Jump to content

User talk:Kvng

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ErinD22 (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 28 November 2017 (→00:57:00, 22 November 2017 review of submission by ErinD22). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moon Breath Beat

Permission to remove my Moon Breath Beat page granted. Espngeek (talk)

Edit summaries

Hey Kvng. Thanks for helping out at the Teahouse. Just... next time it might not be the best... public relations to use choice words in edit summaries there. Gotta keep in mind that the Teahouse has literally more page watchers than Canada, and a lot of them are new folks, and especially young folks, or old folks. No hurt feelings over it. Just something to be aware of. GMGtalk 14:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I wasn't trying to be crude. It's a common idiom that expresses the emotion of the situation. Idioms can be hard though. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

Hey, just wanted to give a small reminder about checking drafts for copyright violations before reviewing them. If you don't have it installed already, I suggest using User:The Earwig/copyvios.js to put a link to the copyvios search. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've made this mistake in the past and don't seem to have learned from it. I have the script installed. I just need to remember to use it especially after being away from AfC for a while. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: You may be amused to learn that I have done penance for my sin by doing a CV check on all submissions in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old. ~Kvng (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. Maybe a bit extreme, but I suppose ultimately useful. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:36, 4 November 2017 review of submission by Ungathering


In terms of the multiple articles from the Los Angeles Times being considered "one source" or "multiple sources," see Multiple Sources in Talk:Notability. The consensus seems to be that multiple newspaper articles over a period of years by different authors are considered multiple sources, not one source. However, I still see your point about not relying completely on the Los Angeles Times. Therefore I have added sources from other newspapers, from a book, and from two doctoral dissertations. I have also removed the reference to the book published by the Santa Susana Press because according to Wikipedia guidelines it is not considered a neutral source.

I would also make the argument that Ralph Prator has inherent notability as the founding president of a major or significant university. San Fernando Valley State College, which is now California State University, Northridge (CSUN), is one of the largest universities in the United States as measured by number of students. After UCLA, it is the second largest university in Southern California, a region that encompasses a population of over 20 million people. It is distinguished in a number of different ways, including having one of the top film schools and one of the best music programs in the country (per The Hollywood Reporter), one of the best business schools (per the Princeton Review), ranks among the nation's Top 5 comprehensive universities in terms of the number of graduates who go on to earn doctorates in research and the sciences (per the National Science Foundation), ranks #11 in the United States in terms of the number of minority students, and ranks 5th in the United States for its impact on the improved earning power and economic prospects of its graduates (per CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index). In addition, CSUN contributes almost $2 billion to the local and state economy through the creation of jobs and the training of graduates who become new employees in the workforce.

Ungathering (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering kvng, under criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC, wouldn't he be notable? ("6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") Galobtter (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promising thought. I have copied this suggestion and responded in more detail at Draft talk:Ralph Prator#WP:NACADEMIC. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source should I look for?

Hello,I'm Omega68537.Thanks for your advices for my article.I want to show the notability better in my article,and improve the other parts of my article.What kinds of sources(I know which sources are reliable and which are not) should I look for to show the notability better?And more advices about the other parts of my article Draft:Xu Geyang,please!Thanks. Omega68537 13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega68537 (talk • contribs)

Omega68537 you need to find reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng:I deleted some "unreliable" sources of my article.These sources are from website"Toutiao today".Are they unreliable indeed?I am not very sure.Sources with significant coverage will show the notability naturally,right?Which sources have significant coverage?

But after I read WP:MUSICBIO,I doubt that Xu Geyang might not meet the standard of notability of Wikipedia.Really?If Xu Geyang doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO indeed,what should I do?Should I give up for this article until Xu Geyang meets it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega68537 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Omega68537 13:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Omega68537: You can set up a Google alert for yourself to notify you when any new sources appear and improve the article and resubmit when they do. You can create or improve the article on the Chinese Wikipedia. You can skip the AfC process and create the article yourself. The risk here is that it is promptly deleted which makes it more difficult to get approved later. You can keep resubmitting to AfC hoping or requesting you find a reviewer who is able to evaluate the Chinese sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng:I'm a Chinese,so that some thing you said is difficult for me.For example,I can't set Google alert because Google is now completely unavailable in China.I know it's more sensible to create my article on Chinese Wikipedia,but I can't entry Chinese Wikipedia.And what should I do now to increace the probability of being accepted?It may be too late to resubmit my article when Xu Geyang meets WP:MUSICBIO definitely.

~Omega68537(talk) 11:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Zeta India

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 Draft:Zeta India, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

David J. Neff page fixes

Request on 20:23:06, 9 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Austinable


Thank you for your review, Kvng. I made immediate changes to the portion of David J. Neff's page that you found to have been copied from its referenced source. Please let me know if this fixes the problem (it's in the careers section where the source in question is referenced): Early in his career, he served as director of web and interactive strategy for the American Cancer Society High Plains Division, where he led a team in developing SharingHope.TV, the American Cancer Society’s first user-generated website for those affected by cancer. The program was first created to support ACS’s Relay For Life in 2008 and allowed posting of pictures and videos for early adopters of the technology.


Austinable (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Austinable: Thank you for improving your draft. The next step is to resubmit it and wait for another reviewer to look at it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:51, 12 November 2017 review of submission by Jasonperillo


Hello and thank you for reviewing my submission on High Watch Recovery Center.

Your comment references my use of a NY Times article and close paraphrasing. The article is used as a source for one sentence which can only be stated in so many ways and includes a citation. The remainder of the content comes from other sources and is cited.

I am not clear on what I need to do to improve this and I am looking for any help you can offer.

Many thanks!

Jason

Jasonperillo (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonperillo: this report shows similarities between your draft and sources.
Your draft says, "Folson wanted to deed them the property to be used as a retreat but since Wilson did not believe that A.A. should own property, a separate governing board comprised of A.A. members was established to oversee the operation of the farm."
The source says, "She wanted to deed them the property to be used as a retreat, Mr. Steele said. But since Mr. Wilson did not believe that A.A. should own property, a separate governing board was set up to oversee the operation of the farm,"
While there are some minor wording changes, the structure of these two statements is substantially the same and so appears to be close paraphrasing. This is possibly a coincidence but we take potential copyright violations seriously so the appearance of paraphrasing is a problem. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Kvng:

Thank you! When I see it in writing it makes perfect sense. I have changed that paragraph to read as follows below. Please let me know if you think it is sufficient.

Folson wanted to give the property to Alcoholics Anonymous so that Wilson and Mann could use the farm as a retreat center for alcoholics. Wilson, though, was opposed to the idea of A.A. owning property. As a result, a separate board of directors comprised of A.A. members was established to oversee management of the retreat.

Jasonperillo (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:22, 14 November 2017 review of submission by Lina.Fidlerova


Hello, I'm the author of the article about Martin Solc, which was declined for it appeared to be taken from the profile of Mr. Solc on the websites of International Bar Association. I honestly cannot see the reason for it, I went through the article and the profile on the websites and I didn't copy and paste the content and didn't use the same wording, there are only the same information about Mr. Solc's education, career and functions within the IBA and I cannot change them, they are facts. I used links and citations everywhere I could so I really do not know how to change the article for it to be approved.

Thank you for your advice.

Lina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lina.Fidlerova (talk • contribs)

@Lina.Fidlerova: this report shows that the phrases, "a leading Czech expert in corporate law, M&A and restructuring" and "elected Lawyer of the Year in Commercial Law in 2007 and 2011 by the Lawyer of the Year competition organised by the Czech Bar Association and epravo.cz" appear in the draft and the source. This is possibly a coincidence but we take potential copyright violations seriously so the appearance of copying is a problem. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:16:18, 14 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Roccopx


Thank you for your review. I edited the article. It is difficult to find a structure for the history of a company. I also added the reference to the history page.

Roccopx (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

opinion required

Hi Kvng, thank you for your revision of Marco Alverà’s bio. Do you think it could be ready for the main namespace? Please also consider the discussion that is currently idle in my talk page. Do you think that at this point we might resort to the {{Help me}} template? Anna Sai (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Sai: I'm afraid the only review I did on this draft was a mechanical check for copyright violations and I found no problems there. Reviewers are WP:VOLUNTEERS and the Wikipedia community is currently not giving a lot of love to paid submissions and other situations with potential WP:COIs. It may take some additional time for a reviewer to gather up the courage to review this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For doing copyvio checks on AfC submissions. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ProgrammingGeek! ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Draft:Deepak Singh

An article that you have been involved in editing—Draft:Deepak Singh—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. #1997kB 05:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:58, 18 November 2017 review of submission by Russellanderson


Good evening,

I hope all is well and that you have had a good week.

From your review I understand why the article was declined. The material that was copied has now been deleted. I hope this resolves the problem and aids in the approval of this submission.

I hope you have a good evening.

Kind regards,

Russell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russellanderson (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:36, 19 November 2017 review of submission by Arun G Nair


Submission declined on 18 November 2017 by Kvng because of the reason "This submission appears to be taken from http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/aug/04/Air-Marshal-hailing-from-Thiruvananthapuram-takes-over-as-AOP-1503514.html." 1. This was not a copyrighted content of "New Indian Express". They copied it from "http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=148067"anyway I have removed the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun G Nair (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:I Fall In Love Too Easily (Album)

Hello, I saw that the following text now appears in I Fall In Love Too Easily's page: "Comment: Copyvio check passed ~Kvng (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)." Can you tell me what does it mean? Are you one of the administrators that has to accept the submission? Thank you. Keewii (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keewii, it just means that Kvng has checked to make sure that your draft does not have any copyrighted material on it. They are a draft reviewer, but there's no guarantee that they specifically will be the one reviewing the page (we have over 150 reviewers total). Primefac (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Primefac, Thank you. I just got notice that the submission has been accepted, so it's all good. Keewii (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Monero (cryptocurrency)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monero (cryptocurrency). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Generalised beam theory has been accepted

Generalised beam theory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng&oldid=812476082"