Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

• Dragalog 502305 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alessandro Mocellin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning! Could you please give more specific details about how to improve this article? In the previous check I was asked to add reliable sources in English, and that's what I did (UNESCO, publications): what other characteristics are needed? Thank you. Dragalog 502305 (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dragalog 502305: L293D declined the submission because it did not demonstrate notability of the subject. The suggestion to add English sources makes it easier for us to review and approve submissions here on the English version of Wikipedia but English sources are not an absolute requirement. The characteristics we are looking for to establish notability are outlined at WP:42. Also since the subject here is an academic and performer, you may wish to check whether some of the conditions mentioned in WP:NPROF or WP:NMUSIC apply. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• AbhishekTPM (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Everstone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The data that is claimed copy pasted is from the brand's website. It's the brand's property and they own the data

Thanks

AbhishekTPM (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Area code 664 (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnecessary disambiguation per WP:TWODABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted 9 days ago, and is going strong. Fifty-two editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished one so far, with more to come.

Discussions are underway about how to upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too) on the WikiProject page.

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   03:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Konsta Sirvio (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Road maintenance planning ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Road maintenance is physical work related to restoring the road condition. Road maintenance does not itself include the planning. In the past, road maintenance planning was based on ad-hoc dexision-making, but nowadays data collection on the road condition and use with the help of advanced algorithms it is possible to plan road maintenance in such a way that overall costs to the whole society get minimised. Since roads are the most valuable assets in most countries, the road sector is not very advanced in using novel technologies and potential benefits of more accurate maintenance planning are huge, I kindly ask you to reconsider having a separate page for road maintenance planning.

Konsta Sirvio (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, you pinged me in the Template:FourTildes discussion saying I had made a good case. But I have not contributed to that discussion, are you sure you did not mean to post in the one about scientists named after units? SpinningSpark 17:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. That draft was actually created by User:Pholz, not me. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I PRODded Big in Alaska rather than just redirect it is because there is no mention of it in the Jesus Jones article, there is zero coverage in reliable sources, and the link provided on the page went to a fansite. The redirect becomes pointless because the target offers no info on the release nor is there any reliable info out there that suggests it should be added. Thanks. --00:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: it appears I didn't gave your, "Not mentioned in main article" comment due weight. I do find reliable evidence that it exists so it's not a slam-dunk delete as a redirect but feel free to nominate it for deletion. It is on my watchlist and I will participate in the discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you deprodded the above article on the basis that there is significant coverage. Can you please provide examples of that? I can't find anything, but clearly you did, so please share so I can update and fix the article and we can avoid a needless AfD. Thanks! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: I added a couple example links on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, even if he played at the tournament (being a squad member is not enough), youth international caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 08:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hyu678 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Craig Reynolds (drummer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm trying to create this page for my favorite drummer and basing it off of other drummers I like. I am using the same references as the other pages (artist profiles and interviews in print and online), and I'm making sure not to use the subjects own website, but it keeps getting rejected for having no notable references, even though I am using the exact same reference websites in most cases.

Thanks for any help. It is my first submission so maybe I'm doing something totally wrong!

Hyu678 (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hyu678 of the references you've added since I last looked, [1] looks like a potentially WP:RELIABLE source. If you can find one or two more like this, we should be able to accept the draft as an article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hyu678 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Craig Reynolds (drummer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

thank you for your help, i've added much more sources from other rock and metal magazines, hopefully this now works. thanks for you help, eager to learn more!

Hyu678 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

== talk:--Lidia Pita (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Vera Felicidade

Thanks for your time and effort to review my entry for Vera Felicidade ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vera_Felicidade ). I'm not sure this is the place to answer the message your left me. Please visit my talk page with my answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lidia_Pita. Thanks ˜˜˜˜

Thanks a lot for your answer and help. I have resubmitted the article because I thought this was the proceedings, hope it's Ok. Best wishes. ~User:Lidia Pita (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia Pita (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

--Lidia Pita (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Kvng, please, could you help me with this article? The editor Legacypac ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lidia_Pita#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Vera_Felicidade_%28May_20%29 ) suggested I'm a COI editor, but I'm not, I'm not paid to write the article. I'm an anthropologist and I know the work and the importance of the author subject of this article, which has an important place is history of Psychology in Brasil and this is the reason to sugest this entry. I don't know exactly where to answer Legacypac... but will try. Thanks in advance. --Lidia Pita (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lidia Pita: Legacypac actually just requested that you declare any COI. If you have no COI, you have nothing to declare. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

--Lidia Pita (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) @Kvng, thanks a lot for your quick reply --Lidia Pita (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a shit edit - if you're going to de-PROD an article, you should be explaining precisely why you think it's notable. The next stage is to go to AfD, if you provide evidence or a rationale for de-PRODing an article, it gives a potential nominator more information on which assess whether they should proceed to AfD or not. Nick (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick: no need for hostility. I left an explanation on the article's talk page. Did you miss that? ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Probably meets WP:NTV" is precisely the reason I think your edit is shit. If you think the article is notable, explain why you think it's notable, that way you may help someone avoid a needless AfD nomination. Nick (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick: From WP:NTV, Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations.... From the article, Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo is a television series that originally aired on STAR Plus channel, and later was syndicated on Disney Channel India. Do you need any more help connecting the dots here? ~Kvng (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Nick's point was that it should be clear in the edit summary why the PROD was removed - an editor shouldn't have to go hunting or read through four pages to even start to see why the page was deprodded. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

My edit comment was WP:DEPROD see talk for details. I would not consider clicking to the talk page to be a hunt. ~Kvng (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm just confused as to why couldn't you say that and provide useful information to the person who PRODed the article. Nick (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it is necessary for me to give notability tutorials in my DEPROD comments. PRODers are welcome to contact me here on my talk page. If they don't start the conversation with an insult, I'll be happy to help. ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you think incorrectly. This is a collaborative project, we expect you to help your other editors out by collaborating and being helpful. Fuck, that's why I'm here, I'm trying to help you be a more thoughtful editor. I doubt my time this evening has been well spent though, but whatever. Nick (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your approach to encouraging me to be helpful has not been very effective here. Your "shitty" lead in did not leave us a lot of room for a productive exchange. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah well, stop making shit edits and we'll get on just fine then. Nick (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WTF? I hope you're done now. ~Kvng (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Good grief the page meets WP:TVSHOW what is the problem here. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

...my little entry at the Wikiproject Broadcast engineering and etc. task force talk page, and act as you see fit? Thanks in advance! Jeh (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   23:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated this at AfD. I feel it fails WP:NORG as none of the coverage is significant. I'm pretty amazed that a sweet shop would be considered notable. Lyndaship (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

From what I gathered it is not a single shop but multiple. ~Kvng (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Why'd you revert my proposed deletion? Because some user found some trashy websites 7 years ago? Tell me any of those are reliable sources... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. The deletion was contested so it is clearly not uncontroversial. Feel free to take it to WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the page was prodded back in 2011, so while I personally think there should be a five-year limit on "this has been prodded before", the second prod wasn't really valid anyway. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Kvng:@Primefac: I really didn't think either of you (or anyone) would find this utterly ridiculous nonsense to be valid. I don't think an AfD would be "controversial", so much that I'd want to CSD that article. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Never said that I thought the page was valid. I was merely commenting that the second PROD was invalid because there was a previous one from seven years ago. I got burned the same way a few days ago, and now I too am sitting through a pointless AFD because a fellow admin was sticking too much to the rules. I'm not necessarily going to hold it against them, but I do feel it was an opportune time for some IAR. Primefac (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Utterly ridiculous nonsense" and "Old silly internet-related phenomenon" are not valid or good reasons to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wisemenandthepainters (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Omar El Abd ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Kvng,

Thank you for reviewing my article, I changed the references and fixed some issues according to your comments. Would appreciate it if you take another look now. Thank you, Have a great day.

Wisemenandthepainters (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wisemenandthepainters: thanks for putting work into this. To help maintain the quality and consistency of our reviews, I do not re-review drafts. Another reviewer will be along in the next week or two to have another look. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng:

Thank you for your promt reply. Hopefully the changes i made would make a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisemenandthepainters (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wisemenandthepainters: before resubmitting, please check that the sources you added meet our WP:RS requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng:

Thank you again for your reply, There are a lot of sources and information when googling omrr, i picked the ones relevant to the article text, for example Cairo Scene, Ma3azef, Son of Marketing, Tiny Mix Tapes, Irregular Crates are reliable and trusted sources, with a long history especially in this genre. I'll read what you suggested now and make sure it complies.

Thank you again for your support.

@Wisemenandthepainters: it's OK to leave what you already have there but you need to include at least two that have significant coverage of Omar El Abd and meet WP:RS. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—EBU R128—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mr X ^☎️ 01:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kvng In April you approved my article "Acoustic Highway" for submission under the "Stubs" class. I asked on the article page for help in getting a picture of the album cover approved for publication in Wikipedia. I have had no response. I see that other album articles are using pictures of the album covers, so I'm assuming there is a way. In the past when I tried posting an album cover, I was told it was copyright infringement. Can you make any suggestions about how to go about this?

Also, can you make any suggestions on how I can improve upon this article? Anything, you suggest will be greatly appreciated!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cheryl Fullerton: I assume this is allowed somehow per WP:FAIRUSE policy. Maybe ask for help at WT:ALBUMS. ~Kvng (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aspiration".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  » Shadowowl | talk 11:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth and Shadowowl: This is not actually my draft also it looks like this was deleted an hour after I was notified here. That doesn't seem like adequate warning and warning given to the wrong editor. Is this standard procedure for G13 or did something go wrong here? ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kvng: The message came here probably because you submitted (not sure) or moved it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: do you know who the original author was and do you know whether they received notification? Do you have any comment on the 1 hr from warning to deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

They did not recieve notification, as the script thought the author was you. If you want it back, go to WP:REFUND. -- » Shadowowl | talk 15:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: I see now that what was deleted here was not the draft but a redirect to the draft that was left when I moved it. The draft still exists as Draft:Aspiration (company). Hopefully the actual author, Wikidelrey, gets notified and gets reasonable time to respond when this goes up for G13. ~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

HasteurBot used to notify people that a article will be g13'ed soon. That stopped.-- » Shadowowl | talk 16:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: these notifications are wrong then. Authors won't have time to edit to avoid deletion as described here. The notification should talk about WP:REFUND instead. ~Kvng (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a Twinkle template which I can't find. -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Kvng, please don't request a REFUND on a G13 simply because you feel that the process is wrong. The bot used to notify contributors, but a speedy deletion is just that - there is every possibility that a user will not see the notification (be it G13, G12, or A1) before the page is deleted. A REFUND request purely for the sake of it is disruptive. If the creator of the page does want the page back, they are welcome to ask for a REFUND themselves. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll do nothing of the sort. The mention of WP:REFUND in this discussion is in the context of that's what this short-notice message should suggest as a recourse. ~Kvng (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread/misunderstood your comment. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Casini. Worldbruce (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vitamin B3. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll create one later when I get home. Kosmosi (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here which needs people with TCP/IP knowledge! Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng -- I just wanted to check in because I'm headed to Wikimania in a few days, and I'm hoping to meet some AfC reviewers. I'm wondering if you'll be there. Let me know! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't be there. ~Kvng (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng -- I wanted to get in touch with you because we've recently deployed changes to the New Pages Feed in Test Wiki -- AfC drafts are in there now, and more changes are coming in the next few days. Test Wiki is going to be the place where reviewers can try out changes before they go to English Wikipedia. Since you helped so much in the early part of this process, we would value your opinion on how the work is turning out. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): thanks for the alert. I am not spending much time on Wikipedia this week. I will try to have a look later next week. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added some additional content and sources. Please have a look. Thank you. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your latest talk page comments. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,
Regarding notability: "Any biography: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Heinrich von Schroeter was elevated to German nobility by Emperor Wilhelm II., I'd say that falls under the criteria. I have also added that he was a honorary commander of the Royal Victorian Order. I hope you reconsider the draft. --JvonS (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded at Draft talk:Heinrich von Schroeter ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, I moved Bezalel (company) back to draft space at Draft:Bezalel (company) because I didn't think the article's sourcing was strong enough. I explained my reasoning at User talk:Tamaragordon91#Bezalel (company) moved to draftspace, and I'm notifying you because you accepted the draft. If you have any concerns regarding this page move, please let me know and give me a ping. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 08:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I don't think that was the right thing to do. This is not a slam-dunk delete or I assume you would have nominated it for deletion. It is borderline. It had been rejected a number of times at AfC and now that it is back at AfC, I expect that pattern will continue. I felt it was time to end the runaround and accept it and find out whether or not it would survive WP:AFD. I request that if you do not think it is ready for mainspace, please restore and nominate it for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I've undone the move of Bezalel (company) to draft space, and nominated it for deletion. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bezalel (company). Thanks. — Newslinger talk 02:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind review of the Associativity-based routing article. I have further improved on the article in providing additional sources (please see article). Also, I think the related protocol extension work must be added since they are closely related to the article. It was previously removed without explanation. The previous industry writeup can be removed since there are no direct sources to this protocol. But the TRW work has a formal source (report) on this protocol, which I have found on the web and added to it. Hope you and others will agree with me on making the article more complete. Thank you. Abr1993 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help. We should continue article-development-related discussion at Talk:Associativity-based routing. ~Kvng (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anesthesiologist. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kvng,

Three WP:RELIABLE sources have been listed on the talk page for Draft:Jamie Stillman. Thank you for your help!

EarthQuakerDev (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Jamie Stillman ~Kvng (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The article Wilhelm Krüger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It appears that this is a fake article, because that person never existed : he was confused with Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger at the time of his creation. It has just been deleted from French Wikipedia where it had been copied from English Wikipedia. Please see that discussion page : [2]. Best regards. Gkml

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gkml (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just started two related pages, Draft:Honest Mum (company) and Draft:Vicki Psarias (author). It will take me several days to complete them. At present they are totally unsuitable for review and I did not intend to submit them for review. They are very rough drafts. I definitely do not represent myself as a reliable source; I am an autoconfirmed editor. I could prepare the pages in sandbox, but I thought as long as I didn't formally submit them, they would stay in Draft status (unless I let too much time go by). Maybe you could tell me what I did wrong that caused you to assume I had submitted completed pages. Thanks for your guidance.JCvP 03:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jvpwiki:, Draft:Vicki Psarias was submitted some months ago and then again more recently. It was rejected both times - the first time was by me. There should be no move to delete these unless:

1. There are copyright violations or other legally uncool material in the drafts
2. The drafts are abandoned (i.e. 6 months elapse with no changes)
3. You establish a pattern, intentional or not, of resubmitting with no improvements between submissions

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Samsung Electronics and Harman International Industries templates are optional appeared in the articles of Harman brands.Ridwan97 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Dear Kvng,

You recently reviewed and rejected the submission Draft:Localization Protected Quantum Order (LPQO) on the grounds that neologisms are not accepted as Wikipedia entries and because you were unable to find widespread coverage of the topic outside the original paper. As an expert on this subject matter, I urge you to reconsider.

LPQO is a recently introduced concept in physics that outlines how one should define and understand phases of matter for systems out-of-equilibrium, an idea as fundamental as long-standing definitions for equilibrium phases of matter. Besides being of fundamental importance, this concept has already found widespread application --- for example, the recent discovery of "time crystals", a new exotic phase of matter, is an example of LPQO. As such, given the foundational nature of this idea, I strongly believe that a colloquial Wikipedia page on this topic will be of great use to the physics community and budding physics enthusiasts. I am happy to refer you to leading physics professors at top institutions if you wish to consult them about this.

You also mention that you were unable to find coverage of this topic outside the original paper. However, the original paper has been cited over 250 times, and these citations certainly count as "independent, reliable published sources" making use of the concept of LPQO. Can you explain why these citations are insufficient to meet the criterion of "coverage"?

In general, physicists routinely coin new words, "neologisms", to define new concepts (some recent examples, all with Wikipedia pages, include "Topological Order", "Quantum Hall Effect", "Fracton" to name a few). These concepts then find their way into the standard canon of physics knowledge and help develop various applications. Wikipedia pages explaining these concepts in a more accessible manner serve a useful purpose both to the general public and students in the field. In particular, given the generally uneven coverage of physics topics in Wikipedia, it is my strong belief, shared by several in the physics community, that Wikipedia should encourage the publication of such articles when experts in the field take the time to draft them.

Thank you for your consideration, Vkhemani16 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)VKhemani16

Please see WP:42. We want to see at least two reliable sources covering the subject. I didn't find exact mention of LPQO in any other reliable sources including the papers that cite the original. Did I make a mistake with Google Scholar?

If you want coverage of topics like this in Wikipedia, first encourage others to write other papers and articles about them. Wikipedia does not want to be the driver of these developments. We don't want to be the first to cover a topic. See WP:TOOSOON for details and discussion.

As a procedural matter, I do not usually rereview drafts unless I'm convinced I've overlooked something. You seem to be confirming that there's only one paper so that doesn't seem to be the case here. If you want a second opinion, just resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take another look in a few weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. No, I am certainly not confirming that there is only one paper that mentions LPQO. There may have been been a mistake with how you did your Google Scholar search, but several of the 250+ citing articles use the exact phrase. You mentioned the need for at least two other independent sources using this term. Here are three published articles (by authors other than the authors of the original paper) which use the exact phrase:

1. Parameswaran and Vasseur, Many-Body Localization, Symmetry and Topology, Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol 81, Number 8 (2018) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aac9ed/meta

2. Abanin and Papic, Recent Progress in Many Body Localization, Annaler der physik Volume 529 Issue 7 (2017) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.201700169

3. Kjall, Bardarson, Pollmann, Many Body Localization in a Disodered Quantum Ising Chain, Physical Review Letters 113, 10724 (2014) https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.107204

The third reference is behind a paywall, but you can see that the exact phrase in the abstract itself which should be publicly accessible. Vkhemani16 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16

I have copied this discussion and response on the draft's talk page. If necessary, please continue discussion there. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying in case you're not following the draft talk page: Just so I understand your threshold better, can I get you to take a look at the term "eigenstate order" on Google Scholar? Is that in widespread enough use? If so, I am happy to switch the title of the article to it. The term LPQO is technically more precise but it is - in actual applications - exactly the same idea as "eigenstate order". If "eigenstate order" also does not pass the bar, I will pass on creating this entry and add the material to related entries elsewhere. Vkhemani16 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16

See de:Serge Maschewski and pl:Serge Maschewski ---in particular, the German Wikipedia is stricter than the English Wikipedia, so if it is notable for them, it should also be notable for us. I resubmitted the article right away in hopes you will approve it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I'm not familiar with how things go on the German Wikipedia. I applied the WP:42 criteria we use on the English Wikipedia. I don't usually review a draft more than once so you'll need to wait for another reviewer to have another look at this now that you've resubmitted it. It would be helpful if you could, in the meantime, identify the 2 or 3 reliable sources with significant coverage that establish notability of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Since your last comment days ago, the deletion discussion has been relisted. Did you reach a conclusion about this article's admissibility?--Phso2 (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Phso2: looks like this is still evolving. Others have gone deeper than I did. I have the discussion on my watchlist and will monitor and post if I develop feelings. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Bitey box. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Bitey box redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: this looks like a proposal to delete my snarky redirect. What is to become of the template itself? ~Kvng (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It was moved but not properly redirected. I'm trying to fix that Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for approving my draft page. I'm impressed by the dedication and hard work of the Wikipedia community, and hope I can continue to contribute. Logophile59 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to follow your instructions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yudhanjaya_Wijeratne to list three sources on that article's talk page w.r.t. notability. Done. Have a look?

Atsrilanka (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 82.173.172.107 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear kvng,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. As requested, I have suggested WP:THREE sources in the draft's talk page.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of further assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiuCixin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ephixa. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been trying for quite a bit to figure out what compelled you to accept the above article, particularly in it's current form. Am I missing something? What compelling sources are there? Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: did you see my comments at Talk:Mahogany_Sessions? ~Kvng (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kvng, than you for reviewing this draft new article. However, your comment on the review appears to contradict the rejection of the article, and this leaves me confused as to what I must do to overcome this? Advice welcome. Fig (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fig wright: I have replied at Draft talk:Areo Magazine ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Concord Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm just wondering if you saw something here that I don't. This article only has four references, all of which are just mentions in passing which support the "collaborated with" statement. The rest of the article is completely unsourced, including any possible claims of notability. I'm prepared to take this to AfD, but since you accepted it at AfC I thought I should ask you first. Any ideas? Bradv🍁 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Only 4 references was good enough for me. All appear to be reliable sources. I assume your concern is whether there is WP:SIGCOV. On rereview, that looks debatable. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, yes there are 4 references, all of which are somewhat reliable. But the problem remains - they are just mentions in passing, and they don't support the content of the article. Other than that one sentence, the article is completely unsourced. But thank you for your reply - I will take this to AfD. Bradv🍁 15:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi dear Kng, I have not created this Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveh_Afagh

Kaveh Afag had my Wikipedia account and my email hacked. And the things written here are not true. He is not an actor. Not a famous singer. He is a normal singer in Iran. Even all links are also Persian and there is no English link. How could it be approved?

Please checked this subject & remove it. Thanks a lot King regards Sahar410 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sahar410: we can delete articles on request of the author. I don't think that exactly applies in this case since there have been substantial contributions by other editors since the article was last edited by your account. There are other options and I can help you though this but we have to first establish a valid reason why this article should not be on Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Kng dear Kng I just succeeded to return my wiki account to myself that he hacked. Additionally, based on Wikipedia rules, this page can not be verified. There are no sources that confirm the testimony and indicate reputation. The links are all Persian He is also not an actress and not a famous singer in Iran. I ask you to delete this page please: Based on Wikipedia  : Notability (music) , the notability is not valid , Also based on Wikipedia: Proof, Wikipedia: Referrals : this article not referenced to reliable sources and can not be verified, & also based on Wikipedia: the removal policy, this article is eligible for removal. Special thanks King regardsSahar410 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sahar410: I have initiated a deletion discussion about this article. You are welcome to participate. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone on IRC mentioned a comment you had made recently on a draft page, and it led me to find a few more, regarding references and "too many" on a draft (examples 1 and 2). Less than 20 references on a draft is not "too much", and unless there is clear BOMBARD issues it's not "too hard" to see if the references demonstrate notability. If you think 20 references is too much to check, please just skip on to another draft; comments such as these are unhelpful and I have removed those that I have found. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Are these comments from other reviewers or from authors? I've had good discussions with authors after leaving these messages. This has lead to better understanding of our notability requirements and good progress on advancing drafts. I can point you to some examples if you like.

I hope I'm not giving the impression that these drafts have too many references. I have not asked anyone to remove references. Here's a copy of the message:

Thank you for including references in your submission. The large number of references provided makes this difficult to review. Please help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation of the text written is that "there are too many references, so it's too difficult to review" (emphasis added). And if I, as an AFC reviewer, think this, I imagine a few page-creators might think this as well. As I said before, 20 references (or fewer) isn't an impossible hurdle, and if anything I find having that many references gives a really good idea of how notable the subject may be. Of course, I know this all comes down to personal preference (and I know that I've skipped drafts in the past with multiple dozens of refs) I guess I just wanted to say that the wording could be improved.

I have no problem with you asking the draft editors to say which refs they think are the most appropriate, but I also wonder if that will end up being a waste of time; many times on IRC we'll be chatting with new editors and what they think are "reliable" sources are garbage, while they might overlook some good ones. But again, it can't hurt to do so - if anything it will offer the option of increased dialogue and understanding/learning. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will delete the second sentence from the message. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I can add my unsolicited $0.02 here, I'd suggest that the comments section at AfC should be used for tailored advice to the author of the draft on how best to improve their article, rather than a template or a canned message. The purpose of AfC is ultimately to help good-faith editors get their draft ready for mainspace, and the comments should serve that purpose rather than add to the bureaucracy and red-tape that new editors are often faced with. I know we all have our own favourite expressions, but in my experience sticking to simple, personal questions or advice usually yields the best results.

I would also suggest that if a draft is overwhelmed with references, consider Googling the subject yourself to see if there is any in-depth coverage that establishes notability, and leave specific advice to that effect. Bradv🍁 16:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Yes, I do my own WP:BEFORE work on many back-of-the-queue drafts but I am trying to engage authors a bit with this approach and teach a man to fish. Processing drafts is only one of the purposes of AfC another is to educate and help develop new editors. Do you have a suggestion for a better way to start this conversation? The conversation, once started, happens on the draft's talk page but many of our AfC authors are not initially familiar with how a talk page or watchlist or pings work so I think best to start on the draft page itself. ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for rolling back your edits on Envelope (music). I was testing a rollback bug and it required me to roll back edits made by another logged in editor, so you became my unwitting test subject. Apologies for the confusion (and I should have done this in a different way in the first place). I restored your edits immediately afterwards. Popcornduff (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kvng. Wrt your revert, I left my comments in the article's discussion page. Regards --Dipa1965 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this review of a source saying the info is not in the citation given. At a later point a bot assessed the link was dead but found an archive URL. I checked the archive and found it does support the statement so I removed the "not in citation" bit.

When a link is dead it's good to check if there are copies on either the Wayback Machine, Archive.is, Webcitation.org, or Megalodon.jp. If any are found, I would suggest changing the link out, and perhaps create additional archives of the same site on the other services.

Anyhow, happy editing! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I thought this was just linking to the homepage because that's where you land if you click it. I didn't look closely at the URL. ~Kvng (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! A lot of times links don't explicitly 404 but instead redirect to the homepage. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know, just didn't notice in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and help. It is good to be off the ground now in terms of my first article contribution! --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@WikiGeoffrey: congratulations! ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I made comments on Draft talk:Harald Geisler that may be of interest to you. I would appreciate any feed-back that can help with my concerns as well as possibly getting an article created. Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kvng, I have added sources and resubmitted the draft today. Would you please have a look at it and let me know if it's right? Very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Philippe49730: thanks for the improvements. What do you think are the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject? ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kvng, thank you very much for your answer. I understand the problem and as Jacques Halbert have worked and lived both in the US and in France, there are dozens of journalists, artists, academics articles in many different publications. I have tried to give a honest representation of this. Huge medias like The New York Times, Consulate general of France and Artforum are often considered more reliable sources than smaller medias, reason why I added them and I would choose them to establish notability of Jacques Halbert. --Philippe49730 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Philippe49730: What do you think are the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject?

I think the New York times, Artforum and the Consulate general of France articles are perfectly establishing notability of the subject. --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have replied at Draft talk:Jacques Halbert ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Me too. All my very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I had somehow missed your comments on this article's talk page. I have now incorporated your suggestions and updated the article and talk page, if you could please have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Localization_Protected_Quantum_Order RegardsVkhemani16 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16

Hi, just checking in again about this. I put a lot of work into this article, and would really appreciate your feedback about whether you think it is now suitable for publication.Vkhemani16 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Vkhemani16

Hi Kvng - I provided the three resources for reviewers on the talk page of Shmuel Goldin as per your suggestion. Thanks. Lcurchack (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply at Draft talk:Shmuel Goldin ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,
I have provided the WP:THREE best sources as per your request, please let me know your feedback.
Thanks NicoleKhaw (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply at Draft talk:Ziad Alexandre Hayek ~Kvng (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I have listed three best sources of notability on my draft of the Racelle Kooy page which I will also post below. What else can I do to speed up the review process? Thanks!

Three best sources that establish notability of the subject:

1."Racelle Kooy Biography". Green Party of Canada, 2019.
2."Party Leaders Celebrate Nomination of Victoria Green Candidate Racelle Kooy". Cision, February 25, 2019.
3."Indigenous woman acclaimed for Greens in Victoria". APTN National News, March 19, 2019.

Thank you. I have responded at Draft talk:Racelle Kooy

Sorry about the backlog of unreviewed articles. We need more volunteers to help work through it. ~Kvng (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)