User talk:Kvng

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: IEEE 802.10; Elder; Centre-Ouest Region; Double-ended synchronization; Bit synchronous operation; False clock; IEEE 802.1D; Crescent Nebula; LapLink cable; Synchronous circuit; Boucle du Mouhoun Region; Hauts-Bassins Region; Logical Link Control; Hub; Photograph; Sea Dragon; Frame slip; Network administrator; Reliable User Datagram Protocol

Cleanup: Point-to-Point Protocol; Stateful firewall; Cable modem
Merge: Border Gateway Protocol; Network topology; Audio mastering
Add Sources: Intermediate frequency; Wireless access point; Frame relay
Wikify: Uprock; University of Ouagadougou; Economy of Vietnam
Expand: Laser applications; Binaural beats; Adobe Type Manager

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Comparison of stackable switches

The article Comparison of stackable switches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article seems to be some editors POV and is Original Research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jez t e C 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are flirting with disaster by deleting my addition to Talk:GNU. Don't ever do that again. Stan (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. We were editing the page at the same time. I messed up the merge and did not notice. I apologize. I have restored your lost comment. --Kvng (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelogram steering linkage

You seem to be having difficulty finding this: Talk:Parallelogram_steering_linkage#Inaccuracies Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you insist on creating even more workload for editors, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parallelogram_steering_linkage Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more work but yours is not the cut-and-dried deletion WP:PROD is designed to handle. We don't delete articles just because they have errors - that's what editing is for. --Kvng (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article created on a topic that doesn't exist. If it had been intentional, rather than the incompetence of the creator, it would have been speedied under db-hoax. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network forensics

thanks! That's a lot nicer. On a related note - there is a general move to improve the whole subset of articles under Digital forensics; I see you're part of the networking wikiproject - Network forensics is an area I'm lacking experience in, is there anyone you know of in the Wikiproject with expertise in this area to help improve the article? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you post something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer networking --Kvng (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good idea --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual machine language

Greetings. I noticed you made this article by copying and pasting from Tech Briefs. Are you sure that publication is public domain? Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I wanted to create a stub with something. This is not fair use? --Kvng (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think copying and pasting an entire article is considered fair use, at least that's how I interpret Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_use. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the pointer. I wished you would have given me an opportunity to correct my mistake before you deleted the article. --Kvng (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and I didn't delete the article. I didn't even tag it. This message was my only action regarding the article. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any false accusation. I guess I can just recreate the article more better now. --Kvng (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TW

Twinkle is a good tool until the rollback feature is granted. Thanks--intelati^(Call) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's the ticket. Sorry for being dense. --Kvng (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan movies

"Give it some time." So just let it sit there and rot, or wish that the Article Fairy will sprinkle her freaking fairy dust and turn it into an FA overnight. Get real. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you sound bitter. --Kvng (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phase-locked loop and Phase detector

While I appreciate your edits, I have some trouble with splitting off details such as phase detectors. Generally, a phase detector can be used as a demodulator. The use of a phase detector in a phase locked loop can be more involved. Capture is a significant issue for a PLL but not a big issue for a PD. Handling saturation in a digital PD has context in a PLL but not in a PD. Lock detect doesn't make sense at PD.

PLLs are used in motor controls. A motor looks like an oscillator -- higher voltages cause higher RPM -- but I wouldn't expect a model of a motor in a section about oscillators.

Glrx (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. I need to give it a rest at the moment but I will go back and reread the three articles carefully and give consideration to your comments. I would not be at all offended if you went in tweaked things yourself. --Kvng (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

It's just a habit of mine to add a status of the document. It was meant as a courtesy to the reader so to speak, so I am not so sure about this one, but it's no big deal to me.

The definition at the top of protocol is not 100%. The word 'digital' is incorrect because there are undoubtebly analogue message formats in telecommunication protocol standards and the words 'in telecommunications' are a bit vague.
To solve this I would suggest to split up the page into 'telecommunication protocol standards' and 'networking protocols'. But I am at the moment very hesitant about this, because I noticed from the Discussion that there has been a merger with a protocol design page, some fragments I read seemed to suggest reasonable high quality, but when I arrived at the scene the page was virtually empty in regards to protocol design.

For the moment I think it would be wisest to first expand the pages TCP/IP model and Communication protocol, so I am boldly working my way down the page and make up my mind about all this later.

Cheers,--Jsoon eu (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hold off on making any splits until you've got your head and prose all the way around the subject. I've merged several articles where things started off looking differently but ending up coming back around to the same resting point. This process of getting your head around it includes taking into account the way that other editors see the material. Don't take it personally if someone swoops in and takes your work in a different direction. Remember to WP:AGF and consider the distinct possibility that they may have a better idea. --Kvng (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DHCP

Thanks for the edit on the DHCP article just now. I wasn't entirely happy with the text, but didn't know that it was possible to move some of the text into a note as you did. Abhayakara (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that I have been criticized for this approach. Some editors feel that if material is marginally notable or overly technical it should either be removed entirely or rewritten in a more accessible way and they have a point. I'm personally reluctant to delete the good works of others and I'm not always that good of a writer and so notes it is for me. --Kvng (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for recognizing my work on WP Computing! I feel like there's so much room for improvement in the computing articles and I'm excited to getting a broader base of editors working on them. I look forward to productive collaboration with you. --Pnm (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAR for Real-time Transport Protocol

I just posted a request at WT:GAR for someone to respond to your question at Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1. I hope when they do, you would take the time to finish the process. Thanks! --Pnm (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready to go. --Pnm (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the process so not sure how to go about finishing it. --Kvng (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention

Really?