User talk:Kvng
|
||||||||||||
Hi! You removed the proposed deletion tag on Eli Review, saying reliable sources were found in book search. Could you at least indicate those sources on the page or talk page? I'm concerned that the page doesn't pass WP:N. I'm now wondering about AFD, but if there are lots of sources and only the article is bad, then I would love to let it flourish, of course! Jdcooper (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Jdcooper did you try your own Books search and find nothing usable? ~Kvng (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, I work mostly on remedial, (hopefully) uncontroversial cleanup of the worst articles, here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates. This article seemed to fit a standard pattern of unsourced, promotional, unencyclopaedic autobiography articles. But if it's controversial I will move on, no problem! Happy editing! Jdcooper (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Telegeodynamics[edit]
Hi, be sure not to keep us guessing as to what came up in a book search. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if this were AfD I would copy some links. At least I'm doing the searches. Per WP:BEFORE you have responsibilities too. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE was done and the problem has been noted on the talk page for 9 months. Wikipedia is really not based on (well maybe its in a book somewhere?) so the next obvious step is AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have responded at Talk:Telegeodynamics#Notability. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE was done and the problem has been noted on the talk page for 9 months. Wikipedia is really not based on (well maybe its in a book somewhere?) so the next obvious step is AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
You removed proposed deletion tag:[edit]
Hello, you removed the tag on ZeroGPT, is there are reason why? You contested but did not give explanation. Comintell (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Comintell, my edit summary was
Deletion contested, WP:NOTCLEANUP
. Do you need me to elaborate? ~Kvng (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)- Sorry, I mean this with full sincereity (and apologize in advance for being a noob) but, could you please? Comintell (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your stated rationale for deleting the article pointed out the problems with the article. On Wikipedia we prefer to improve flawed articles rather than delete them. Editors will often propose or nominate these articles in the hopes that the attention will get other editors make improvements. This is not considered good form. If an article is bad and this upsets you, please consider making improvements to the article yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's not what my notice said. It said:
- The sources cited here are not fact-checked nor reliable. For instance, multiple sources say this company was created by OpenAI, or "ChatGPT" creators, however this seems to be blatantly false.
- The concern is that wikipedia is giving this organization credibility, and confusing people. While there are recent mentions of ZeroGPT, it seems they came after this false information was produced about them, claiming that OpenAI is behind it.
- ALSO** It seems there are people confusing ZeroGPT with GPTZero. One CNN article says "Meanwhile, Princeton student Edward Tuan introduced a similar AI detection feature, called ZeroGPT." [Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/tech/openai-ai-detection-tool/index.html)
- These issues clearly demonstrate the confusion surrounding "ZeroGPT" a non notable 'counterfeit' version of GPTZero. This page seems to be hoax.
- Hoax citations on ZeroGPT page:
- Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)
- [5] https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/chatgpt-creator-openai-unveils-zerogpt-5-things-to-know-about-this-new-ai-tool-101676610582897.html
- Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information)
- https://www.livemint.com/news/world/what-is-zerogpt-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ai-plagiarism-detection-tool-11676631205023.html
- Quotes OpenAI research director and attributes to ZeroGPT (False Information)
- https://www.businessupturn.com/technology/zerogpt-ai-tool-to-detect-plagiarism-and-ai-generated-content-against-chatgpt/ (proposed by Comintell) Comintell (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- The articles origins are suspect after pointing this out right? Or am I wrong? Comintell (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I read this and I could not readily map it to a valid reason to delete. Also, just the length of it is an indication that this is not an uncontroversial deletion so not appropriate for WP:PROD. I see you've taken it to WP:AFD and I will monitor that discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
- Comintell (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes
- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
- Comintell (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I read this and I could not readily map it to a valid reason to delete. Also, just the length of it is an indication that this is not an uncontroversial deletion so not appropriate for WP:PROD. I see you've taken it to WP:AFD and I will monitor that discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your stated rationale for deleting the article pointed out the problems with the article. On Wikipedia we prefer to improve flawed articles rather than delete them. Editors will often propose or nominate these articles in the hopes that the attention will get other editors make improvements. This is not considered good form. If an article is bad and this upsets you, please consider making improvements to the article yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean this with full sincereity (and apologize in advance for being a noob) but, could you please? Comintell (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The article Commission on Population and Development (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
How to control my anger when an another editor reverts my revision --Ratiorain (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Don't sweat the small stuff. Give it a day or two. Find somewhere else on the encyclopedia to make a contribution. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Bantu saya mengisi do com nya --Rafliez (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Question from Vitshan on Harald Lassen (21:34, 26 November 2023)[edit]
Imo --Vitshan (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023[edit]
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paul Huff Parkway 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.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
De-PRODding articles[edit]
Hello, Kvng,
If you find yourself de-PRODding articles that were tagged for proposed deletion by a newer editor, please consider posting a notice on their user talk page explaining why you untagged these articles. Sometimes less experienced editors don't go back to look at edit summaries and explaining on their user talk page why an article shouldn't be deleted could curtail them continuing to tag articles that probably do not merit deletion. I know writing personal messages can take a little extra time but consider it part of educating less experienced editors. Thank you for considering this request. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz, that's a productive suggestion. Please appreciate that in addition to the effort of making these postings, your request asks that I take on the work of identifying patterns of individual editors. As I assume you're aware, I'm quite happy to answer any questions about my deprod activities and my rationale in individual instances. Anticipating questions and proactively answering them sounds like a tall order.
- Question 1: Did something happen that is motivating this request? If so, is there somewhere I should be monitoring to inject myself in the conversation when needed? I already have all the relevant prod and deprod talk pages on my watchlist and try to prioritize monitoring those sorts of pages. I also keep deprodded articles on my watchlist for a month and add any resulting AfD discussion pages to my watchlist and often participate in those discussions.
- Question 2: Is it worth considering restricting use of prod to more experienced editors to reduce the possibility of missed connections in the process? ~Kvng (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)