Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi; I notice that in User:Kvng/common.css you have the CSS rule

.ambox-Orphan{display: inherit !important;}

- please note that there is an error in this (almost certainly copied from an old version of Template:Orphan#Visibility) which causes incorrect display in some browsers.

To check this, visit this page and look at the second bullet (the one that precedes the text "This article is an orphan ..."). If this bullet is not in the same alignment as the other four, but displaced to the left, you can fix it by altering inherit to table in the CSS rule mentioned earlier. If that doesn't work either, alter it to block.

Template:Orphan#Visibility has been amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

	Hello, Kvng. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Mountain Man (disambiguation), Kvng!

Wikipedia editor Missionedit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Missionedit's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

You're welcome. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Remote computer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Remote desktop software]]] allows a person to control a remote computer from another computer. There are many tools to

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am curious why you downgraded the Ducking article from class=C to class=Start? I generally apply Start to articles with one or two short paragraphs with either no refererences or a single reference. The Ducking article has 4 reasonable lenght paragraphs that describe ducking reasonably well and includes 4 references although 3 reference the same source.

Could the article use work? Yes. A bit of formatting perhaps. I am not sure if I agree with the discussion about ducking and side chain processing. But overall the article is reasonable. You might consider reverting your change. Robert.Harker (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The article had a stub template on it (which I removed) so I split the difference between Stub and its C rating. I generally expect C articles to have more than a lead. I'd be comfortable with either a C or Start. Feel free to adjust. ~Kvng (talk)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sid Griffin page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, Thank you for accepting my article as start-class. my question is: you made final edits before releasing, including eliminating content that was 'resume-like'. However, some of the material that you removed was his bibliography - papers, articles, presentations that he wrote that both reflects the contributions he's made towards furthering Sustainability, and further referentially substantiates the content included in the text body. While I agree with your decision to eliminate the list of awards, the bibliography seems to me to be completely legitimate. I've certainly seen bibliographies included in author's pages... I look forward to your comments. Rblasing (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I just left a message but forgot to include my username : Rblasing Rblasing (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rblasing: I've responded at Talk:Donald_Van_Norman_Roberts#Bibliography ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting me to slow my roll a bit. Perhaps I had a bit of elitism with the attitude that mediocre content isn't worthy and needs to be blown up. (this is often my attitude at AFDs as well)

The rest gets a little messier. Very little of it has good sources, but for much of it good sources do exist and there are some good sources sprinkled in. Any ideas on the best way to work out the rest practically speaking? CorporateM (Talk) 08:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps put the two articles (existing article and your user-space version) side-by-side and look at them section-by-section and decide whether to replace, add, delete or merge in each case. I haven't done this recently. I think most of my original objections to replacing had to do with the content that is now in List of Qualcomm Snapdragon devices. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I dislike List articles of that nature, which will inevitably rely almost completely on primary sources, be impossible to maintain, and serve as nothing more than a product directory, but especially on technical subjects where the community has a strong interest, I know that a list article like that is the will of the community. Just like there is nothing I can do about the droves of articles about trivial academics, reporters, etc. that are made up of primary sources, since no secondary sources exist.

Let me give it a fresh lookover side-by-side, then I'll just submit a Request Edit for a rip and replace for the rest, once I've double-checked it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added 13:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question about the holding area entries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, thanks for your reply to my inquiry on the Computing WikiProject page requesting that someone create a Wikipedia entry for Active Power. Out of curiosity, why are the examples of neutral third party sources I provided not substantial enough for an entry? Just trying to determine how I should proceed. We have numerous byline articles from trade publications and media outlets about the company and its products that I could share if those do not suffice. Any feedback/assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Also, any desire/interest on your part to create the page? Just wondering.

Thanks so much BBGdavidhamilton (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@BBGdavidhamilton: I think you misread my comment. I said, "the company does appear to meet notability requirements for companies." ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kvng: You are correct. Thanks so much and sorry for the mixup. Any recommendations on how I should proceed? I've reached out to editors on three WikiProject pages: Technology, Energy and Computing. I also posted a request for independent editor to create page on the the appropriate request page. As you mentioned, I could create a bare bones page for the company, but when they tried that a few years ago, it was deleted.

@BBGdavidhamilton: my suggestion was to try WP:AFC instead of just WP:BOLDly creating the article. As long as you observe WP:NPOV you should have a good chance of getting through. The best way to achieve WP:NPOV is to keep it very short and to the point. More can be added (independently) once the article reaches mainspace. Before proceeding please also consider that a Wikipedia presence is not always a good thing. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thanks so much for your help. It is much appreciated. We created a bare-bones version and are awaiting review. It's in my sandbox and on the Active_Power page? Should I have posted to both? BBGdavidhamilton (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attention deficit disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IQ and Global Inequality. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm writing to users who have used the "coordinates missing" template in the last year. Could you please use "coord missing" instead? While the "coordinates missing" template is a redirect to the "coord missing" template, and thus works fine in articles, using "coord missing" directly makes a number of automated bot workflows work better by eliminating the overhead of having to track down the uses of "coordinates missing" to eliminate the redirects. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:C/1980 E1. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Kvng, I thought you should know that this article, when nominated for DYK, was found to have significant copyright violations; the article has since been tagged. This wasn't noticed when you reviewed it at AfC, so there may need to be extra copyvio/close paraphrasing checking done at that stage. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the article about Hilda Nilsson. Any Help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
• instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've started a COIN discussion here about your edits to CobraNet. Please consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of placing a "Survey" subsection above the current section, and creating a new "Threaded discussion" subsection below where we can discuss the overall issues more easily? Thought I'd ask rather than being bold. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there's already enough threaded discussion on the topic in the other sections of the talk page. No need to fragment or repeat things. ~Kvng (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are the problems with not having a threaded discussion section: The individual responses fragment the survey and encourage repetition. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your collapsing relevant discussion [1] indicates that the time has come for a threaded discussion. Granted, it did get a off track. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it did. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CobraNet. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Stephen Cardot, 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, product, group, service or person 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 removed 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 ) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Why did you remove my edits for DSCP? You comments about it being rarely used and may confuse is exactly why I put it in there to list it somewhere accurately and cleanly. People will take from it what they need, if they only want to see the decimal values, I am pretty sure people can safely ignore the hex column.

I have been doing packet analysis and network architecture for 20+ years, Sniffer U trained and then some by and for the biggest companies in the world. Not bragging, just setting the credentials expectations here.

Hex, as with all of the hidden mathematics behind the screen, is confusing. That is why I know it would be helpful on Wikipedia. Every time I am sourcing a DSCP value from a network I built, everyone can verify the markings easier since it shows up in hexadecimal by default.

Just because you seem to think it may be confusing, you should not remove it for the sake of others. In fact, adding a single neatly typed column to a small table is anything but confusing. Please restore my table edit.

Thanks for your efforts, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from removing factual information from Wikipedia. There are no limits to the amount of details pages should contain.

Thanks for contacting me. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planet Nine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a previous prod in the history. What did I miss? —Ruud 18:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought COI accusations should be discussed, not quietly deleted. PROD is for uncomplicated deletions. ~Kvng (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - AFD'd now. Blythwood (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the extra work. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You recently dePRODed this article and suggested that I nominate it instead at AFD. I followed your suggestion; you can view the AFD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclusion (value and practice). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I must have worded this wrong - I proded, you un-proded, but there are no other sources available that I can find after a medium effort. So it's not that they aren't on the article, but that they do not seem to exist, and therefore notability is not supported.. But I will take to AfD and let others do some research that perhaps I cannot do. LaMona (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not mention your search for new sources in your PROD statement. Thanks for researching WP:BEFORE nominating. The source you found is evidence of notability and I did not mention that in my deprod edit comment. We do like to see multiple sources but one is a good start and an indication, in my opinion, that WP:AFD is the more appropriate venue for this. ~Kvng (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to remove a PROD tag from an article, please actually improve the article so other editors don't have to go through the WP:AFD process. Of course there might be sources in a magazine somewhere for All American Football, but if there are, Google books didn't show any, and nobody else has bothered to find any during the time the article was up.

So now I have to go through the long deletion process and find out if there are actually references, since you said there might be. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Also please don't take this as an insult to your ability, as you did improve some articles and are doing more for the deletions process than most people, so you can feel good about all your work.

I decided not to nominate the articles you removed PROD from because I have a backlog of other article's I'm working on, so I'll get to those first and then do the deletions in a few months when I'm done with that (if the next few months are kind to me). --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience at WP:AFD and I am only deprodding articles I feel are WP:LIKELY to survive AfD. Article quality and referencing are not a primary consideration at AfD so I don't feel I have an obligation to improve the articles I deprod. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you post something at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Proposed_deletion_patrolling or Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a lot of experience, but @Kiyoshiendo: is right. If you're going to de-PROD, at least add the sources you claim to have found on the talk page. You're treating editors like idiots when you claim that you have found sources when we have looked and found none because we have done WP:BEFORE, because that's part of the deal. And you're a liar when you say that you're deprodding because you feel they are LIKELY, because you stated in three prods that you found sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not intending to insult anyone. Going forward, if basing a deprod on sources I've found I will add the sources or search result to the article or talk pages. ~Kvng (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being so polite. Comfr (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I created a draft page for WNYC Studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WNYC_Studios), a podcast producer and distributor.

Because I work at New York Public Radio, I am concerned about conflict of interest. I am seeking your experienced eye in guiding the article into becoming something informative that adheres to all of Wikipedia's standards.

I understand that you are very busy, and appreciate any help or guidance you can provide.

Thank you.

Aprilkap (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. I will try to find some time to make some improvements. Please read WP:COI to understand Wikipedia conflict of interest policies. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've checked out WP:COI and believe that the WNYC Studios page meets the quality standards. I look forward to reading your improvements.

Aprilkap (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please consider submitting the article as it is for review. My contributions should not make or break this. You have a notable topic and a well-cited article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, I will move forward!.

Aprilkap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected Tri-ang Unity Dragster TT Bicycle to Lines Bros per your edit summary. I don't feel we need to go through AfD to get consensus on this. If it's reverted back, then I will seek a wider discussion. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kvng: I note your deprod of Otaran. Can you please provide some more information as to why please. I can find no even marginally reasonable primary or secondary sources, ie, no notability at all. It seems like a completely dead article in all aspects. I do not like articles being deleted and have been trying to rescue as many orphans as I can but this one has so far defeated me. Why do you think it should stay? Eno Lirpa (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eno Lirpa: did you see my edit comment, "deprod - seems to be a reasonable set index stub. orphan status not a problem for these types of articles." If you disagree, that's fine; Just nominate it for deletion and we'll work it out. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kvng: FYI: Someone else has now AfDed it. Eno Lirpa (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are a member of WP:SYSTEMS, could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding a BLP article on Georgiy Starostin? Dan56 (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kvng, for your information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullata (disambiguation). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You have replaced prod on Compositorial with a merge. I have completed the merge to Composite number, and made Compositorial a redirect. David Eppstein removed the section entirely from the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The page is now at RfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

At RfD the page was restored. We're now back to where we started. I'm fine with this outcome. This all started with a WP:PROD by 96.41.0.15. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a head's up, there's no merge discussion on Talk:Role-playing game or Talk:Bootleg role-playing games. Well, I should say that there are 2 previous merge discussions on Talk:Role-playing game but nothing about why you feel Bootleg role-playing games should get merged into Role-playing game. Thought you should know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a discussion. In the meantime, the banners alert readers that there may be additional information elsewhere on the topics. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kvng! As you can see, I was active as an editor quite some time ago, and have come back recently. Back in the day (2005ish), I participated in a number of AfD's and am looking to learn more about how standards have evolved. For RocketOwl, you said that you thought that the sources met GNG . . . we came to the same conclusion, but would love like a couple sentences about how you thought about it. I thought the sources were thin reviews that could have been written about a product that only one person ever bought -- if I were to claim it were notable, I wouldn't have a citation . . . how did you think of it? Thanks for the help . . . Chris vLS (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG is basically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article cites [2] and [3] and I judge this to meet those requirements. WP:CORPDEPTH further requires coverage in non-local sources. ~Kvng (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Got it . . . very helpful, thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In a deprod for Miss february 1990, you stated: "can't use WP:PROD for redirects. use WP:MFD." I just wanted to let you know that is incorrect. Redirects have a special forum called Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD), and that is where someone should take redirects to be deleted. Just letting you know in case you come across this in the future! Also pinging Anomalocaris so they're aware. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Glad you found the right venue. ~Kvng (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Miss february 1990. Since you had some involvement with the Miss february 1990 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, first off thanks for your work on de-orphaning. However, sorry but I undid your addition of Dynamic voltage restoration to the "See also" section of Electric power distribution. As tagged, that section was already overly long. I feel that the edit was not about improving Electric power distribution, and in fact made that article worse. Per guidelines at WP:ORPH, "If any related articles have a See also section, it is worth considering if the orphaned article may be listed there. However don't just add links there indiscriminately! Adding links to See also could be considered a quick 'easy way out' to de-orphaning an article, and may attract the wrong kind of attention from other editors if poor-quality or only tangentially-related articles are 'dumped' into the See also section of an article they worked hard on. They may be of mind to revert you and even accuse you of mindless link-spamming. So always keep overall quality in mind." --Cornellier (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing changes to Electric power distribution so I have copied everything to Talk:Electric_power_distribution#See_also. Please continue the discussion there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You de-PROD'ed this today, more or less at the eleventh hour, saying the PROD went up within minutes of the article's creation and that it needed time. It is true that I created the PROD when the article was 29 minutes old. But the author and I had extensive discussions about what he needed to do to improve the article, and over the last six days he chose to do nothing. Could you possibly undo your dePROD so that the PROD will have its original timestamp? If not, should I start a new PROD (giving him another week)? Or open an AfD? ubiquity (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I do read article talk pages before WP:DEPRODding so if you get into this situation again you might want to leave a note where future editors are more likely to find it. The ground rules for WP:PROD are that it can only be used once so once deprodded you need to use WP:AFD to delete. I don't feel inclined to try and bend the rules for this case because I see a new editor making an effort and don't want to WP:BITE. ~Kvng (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 08:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dim sum menus confuse me. Thanks for choosing for me. I like dumplings! ~Kvng (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Sun, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anna Sun and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Anna Sun during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Incoming wikilinks" have nothing to do with WP:GNG. I don't understand why you removed a prod tag from a non-notable subject without providing any WP:RS. Miniapolis 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My experience is that it is often possible to make a case for notability articles with a good number of incoming links. It is quite possible I'm proven wrong but I thought better to discuss it. ~Kvng (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You used the same logic to remove a prod tag for Forward in Faith North America. The "numerous" links you referenced are mostly not mainspace pages. The few that are are just from a list of links at the bottom of just a few related pages. Even if there were a lot, I'm not aware of any notability guidelines that says "incoming links" is a reason to keep a page. For what it's worth, four other editors have already voted to delete the page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. You have new messages at Kvng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You removed my proposed deletion for Christian Libertarianism without providing any discussion as to why it should not be deleted. As it says on the page for WP:Deletion Policy "If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page. For more information on this process, read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.". This deletion has been endorsed by another user, you removed the proposal without giving an in depth reason as to why. Jp16103 04:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My edit comment on the WP:DEPROD was "not an uncontroversial deletion". An uncontroversial deletion is where a WP:DEL-REASON clearly applies. The nom's stated reason for deletion was, "This article is HEAVILY skewed to a right wing perspective, uses incorrect definitions, and lacks reliable sources..." and I could not cleanly map this complaint to any WP:DEL-REASON. This doesn't mean that I necessarily support keeping this article, just that it needs to be deleted through WP:AFD, not WP:PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How should I move forward with this? Jp16103 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Decide which one or more of WP:DEL-REASON applies and follow the instructions at WP:GD. ~Kvng (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Kvng, I see you dePROD'd this article because there was a merger discussion. But this discussion has lasted TWO years and has involved ONE comment! Do you really think that there will be any future action at all on this proposal? Or are you proposing to do this merger? If so, please go ahead. If not, I will nominate the article for deletion.
You also dePROD'd the article Victor Crowley because of a "merger discussion" but when I went to the page where the merger discussion was supposed to be, there was no discussion at all. Please do not dePROD articles unless you are willing to improve them or advance a merger yourself. Right now, they are two badly written articles that I doubt anyone will spend time improving (unless you decide to which would be great). But there is no reason to keep a bad article just because there is a remote chance some editor MIGHT come along, at some point in the future, and decide to put the effort into improving it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you nominate these for deletion I would expect the result to be Merge. But you shouldn't nominate as per WP:BEFORE point C4. So why not contribute to the merge discussions or WP:BOLDly perform the merges yourself? ~Kvng (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You deprodded Indiepay on the grounds it "deserv[ing] time to develop". The PROD rationale was based on notability. I wanted to point out that that's a non sequitur. The notability of a topic, or lack thereof, is independent of the content of an article. (I don't disagree with it being deprodded on the grounds that it may have at least borderline notability, based on my own review of sources on the Web.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not communicate clearly or acted hastily. No reason is actually required to WP:DEPROD. If you want to discuss this further, it is probably most productive to do it at WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Also just noticed that the article had been previously nominated for deletion. This makes it ineligible for WP:PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The article hadn't been PRODded before. The diff your link points to is the removal of a speedy deletion tag. Those are separate processes. A PROD nomination on notability grounds, for example, often follows the removal of an A7 speedy deletion template for the reason that even if the topic may not be notable, the article does credibly indicate significance.

As for not needing a reason to dePROD, well ... It's true. But if you don't want to become known as an editor who holds other people's time and effort in disregard (by forcing them to go through the motions of a slam-dunk AFD when it shouldn't have been necessary, for example), then you might consider it incumbent on you to have a pertinent reason for removing a PROD tag. Doesn't that make sense? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROD is for articles whose deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. Deletion was already contested by Graeme Bartlett so it is hard to make an argument that this PROD could be expected to be uncontroversial. I do try to give clear deprod reasons and often add sources to the article's talk page when doing so. I'm sorry I did not meet your expectations here.

I am pretty experienced editor so please leave it to me to manage my reputation. I would guess that less than half the articles that I've deprodded and then were subsequently WP:AFDed resulted in a delete. Most have not (yet?) been brought to WP:AFD and some of those have since received some significant improvements. I stand by my work. ~Kvng (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary: It's hard to make an argument that finding that an article doesn't meet one criterion for speedy deletion, it follows that every grounds that might qualify an article for deletion of any kind is suddenly controversial.

Do you really stand by that subset of your "work" that amounts to dePRODding articles for no reason? That's what I was addressing.

All of us who are experienced can benefit from feedback from other experienced editors. I often do. No need to be smug. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The deprod reason I originally gave was, "article created less than a week ago, deserves time to develop". I always give a reason when I deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on procedure: A PROD was absolutely not inappropriate here. A previous declined CSD has no influence whatsoever on this. In the present case, it just means that the person declining the CSD did not think the article was promotional enough for G11. That is not the same thing as contesting deletion for any other reason. A PROD would be inappropriate if an earlier PROD had been declined or if there had been a previous AfD. PROD is a useful process (that's why we have it) and saves a lot of time that productive people would otherwise have to spend at AfD. I agree with Largoplazo that "deserves more time" is a rather weak reason to dePROD. Sure, the rules say that this is what you can do, but you shouldn't be surprised if something like that irritates people. Your talk page actually has several such irritated messages, even though it looks like the vast majority of articles that you dePRODded are subsequently kept if they actually go to AfD. That suggests that you would save people (including yourself) a lot of irritation if you could give a somewhat more detailed reason when dePRODding articles. Just my 2c. --Randykitty (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and thanks for straightening me out on procedural points. The WP:PRODPATROL project is semiactive and there's a 7-day timeframe we're working to. Therefore, I don't always spend as much time reviewing these things as I should. I assure that lack of time cuts both ways; sometimes I skip an entry if a lot of research would be required, sometimes I miss something and deprod fail to produce a detailed explanation.

I am getting a lot of feedback on this work. In the context of WP culture, I don't feel it has been hostile. I encounter some wrong assumptions about PROD. I get quiet thanks on my deprod edits from other editors who I assume were uncomfortable challenging a proposed deletion.

PROD is a useful process but I think it is broken if there is not adequate oversight. I have been unable to verify that the administrators that perform the deletions are performing that oversight - there is no list of administrator declined PRODs and aside from WP:REFUND there is no way to audit once a PROD goes through. I'm currently deprodding about a quarter of the proposals and, so far, very few of those have been subsequently deleted. I think something needs to be fixed here but I'm still getting a feel for the problem. Thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that much of your editing activity involves removing PROD tags from articles. I think that you should not be deprodding articles unless you are willing to improve the weaknesses of the articles. In many cases, all deprodding does is lead an editor to create an AfD page and move the deletion discussion to an already overburdened area of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia since 2008. I have been WP:PRODPATROLing for a few weeks now. My experience so far is:

• In some cases a deprod results in AfD and then deletion
• In some cases a deprodded article is brought to AfD and is kept
• In many cases I replace a prod with a redirect or propose a merge
• In most cases the deprodded article is never brought to AfD

As far as burden goes. I think WP:PRODPATROL has much less participation than WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Liz: here. Unless you are willing to stick around and improve these articles, or take them to AfD yourself, these massive bouts of deprodding seem excessive and not helpful. Looking at your recent contribs, it's a lot of deprodding with no evidence I can see offhand of you doing any improvements on the articles. It looks driveby to me. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Where does this idea that a deprodder is obligated to improve deprodded articles come from? ~Kvng (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you at least checked on articles that you had deprodded. You deprodded Rise Up and Salute the Sun with the edit summary "deprod - actually, it is not yet clear where the author's article is headed. redirecting there is a reasonable solution if it survives". If you didn't think the article could stand on its own then you should have redirected it. If the target was deleted at AFD (as it was) then the redirect would soon follow. Instead we're left with an article that can't be prodded again and has to be taken to AFD, and which you seem to have forgotten about. Meters (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that it had already been deprodded once before, so the reason for your deprod should have simply been that it was ineligible. Still, I suggest that you rethink your reasoning on some of your deprods. Meters (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I have been trying to be more aggressive about redirecting articles with unpromising content. Technically these are deprods followed by bold redirect. Thanks for the nudge on this. ~Kvng (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that it seemed to have fallen through the cracks, and it seemed an odd way to do things. Meters (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're deprodding completely unsourced articles without improving them. This is not helpful to the 'pedia. A number of us have brought this up to you now. I don't think these mass deprods help the project and you are annoying those of us who actually work to improve the articles. The sole improvement I saw was you added a bare URL to a mediocre source. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're annoyed. I am not aware of any requirement to make improvements when deprodding. You acknowledge that I have made occasional improvements. When I am unable to make improvements directly to the articles, I frequently convert articles into redirects or add sources and commentary to talk pages. I beleive these edits are more productive and beneficial to Wikipedia than outright deletion. Whether or not deprodding helps or hurts Wikipedia touches on a contentious issue (see Deletionism and Inclusionism). I'm not sure further discussion is going to get us anywhere. But, if you want to discuss this further, I suggest you post something at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion and I will certainly participate. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not say you "have made occasional improvements." I noted you added one bare URL to a mediocre source. I think it should concern you that multiple experienced editors are bringing this up with you directly. Yes, since all you do is reference deltionism vs inclusionism every single time, and refuse to reconsider your behaviour, this is unfortunately probably going to wind up involving more editors (in addition to those who's time you've already wasted). - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not interested in discussing this (semi) privately with you in this manner. I have started a discussion. Please consider joining that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by verifiable? The text an form of uranium with disitinct physcial properties like no other element. isn't serious.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean I verified that it exists and the article is not some sort of hoax. ~Kvng (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty ridiculous. Any assessment of a subject's notability requires a degree of subjectivity – should we just not delete any articles? I assume you'll be contributing to the deletion discussion you've now forced me to open. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I see above that this is something others have already addressed above and you appear to have ignored, so this is probably a waste of time. Have fun. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@IgnorantArmies: I hope I am not ignoring these criticisms. I have opened a discussion to try and work through them. Please consider participating. Calling my deprod "ridiculous" is not particularly constructive. What specifically are you objecting to? ~Kvng (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing the problem with my prod summary, I'll modify them so that from now on they provide a link to my user talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)