time being) only on the Wordpress site on which the full history is posted, then I am at a complete loss as to how to present the material in a way that would satisfy you. If you wanted the Wordpress links scrubbed, then there would be no reasonable way to otherwise validate the existence of the original source material.

I suggest, if you doubt any of this, that you examine the Akers piece cited in the Wiki bibliography and examine the contents of its links to all the original sourced material. There are links from both its bibliography section and in-line in the exposition.

I have had this issue with your editors before. It signals a systemic problem. How can a historian post authoritative, original supporting material that meets your standards if blog sites are his only viable venue? Why should Wiki articles be vetoed because original source material can be posted only on a blog site, and there is no alternative? I can understand that you have a heavy workload, but before vetoing a publication, could you not check even one layer deep into a principal citation before scrapping someone's entire effort? I have poured months into this research and stand behind it with my entire soul. What does a guy have to do?

Larry Akers, under the account FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin

FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin, There is no problem using offline sources to support a Wikipedia article. Sorry that I missed the fact that your Wordpress page contained its own references. Self-published pieces like this on their own are not usually considered good sources. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What's needed is for you to add at least WP:THREE of these sources directly to the draft - including a direct link to the scan would be helpful but is not required. Keep in mind that multiple reports published by the same newspaper count as one source. Also note that WP:AUD requires more than local coverage so if you can include a source published outside Austin, that would help. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the welcome to Wikipedia.

Have a nice day!

Gustavo Belemmi (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Re your assertion of puffery in the article on Dynamic Tonality

I have undone your edit. Please see the talk page of said article, in which I make my case for deleted claim not being puffery. If you have a suggestion on how to make its non-puffery more obvious to future reviewers, I would welcome that suggestion. --JimPlamondon (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Dynamic_tonality#"Puffery"? ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:K-47 (Kansas highway) 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 04:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Overseas Security Advisory Council // Copyright Rejection

Hello,

All text and information in the rejected article is in the public domain and is NOT copyright, expressly disclosed here: https://www.osac.gov/About/Disclaimer. This includes the following link: https://gy.usembassy.gov/ambassador-lynch-remarks-at-overseas-security-advisory-council-meeting/.

Can you please provide additional context as to why it was rejected, given the lack of copyright material?

Thank you, --Falor1921 (talk) 23 July 2021

@Falor1921: It looks like I made a mistake. Please resubmit the draft. I will take another look when I get a chance or another reviewer will. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kvng: Thank you so much! Very much appreciated. Falor1921 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smart transducer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NFC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North–South Commuter Railway 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 08:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!

The Invisible Barnstar
Congratulations! You have earned The Invisible Barnstar for reviewing 37 drafts during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia!
On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The work on Differential signalling is coming along

Hi, SpinningSpark and I have written a response to your query on the Differential signalling talk page. Would you like to be pinged as the discussion proceedes?

Anyways, we have made some more edits to the article in the last few days and would be interested in your feedback.

Thanks Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Differential_signalling#Confused_advantages ~Kvng (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Further Discussion re: Cloudflare

I wanted to alert you that I’ve proposed some compromise language at an RfC where you’ve been active: Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Request for Comment: Cloudflare Controversy section. I also withdrew the RfC so this can be an ordinary discussion. I'd be very appreciative if you’d weigh in.

On another part of the same Talk page, multiple editors have weighed in on the First Request regarding outages at Cloudflare. Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021#Further Discussion for Proposals June 2021

Everyone was notified on 30 August 2021 and one has objected to the proposed language that you said was an improvement. If you think enough time has passed, would you be good enough to implement this proposed language? I would do it, but I can’t, as I have a disclosed COI - unless you specifically direct me on the Talk page to do the implementation.

Many thanks for your attention. Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North–South Commuter Railway 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 22:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Loudspeaker

Tanks for the welcome. I was just making a translation for the spanish wiki and noticed the blooper. I mainly contribute there, but I always willing to help to correct an obvious error.

--R2d21024 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Malassezia on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. 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 11:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

IETF RFC link=no

Hello Kvng, you have recently been adding 'link=no' options to {{IETF RFC}} calls. I am trying to figure out why you do this, as I cannot see any differences in the template's output... The documentation of 'link=no' is also not helping: the example shows links to external sources whether or not you say 'link=yes' or 'link=no'. I am currently working on a new template for generating RFCs, so I would like your input on that. —— Dandor iD (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dandorid: without the parameter. {{IETF RFC}} includes a wikilink link to the Request for Comments article followed by the external link to the RFC content. |link=no supresses the former. I've been adding this where there are a lot of {{IETF RFC}} instances in an article to avoid the redundant and back-to-back links. I've made improvements to the {{IETF RFC}} documentation. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kvng: It takes a keen eye, but yes, I see it now. Will do this as well. Thanks for the clarification. —— Dandor iD (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Jacona (1918) 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 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

audio engineer

you could help by adding sections in the hundred or so other countries who also have basically the same standards. you restate the previous information but with a German, (Germany?) bias. It's also unsourced trivia, grammatically incorrect, and you seem to have a vested interest in the reference. watching this space. SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@SkidMountTubularFrame: Probably best to start a discussion at Talk:Audio engineer. ~Kvng (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Jay Shetty

Hey Kvng, in Special:Diff/1054684234, you state that you didn't see any mention of the source at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Both them have it listed though, search for "Republic TV". Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have replaced the source with what I presume is a better one. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Centralised generation

An article that you have been involved in editing—Centralised generation—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikimedia Sound Logo project

Wikimedia Sound Logo project
The Wikimedia Sound Logo project

Hello, the Wikimedia sound logo project is in an early development phase -- this stage is for asking all kinds of questions, developing and fielding ideas, finding themes and shaping the direction of the project. Here is a link to the meta page for the project: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound_Logo

Your input is welcome. Thank you.

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Woodleigh MRT station 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 01:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, attempted de-orphan

Hi Kvng, While going through articles for WP Football cleanup, I found article Carmine Biagio Gatti and saw the de-orphan attempt. Since that person's article shows a birth-place, I added Gatti to "People" section of Avellino & so was able to successfully de-orphan. Just wanted to share this with you, FYI. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 with Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amory Street station 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 02:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

MobiCast article

Given the first paragraph, do you think it should be separated into two articles with a disambiguation page, or "for the other kind" links at the top? Bill Woodcock (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bwoodcock: probably two with crosslinked hatnotes (see WP:ONEOTHER). But, before putting any effort into improvements I would spend a little time to assess whether either of these topics is sufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. ~Kvng (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There was an AfD "keep, no consensus" way back in 2005. It certainly doesn't seem notable to me but I vaguely recall one of the patent holders contesting that pretty vociferously, when someone (perhaps me, I don't remember) suggested that sometime more recently. I guess my thought was that if it really is two different things, one or both of which are not a thing, disambiguating them from each other (yes, I agree, with a hatnote) might bee a good first step toward figuring out whether there's anything to either one of them. I'll take a stab at it. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiCast (2nd nomination) Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Aaaaaand: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MobiCast_(cellular_networking), since there was an unspecified objection to the WP:PROD. Bill Woodcock (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Special:Diff/1069519854

Just wondering what's your rational for leaving a stale discussion open for a year. If you're going to do that, then what's the reason to archive in the first place? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime, IME longer archiving interval makes sense for quieter pages and I don't think there's a downside. In the case of Talk:Password, there's been less than one new discussion per year so the talk page will be approximately the same size with relaxed settings but we run less of a risk of automatically archiving a slow-moving discussion in progress. ~Kvng (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
OK. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Eurana (1915) 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 15:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 01:33:55, 7 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin


As per your suggestions of July 2021, I resubmitted my Town Lake Park Alliance draft in August. I just received notice that unless I modified my draft, it would be considered abandoned and deleted. I had been waiting all this time for a review of my re-submission, but that has not happened. Just now I made additional changes, simply to guarantee the piece would not die in place.

I did add references to Austin American Statesman articles that do exist on line and, as I recall, to others, including the television station archives. However, as I explained at the time, most of the originally published (by the local major newspaper, several local newsletters, and the City of Austin has not ever existed on-line. I created PDF's of hundreds of those original documents and linked them through the history piece in citation 1. Because this history sits only on a Wordpress site and not yet on the Austin History Center site (pending, though they now have all the original documents), it was rejected out of hand. This was an incorrect judgement that overlooked the Wordpress piece's links to the only on-line primary, published, original documentation on the subject.

Please take another look and finally accept this submission.

Thanks, Larry Akers

FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@FriendsOfTheParksOfAustin, When a draft is declined, you need to improve it and resubmit. I'm not sure what happened in August. It looks like the draft was most recently resubmitted today. There is no threat of deletion while the draft waits to be reviewed again. Another reviewer will have a look at it in the next weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Stigler's law of eponymy in Moore's law

Stigler's law of eponymy deals only with the name of who came up with a particular law. If you say that it is debatable that Stigler's law of eponymy doesn't apply to Moore's law, then you imply that the law doesn't have the name of the person who really came up with it. Therefore you imply that it was House and not Moore who came up with the law. But because you also state that House came up with 18 months, the law would have to be for 18 months. But because in the article the period of time associated is 2 years, for your revert to make sense you would have to change that time duration at the beginning of th e article. So which is which?--Gciriani (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gciriani: my concern is that laypeople typically have the 18-month number for performance in mind when they talk about Moore's law; they should technically be talking about House's law but no one does. I assume, since you did not provide a citation, that the Stigler's law observation is your own. If so, that's arguably original research. If not, I apologize and will help get this information included. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You may be right. I'll add it to the article implying the opposite, and citing the already present references.--Gciriani (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination for deletion of Template:FOLDOC/text

Template:FOLDOC/text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SS Emperor 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 15:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to request for notability information on Duane McRuer article

Hello, Thanks for taking a look at the Draft:Duane_McRuer article. I made some notes on the Draft_talk:Duane_McRuer page re the top sources for notability. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joe Jbgeddes3 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jbgeddes3, thanks and congratulations. I have accepted the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Re-added duplicate sentence? "History of radio"

I don't understand. Unless I misunderstood what you were saying, the sentence didn't need to be duplicated, but when you reverted my edit, you put it back in. The two sentences really do deliver exactly the same information, just phrased differently. Granted, the second version was worded more awkwardly and included some errors, but I saw no reason to clean up a sentence that just restated information that had been said before.

Please explain your reasoning. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit 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 08:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Impulse Tracker
added a link pointing to ADSR
Korg Poly-61
added a link pointing to ADSR
Modular synthesizer
added a link pointing to ADSR

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tuas Link MRT station 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 10:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding List of political parties in Italy. The thread is Disruption_of_consensus_building_process_on_List_of_political_parties_in_Italy. Thank you.

BTW this is not anything to do with your conduct, hope I didn't startle you or anything! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

About About the copyrighted text in Draft:Max Moreno (writer)

Hello, Kvng. You have new messages at Mariana Cordeiro de Lima's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear Kvng. I am so sorry for using a copyrighted text. It was not my inttention. Well, I rewrote the entire article and this time using my own words. Could you please check if it complies with Wikipedia's policies? Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng/Archive_10&oldid=1093110982"