Jump to content

User talk:Kvng/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 13

09:46:23, 9 November 2017 review of submission by NG 1989


Dear Kvng,

Thank you for reviewing the article. I have however a few questions concerning your remarks. The first remark I would like to know how to handle is how to show the subject's notability trough the references. I can only point out that these are (as written in the article) very important exhibitions in the Belgian art history. I understand the remark about avoiding references by the subject itself. However, it is quite common for the curator of an exhibition to also be the editor of the catalog/publication accompanying the said exhibition. The last remark is that there are too few secondary sources. However, if you look into the 'Further Reading' section you can find a quite extensive list of secondary sources on the subject. (Mainly the exhibitions created by the subject).

Hoping to receive more guided directions with the following questions.

All my very best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NG 1989 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@NG 1989: Thanks for contacting me. I appreciate that the subject was responsible for some notable projects. This, however, does not make the subject notable. See WP:INHERIT. Notability of the subject is established by coverage of the subject in WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY sources. As I recall, most of the sources you've provided are not independent. You don't necessarily need to remove these but you do need to cite enough others to satisfy the WP:GOLDENRULE for Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kvng: Thank you for your response. Since we've done serious research preceding the article I was wondering if it could help if I re-arranged the references to better satisfy the WP:GOLDENRULE for Wikipedia. As you can see in our section 'Further Reading', 'Secondary sources' there are many WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY sources written about the subject and it's projects. We chose to put only the exhibition-catalog (if which he was most of the time the editor and or writer) in the section 'references'. However the 'further reading' section is as much a reference to the projects as the catalogs but satisfy maybe more the WP:GOLDENRULE for Wikipedia. --NG 1989 (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@NG 1989: I'm sorry if I did not notice those other sources. Please be aware that reviewers here at Wikipedia are WP:VOLUNTEERS and the number of sources you've cited and the difficulty accessing these sources due to being offline and not in english will make this review quite labor intensive. You can choose to resubmit as it is and wait for another reviewer to give this another look or you can have a look at advice given at WP:CITEKILL and try to trim it down to something more manageable for reviewers and readers. ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

00:57:00, 22 November 2017 review of submission by ErinD22


Hello, While there are similarities between the bio on the Select Sacramento website and the submitted content, they are both pulled from the subject's overall biography, rather than content produced by the Select Sacramento website. I would like to know what would need to be edited to get page approval, or barring that, what type of permission I would need from the Select Sacramento website. I feel like to read and understand the copyright guidelines is a little complicated for a layperson and I'm not sure I could communicate it to the group that runs the Select Sacramento website, but I am confident they would have no issue with some of the same biographical details appearing on their site and the Wikipedia page. I would like to know which options (content edits and what exact content was the issue vs. copyright permission) would be most expedient to get this posted.

Thank you. ErinD22 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@ErinD22: Although we do have processes for licensing material from others for use here, the easiest way through is to remove from your draft any material that appears elsewhere. If this is not feasible, let me know and I'll try and help you through alternatives.
As to what's required to get this draft approved, please be aware that there are several reasons material can be found unsuitable for Wikipedia. Copyright violations are definitely one of the reasons but I did not originally review your draft in enough detail to tell you whether there are others. Now I see that your draft is a biography of a living person. Typical other problems we have with these types of submissions are WP:PROMOTIONAL content (i.e. resume-like), unreferenced material and notability concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have made updates so the biographical content is similar but not identical. Could you please let me know if this will work? If not, I'd love to know what some alternatives are. Thank you, Erin ErinD22 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@ErinD22: Thanks for making those improvements. I have acknowledged this on the draft for your next reviewer when you're ready to resubmit. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

16:43:36, 28 November 2017 review of submission by Zimbetsincer


Hello, Thank you very much for reviewing my page. I took into consideration your feedback and deleted the phrase which has been closely paraphrased. I am a beginner in Wikipedia and still learning. Could you, please, review my page and if it seems ok to you agree to publish it? I worked hardly to do this page and it is so important to see the fruits of my labour. Thank you a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbetsincer (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Zimbetsincer: I notice that you have already resubmitted this draft and that's the right thing to do. Apologies that we have a large backlog of unreviewed submissions. I or another reviewer will have another look in due course. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

AfC acceptances

Hi. I'm a bit concerned that you are currently accepting articles that are not appropriate for mainspace. Draft:DeskTime is an obviously commissioned work that contains a link to an actual press release as an external link. I almost tagged it as G11, but saw a Washington Post piece and thought it would be unfair to do so since it had just been moved out of draft, so I returned it there instead.

This is all but an advertisement as well and contains WAY too much unfree text. The sourcing in WingtraOne appear to be cursory, trade press, recycled press releases, or sources otherwise not suitable for counting towards notablitiy (and none of the sources you listed on the talk page come anywhere close to making it notable). What is more concerning about the WingtraOne article, however, is that it is an advertisement written by a declared connected contributor that was moved into the mainspace with no changes at all. I've since sent that one to AfD to deal with the issues, but you really need to be much more careful. Currently one of the main purposes of AfC is to assess articles written by paid and COI editors before they hit mainspace to make sure that they follow our guidelines. If AfC isn't doing this, the spammers might as well create it directly in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey TonyBallioni, just as a note, if you kick something back to draft (after it's been accepted) it's best to either formally decline it, or leave an {{AFC comment}} so that the creator and future reviewers know the situation. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thanks. I've never had to do this before. I've added a comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I calibrate my AfC behavior based on what's WP:LIKELY to be deleted. Maybe you didn't like the state of The Rochdale Herald when I accepted it but it seems to have been improved appropriately. I do accept stuff that needs improvement (but unlikely to be deleted) because it is not likely to be improved sitting in Draft space. Thanks for nominating WingtraOne for deletion I will participate in that discussion and adjust, if appropriate, based on outcome. I would personally prefer you simply nominate stuff like DeskTime for deletion rather than bouncing it back to Draft. I'd like to know definitively when I've made a mistake as opposed to having a disagreement with another reviewer. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
For DeskTime it had been tagged as G11 by someone else, I would have deleted it. It was not just a disagreement, it was a definitive mistake. For The Rochdale Herald it should never have been moved into mainspace with all of that unfree text. The issue here is that you are moving spam into mainspace thinking that other people will clean it up. AfC works on the principle of 50% chance of surviving AfD, yes, but you should not be actively accepting drafts that go against one of our core policies without making any changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: No, since it is only the two of us involved, I consider this a disagreement. I'm happy to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No need to continue the discussion in this case. If you continue to accept spam, however, I will remove you from the AFC participants list. Please be more careful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Do you alone (as an administrator?) have the authority to remove me from the project without further discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is effectively the same as a user right, and any admin can remove them at any time for incompetence in using them, which is the point you are approaching here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Technically yes, though I would hope that any admin removing a user explains why on the AFCH talk page so that the issue can be discussed. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

It's a bit tangental to the above, but I'd also like to remind you to remove copyright violating material when you spot it, and request revision deletion. I noticed you forgot to do so here. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:JUSTDOIT. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I did, but obviously it's not a great solution to rely on others to clean this type of thing up since it's a legal liability. Just something to keep your eye out for. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

00:39:17, 2 December 2017 review of submission by Wikirob78


Hi, thank you for reviewing the Ben Christo page. I don't get it. You say the only reliable source is "M magazine", that is an interview of Ben which appears no different in reliability than the other sources. There appear to be thousands of wikipages which have no real sources but they are on Wikipedia, why is the bar raised high here? Why is he is the only Sisters of Mercy musician without a page? Can you help please or engage other people to help?

@Wikirob78: Standards for biographies of living people were raised due to some high-profile defamation incidents. They have been raised further recently due to a large volume of WP:PROMOTIONAL submissions many with authors having conflicts of interest. Yes there is a lot of substandard material on Wikipedia but the sentiment of the Wikipedia community is that this is not an excuse to accept more substandard material. Chris Catalyst was created in 2008 and it does not appear to meet today's standards. We have the option to nominate it for deletion and would probably succeed but I doubt you'd be interested in pursuing this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

13:36:41, 6 December 2017 review of submission by Emandelapaz

Thank you for reviewing the article submitted.

As to the issue of reference and notability, please take note of the following existing article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Niño_SPED_Center

It is a similar institution as ours, but the article presents less notability and no references at all, but was accepted. We believe that the article we have submitted is better written and more informative than the page mentioned above.

Our references include information from our nation's Department of Education which has jurisdiction of our school. We do not know a better reference at this point for our institution's history.

We hope you will reconsider your decision. Emandelapaz (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emandelapaz (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Emandelapaz, the existence of one article (good or bad) does not mean that we must have an article about a related subject. Every page is judged on its own merits. Sometimes bad pages slip through the cracks, and rather than use them as justification for creating more bad pages, we should be taking care of them. It looks like Santo Niño SPED Center does not meet our inclusion criteria and should either be improved or deleted. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Primefac, thank you for your explanation. Point well taken. We will be looking into existing pages of other schools and see how else we can improve the article. Emandelapaz (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC

To clarify, I still consider your AfC reviews to be sub-standard, and think that you need to be much more careful in what you accept. I also don't consider myself INVOLVED here as I have been acting purely in an administrative capacity in the area that I most frequently work. Dirk Staudinger which is the most recent article you have accepted is currently at AfD and District 3 Innovation Centre is also very questionable. My warning still stands: if you continue with a pattern of bad accepts, I will remove you from the list and then explain my reasoning for doing so at the AfC talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help#Draft:Aaron_Lown. I do not intend to change my reviewing behavior. I made have made an good-faith ice hockey/field hockey error with Dirk Staudinger but AfD has just started so we'll see. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but I did want to make clear that you are still skating on thin ice here. You're frequently accepting spam articles from declared paid editors with no changes such as at London Central Portfolio, which had previously been G11'd is also non-ideal. I'm not asking that you suddenly change to become more deletionist (I'm actually not a deletionist myself, despite what you might think). I'm asking that you be more careful with COI/PAID/PROMO cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's reasonable to be lenient in AfC most of the time but not in cases where there is COI/PAID stuff - there's no need to allow PROMO from a paid editor. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. I firmly support the 50% chance of passage at AfD standard for AfC, and think for non-COI/PAID issues, it is a great one and that most AfC reviewers are too strict on it. Kvng, my concern here with your acceptances is not the notability question, but the COI/PAID issue that AfC is supposed to address before it hits the new pages feed. A better solution that might make everyone happy is for you to limit yourself to articles that have no apparent COI/PAID concerns. That way you're helping new users who come to us wanting to create articles, but letting users who are more comfortable dealing with paid advocacy issues deal with the drafts that have them. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
COI/PAID is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON so why is it a valid reason to reject at AfC? ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
COI/PAID isn't, but WP:NOTPROMO is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Promotion is a valid deletion reason under WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. WP:N also makes it clear that something that is promotional cannot also be notable at the same time, even if it passes the GNG (notability is a two part test that includes passage of NOT). Content that is COI/PAID is much more likely to be promotional and needs a closer eye to see if it is valid content on Wikipedia. That is part of what AfC is supposed to do, not just asses for notability. You simply aren't doing this, which is why it is such a concern. This is probably the issue the community is most concerned about now, and misuse of AfC by paid editors has led to an ongoing ArbCom case.
It isn't even necessarily an issue that you are accepting these because of your judgement calls on notability, which are judgement calls. The larger concern is that I have not seen a single draft where you have made one edit to remove promotional content of the multiple drafts that you have sent to mainspace written by paid editors. That is a competency concern: the odds of every notable draft written by a paid editor being 100% NPOV and in line with PROMO are next to none, and by accepting them non-critically into mainspace you are publishing ads for people. I think your heart is in the right place here: you want to help new editors create articles, which is good. I just think you are also looking only at one side of the coin. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I kinda do something similar myself. I'd rather help new users than COI/PAID editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I've personally seen a lot of good contributions from paid editors. COI issues can be fixed through collaborative editing. Collaborative cannot really happen until a draft is accepted. Most WP:NOTPROMO issues can be resolved but improving or stubifying and do not require deletion. I understand I am sometimes allowing low quality material into mainspace but the encyclopedia is a work in progress and some of it is going to suck until someone gets around to improving it. That's how this is supposed to work. I spend a lot of time improving existing articles just not necessarily the ones I accept. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have edit conflicted: my request to you then is this. If you are going send an article to mainspace that is promotional, remove the promotion. Do not continue to publish paid advertisements without fixing the problem. That is the concern here that will lead me to removing you from the AfC list if it is not fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah kinda the reason we ask paid editors to go through AfC is to prevent promotional articles. I have seen fine articles from paid editors, but most of it isn't. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Listen TonyBallioni, screening for WP:PROMOTIONAL is not an explicit part of the AfC process, this is captured in the not likely to be deleted requirement and it is my experience in AfD that WP:PROMOTIONAL articles are more likely to be improved than deleted.

Screening for WP:NPOV is part of acceptance criteria and I do try to address that but I recognise there are limits to the ability of AfC authors to address this either because of lack of experience, COI or both.

There no requirement that AfC reviewers improve submissions. As a WP:VOLUNTEER I generally prefer to improve articles in my areas of expertise. But I do like to help out at AfC when I have time and especially when we have a huge backlog of very old submissions that less experienced editors/reviewers are reluctant to touch.

So where does this leave us? We can reject everything that has a whiff of WP:NPOV or we can relieve the constipation at AfC and let the competent policies and systems already in place for mainspace deal with these. I use my judgement on this and I root that judgement in my ongoing AfD experience. I reject your assertion that I am not exercising good judgement as an AfC reviewer. ~Kvng (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well, we appear to be in disagreement on this. I'm not going to actively be patrolling your contributions, but if I come across them or other users raise concerns with me about your acceptances and I feel that your actions as an AfC reviewer have become a net-negative to Wikipedia, I will remove you and raise the issue at the AfC participants talk page. I've already explained to you why, and it is up to you if you want to adjust your behavior. Again, I think the simplest solution here is simply for you to limit your AfC work to non-PAID/COI articles, where you will not have to make these controversial judgement calls. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed your apparent copyvio at Talk:Noise (electronics). See WP:COPYLINK. Glrx (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

23:15:47, 14 December 2017 review of submission by Ostrick


Hi, Kvng. Thank you for reviewing this page. I did take your advice and use more notable links like Variety and others. I also cut down the submission to make the article as objective as possible and only focus on the most notable citations. Thank you for taking the time to look at this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostrick (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of single and double quotes

You reverted my edit to Loudness war where I had replaced double quotes (") with single quotes (') on the grounds that there was "no improvement". I had done that because the double quotes were incorrect, due to being nested within double-quoted text. The rule is to use single quotes within double quotes and vice versa. See Nested quotation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Furrykef, I did not notice that was a nested quote situation. Thank you for fixing that. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International System of Units

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International System of Units. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kvng RTH has been nominated for discussion

Category:Kvng RTH, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 10:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kvng RTH

Category:Kvng RTH is unusual although I can see you are doing great work with it. At any rate, it's been mentioned at WT:Manual of Style/Layout#Conflict with Category:Kvng RTH. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq. It is now being considered for deletion. I hope this is just a misunderstanding. I have weighed in on that discussion and would appreciate if you would repeat your "great work" comment there. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: thanks for your support, do you think your contribution as you've formatted it will be recorded as a Keep !vote? Looks more like a comment to me and may be lost in the noise. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Revolutionary Left

Thanks for reviewing my article. You have blanked out the entire article because it was a copyright infringement although I am not sure how that could be the case. The template says This submission appears to be taken from http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6633. I would be happy to delete or reword that section if you feel it is a problem. I saw it as their views on an important issue in Spain which is a majority Catholic country where the abortion issue is controversial. Could you unblank the rest of the article please so that I can continue working on it.Vahvistus (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the article with the paragraph on abortion rights deleted. I used the edit history to do this but the copyright infringement template still blanks the entire article. Vahvistus (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If you review the new submission I have suggested a name change as there is another group with the same name on Wiki. I suggest this article should be Revolutionary Left (Spain) (CWI)Vahvistus (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Vahvistus: I'm afraid that our procedures for dealing with copyright violations are serious and complex. I assume this is because copyright violation is a legal issue. I do not fully understand the purose or operation of the {{copyvio}} template used to flag these things and apparently causing you trouble here but I've been told this is necessary and proper (see discussion above). Perhaps Primefac or Diannaa can help us with this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The copyvio template was removed on the 29th of December. I have done revision deletion on the copyvio versions of the draft. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Copy vios, again

Hi again, I noticed you recently made a series of "copyvio" declines ([1] [2] [3]) without removing the offending material and requesting revdel. I took the advice you gave me last time I brought this up, and fixed it. I know that adding the template can be a pain, but simply ignoring copyright violating material in AfC is particularly troublesome since it "hides" it, and may never be removed unless it's G13d or resubmitted. If you're not comfortable with adding the template primefac made a helpful script for it, and I'm sure both he and Diannaa are happy to help by simply asking on their respective talk pages. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I do copyvio revision deletion all the time. If you're not comfortable using the template, just post a note on my talk page and I will do it. Happy to help. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ditto that. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be brief here, I just have a few moments before an appointment. I'm pulling the WP:VOLUNTEER card here and leaving it others to do optional step 3 CV cleanup. If AFCH does not take care of step 2 then I suggest it be improved to do so. I can manually add the {{copyvio}} tag if that's necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough re: the volunteer thing. I think that adding {{copyvio}}, or even using my script to add a basic revdel request would suffice. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Whew, thanks. Going forward, I will add {{copyvio}} when I reject for CV. I'd like to start a discussion about getting AFCH to do this for me. Probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script would be the place for that. ~Kvng (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Adding {{copyvio}} is not the correct thing to do, unless you also list the page at WP:CP. This method is only necessary in complex caes. What you should do (in most cases) is remove the copyright content and then request revision deletion either by adding the {{copyvio-revdel}} template or by contacting an administrator directly. There's full instructions on what to do at Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Dealing with copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I need an easier procedure. Otherwise, I will no longer review AfC submissions with potential CV issues. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. Remove the copyright violations from the draft
  2. Ask me on my talk page to perform revision deletion. Please provide a wikilink to the draft you want cleaned and tell me where they copied from. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa: OK, we'll give this a try. I assume there's a third step in there somewhere where I reject the draft for CV. Does it matter if that is the first, last or middle step? ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to reject the draft for copyvio if you have removed all the copyright violations. Remove the copyvio; then assess the draft based on what remains. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa: AfC reviewer instructions say decline is the first step. No mention of your step 1. Should we be looking at revising reviewer instructions? ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a question you should address to the people who wrote the instructions. Note they are recommending use of the copyvio template and listing the page at WP:CP, and state that for you to personally remove the copyvio is optional. You did use the copyvio template on a few drafts, but did not follow all three steps: (1) add the copyvio template to the page (2) list the page at WP:CP using the instructions provided and (3) notify the editor using the template provided in the instructions. If you don't follow all three steps, the case will never get dealt with, as no one will know you have flagged it for attention. Some of the drafts you declined had only a bit of copyvio, in which case it would be simpler and quicker for you to clean the page yourself and post on my talk page to get the revision deletion done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Since I've recently worked with Diannaa to update WP:DCV, which is our actual policy on dealing with copyright violations, I would suggest you read it and follow the steps outlined there. That page has the most up-to-date instructions on how copyright violations are normally handled currently. WP:CP is typically only used for more complex cases. Otherwise excising the offending content and requesting revision deletion either directly from an admin or using Template:copyvio-revdel is current procedure. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm coming to the conclusion that patrolling for CV is not an activity I'm interested in continuing. Instructions and opinions are complex or inconsistent and the work has too many manual steps. ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A lot of people are doing it wrong, judging by the many drafts in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. I've been working on these for an hour and a half and am nearly done with the letter A. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Austin Rogers

I appreciate your suggestion. Being new to this reviewing process, would we simply apply a redirect at the top of the draft? I see that the Austin Rogers pagespace is taken with a subject proved notable. I wasn't inclined to create a new disambiguated redirect space. How would we go about it? There's already an About template at the top of Austin Rogers which directs to the list article. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@BusterD: I didn't notice that there was already a hatnote on Austin Rogers. That's sufficient. If anyone want to give more love to the Jeopardy! contestant, it would not be out of line to also create a Austin Rogers (Jeopardy! contestant) redirect. If you wanted to go even further, you could create Austin Rogers (disambiguation) and add links to Austin Rogers, Austin Rogers (Jeopardy! contestant) and Buddy Austin there and update the hatnote on Austin Rogers to use {{Other uses}}. At that point, if you don't believe the goalkeeper is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you can move Austin Rogers to Austin Rogers (goalkeeper) and Austin Rogers (disambiguation) to Austin Rogers. ~Kvng (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, the hatnote seems perfectly fine. I wasn't aware of Buddy Austin myself, so that's enough to consider a disambiguation page linking all three. It's a perfectly legitimate search term. I'll create one. Thanks for the suggestion and the fresh eyes. I've only reviewed 8 or 9, so more feedback early on is better (I missed a clear copyvio last week in a decline because I wasn't used to utilizing the tools available in the reviewing suite). Rather make my gruesome reviewing errors at a small scale. BusterD (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Changed the hatnote anyway. I can't imagine any further changes that cry out for performance, but I could be wrong. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

22:55:14, 7 January 2018 review of submission by Badr.el


Thanks , for you review , there are two different topics : Avito.ru and Avito.ma , the two topics was the same until Schibsted Media group bought Avito.ma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badr.el (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

03:04:14, 14 January 2018 review of submission by TrampolineTales




I'm a little unsure as to why sources [1] and [2] are considered valid sources for the plays, but the other sources cited are not. Could you please elaborate as to why the sources are invalid? Thanks. TrampolineTales (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at Draft talk:Gino DiIorio. ~Kvng (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

copyvio

Hello, I am wondering how you do the "copyvio check passed" thing to AfC submissions. Do you use Earwig and comment "copyvio check passed" if there is little chance of copyvio. And is there any concern that the copyright status of the page might change after you place that notice. Also, do you use some script to perform that and is there any way for me to help perform such operations. Thank you. Nikolaiho☎️📖 02:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: I was using Earwig and manually examining any match over 10% likely. No script, just lots of browser tabs. I guess it could get messy if someone added material after I checked. It could get messy at any time though. I'm not doing these checks anymore because I was unwilling to do all that's apparently required when you find a copyvio issue. See the discussion above. ~Kvng (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if I completely misunderstood your last statement, but does this mean that you're not checking copyvios at all? Primefac (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Still checking when reviewing, of course. I'm just not doing a separate patrol for them. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, good to know. Again, sorry for misinterpreting it. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparison of CRM systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Outlook (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) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Packet radio

added original ALOHA Tech report; / add names of personnel involved (see Pg 16 of tech report) verify for yourself. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.149 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:209 (number)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:209 (number). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aaron Lown (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 Chetsford was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
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) 02:13, 28 January 2018 (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! Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Professional audio manufacturers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Professional audio manufacturers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

16:03:26, 31 January 2018 review of submission by Bacchante2017


Bacchante2017 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Good afternoon,

My name is Charlie Wheeler, and I am the Senior Envoy at the West India Committee. My colleague, Barnabas Kinge, attempted to update the Wikipedia page on the West India Committee around five months ago, but I see that you declined the changes he proposed to the Wikipedia entry.

As an employee at the charity of the West India Committee, I have noticed numerous errors in the Wikipedia page, and we wish to rectify these as soon as possible, so that the public are accurately informed. My Chief Executive would be happy to discuss this over the phone with you (02077995441) as would I, either over the phone or through email (charliewheeler@westindiacommittee.org). Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter, we hope to hear from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Charlie Wheeler Senior Envoy charliewheeler@westindiacommittee.org 02077995441

@Bacchante2017: First off, please be aware that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy which discourages people directly involved from editing material in the encyclopedia. If you want to see improvements made to West India Committee, the most direct place to make this request is on the article's talk page (Talk:West India Committee). Unfortunately West India Committee does not seem to get a lot of attention from editors so you may try to bring some attention by posting a request on one of the WikiProjects associated with the article. In this case, I would suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng,

Thank you for your previous message, this is good to know. Please excuse me as I am a novice at editing on Wikipedia; I am struggling to see where I can 'comment' and bring attention to the West India Committee page issue on the links you provided me with. Any assistance with this would be much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacchante2017 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

VoIP telephony

You recently created VoIP telephony as a redirect to itself. It was promptly nominated for CSD, but I've gone and redirected it to Voice over IP, as that seems a good target. Let me know if you had other plans! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What you did is what I intended. Probably a C-P error on my part. ~Kvng (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of over-the-air broadcasters in English-speaking countries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of over-the-air broadcasters in English-speaking countries 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/List of over-the-air broadcasters in English-speaking countries (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of SadlerVision for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SadlerVision 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/SadlerVision until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bob talk 09:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Jayed Khan

You removed a prod on Jayed Khan. You state "Appearance in 25 films is a notability claim. Many incoming links indicates potential notability.". Neither of the sources is about Jayed Khan. This article should be a redirect to Zayed Khan. If you didn't see this, you shouldn't be removing prods from articles. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

World's Lamest Critic, a PROD can be removed for any reason. If Kvng thinks that appearing in 25 films is enough to contest a PROD, then they are well within their rights to do so. The fact that they've left a talk page note actually shows that they're thinking about it. Of course, you're well within your rights to question or update the de-PRODder on the situation, but implying that they shouldn't be doing what is perfectly acceptable is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)
Take a look at what they're de-prodding and get back to me on that. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's the list. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: my DEPROD was not about sources. Your PROD reason was, "No claims of Notability." Maybe I've got my head too deep in Wikilaw but there is a difference between a notability claim and evidence of notability. An article should have both: the claim is to give readers a sense of why this subject is important and the second is to keep deletionists at bay, among other things. I didn't think the PROD was about sources so, I admit, I did not review them. I hope you have also left a nice message on Vinegarymass911's talk page because they overlooked what I beleive is your assertion is that Jayed Khan and Zayed Khan are the same person. But the roles don't seem to match up so have reverted your redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
They are not the same person, and the thing with Prod is anyone can remove them. I may be wrong on notability and Kvng is well within his right to remove Prods. If there are still doubts please take the article to AFD.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

ArtDaily

Hi Kvng, I saw you deprodded ArtDaily and said it's because it may be a reliable source. What do you think the best way to confirm this would be? In addition to the things I mentioned in the PROD, I notice the article creator's username seems to match the founder of the website. I wouldn't want to delete a useful article, but I think we ought to examine this one carefully, especially if it's assumed to reflect a reliable source for articles here. Interested to hear your thoughts! Armadillopteryxtalk 01:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to nominate the article for deletion per the regular process. That will call the attention of more editors to the page and will either result in the improvement of the article or its deletion if improvement is impossible. Feel free to share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtDaily! Armadillopteryxtalk 02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Armadillopteryx: as you said, we need to examine this one carefully - not a good WP:PROD candidate. But, please don't nominate for deletion if your desired outcome is article cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP). And if your desired outcome is deletion, be sure that there is good reason to delete WP:BEFORE nominating and consider any alternatives to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I did try to source the article myself, but I couldn't find a single WP:RS. That, together with the fact that the site doesn't look at all legitimate, make me fairly confident in nominating it for deletion. Sadly I don't see any feasible WP:ATD in this case. Armadillopteryxtalk 03:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Armadillopteryx: I'll have a look at it this week. Above the deletion question, if it is as sad as you say, it might be prudent to look at the articles that use this website as a source. ~Kvng (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Armadillopteryxtalk 03:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The thought occurred to me that, if you really plan to do a thorough investigation of the site, this article might be a good place to start :-p That, together with the existence of no WP:RS that could be used to source the article, makes a pretty clear case to me. Not all ArtDaily articles are quite that absurd, but if the site lacks a filter mechanism to keep that sort of "journalism" away, I question its ability to confirm any facts it reports. Armadillopteryxtalk 12:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Estonian National Philharmonic Orchestra

I see that you WP:DEPROD Estonian National Philharmonic Orchestra, but yet offered no evidence of its existence. You gave a source which is for Estonian National Symphony Orchestra - [4], for which an article already exist. If you check the article and its official website [5], you'd find that the names and information given in the article do not match the source. They are clearly meant to be different (e.g. London Symphony Orchestra is different from London Philharmonic Orchestra). Hzh (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake. I apologize. Needs to go to WP:AFD now I guess. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Kvng, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your help on WP:ACREQ is welcomed. Kudpung has asked that a summary of the WMF conclusions be added and they will link to the page in the RfC. The summary you just posted would be a great start. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I think that is too soon to start a permanent ACTRIAL campaign. All of us still need time to digest and correct errors and NPOV issues in the report. Forcing the issue before we've had time to try and reach consensus on the report may cause people to dig their heels in. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
it's prep work. The RfC is coming shortly. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

dabs, etc.

Hi Kvng. First, thanks for all the work you put in. Second, regarding dab pages, as per WP:DDD, there shouldn't be multiple blue links on a single entry. That entire last entry on that dab page should probably be redone, but not sure exactly how to fix it. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I was trying to remove that but I guessed I misread the diff and accidentally restored it instead. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Simon Wallfisch

Hi Kvng, thanks for reading the abovementioned article about Baritone Simon Wallfisch. I have added more sources, like Guardian, and Telegraph, and read the notability guidelines thoroughly, who mention two lead roles in an Opera house (Massenet's Werther: check, Berlioz in Nuremberg: check) or at least two published records on a more important indie label (both Nimbus records and Lyrita records operate for almost 60 or 50 years and have their own wp article...) and he (alongside his family of musicians) was featured in a broadcast by french-German TV station arte... please let me know if there is more that i can do to improve the article to meet the wp standards... cheers, Fu-Lank (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fu-Lank: Leading role in a prominent production is impressive but is not what it takes to meet notability requirements. We need in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not just a mention of a role. An example would be a profile of the subject or interview. There are many articles on Wikipedia that don't meet notability guidelines for mostly historical reasons. This can't be used as an argument for adding articles on other non-notable subjects - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows Server 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows Server 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your review

Thanks for your time and effort to review my creation. I have provided my response on my talk page to the message your left. Please revisit my talk page here and leave your opinion. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

review of Draft:Lawrence Goldhuber

Hello and thank you for taking the time to review my article Draft:Lawrence_Goldhuber on April 5th. It was flagged for deletion for copyright infringement. I have a couple of questions that I thought perhaps you could help me with. The first question is when you are writing a bio of a living performer, and you chronologically list the companies they have performed with, how do you distinguish your list from others previously published? It looks like a copyright infringement, but it is what it is; a list.

My next questions are regarding what steps I must take next. Do I start again in my sandbox or go straight to a draft? I don't want my work to get deleted again. Do I work directly with you or do I go back to the end of the queue and wait a month until someone else picks it up?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you StephBGold (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't be of much help. I flagged your submission as a potential copyright violation. I do appreciate that lists and titles can look like violations and that's why I review matching text before flagging. After I flagged it another editor proposed that it be deleted and then an administrator agreed and deleted it. There were at least three of us who looked at it before it was deleted. Now that it has been deleted, I no longer can see what you originally submitted so can't give good advice about what to do next. Also, when a submission is rejected, it may be resubmitted but it will generally be reviewed by a different volunteer here and, yes, you may need to wait many weeks for each review. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng/Archive_8&oldid=841797061"