User talk:Kvng
|
||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Engschrift article - merge[edit]
Hi there,
I noticed that you objected my deletion request for the Engschrift article some days ago, and suggested instead it be merged. Once this is done, which article do you suggest it be redirected to? Engschrift refers to condensed variants of DIN 1451, Austria and Tern.
Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 19:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @EthanL13, to start I'd need to understand the relationship between Engschrift and Tern (typeface). None of this is my area of expertise so I'm not sure how much of my advice you want to be taking. For real help help maybe post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography. ~Kvng (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kvng, I believe it's related to Tern due to the condensed (engschrift) being mentioned in Austrian traffic sign legislation. But I am rather asking what to do in regards to redirecting to the three articles it refers to. EthanL13 | talk 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @EthanL13, I guess I didn't understand the question. I guess I still don't understand the question. What do you think of my suggestion of asking typography experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Typography? ~Kvng (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kvng, I believe it's related to Tern due to the condensed (engschrift) being mentioned in Austrian traffic sign legislation. But I am rather asking what to do in regards to redirecting to the three articles it refers to. EthanL13 | talk 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You have removed the PROD and redirected this article to list of credit unions in the United States, however the credit union is not American. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. I have backed it out. I'm afraid you'll need to use AfD now since prod cannot be restored once removed. ~Kvng (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
TCP[edit]
Greetings. While 'no deadlines' is an interesting essay, it is just that, and it most definitely does not supercede the strict requirements for verifiability. Unsourced material that has not been challenged can be left as it is, if no editor is bothered by a lack of citations. However, once challenged, the requirements are clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
The material was challenged a year and a half ago. That is more than adequate time for an interested editor to cite the material.
As you have chosen to restore the challenged material, may I assume you are going to add adequate citations? Your user page suggests that you are a subject-matter expert here. I have considerable experience in networking and internetworking, but don't consider myself expert. If not, yes, I would be willing to take a go at it, but generally speaking the responsibility lies with the editor who adds unsourced material, not the editor who removes it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes I swear that I go to extraordinary efforts to be a dimbulb. I see now that you did add a cite, and since the cite in its entirety is specific to the section, that should be more than adequate. Apologies for my error. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Anastrophe, I've been there; I understand how you can get a notification of revert and then not notice there were further edits. I can try to remember do this as a single edit in the future.
- I did read your struck comments. I don't appreciate the pattern of editors removing material because it is tagged and they don't understand it or don't know where to find sources. Remove it if you think it's wrong or you believe no sources exist. Transmission Control Protocol is getting nearly 2000 views per day and has existed since 2001. In this context, errors are ejected pretty reliably. ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fair arguments all. I fall into a category of editors who don't fall into a category of editors. Sometimes I'm a 'deletionist', and sometimes I do the deletion as I did here - in hopes of gently prodding the existing interested editors into confronting the lack of attention to challenged material. Then there's plenty of times I'll spend half my day tracking down and verifying sources, and making the challenged material properly cited myself. I never maliciously remove info from articles; but I also feel that the strong ethos we have here that challenged material may be removed, is a necessary one; however, it's exceedingly rare that I delete material that has been recently challenged, 'recent' always being a judgement call. Regrettably, too often I run across material that's been challenged for a decade or more. Those are also judgement calls - was the cite-needed tag added just to be a butthead, or is the material patently clear, typically because existing wikilinks provide the answer at the destination, or any of countless other reasons.
- Case-by-case is the order of the day. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Expansion At First Use (EAFU) in Cable Modem article[edit]
Thank you for removing the duplicate QoS that I added to the Cable Modem article. I should have checked the rest of the article.
However, I was wondering why you removed the expansion of CDLP and DOCSIS. Now, nowhere in the article does it explain that CDLP means "Cable Data Link Protocol" and "DOCSIS" means "Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification"
My goal is to expand each acronym on first use "term (acronym)" and if the term or acronym has it's own article, then I'll link to it, staying aware of DUPLINK.
Currently, the linking on this page is varied:
PSTN (telephone network) - Acronym and term linked together - (this is the example I used)
Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) - term and acronym as separate links
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) - only the term linked
UDP only the acronym linked, and it is not expanded to "User Datagram Protocol" anywhere in the article.
I prefer linking both the term and the acronym, as in [[ the article | term (acronym) ]] , so that both link to the informative article, which could have been named for the term, or the acronym.
So, I'd like to clean up and expand the article, but wanted to first get your input on which form to use, and also a heads up that on what I'm planning so we can agree and not get into a revert fest on this. Although, I sometimes don't know why I care for consistency, since there is nothing to prevent someone from diving in and totally changing it all next week. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. • Bobsd • (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London[edit]
You suggest a merge to International Organization of Migration- what content do you think should be merged? AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would think into the Structure section but I have just reviewed the single reference at Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London and find a verification issue. There is a UK branch of the organization but I can't find anything specifically about London. ~Kvng (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Computer network naming scheme for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer network naming scheme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024[edit]
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Random-access memory edit[edit]
Hello, I got a notification that you reversed my edit of the RAM page. Why is that? I deleted some duplicate text, which seems like a no-brainer, as well as condensed some references by using reference names to shrink the reference list at the end. You didn't include any reason for doing so, which seems silly given that my edit actually simplifies things and eliminated redundant information.
You didn't include any reason for doing so, which seems silly given that my edit actually simplifies things and eliminated redundant information.
(see how stupid that looks?)
Appreciate some clarification, like adding notes on why you undid my revision. Thanks. Jonjames1986 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonjames1986: Strange that I did not include an edit summary with that. Your edit also did not include a summary so there's symmetry at least.
- I guess I was moving too fast this morning. I see now what you've done with the computerhistory1966 reference but the diffs are a bit difficult to read for these sorts of changes so I forgive myself.
- You also deleted "While it offered higher speeds than magnetic-core memory, bipolar DRAM could not compete with the lower price of the then dominant magnetic-core memory." from the body. I see that same phrase is in the lead. That's not necessarily a problem as the lead is supposed to summarize the body but if we're going to delete it from somewhere it should probably be deleted from the lead. A better solution might be to shorten, not delete, the statement in the lead. ~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company 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 02:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Skaters' articles[edit]
Hello, Kvng,
I see that you removed PROD tags from two articles about skating champions. There have been dozens of similar articles on junior champions in skating that have been PROD'd over the last two weeks and I don't see much difference between those that were deleted and the ones you "saved". We have an editor who is literally cleaning house of these articles, most of which were created 10 or 15 years ago where the skaters competed as teenagers (or younger) and then retired. I don't have a good understanding of notability in this area so I've just been trusting their judgment since they obviously have reviewed most of the articles in this category to select these to PROD. I get a little nervous when we are deleting so many articles in one particular category but, not knowing much about the sport, I also can't put in much a defense about individual articles.
But I thought I'd check in because these are unlikely to be the last that are PROD'd. Maybe you have already looked at the deleted ones, I don't know! Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've trusted Bgsu98 on this up to now. Today, motivated by so many prods, I finally got around to reading WP:NSKATE and deprodded some that appeared to meet the standard. It's possible I've made mistakes because I also know little about skating. I've asked for help at WP Skating. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Only one article that you deprodded should have been; as I stated, the ISU biography for Charlotte Clements did not show her gold medals at the British National Championships. All of the others you deprodded have gone straight to AFD. I stand by my work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Deprod[edit]
I was wondering where the merge proposal for Electoral history of Joel Anderson you made reference to the other day was? Or was your deprod itself the proposal? Iseult Δx parlez moi 00:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Question from Doolanshole (18:21, 8 May 2024)[edit]
Hello. Thanks for being a Wikipedia mentor. I am brand new to suggesting, editing, and improving Wiki articles. My main focus is on an article about a nonprofit I work for. I want to be transparent and helpful. I don't know where to begin. --Doolanshole (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)