User Talk: Kvng

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = User talk:Kvng/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 16
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
{{Archives}}

Question from Robert Alex kisunte (23:41, 15 June 2026)

How do i write an article..? --Robert Alex kisunte (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Robert Alex kisunte, we generally recommend you get your feet wet by improving existing articles but we also let you decide how you want to contribute so if writing and article is what you want to do, I'd start by reviewing Help:Your first article ↗ ~Kvng (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Abbeyemma on Westminster Abbey ↗ (12:13, 19 June 2026)

Hello am Emmanuel Abbey from Ghana --Abbeyemma (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hello Abbeyemma. Is there anything I can help you with? ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Revyang (17:41, 22 June 2026)

Hello! I have completed creating a page in my sandbox, and my account is more than 7 days old. I have also made more than 10 edits on the wiki, but I can't find the MOVE option under TOOLS to move my page to the main wiki. --Revyang (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Revyang. Did you find the instructions at H:MOVE ↗? The Move option should be in the Tools dropdown in the upper right.
:I've taken a look at your draft and se that it is not in English. This will be a problem. There are different Wikipedia sites for different languages. You've created your draft on the English Wikipedia site. ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Plane wave tube ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Plane wave tube ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Tagged as Unreferenced for 17 years. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources ↗; only a handful of passing mentions on Google Books. Appears to be original research ↗. My attempt to redirect as ATD ↗ was reverted.'''</blockquote>

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion based on established criteria ↗.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion ↗ of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Te Riri O Te O - Dance Group (22:53, 29 June 2026)

Hi i want to create a page for my dance group. We are called Te Riri O Te O - Dance Group --Te Riri O Te O - Dance Group (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, Te Riri O Te O - Dance Group, if it is ''your'' dance group then you have a conflict of interest ↗ and you are discouraged from working on this subject. But if you insist, you must get any article approved at WP:AFC ↗.
:Please also have a look at WP:ORGNAME ↗; we prefer people edit Wikipedia, not organizations. ~Kvng (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Charlestoncab78 (18:00, 30 June 2026)

:''Note: Charlestoncab78's mentor Thilio is away.''
Good Afternoon! Need some advise on creating a wiki page? --Charlestoncab78 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, Charlestoncab78. Not sure if you have a specific question. Let me know if you do.
:Here's ↗ the general answer. ~Kvng (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::Ok ill give that a look. If i have any further questions I will let you know. Charlestoncab78 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Alexandra Goncharik (14:43, 3 July 2026)

Hi, Kvng! Could you take a look at the article Draft:Invisible Technologies ↗ to assess whether it’s suitable for publication in its current format?

I have to admit that it began as a typical company profile, relying on trivial business facts and company-driven narratives. It was exactly the kind of content that has rightly led to several declines.

I completely rewrote the draft, focusing on the behind-the-scenes aspects of the company that might be of interest to a broad audience. Drawing on independent investigative journalism from ''Business Insider'' and ''Reuters'', I described the role the company plays in training AI for vendors like ChatGPT and for enterprises that need specialized language models with access to AI trainers holding academic degrees.

Since I’ve been working on this draft for several months, I’m no longer sure whether the remaining content truly qualifies as encyclopedic or if there’s still room for further trimming. So I’d really appreciate a fresh pair of eyes! '''A'''lexandra '''G'''oncharik -'''sms'''- ↗ 14:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for contacting me. The Reuters coverage is good. The BI coverage is arguably WP:ROUTINE ↗. Its a tough crowd at WP:AFC ↗ these days especially for paid, LLM or COI editors. You should have WP:THREE ↗ solid sources. You currently have one or two. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you so much for the lightning-fast response! I understand that COI & paid drafts are at the bottom of the list + they're checked super carefully (and rightly so). And my bad for using LLM in my initial submission.
::I agree that the Insider article is more of a trivial source or, at best, a supporting one. But what about Forbes ↗? It usually features promotional articles by so-called contributors. But in our case, the article was written by a staff writer, and there was undoubtedly no agreement with the company. It contains a lot of criticism and skepticism, both from the author and from independent third-party experts (including a fired employee who was interviewed).
::Here are just a few examples to show that the article includes not only CEO interview but also third-party assessments:
::* Forbes staff writer Iain Martin: ''“Services businesses like his Invisible Technologies were horrible investments, per Silicon Valley lore”''
::* David Wanek, CEO of an independent venture debt firm: ''“You’d have to be confident to put on a big stack of debt just to lower people’s dilutions.”''
::* A former Invisible investor: ''“It’s intellectual masturbation.”'' (commenting on the company founder's communications)
::Can we consider that we have 2 or 2.5 sources, including Forbes? If so, should I update the comment on the submission with the explanation for WP:THREE ↗ I wrote above? '''A'''lexandra '''G'''oncharik -'''sms'''- ↗ 15:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I did not initially review Forbes because you did not mention it and because it's been considered iffy since 2010 ↗. The byline here is ''Aleksandr Karnyukhin for Forbes'' hinting that the author is not on staff which may land you on the wrong side of advice given for dealing with Forbes: {{tq|Articles are considered generally reliable if it is ascertained their authors were part of the Forbes staff at the time of the article's writing, and considered generally unreliable if the opposite is ascertained.}}.
:::Based on what we've now discussed, I'd say you could argue for having 2 sources. An accepted article in this condition would have less than a 50% chance of being deleted. That's the minimum so this could theoretically be a marginal accept. But unless you find an uncharacteristically brave reviewer, that's not going to be enough to clear the gauntlet in the current AFC environment. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, yes, I’m aware of the questionable reputation of Forbes contributors. That’s precisely why I’m pointing out that the article I’m referring to was written by Iain Martin ↗, a Forbes staff writer.
::::Aleksandr Karnyukhin is their photographer, who took the cover photo. The author’s name is listed a few lines below, right after the summary (Forbes ↗).
::::This fully meets the requirements noted in Perennial sources ↗: a staff editor and independent coverage that incorporates criticism and skepticism from both the author and invited experts (I provided just a few quotes above as examples).
::::And there’s also Bloomberg ↗ as a supporting source. I’m providing a link to the web archive, since the main link is behind a paywall.
::::I consider this a supporting source rather than the primary one, as I realize that the article was triggered by the company’s fundraising efforts (a trivial fact). However, the very fact that a journalist from such a reputable media took notice of the company and added her own personal context to the company-provided information demonstrates the company’s role in the AI market and the attention it receives from independent media.
::::In fact, the official guidelines Wikipedia:Independent sources ↗ cite “a newspaper article the next morning...” as an example of such independent coverage (the Bloomberg staff writer doesn’t simply paraphrase a press release but adds context and analysis, mentioning Scale as a competitor and the fact that Meta acquired it, etc.)
::::As a result, we have a set of sources: two primary sources (Reuters and Forbes) and two supporting sources—(Business Insider and Bloomberg). All in all, it seems to me that we could meet the notability threshold.
::::I can only imagine the sense of responsibility and reputational risk an editor would feel who has the nerve to revise this reworked draft after four(!) rejections, given the highly biased attitude toward AI-related companies on Wikipedia. I’m fully aware of all this, but after several months of in-depth research on the topic, it seems to me that the subject has a chance.
::::But I'm not in a position to decide as a COI editor, which is why I came to you for an independent opinion. If you've made it to the end of my chain of reasoning, I'd appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on whether there's any merit to my arguments. '''A'''lexandra '''G'''oncharik -'''sms'''- ↗ 19:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry I misread the Forbes byline.
:::::The submission is not a slam dunk but is looking less marginal with each iteration of this conversation.
:::::I haven't reviewed the article text yet. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks a lot you for reading my long comment all the way through! I'd be happy to hear your feedback on the article text as well, if and when you have a chance to take a look. '''A'''lexandra '''G'''oncharik -'''sms'''- ↗ 18:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗Your feedback is requested at '''Talk:Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway''' 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 ↗. <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> SodiumBot (botop|talk ↗|contribs ↗) 22:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Don Fubara Precious (09:19, 10 July 2026)

Hello. My name is Amb Precious J Fubara from nigeria. Am a fashion public figure known how can I be in Wikipedia --Don Fubara Precious (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Don Fubara Precious, I'm afraid you can't make that happen yourself, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY ↗. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard

Hi, Kvng. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard ↗. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole or hamster wheel, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please take the {{slink|WP:MNB|Survey|nopage=yes}} when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)