User talk:Kvng

Repeated DePRODs

I can fully understand dePRODing an article because you believe there is an WP:ATD like redirection (although I must ask that you please redirect the article if you do, as simply reverting the edit and leaving the redirect for someone else to do is creating additional busywork for myself and other editors). However, I must request that you cease removing PRODs solely based on number of incoming links. This does not in any way indicate that a PROD is controversial, as it is usually due to inclusion on an navbox, which can be done by anyone in a few seconds and get the page to show up on hundreds of articles (most incoming links for Physics Abstraction Layer were transclusions from Template:Physics engines, Template:Benchmark, etc.) Or at the very least, if you must do it, please check if the links are actually from major articles, where the page is linked in a prominent way, and not just a rote addition to an infobox or navbox. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I do often boldly WP:BLAR non-notable albums and sports seasons when I have time but there was a bulge in the prod pipeline today. Also I wonder if prodders might be more inclined to look for ATDs themselves if they have to do the extra work you claim I'm creating.

I would like to be able to determine how many non-navbox incoming links there are to an article. I've asked around and so far no one has found a way. ~Kvng (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You may want to try Help:What links here#Workaround to hide transcluded links. There is a user script you can install, User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js, that gives you a button that can find links that aren't from a template.

To clarify; I do look for ATDs that make sense, but often the ones that you are suggesting would make little sense because the topic is not relevant to the suggested article. Noise Factory is mentioned so little in SNK, for example, that a redirect would be less helpful than just letting the search function do its job. Might there possibly be something out there that could be used to expand SNK enough to make it viable? Sure, but I don't see you doing it either, so that about sums up how the average person would feel about looking for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I will have a look.

I don't agree with you WRT SNK and Noise Factory and if two experienced editors disagree that in itself is enough to make the deletion potentially controversial and not a good prod candidate. If you don't beleive me, take Noise Factory to AfD and see what happens. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kvng: Unsurprisingly Noise Factory was deleted for failing notability. Re: Your recent dePROD of Papaya Studio, What Links Here shows only links from the infoboxes of their own games and entries on game lists, not numerous links indicating potential importance. This is just creating extra work for editors for no reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have received feedback from others that my WP:PRODPATROL work is valuable. Due to the volume, I do have to move quickly and I do make mistakes but I have always tried to learn from them.

I have installed and have been using the script you suggested and this has been helpful. Thanks for that. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Even PRODPATROL states that, "Don't deprod an article just because in theory, someone somewhere would object to its deletion. If you don't actually believe an article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, there's no reason to deprod." DePRODing articles solely due to many links indicating someone might object is a violation of that WikiProject's policy. Do you believe that Evoga and IguanaBee have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept? If so, what policy-based reason is there for believing it? Notability is not inherited from a company's games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your ongoing concern and am happy to answer your question. For two reasons, I believe these are not slam-dunk deletions: 1/ merging or redirecting to a notable game produced by the company is a preferred WP:ATD. 2/ Due to volume, I don't have time to review every deletion proposal let alone do a comprehensive WP:BEFORE for each of these. That's the prodder's responsibility but I have ample evidence prodders aren't reliably doing this either and that's also a policy violation. The searches do happen in WP:AFD and incoming links is a crude indicator that it may be worth the community's time. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Simply dePRODing pages because you believe the PRODer did not perform WP:BEFORE without direct evidence for that particular PROD nomination is "assuming bad faith", which is against Wikipedia WP:AGF policy. As such, I will have to ask you to desist, as that in itself is bad-faith, hostile editing.

If you believe the page is non-notable but it has an WP:ATD, please redirect the page immediately after dePRODing, as leaving it up regardless does not back up your assertion that you are dePRODing them because they aren't notable but have another potential target. However, in cases where the company made numerous games, there may be no obvious target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't think my deprodding is valid, nominate the articles for deletion. I watchlist all AFDs for articles I've deprodded and if I see a snowy pattern, I will adjust my deprodding behavior. I do boldly WP:BLAR when that's the obvious ATD but many times the ATD is clearly probably but the details are not obvious. I'm sorry my answers to your questions don't satisfy you. The bottom line is that editors don't have to give a reason when they deprod. Would it be better for you if I deprodded without comment? ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland is an example of something I correctly deprodded based on incoming links. I'll keep an eye out for counterexamples. There were definitely a few (e.g. those discussed above) before I started using the Source links tool. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this. Also do not remove PROD from unsourced BLP without adding a source Pencilceaser123 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Tatsuya Okamoto has 15 incoming links but I can't make a notability case for this football player. As promised, I change my behavior when it's not working so going forward I'm going to resume giving a pass to all the many football player proposals coming through recently. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Antonio is another example of something I correctly deprodded based on incoming links. ~Kvng (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatsuya Okamoto is a football article I deprodded based on incoming links that looks like it has a good chance of survival. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rising Star (ship, 1991) on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from ScooterAnalyst (20:05, 5 September 2025)

Hi, thanks for being assigned as my mentor. I’m particularly interested in updating and monitoring the Welsh esports ecosystem and related articles. I understand that esports topics (especially teams) often require a high bar for notability, so I’m being very careful about that. Despite my preference for working in this space, I also want to make sure I avoid any conflict of interest of significant note. At the moment, I’m focusing on “easy” edits, for example, rewriting sections with promotional tone into more neutral language and adding reliable sources, but I’m also working on some ‘medium’ and ‘hard’ edits to practise and contribute in other areas too. One longer-term project I’d like to work towards is creating an article on the Welsh Esports League, which has received notable regional and some international coverage over the last few years. Do you have any advice on how best to approach this kind of editing and eventual article creation? Thank you! --ScooterAnalyst (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Scooter, I suggest you start by finding WP:THREE qualifying sources before you even start to write a new article. Our notability criteria for organizations (an esports league would be an organization) are a bit more demanding than for other topics. Specifically, local sources are not sufficient to establish notability. It sounds like you're on the right track to meet these requirements and it is mart of you to start small before trying to create your first article. ~Kvng (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the clarification. I hadn’t looked into the WP:THREE requirement as closely as I should have, especially with the higher standard for organisations like a league. That’s really helpful, and I’ll spend more time making sure I fully understand the sourcing and notability criteria before moving forward. Thank you. ScooterAnalyst (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It's a a bit of potentially not-fun work upfront and it possibly results in not writing the article you had in mind but it's much more of a bummer to put a bunch of work into a new article and then have it all deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Bd1209 (16:33, 6 September 2025)

Hi, I was hoping to draft a Wikipedia page for a topic that isn’t covered. How do I get started? --Bd1209 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bd1209. WP:YFA is a good place to start. Let me know if you have any questions. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from WillyBigly (00:25, 7 September 2025)

How to go about editing a potentially.... sensitive page? There is an article which I vehemently disagree with after reading it earlier today.

Perhaps I should edit other pages first, before going about this? I have sources ready to be used alas, it would appear others have tried to do this same thing before me but found no luck.

Are there really articles here that are just beyond the ability of myself or even veteran editors to fix? it would appear that there is a very strongly opinated group of editors who will not let the article say anything other than what it currently purports.

Let me know if you ahve advice on how to go about editing or perhaps rewording a controversial article. If you'd like, I can provide the article in question. Let me know. --WillyBigly (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello WillyBigly. Yes, I have seen such cases and they take a lot of patience. Posting something on the talk page for the article is probably the place to start. Let me know what article you're talking about and I'd be happy to have a look. ~Kvng (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from CitrusArchivist92 (19:00, 7 September 2025)

Hello! I’m wondering how I can properly upload media containing the works of other people? For example, pages that don’t have portraits, or media that are necessary for that page, but are primarily the works of others. --CitrusArchivist92 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@CitrusArchivist92, the main thing you need to concern yourself with is copyright status of these works. You can upload old things that are in the public domain and you can upload new things that have been released to the public domain or given a compatible copyright (CC BY-SA or GFDL) or permission to use by their creators. That's about the extent of my knowledge. If you have deeper questions you can ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial may be helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Combine into Computing

I don't often just ask a question, seems a refreshing change from the usual edit back and forth... anyhow, I usually remove the Security and Computer Science project banners to combine into Computing [1]. Do we actually want that, should I stop, should it be encouraged / formalised or it so low importance doesn't matter? (insert alt option) Widefox; talk 15:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a good practice because it reduces clutter at the top of talk pages. I don't think it is particularly important but it is good gnoming. Carry on! ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Cite Unseen September 2025 updates

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.

Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!

From SuperHamster and SuperGrey, 05:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.

Question from CHICKENNUGGETSBOMBARD (17:30, 17 September 2025)

What to put on home page? --CHICKENNUGGETSBOMBARD (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@CHICKENNUGGETSBOMBARD, you're not required to put anything on your user page. On my user page, I keep track of things I am working on. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Hello. You recently removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Tatsuya Okamoto, without adding a reliable source. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source. If this was a mistake, don't worry, it has been replaced. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pencilceaser123, that article does have two sources in the External links section. Now we get to argue about whether those are reliable sources. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Objecting point 2 suggests that argument should now happen at AfD. I'm not going press that in this case because I have now done a search and can't make a case for notability here. I misjudged. Thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point. The references are labelled as external links, but I looked at them and its clear whoever put them there meant for them to be references. Ill replace the PROD with an AFD. Thanks for noticing that! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Lorenzo Antonio

Good morning. I saw that you removed my prod on this article. I couldn't find any sources or WP:SIGCOV hence why I did that. Did you find something I might have overlooked? Now the only option is AFD since you removed the prod which seems excessive to me. Thank you, m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mamani1990:, my WP:ES mentioned that there are many incoming links to this article (33 in this case), indicating potential importance of the subject. Deleting the article would create a lot of redlinks, harming the reader experience. We should have a closer look at this at AfD before deleting. Sorry for any inconvenience. ~Kvng (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

MTV Europe Music Award for Best Adria Act

How was this per se notable? Bearian (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't expect you'd doubt MTV Europe Music Awards is notable. I'd argue that MTV Europe Music Award for Best Adria Act is part of that coverage split out and tied together by {{MTV Europe Music Awards}} and {{MTV Europe Music Award for Best Adria Act}} as sort of a WP:SUMMARY style as a better way of presenting the information than in one huge MTV Europe Music Awards article. ~Kvng (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from 0x1m0r3n on User:0x1m0r3n (22:26, 20 September 2025)

hi. how do I can create a simple page for my account? just to display my name, my alias and my picture. or even without my name, if allowed. (I always use real pictures of me, by the way.) thanks for helping. ps: along years, I have had several accounts here, but I don't like to be taken for a regular provider, I prefer the anonymity of new users… ps2: the left part of my email has a special meaning which might help me to prove I'm the real owner if needed, but I prefer not to give my name, as long as it's not required. --0x1m0r3n (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi 0x1m0r3n. Be careful with multiple user accounts; Sockpuppetry is taken seriously seriously. I'd definitely avoid using more than on account at a time.

It looks like you've already put some trivial content on your user page. Wikipedia:Uploading images explains how to upload your picture and how to show it in an article. Follow those instructions but apply the instructions to your user page instead of a mainspace article. ~Kvng (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have _multiple_ accounts. I have 'Raoul Pérez' for me as a real person, which I am, and 'Raoul Pérez Innovación' for the _company_ I plan to build when I _will_ have the money to do it, so the company doesn't exist yet, but there are no fraudulent wishes besides.

and I refuse (or reject? I'm not English native) that the key codes I have defined for my future company might be blocked because some people believe I'm dishonest — when I'm not!!! 0x1m0r3n (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@0x1m0r3n, Raoul Pérez, Raoul Pérez Innovación do not appear to be user accounts on English Wikipedia. I guess having trouble understanding what you're saying. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

does '0x1m0r3n' hurt anyone? my previous id was 'raoulppd', which is an acronym of my real name. I could easily prove that, so I don't have any bad idea in my mind. is there a way to get my 'raoulppd' ID back? 0x1m0r3n (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I only have one only account at a time. it's nothing fraudulent, but I don't like to have people look at me, that's all. 0x1m0r3n (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete user accounts so you do have multiple accounts. My original advice stands, don't use more than one at a time - ideally use them serially. ~Kvng (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from BBenebo (13:44, 27 September 2025)

Hello Kvng,

I hope this finds you well, and I want to say how grateful I am to have your mentorship as I learn my way around Wikipedia.

I’m reaching out for your guidance regarding my first article draft (Draft:Abiola Aderibigbe). The draft was recently declined at AfC, with the main concern being that some of the coverage looked like syndicated or “undisclosed paid” material. Out of roughly 14 independent coverages in national dailies, the decision focused on four that appeared similar in wording, while not acknowledging the other ten articles in mainstream outlets, nor the secondary trade coverage or Scopus-indexed academic work. It appears I’m also being accused of being paid to post this.

I want to stress that I am not being paid to post this article. My motivation is that the subject has been actively advocating for construction reform in Nigeria, an issue tied to thousands of lives lost in building collapses, and I felt that the breadth of national and academic coverage might meet Wikipedia’s notability standard.

It’s also possible I inadvertently resubmitted the draft while trying to gather feedback — that was not intentional, as I only wanted to understand the concerns more clearly before proceeding.

I would be very grateful for your wisdom on this. From your experience, is this the sort of draft that should be refined and resubmitted with stronger emphasis on the most solid sources, or is it better to accept that the notability question will prevent it from ever succeeding? I don’t want to waste community time if the outcome is predetermined, but I also don’t want to abandon good-faith efforts if the draft can be improved.

Thank you very much for your guidance. --BBenebo (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@BBenebo, unfortunately, this is fairly typical treatment from our draft reviewers. Sometimes it is warranted, IMO many times, not. I am also a draft reviewer so I should be able to help you with this in the coming days. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mentor @Kvng for getting back to me. I am a little encouraged.

I got another rejection again saying i generated the whole article using AI - ChatGPT or another LLM. I am a bit perturbed.

I don't know if there is an expectation that new drafters just would not have a good command of English or something. I was wondering actually if there is something you can teach me so that I can prove I wrote the entry myself. I wrote the following back to the reviewer:

@Pythoncoder Thank you so much for taking the time to review my draft.

I am grateful. I am going to be honest, I am not entirely sure how to proceed after your comment.

Before drafting this article, I deliberately studied the style of published Wikipedia biographies to understand how an encyclopaedia entry should read. I aimed to keep the draft strictly factual and referenced, without editorialising. I understand that this is the level expected of any article going on Wikipedia.

I would like to clarify that I wrote every word of the draft myself. I am a dual-qualified practising lawyer with a strong command of English, and I do have some experience in academic writing (I specifically refer to attaining a masters degree after law school). No part of this draft was generated by ChatGPT or any other large language model. I have tried my best to ensure that every statement in the article is supported by citations to independent, reliable sources (including national dailies, specialist trade outlets, academic works etc.).

I genuinely and fully appreciate Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding promotional tone. If there are particular sentences or sections you feel are too essay-like or promotional, I would be extremely grateful for concrete examples so I can revise them accordingly.

Therefore, please could you kindly explain how I can demonstrate to you, or to any other reviewer, that these are my own words rather than machine generated content?

I am here in good faith, willing to learn and adjust the draft wherever necessary, because I simply want to ensure the subject’s coverage in reliable sources is presented accurately and neutrally.

I sincerely thank you for your guidance, and look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

My dilemma remains, how do I prove my own words are mine? - Thank you so much once more.

Kind regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

There are tools that proport to detect LLM output. I don't know if this reviewer is using those or just their "intuition". If you want to try and have an effective discussion with this reviewer, I would start by testing your draft with one or more of these LLM detectors and see and share the results.

In any case, the biggest issue I see with WP:AFC is a focus on article quality instead of our established acceptance criteria (primarily notability). So even if you did use a LLM to help write this, if this subject is notable and your treatment of it is not one-sided, we should be able to accept it and improve it further once it is in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kvng Thank you so much for your counsel. I took your advice and used 2 AI detectors.

The first was an AI Detector called ZeroGPT ( AI Detector - Trusted AI Checker for ChatGPT, GPT5 & Gemini) and when I ran my draft Article by the software it produced the following result:

ZeroGPT

"Your Text is Human written"

I then ran it a second time by Grammarly (Free AI Dectector - Free AI Detector | GPT-4, GPT-3, & ChatGPT AI Checker) and it came out with this result:

Grammarly AI Detector

"4% of this text appears to be AI-generated"

My thoughts:

I know for these AI Detectors, it is likely impossible to get a perfect 100% score. However, as it goes even both these AI Detectors make it clear my text is Human Written.

ZeroGPT expressly stipulates it, and if we were taking the Grammarly assessment verbatim, its 4% finding would literally mean 96% (out of a 100%) of text in the write up is mine. 96% by any measure of the imagination would be an extremely high-score in my favour.

Again I can confirm all of the text are my own words, but I do appreciate these things may not be perfect.

I believe that as far as measures go this should be sufficient proof that I wrote article myself, and it was not generated by AI.

But again I would be extremely grateful for your wisdom.

(Finally please note that the Reviewer Pythoncoder did not respond to my earlier message.)

Thank you for your continued guidance and wisdom.

Kind regards,

BBenebo BBenebo (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Question from Skiii davis (00:11, 1 October 2025)

Hii I am knew and would like to write my own wikipedia page --Skiii davis (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Skiii davis. For good reasons, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for details. Is there anything else you're interested in doing? ~Kvng (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Nicholas Blessing on Xochitl Castañeda (11:41, 1 October 2025)

Hello 👋 Please can I learn ways of editing? --Nicholas Blessing (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nicholas Blessing, can you be more specific about what you'd like to learn? ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:PostPet on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Question from Samkhanmba (10:00, 2 October 2025)

Hi my mentor King, this is Sameer Khan, Ai Consultant, Business Coach, Community Advisor and Media Strategist from Houston TX. Would like to now how to public my biography, achievements etc --Samkhanmba (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Samkhanmba. For good reasons, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for details. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)