User talk:Kvng

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sources in Draft:Jorge S. del Villar[edit]

Thank you for working on my article. Hereby are some sources that entirely comply with Wikipedia's standards

Thank you, --ManuelGamio (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed by Calliopejen1 and found lacking. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Already tagged"[edit]

The purpose of tagging a sourcing issue is not to leave the tag in place, but to resolve it. If you think the content needs some kind of source, and you've seen the tags showing this sourcing to be unacceptable, then please either remove the content or find an alternative source, don't reinsert sources that have been tagged as failing our sourcing guidelines for months without anyone doing anything about it. That really isn't an improvement. Thanks, Guy (help!) 16:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Please don't remove the tagged marginal sources; they are useful references for editors who replace them with better sources. There is WP:NODEADLINE for getting the work done. I've been working on improving technical articles for years; it simply doesn't happen in months. ~Kvng (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, This is how it works. A source is tagged as unreliable. It sits there for a while. If nobody fixes it, the source (and potentially the text) gets removed. At that point you're more than welcome to reinstate the text based on reliable sources, but the unreliable sources have had their day in the sun and need to go. The reason is simple: long experience indicates that {{citation needed}} gets fixed much more often than {{self-published source}}. In fact, I have watched sample lists of hundreds of articles with self-published sources without any of them ever been fixed in years. Guy (help!) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: can you show me where there's consensus about the workflow you've described? ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, see WP:RS. All content must be drawn from reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for a discussion between editors describing the workflow. If it is something you've taken upon yourself based on your reading of WP:RS, I applaud your boldness but disagree with these actions for the reasons I've given in my first reply above. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, it's implicit in policy. All content must be drawn from reliable independent sources. There are multiple discussions at WP:RSN about what we do with unreliable sources. This is completely in line with policy, in a way that reinstating an unreliable source - especially when without the tags showing it to be unreliable - is not.
You are framing this as a quixotic personal reading of RS. It is not. As I say, go to WP:RSN for more details on this. Guy (help!) 14:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to remove the tags or permanently retain these sources. I am asking for time for these issues to be addressed. I do not think several months is enough time.
All edits should improve the article in some way. I don't see how removing a tagged marginal source and replacing it with {{citation needed}} is an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, as noted above {{cn}} gets fixed very often by wikignomes and readers, in a way that {{sps}} really does not. You have the same amount of time and the same options with both, but one attracts fixes and the other doesn't. Guy (help!) 16:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw that and I accept it as your experience. {{sps}} is, however, the more appropriate tag for these cases and I know, based on my work fixing these issues, that retaining the marginal source is often helpful towards finding a better source. I don't think we should be making these edits if the goal is to attract editors working to resolve {{cn}} tags (but not other sourcing issues for some reason). We should be spending our time fixing these problems, not twiddling tags. ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, it has been tagged for months without being fixed (which allows for your optimistic view). It has not been fixed, therefore I am going to {{cn}}, which, in my view, is more likely to be fixed. We appear to differ only on how long it should be left to languish with a "marginal" (read: unacceptable per WP:RS) source. That's a philosophical question on which reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 23:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair but incomplete summary. The final resolution for these things is a determination that the associated material doesn't actually need a citation and the tagged citation is removed, the tagged citation is replaced with a better one or the tagged citation and associated material is deleted. We disagree about whether twiddling tags brings us closer to a final resolution. ~Kvng (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
These responses from JzG consistently refuse to acknowledge that his interpretation/crusade is not actually what Wikipedia:Verifiability says about self-published sources; in fact, I've never managed to get him to acknowledge that Wikipedia actually has a specific policy on self-published sources. Changing the language to "marginal" because the usages you're removing are clearly allowed by Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't make the material you're removing any less allowed or your edits any less detrimental. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife, what WP:V says is:
  • The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
  • Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
  • Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
And more. Framing this as a "crusade" is an attempt to turn a standard Wikipedia editing practice into some kind of malefaction. Of course the fact is that the vast majority of crap sources are never removed - but that is not a reason for not removing them. And the vast majority of removals are never challenged, because in the end unreliable sources are unreliable.
So the only message I can take from these discussions is that you prefer to retain material drawn from sources that are abject failures of WP:RS and have been tagged as such for at least months and often years. That would clearly be insane, so maybe you can explain where I am going wrong there. Guy (help!) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I have, in general, no specific preference there. You are more than welcome to remove the {{cn}}, to remove the text, or to open a discussion on Talk as to whether the text requires an inline citation. All of these are absolutely fine by me. All I am trying to do is reduce the backlog of tagged crap sources. Because very few others actually do. I'd add in passing that my approach has been discussed at WP:RSN and generally agreed to be about right, but of course there are going to be occasional cases where specific subject knowledge would deliver a different outcome, such as leaving text unsourced because it's "sky is blue" level obvious to anyone with domain knowledge. Guy (help!) 19:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Once again, you've specifically ignored that Wikipedia:Verifiability has guidelines about self-published sources as to when and in what circumstances they are acceptable, which are, strangely enough, not the text you just tried to quote to show me what for. I'm not a newbie, and quoting random bits of policy while deliberately ignoring the stuff that directly pertains to what you're doing doesn't work on me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The final resolution of these issues depends on the context. The main point of my previous reply was: We disagree about whether twiddling tags brings us closer to a final resolution. I review changes and revert edits that don't clearly make an improvement. You have not convinced me that these edits are an improvement and I am not the only editor who takes issue with your approach so I will continue to revert. I hope you try to find a more agreeable way to work through the {{sps}} backlog. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, One final time. You just reverted back in the link to freemanav-ca.com. It was added in this edit by MONICAFARNANDES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet and part of a prolific refspamming nest, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RiffFinch/Archive. Self revert or WP:ANI? Your choice.
Your definition of "agreeable" parses as "to my personal satisfaction". You don't get to be arbiter. We can discuss this further at WP:RSN if you like. Guy (help!) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the overt threat. I have removed the spam ref. You didn't indicate that was spam the first and second time you removed it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, because I didn't know. But you restored it knowing it to be unreliable, and failed to check that it was not spam when doing so. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." In other words, you have to check it's reliable, and in fact you acknowledged it was not. So you are breaching policy, as you also did at bufferbloat, where you restored another unreliable source. It appears that you interpret the "consider" language in WP:PRESERVE as overriding the "must" language of WP:V. That is... problematic. Guy (help!) 23:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok. We've been over this already. Go ahead and bring it to WP:ANI if you like. I predict that won't make things better for anyone.
What I meant by "agreeable" was that there are other ways to go about improving sourcing that may be more effective and would be more compatible with the way other editors prefer to work (I'm not the only one having trouble with your approach). Is there a WikiProject dedicated to improving sourcing that can be rallied to help out? ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I just made my first article fighting my quarantine boredom, I picked a politics person. Would you care to review it? :) http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Draft:Nicole_Christoff JavTehran (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@JavTehran: we have a three-month backlog of articles. I usually review oldest first. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Precision Agriculture for Development Article[edit]

Hi Kvng,

I'm revisiting an article I submitted a few months ago. I think the reason it was not accepted was that it didn't have enough independent sources. Could you verify this? If this is not the case, could you let me know how I can improve it otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braniac0312 (talkcontribs) 23:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Braniac0312: There are a couple of arguably WP:INDEPENDENT sources ([1], [2]) but there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV in these sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits[edit]

Hello Kvng,

I hope you are doing fine, you reverted my edits in the Network address translation (NAT).

Infact I am developing the article in Arabic (check), I designed images for the article both in Arabic and English 1 2 3 4 ... etc. and I added some of them that are relative to the text. However, you mentioned that "Purpose of these changes unclear", and I am explaining why I did add them.

I am waiting to hear from you,

Best wishes !--MichelBakni (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@MichelBakni: The new diagrams don't seem to have the same information as the old one. Yours only show address mapping but no port mapping. Is there any problem with the existing diagram you're trying to fix? ~Kvng (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I was going to add the one with the port number Here, but I had to fix several errors before that (check the image history). The first two images explain the Basic NAT, they are necessary for the reader to understand how technology is changing.
@MichelBakni: To replace the existing diagram, the new has to be better. How are the new diagrams better? Is there any problem with the existing diagram you're trying to fix? ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok no problem with the old PAT, it is the same information, but I need to add the first two images in the basic NAT before it.--MichelBakni (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)