Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.1.186 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake, you caught me. --Kvng (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for recently assessing and classifying the articles for WP:COMP. --trevj (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection I'd like to add that, although I can understand the historical RISC iX article may be considered as low importance, RISC OS is a current OS, undergoing much development on new ARM Cortex-A8 hardware. It is currently a minority platform, but all the same, shouldn't it be considered as top importance? Would you please be willing to reassess? Thanks. --trevj (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I did give Low ratings to most of the articles but Mid to RISC OS so we're thinking in terms of the same relative importance. I don't think RISC OS deserves more than a High. As a point of reference, Amiga is rated High. I don't see this as being more important. If RISC OS were rated High, then some of the others need to come up to Mid. With my understanding of the overall importance of this topic area, I'm reluctant to do that. If this were a history project, I'd look at things differently. --Kvng (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, as the person who requested who the assessment, I have no issues with the importance rating. An increase in importance might be able to be established if we could track down lots of references to it's real world importance, but in comparison to other OSes and the like, no it's not up there. Thanks for your effort in rating the articles.--Flibble (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining things. I certainly wouldn't expect its importance rating to affect that of other articles, which have already been assessed. I agree that relative importance is the issue. I suppose it's down to current usage and number/availability of supported platforms, to be judged by the people with assessment experience such as yourself. ----trevj (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was personally surprised when I started doing ratings as to how few articles merit Top importance or B-Class ratings. This is a statement about Wikipedia's high standards and not a statement about the absolute quality or importance of Wikipedia articles with the lower ratings. --Kvng (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned as much on another talk page. The importance rating of an article does nothing to stop you raising the quality of it and afterall it's up to the editing public to pick and choose what to work on. Incidentally, after a fair bit of effort, I modified the computing assessment template so that articles in the RISC OS project can have an independent importance rating. This will let us prioritise things within the project easily, without trampling over the general Computing importance level.--Flibble (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my talk page, I reverted your contribution to this article because (a) for clarity, it's best if each sentence contains one fact. By introducing an extra term (QPPM) it makes comprehension harder - the reader has to read further down to find out the difference between a PPM and QPPM and then go back to the first sentence to find out what either of them do! The difference between the two types is a subtle one and we don't need to introduce it in the first sentence. (b) I think your suggestion that PPMs are mainly used to prevent clipping/overload is wrong. That is one of several uses - they are really at least as much for programme balance in broadcast production, and for (e.g.) comparison of signal levels at different points in a broadcast chain.--Harumphy (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

since you care about making articles accessible and (to me) draw the right conclusions about what to do at matrix multiplication: why don't you just go for it—just add an introductory section with a particular example? (Later, the lead shcould be improved, but typically this is the hardest bit, in my experience.) Be bold! Kudos, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I assure you I am not shy. I will get to it. The problems in matrix multiplication are endemic to so many of the math articles. I think it makes sense to discuss to improve awareness. --Kvng (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary at analog-to-digital converter, the reason that the editor bolded digital number is that he has also redirected the term to that article. I have opened a discussion on this. SpinningSpark 17:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response on the Talk:Linear filter page in case you aren't watching. Interferometrist (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blacklisted site. They fail the criteria of WP:RS and their links are often spammed by theior authors who are getting paid to generate more page views. Specific articles can be whitelisted if they are judged individually to be reliable. Per WP:ELNEVER "editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted.". So I removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed links from WP:EL and in cursory search did not find examiner.com listed. Where exactly are you seeing it? --Kvng (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Where am I seeing it? On the blacklist. [1] If you can't find it on this link, I don't know what to tell you. Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why you are questioning this. Apparently, you think I'm making it up. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF I'm trying to learn. I was at first not aware that there was a blacklist. From WP:EL I found a couple lists including the one you point out above. I guess I don't understand how this works because I don't find "examiner" anywhere on it. --Kvng (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• AGF? How do you NOT see examiner on the list I gave you the link too? Oh wait, please tell me that the fact that everything start with b confused you? It will look exactly like this \bexaminer\.com\b Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's there now. It is not about \b. I still don't know what went wrong. I don't know how my search missed it before. I wouldn't have bothered you I had found it. Sorry for the trouble. --Kvng (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you search the talk archives, you'll also see a number of discussions about keeping it on the list. Essentially, they aren't reliable, absolutely no editorial oversight and a history of writers spamming their own links to try to get more money are the biggest reasons. Sorry if I came off wrong.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the merge proposal you made at Icon bar, have you been following the discussion? Thanks. --trevj (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. This fell off my watchlist for some reason. --Kvng (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I have made a start on the basic skinny that you suggested. Since I wanted something for the Simple English version of Wikipedia, I drafted it there. Please have a look: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle

I would change the style a little. Sometimes it is hard to write anything in Simple English without using low-frequency words, so for the present version I will continue working on making the article less idiomatically correct but easier for people with a learner's ability to read.

I also have to go over the article for accuracy. I wrote from memory, which is not always the most secure methodology. Please let me know what you think. By the way, I used the matrix mechanics entryway to the uncertainty principle because it was so stunningly direct and the basic mathematical ideas are not too far removed from high school math. P0M (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for advice regarding this edit at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Fatigue, as I don't have a lot of experience with this type of page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for noticing. If you have not seen it, I started playing around with {{Ethernet}} which might become a major effort that has just begun. Thinking about some possible merges too as mentioned in Talk:Ethernet. Many articles, but need some clean up as usual. W Nowicki (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Livewire Badge.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you had removed my link to mind theatre page on the binaural recording page. Thats a valid link to a quality binaual recording. please dont do this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The news boy31 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete the link I moved it into a new Recordings sub-section. --Kvng (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer about wp:prod. I'll use it next time a similar case comes up. I'm a little new to this. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No biggie. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Kvng (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You undid too little vandalism on the DSD page. I tried to undo more but there is some conflicting edit and I don't understand what that's about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.28.110 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and user cautioned. Thanks. --Kvng (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you feel those references can be used to improve the article, please do it. Leaving a list of references in the talk page doesn't help establish its notability and isn't going to save it from deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:DigitalMedia --Kvng (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

--Kiaitutoi (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete or merge because pages are not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LES 953 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You've pasted that into several of your AfDs too. Can't miss it. --Kvng (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks for bringing this up; you have a good point. I try to be receptive to arguments based on merit and am also a fan of "Fiddler on the Roof" :-). As you probably know, I run into this often perhaps because I am slowly rewriting articles that were written in present and futute tense back in, say, 2006 about some great "new" technology that was going to take over the world by 2009 but did not. So what I was looking for was a word to describe the common practice that had gone before this. For example, plain old telephone service vs. modern digital service. In that case, maybe just not piping it would be best since this seems to have evolved from an in-joke to an accepted term with its own article. I dislike calling things "next generation" vs. "current" since that will be out of date too when the generation after that comes long shortly. Perhaps "conventional" might be the best term in most cases? Although that changes too, e.g. what is called "conventional" agriculture has really just been used in the past 60 years or so - for thousands of years before that it was all organic. But anyway, certainly now that you mention it, "traditional" implies more something that is continuing to go on, while technology inherently changes so the previous "new" becomes "old". The word "legacy" is often used, although that gives it a somewhat positive spin. So maybe "previously common" or "formerly usual" or even "20th century" or somesuch might also be more appropriate. I think "original" might also be more specific, such as when talking about Ethernet such as when people think it still means CSMA/CD for example. I will look at some specific cases. W Nowicki (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A specific case is recent edits to Dynamic synchronous transfer mode. I did not revert your change from ordinary to traditional but I wanted to. --Kvng (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was mostly offline for over a week. That article has multiple problems anyway. Reading it again, in fact, "traditional" is clearly wrong. DTM seems to be the historical technology now, while SDH is still in use (at least installed base). Especially when DTM was sold, there is no evidence it had significant market share so I tried to indicate SDH was the "common" one which sounds more accurate. Both these obscure protocols as well as main stream ones need work so feel free to make whatever changes are needed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kvng. I would like to ask for reverting the deletion of Body Sensor Networks wiki page.

We have been conducting research on Body Sensor Networks for nearly ten years and would like to write an article about the field. The editing of the article has just been started. However, it seems that the site is always redirected to Body Area Network while we are editing the page, and it has been deleted subsequently.

BSN and BAN are actually different and often mistakenly used. Body Sensor Network (BSN) refers to both the infrastructure and applications of the network, just similar to Wireless Sensor Network (WSN), while Body Area Network (BAN) refers to only the network infrastructure similar to Local Area Network (LAN) or Personal Area Network (PAN).

The term BSN also includes the use of implantable sensors and which is a different wireless connectivity to those commonly used in BAN. BSN also covers several network topologies than that described on the existing BAN page.

We are new to wikipedia, so please advise what can we do to keep the Body Sensor Networks wiki page. We are willing to edit the content, if it is not agree with wikipedia's policies. As an expert and a strong supporter in the field, we would like to set this straight.

The Body Sensor Networks page created in 2007 was not done by us. We have recently modified the page as we saw that it was mistakenly redirected to the BAN page. As we started to work on the page, the initial references are from the inventor of the term, but we were in the process of adding more information from other researchers in the community.

Could you please have a look and help in reconsidering the revert the deletion decision of the recently added Body Sensor Networks page?

Thank you very much in advance.

I am not an administrator and cannot undelete the page. You need to start by contacting Black Kite (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page. He/she will want a justification for changing the decision to delete. Please first study WP:AFD and the deletion discussion and try to identify exactly where things went wrong. --Kvng (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I have tried to contact Black Kite (talk · contribs). However, he post on his talk page that he is on a break and "If you are here to query an administrative action of mine, it will be better to contact another admin." Could you please advise who else can I contact to resolve this issue? Thank you very much again for your help.

this might be what you're looking for. --Kvng (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The article Ethernet you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ethernet for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Universal Plug and Play, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Network computing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on adding the {done} template in article Talk pages for archiving sections. I know that Talk pages need care and cleanup, and {{done}} is a much nicer way than deleting sections! Is there a way for me to grab a list of all my article Talk edits that day so I may perform the same revision (restore Deleted and add {{done}}? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Click on My Contributions at the top of any Wikipedia page. On results page choose "Talk" in Namespace dropdown and press Search button. --Kvng (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to encourage expansion of these aspects of the article due to the undue weight on switches. To make this more clear, I've marked the sections expand. Any thoughts, help? Widefox (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have listed yourself as a participant at Wikiproject Computing Assessment, as being interested in evaluating computing-related articles. There is a discussion right now at Talk:Apple media events about the article Apple media events. The questions are: 1) Does the article Apple media events fall under Wikiproject Computing; and if so, 2) What Importance (Top, High, Mid, Low) should it be assigned? Your participation is appreciated! Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Kvng (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I saw your latest note at the above-referenced discussion, and it got me to thinking. There's two discussions at hand here. The first is whether the content of the two articles should be merged. I don't think there's actually any objection to that. I certainly don't oppose that -- indeed, I support it enthusiastically. The second is whether the target article on advertising is an appropriate merge target for an article on media events. I strongly oppose this, as media events and advertising are entirely separate elements of the Promotional mix. To that end, I've proposed a compromise in the discussion, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited PASS device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breathing apparatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverted a edit to Sound because of WP:OVERLINK. I don't think that edit should have been reverted because it is in keeping with the style of the article. The edit wikilinked the first occurrence of "density", which is what the article does elsewhere for the first occurrence of a term, such as "pressure" and "temperature", and so seems appropriate. --MichiHenning (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. On review my revert was not in line with the style of the article. I do think the whole article suffers from WP:OVERLINK however. I have reverted my revert. --Kvng (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I agree with you on the over-linking in general. I'll put something on the talk page. --MichiHenning (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like you might have indicated that the update to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_time_protocol#Security_concerns that I made back in Jan 2011 where I listed the RFCs that show no updates due to protocol security issues or the lack of many CERT advisories on the software is still considered Original Research. If you would be so kind as to let me know what needs to be done to warrant removing of the OR flag, I'd appreciate it. Harlan Stenn —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

You need to find a reliable source that has done the research you describe or something similar - the crux of WP:OR is that we as editors should not be doing this sort of research or asking our readers to. We can also remove the sentence and your note entirely and let the point rest on the following sentence and its reference. --Kvng (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, what's a reliable source? I did this, and anybody who looks at RFCs can easily see that some are updated because of security revisions and the NTP RFCs have had no such revisions. Similarly, anybody can easily search CERT advisories to see how many have been issued against various pieces of software, including NTP. My concern about this is that there have been FUDmongers who have attempted some baseless (and IMO self-serving) smearing on this point, and simply removing this sentence weakens the impact of this section for what seems to be to be no real benefit. Harlan Stenn PS - I have some ideas on reliable sources - checking with them now to see if they're up for it.

I think all your questions are answered in WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:CITE. Sorry to throw the book at you. I'm not contesting any of the statements on security in the article I just am concerned that they come across as opinions of random Wikipedia editors rather than as authoritative statements. --Kvng (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why did you feel like you needed to leave a rude response? SL93 (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I merely tagged the article as being uncategorized. If there's a merger proposal active, it was initiated by somebody else. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread the version history. Several Times (talk · contribs) was the one who added the merge tag. --Kvng (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, we've all done that kind of thing sometimes... Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foreskin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please return Farm to Market Road 1450 to its correct naming, as this is a Proper title for the highway, set by the Texas Department of Transportation. Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Kvng (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated! 25or6to4 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I read your new-and-improved lede in the Ethernet article. Good job! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was an easy fix compared to my previous work getting the facts straight in history and standardization sections. --Kvng (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but I'd never said anything before and figured it was high time to do so. Have a good weekend!! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

See Hertz. The image is back, but I edited it to try to make it less visually distracting and annoying. Did I succeed? --Steve (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. --Kvng (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you changed the casing of Path MTU for some but not all of the content here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_MTU_Discovery As a result, the casing is inconsistent in the article. I believe it should be thus: Path MTU (as in RFC 1981), but did not mess with your edit; will leave to you to address. Thanks! Fiona-bc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona-bc (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are removing SPB from the heading - Then should we also remove BPDU, RSTP, PVST PVST+ VSTP MSTP from the headings? - Geek2003 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading some of our Wikipedia policies, trying to find a clear understanding of the use of initials in a heading. I did see that we should not use the initials in the title of a page, but I have not found a policy that states one way or the other for section headings. These are the policy pages that I have been reading: Wikipedia:Acronyms, Acronym and initialism. Do you know of a policy page that helps to point us to the correct use of these? - Geek2003 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

MOS:HEADINGS indicates that the recommendations for titles applies to headings. --Kvng (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than PRODding Introduction to cloud computing, as you did there, I have decided to redirect it into cloud computing. You may need to remove the PROD tag there, since I keep it due to doubts. Thank you. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 12:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:AppleTalk Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blekko. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with this wikilink? Feed forward (control) looked like exactly the right target article to me. SpinningSpark 19:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feed forward (control) is a Control system topic. Comb filter is a Signal processing topic. Definitely not exactly the right target. Perhaps it would do in a pinch. We're in no pinch; the wiki links is not critical because feedforward is prominently and thoroughly explained in the article. --Kvng (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Photosynthesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you replied on Date windowing's AfD and you seem to have a good handle on WP policies around deletion. I was wondering if you would mind taking a little time helping me resolve a disagreement I've been having on ShadowJams' talk page. He seems unwilling to discuss anything with me - his only responses to me have been a cursory defense of diffs I gave as evidence of his miconduct, but he refuses to respond to my questions about why he proposed Date windowing for a speedy deletion, why he proposed an AfD without discussing with me, and my questions about his actions in failing to respond to other users who attempt to communicate with him.

I would very much appreciate it if you could help resolve this disagreement. Thanks, Fresheneesz (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he wants to talk to you and he's not obligated to. Do you need help understanding the (reasonable) advice he's posted? --Kvng (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! Jeremey Bentham (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kvng. Thanks for your message and I appreciate the pointers. Bremand (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steel (web browser), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skyfire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You recently added tags to a reference I provided on the Nuclear power page, You suggest that 'Barium' is not mentioned in the reference, however, please look at the CHART and note that contrary to your edit, barium is in fact mentioned, see the reference-

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionE.htm

I would appreciate an explanation why you attached these tags, and would also like you to remove your tag.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Its the WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) that its not updating any importance ratings, plus I can't do any updates for the bot because "update project data" is disabled. :( See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#WP 1.0 bot temporarily down 2012-8-7 for details. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International System of Units. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you came up with "dubious" It's a key point in the reference. You did refer to the reference before your edit?? OH you didn't. Sloppy work!!!! Please add it back. Wa3frp (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the fifth (last) bullet point in the description and is collocated with an outdated discussion of half-duplex LANs. So yeah, it's in the ref. But no, it's not central. And yes, it is a dubious statement. The ref is from 2005. We're not required to include outdated information when we use a citation. -—Kvng 20:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the WAN talk page. Please continue the discussion there if necessary. -—Kvng 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

More than a year ago, you participated in a discussion at User talk:LES 953 about his insufficient research for AFDs. I'd advise you to look at User:Gigs/Avaya Pushers and comment in the related WP:AN discussion if you have any input. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have a new member. I had edited RSVP page, but I was not logged. However, RSVP is not a transport protocol, I think that this concept would be clear in wikipedia page. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge07 italian (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BMW N54. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! You've improved the articles you've done this for. Thanks for having the courage to do so. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

[2] -—Kvng 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to merge sound operator, discuss it or just do it. There are 12,000 articles backlogged at the proposed merge page—I see no reason to put one more in the hopeless queue. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not hopeless. I am in favor of leaving the merge banners up indefinitely when no decision has been made. Longstanding banners are useful for both editors and readers:

1. They let editors know there have been no objection to the merge raised and that it is safe to WP:BEBOLD
2. They gives readers a prominent link to another article where the material is also covered

-—Kvng 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Prank? -—Kvng 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I added that particular image because related articles of FM and PM had a similar image that was meant to provide a quick look at what that particular modulation actually does . For uniformity and a similar look-and-feel to related pages i added the image .

Sorry to anyone who was offended by my edit .

The.ever.kid (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no offense taken. I reverted your edit because it gave the article two images describing the same thing. Maybe you'd like to replace the current image with the new one. -—Kvng 17:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You Sould probably also edit the Frequency Modulation page .

The.ever.kid (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done -—Kvng 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for this edit it. It isnt exactly related to the header but because i hardly know any of the active wikipedians so i just wanted to ask you seeing your promt replies and edits

• First, How is it that you guys are so prompt with your replys , edits/activity. Are you logged in all the time ? if not then how O.o
• Secondly, I've seen these barnstar things on wikipedia , and i came across a dispute resolver barnstar . what are these disputes ?

and how do people resolve them.

• Finally, What is a Wikipedian Mentor ? like i saw Misty saying that Tim riley was her mentor or something what does that suppose to mean ?

The.ever.kid (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, no problem with your edits. We encourage WP:BOLD edits. Answers below. -—Kvng 22:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• I get e-mail when someone modifies this talk page. You can enable that on the User profile tab of Special:Preferences. Otherwise I visit Wikipedia once a day or as needed if I'm doing research.
• You're probably looking for WP:DISPUTE. I don't have any personal experience with that process and intend to keep it that way.
• WP:MENTOR describes the mentoring program. Again, no personal experience with this but perhaps I should...

I only just figured out how talk pages work - I should have read your tutorial link sooner :-p Florix g (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out. Welcome again! -—Kvng 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you reverted my recent edit of Loudness war, citing "Accessibility issues with animated GIF". You also refer to the "talk page", but I see no comment of yours there, nor on my own user talk page. Therefore, I have added my response to Talk:Loudness_war#Waveform_images. Please reply. Thanks! —Per Hedetun (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving things half done. Life interrupted WP this morning :) I have now completed my post in Talk:Loudness_war#Waveform_images. -—Kvng 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fails WP:N is a strong argument. Combined with the point that a merger would be unsuitable (it'd created crazy undue emphasis within the article), redirecting is really the only outcome left. WilyD 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my role as an admin closing an AfD is to decide whether there's consensus to delete. I think you're assuming something that you're not stating directly that's making it hard for me to follow your thinking.

Okay, lemme try. Policies represent a base strong consensus. They are the voice of hundreds (or thousands!) of Wikipedians. As such, they carry a lot of weight in discussions. So in the discussion in question, the headcount was balanced, but the policy-basis was strongly tilted towards delete. Both headcount and strength of argument are important to determining a consensus. One being strongly one-sided and the other balanced is typically enough for consensus. WilyD 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to best respond - on my talk page or yours. I don't know what it is I'm not saying. I'm just trying to understand an AfD decision that's appears to be out of step with how I've seen previous AfDs resolved. You're basically saying that policy overrides opinions of individual editors. My issue with this is that we, as editors participating in AfD, are attempting to interpret and apply policy and the weighting should be part of the discussion, not part of the final resolution. If you have an important point to make about the importance of WP:N in comparison to other factors, I would think you would like to should jump into the AfD discussion to make that point, not shut down the AfD with a final word on it. -—Kvng 17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Either place is fine. Both strength of argument and headcount are important; neither overrides the other. If I had a point to make, I'd comment rather than close, sure. But I didn't make any point (nor have one to make); I merely assessed the discussion. WilyD 07:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to go back and review your closing statement for this AfD. By my reading you made a couple of points that were not clearly expressed in the preceding discussion. -—Kvng 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. WilyD 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think you added some comments to sources used in Link aggregation and by that setting them as "missing ureliable resources". I might agree with the statement "Specific statistics must come from a specific source" and thus have no problems with that.

And the statement if most switches use the L2 or L3 hash is open for discussion; with the amount of multi-layer switches I woulnd't be able to say if they use the L2 hash or L3 hash as implementations tend to use as "hash": based on source/destination MAC or IP address" - which can be both L2 or L3 (including link aggregation implementations on teaming and virtual switches in virtualized environments (ESX, Hyper-V, Nexus 1000v etc))

The only 'comment' on a reference I don't understand is:

<ref>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/hssg/public/apr07/frazier_01_0407.pdf{{rs|date=January 2013|reason=[[WP:PRIMARY]],WP:SPS]]}}</ref> What is wrong with this resource?

Thanks, Tonkie (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it best to have this disccusion at Talk:Link aggregation. I am copying everything and replying there. -—Kvng 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)