"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)

@JzG: this has flared up again at Bufferbloat. My position has not changed. I don't appreciate the ongoing hostility. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, neither has mine, and neither do I. It's an unreliable source, it will never be anything else. Guy (help!) 19:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Why are you objecting to referencing an unreliable or primary source in an HTML comment? ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, a better question is, what on earth is the policy-based reason for including an unreliable source in an html comment after it has been challenged and removed as a source in the article? It invites the supposiottion that somehow looking at it in the future will render it reliable. The [{tl|cn}} tag is there to remind you to source the statement, and it seems uinlikely to me that you, personallly, will forget that blog post, so the only possible outcome would be to confuse future editoris and potentially lead them to reintroduce it. Guy (help!) 14:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Thanks for answering. From here it appears you are either manufacturing arguments to win this dispute or hold editors in low esteem contrary to WP:AGF. I thought holding these potentially valuable but disputed sources as comments would be a good compromise. Is there no possibility for compromise with you on this? ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, what part of "unreliable source" is a failure to assume good faith? Don't add unreliable sources to articles and we have no dispute. Guy (help!) 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: So no compromises. I guess we're done here (again). ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, in what way is your insistence on including the blog a "compromise"? This is blatant sealioning. Guy (help!) 18:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I hadn't heard of sealioning. This is not a productive discussion. I'm done. ~Kvng (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Campaign_to_remove_unreliable_sources to try and get some input from other editors on this. ~Kvng (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, and despite the clear consensus that oroispakr.ca is not reliable, you reinserted it at CoDel anyway.
Here's how it's supposed to work: someone inserts something, someone else removes it, and it then stays out until there is consensus on Talk for inclusion. Guy (help!) 16:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion in EL section are different than the criteria for use as a reference. See User_talk:Kvng#Le_sigh. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!Edit

  Thanks for appreciating my edit on article about MIDI RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

EthernetEdit

Hi, thanks for working to bring this major article towards Good Article standard. However it still has 19 places (some whole paragraphs) where citations are needed. These should really be addressed before going into the GAN queue as the reviewing instructions permit a quick-fail under such circumstances. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked the requirements carefully. What I have done is addressed all issues raised at the last GA review. If that's not good enough then I should remove it from the queue. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt reply. I think there are two choices: add citations quickly, or pull from the queue, add them in your own time, and resubmit. Since it's only been in the queue a short time, personally I'd do the latter, but it depends how quickly you like to work. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I have looked again at the criteria and don't see anything about every paragraph requiring a citation, just the expected WP:V requirement. What are the 19 issues you've identified? ~Kvng (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I've marked the article with citations needed tags. The GA criteria permit a quick-fail when tags are outstanding. Tags are per WP:CITE as well as WP:V as you rightly note. Were I reviewing the article now I would certainly consider a quick-fail, though I would try as here to ascertain the nominator's intentions first. If I found that he or she was intent on pressing ahead without the citations then I would certainly fail the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't work quickly. I have withdrawn. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, many thanks. I hope to see it back at GAN when you're ready. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: My other potential candidate is Moore's law. Would you mind having a quick look at that before I do anything rash? ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly much more fully cited; there are some uncited statements but perhaps the GA reviewer will overlook those. If they are covered by the preceding inline refs then it'd be helpful to readers and reviewers to repeat the refs for clarity; if not, the safest procedure is to find refs for those statements. I know the GA criteria don't look as though everything must be cited "unless challenged"; but any uncited statement can (and in many editors' view, should) be challenged. After all, if not from a cited source, where did they come from? I do not believe any of the editors who have reviewed my GANs would have overlooked, or did actually overlook, any uncited claims. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moore's lawEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Moore's law you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bridging reversionEdit

I strongly disagree with this revert. The editor who reverted has misjudged. The material added was discussed in depth with one of the ASIC implementors of a leading line of CISCO switches. The content was correct. Furthermore, the motivation for adding the content was that the information added was not previously on the page. I would not have spent the time adding the information if it were repetitive. I feel the person who reverted was not respectful of audiences who come to this material new. Wikipedia is a place for people to learn. The only audience for a wiki-page is not experts who already know the material. Please check again, and consider what the edits add, for those who do not have a full background. If you believe there are factual mistakes, please correct them, do not simply wholesale delete the entire contribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridging_(networking)&oldid=prev&diff=953315025 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhalle (talkcontribs) 08:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Seanhalle: Please see WP:BRD. This objection should be discussed on the article's talk page (Talk:Bridging_(networking)). ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moore's lawEdit

The article Moore's law you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Moore's law for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

your rv (BRD) at VPNEdit

I swapped in what I think is a better title: ==<span id="Commercial VPNs"><span id="virtual private network services">VPN services</span></span>== because of a few reasons. First, for the thing being discussed in that section, the general public has come to mainly use the term VPN service or just VPN. Second, when VPN technology was first in wide use, the main use case was the one seen here: https://images.app.goo.glSLASHgsJunXirPvKivfNi6 - which clearly is a VPN and is clearly commercial, and yet is, to a user, nothing at all like what's being discussed in this section, so the old section title, which you restored, "Commercial VPNs", was lousy. Thirdly, Comparison_of_virtual_private_network_services is thusly named, hence that span ID. Fourthly, the link at the top of that page should be to this section. Lastly, I left the old span id to avoid breaking links. Please consider a self-rv and/or reply wherever. Cordially. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)