User talk:Kvng

Hello Kvng,

I hope you are doing well. I’ve identified your experience with Articles for Creation and technology-related Wikipedia topics.

I am exploring an AfC draft for an article on Trinnov Audio, a French audio technology manufacturer with independent coverage in sources such as Sound On Sound, Recording Magazine, CE Pro, and audioXpress.

Furthermore, I have a professional connection to the company and want to proceed fully in accordance with WP:COI and related policies, drafting in sandbox/AfC rather than directly to mainspace.

Would you be open to advising or assisting with:

• Assessing notability and source strength
• Draft structure for an AfC submission
• Guidance on COI-compliant wording

If you accept COI-aware paid or pro-bono work, I’d appreciate understanding your approach, timeline, and any expectations.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Benoit Benoitmunoz (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Benoitmunoz. Yes, I can help. It doesn't look like you've started the draft yet. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,

Thank you for your response; I truly appreciate your willingness to help.

I have not yet started the draft because I wanted to confirm notability and approach first. I can begin by preparing a sandbox draft structured in a neutral, encyclopedic format based on independent sources (Sound On Sound, Recording Magazine, CE Pro, audioXpress, EISA, etc.).

Before drafting, would you recommend:

• Beginning with a short, source-based skeleton (lead + history + references),

or

• Compiling a full source list for preliminary review?

I intend to proceed carefully and in full compliance with WP:COI and AfC requirements.

Thank you again.

Benoit Benoitmunoz (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Benoitmunoz, lets start by identifying WP:THREE good sources you plan to use. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,

Thank you. Based on independent editorial coverage, three sources I was planning to rely on include:

1. Sound On Sound – review of the Trinnov Nova (in-depth editorial coverage of the company’s monitoring and optimization technology).

2. Recording Magazine – feature/review discussing Trinnov’s technology and product positioning.

3. CE Pro – independent reporting on the release and broader context of WaveForming technology.

All are independent publications with editorial oversight rather than press-release reposts. I’m happy to refine this selection if you feel different sources would better establish notability under WP:GNG. Benoitmunoz (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Those look good as far as I can see. Do you have URLs for any of these? ~Kvng (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/trinnov-nova

https://www.recordingmag.com/resources/featured-reviews/december-2025-trinnov-nova/

https://www.cepro.com/news/trinnov-waveforming-now-publicly-available/140688/ Benoitmunoz (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

These look adequate but not bulletproof. You're intending to write an article about the company but the bulk of the coverage here is about the company's products. I say it is adequate because there is some background on the company in the sources and there is an argument to be made that notable products justify an article about the company (there is also an argument to the contrary). ~Kvng (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kvng,

Thank you, that’s very helpful

I understand the distinction regarding product-focused coverage versus company-level coverage. Before proceeding further, I’d appreciate your view on what types of additional sourcing would meaningfully strengthen the case and reduce deletion risk.

Would deeper company-focused features, broader business press coverage, or academic/industry analysis referencing the company materially improve defensibility?

I would prefer to approach this conservatively rather than push something marginal. Benoitmunoz (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I just did a Google News search for Trinnov to try to give you an example. While I didn't find anything golden in the first couple pages of results, there is an abundance of options far beyond the first three you suggested here. I actually think it would be hard to get a Trinnov article deleted in this context. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that’s reassuring and very helpful.

In that case, I would be interested in proceeding cautiously with a structured draft through AfC, ensuring the article is weighted toward company history and independent coverage rather than product detail.

Would you recommend beginning with a formal notability/source outline before drafting, or proceeding directly to a sandbox draft for review? Benoitmunoz (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

When you create the draft, we can copy relevant sections of this discussion to the talk page of the draft (Draft talk:Trinnov, I assume) so it is available to AfC reviewers as background. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; that sounds like a sensible approach.

I’ll prepare a draft in Draft:Trinnov with a conservative structure and neutral weighting, and we can copy relevant portions of this discussion to the draft talk page for transparency.

I appreciate your guidance throughout this process. Benoitmunoz (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

One other tip: keep it short, WP:STUBBY even. It is easier for reviewers to find a reason to decline a longer draft. Other editors will help improve and enlarge it once it is published. ~Kvng (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I have tried to keep it as short as possible

Draft:Trinnov Audio Benoitmunoz (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Great. One more thing, you do need to formally WP:DISCLOSE your conflict of interest. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I’ve added a formal disclosure on my user page per WP:DISCLOSE. Benoitmunoz (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Benoitmunoz, as you may have noticed, the draft was declined because it is suspected to have been written by AI. This is discouraged by our WP:AIARTICLE guideline. Some have gone so far to suggest that you are not human. Are you a bot or have you used an LLM to write this draft? ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: Sergio gauci gauci's mentor Ampimd is away.

How can i add an image --Sergio gauci gauci (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sergio gauci gauci. Help:Pictures is probably the best place to start. You have to separately upload then add an image to a page. ~Kvng (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I fixed a major error in the Krav Maga piece. It was a spelling error. Is there any way that I can get the credit added to my private history? I love Krav Maga. --Johnthefriendlyghost (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Johnthefriendlyghost, most everything is public on Wikipedia. The only edit credited for your account so far is this post on my talk page (see ). It looks like you made the spelling correction anonymously before creating or signing in to your account (see ). Maneuver and manoeuvre are both legitimate spellings BTW (see ). ~Kvng (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Bummer. I was so stoked I thought I did something there. Thanks for the reply! Johnthefriendlyghost (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:TechHaus Volantis 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|contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello...My name is Bigboy ANG and I'm an artist and I would like to know what are the requirements for my page to be searchable on google --Bigboy ANG (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bigboy ANG. When you say my page, which page are you referring to exactly? ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to add my company page on wikipedia, is it possible. Please provide the steps to follow for add company page on Wikipedia. Thank you --Masuuglobal33 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Do you believe 48 pencils is correct at Prismacolour --Aurelia Friskosa (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aurelia Friskosa, I don't see a Prismacolour article. ~Kvng (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, are there any tips to prose a giant overhaul list into, let say ex. USS Nimitz, without starting any controversial stuff, because the article is viewed quite a lot. --Drenchedwaveeidter (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Drenchedwaveeidter,

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking. It sounds like you have a list of improvements to propose for USS Nimitz. This is recently getting ~5000 page views per day which is a lot. However, the last discussion on the talk page was 7 years ago, it is being revised every few days and there are no editing restrictions on this article so I would start with some WP:BOLD edits addressing the most important improvement on your list. If that is well received, on to the next. I'll put the page on my watchlist be ready to help if needed. ~Kvng (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

what am i doing wrong --Frankbob04 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Frankbob04, what are you trying to do? ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon (it is 06:52 PM in my country), Mr. Kvng. I was thinking that how can I become an expert editor on Wikipedia? Any ideas? --Mr. NathMMXXVI (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Good evening Mr. NathMMXXVI. Most of it is time and experience. What topics and activities have interested you so far? ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood, Mr. Kvng. I just really hope that I can look at a set article and just amplify its look for the best. Time, and experience, noted. However, how long (realistically) does it take for one to become an 'expert'? Mr. NathMMXXVI (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been here since 2008. There's a lot to learn. My list of incremental improvements to apply to articles may be a place to start. If you want to learn about policy, you might volunteer at WP:WPAFC and/or comment on WP:AFD proposals. ~Kvng (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow! You have been here since before I was born. Thank you for the talk, Mr. Kvng. Mr. NathMMXXVI (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Microphone § Using scripts to depipe links

 – ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kvng: Something is on my mind. It's nothing personal, but I'm not a fan of the user script that you often use to depipe links, such as your most recent edit. (The script calls it unpipe, which is wrong because the prefix un is for things that have never been, whereas de means to remove.) While the editing guidelines cited by the script's documentation (WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN) appear on the surface to bless what the script is doing, I feel the script is being rather extremest about it. Specifically, WP:NOTBROKEN says not to waste time bypassing redirects, as new editors often do in good faith, because doing so is a waste of resources, and redirects can actually be helpful in many cases. Conversely though, I don't see the guidelines emphasizing that pipes should be removed, just that they needn't be added where a redirect is getting readers to the right place.

What I've always taken away from those guidelines is that redirects are helpful mainly for two reasons: redirects with possibilities, and other cases of increased specificity. However, not all redirects are redirects with possibilities. Presumably we're supposed to be tracking redirects with possibilities for a reason.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see justification removing pipes that are to the root word form, correct term, or even common name. I think those pipes help by displaying a mouse-over tooltip of where the link is actually going to take you. (And WP:NOTBROKEN even states exactly that: It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint or tooltip that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading.) For example, you replaced [[Optical fiber|fiber-optic]] with [[fiber-optic]]. However, those are synonyms, with "optical fiber" being the main or common term (which presumably is why the target article is there). Fiber-opticFiber-optic is not a redirect with possibilities. This article uses "fiber-optic" and later "optical fiber" interchangeably, without explaining that they're synonymous (or maybe "fiber-optic" is the adjective form). If the tooltip were there, as had been the case before today, then it's a little clearer to the reader that those are synonymous.

Another reason not to depipe such links is that programs and scripts to remove duplicate links (including AWB) then don't catch that duplicate links are present. I've spent a lot of time manually following links, to see if there are duplicates.

So I wonder if we could leave some non-problematic pipes that are along the lines of permanent synonyms, not redirects with possibilities. Hopefully my ramble makes sense. — voidxor 16:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hope you don't mind that I've moved the discussion; It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the Microphone article.

I have received a request that if there are multiple outgoing links to an article, some through redirects and some not, that pipes be used so they all use the same link allowing links in your browser to be colored purple when you've already visited. That's a doable request when none of the redirects have potential as articles but it is laborious to check for these conditions. If we can't handle some regression in this cleanup, I think we will need to improve the tool or stop doing the work.

With regards to popups, I think our guide should be to avoid WP:ASTONISH. I don't remember if I had to do any special settings but the popups on my browser show the redirect and the article where you will land. When you use pipes, I don't think it is as clear why the link and destination are different. In this context, I don't see a problem with my fiber-optic link replacement.

With regards to WP:DUPLINK. I used to do a lot of this but it was recently brought to my attention that there are good reasons and policy support for allowing up to one link per section. I don't find so many dups that need addressing under that reading.

Another thing to consider is WP:EDITORHOSTILE. Unpiped links are easier to read through and maintain. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving the discussion is fine. Some editors have complained in the past when I bring up their edit to an article on their user page. Regardless, I noticed we may subtly be working in opposite directions on link cleanup, and wanted to discuss.

I'm not sure if I follow your second paragraph. Are you saying that others have suggested reducing reliance on that script for reasons of identification of visited links? I could see that point too.

By tooltip, I was actually thinking of the browser tooltip that shows the destination, as well as the browser status bar that shows the destination URL. Neither of those are redirect aware. The wiki gadget for popup windows is something I disabled early on; it's not what I was referring to. The guideline is, I think, referring to the browser tooltip and not the popup gadget because the browser is not redirect aware.

The "one link per section" bit in DUPLINK seems to have been a shift in recent years that I was not aware of until recently. While I've relaxed about links being duplicated in the intro and the body, I still clean a lot of DUPLINKS that are within a given section, or much too numerous throughout the article (similar to a SEAOFBLUE). Several tools including AWB still flag all duplicates.

WP:EDITORHOSTILE is similar to MOS:MARKUP. I do like reduce unnecessary syntax, but I'm not sure that piped links add much complexity.

My concern—having used "fiber-optic" as an example—is that I followed the links in your summary to a guideline that I don't interpret as justifying all of that depiping. Why would the guideline specifically differentiate redirects with possibilities (and again, we have a tracking category)? My understanding has always been that we're not supposed to pipe around redirects with possibilities because they could potentially become standalone articles, but the script is helping to you depipe all links possible, and rely on redirects for very minor stuff, like differences in word form. If what you say is true, then why not remove the "redirect with possibilities" bit from the guideline, and whittle it down to "thou shall not pipe around any redirects ever"? — voidxor 22:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The second paragraph was a separate complaint. I thought to put all objections on the table. Another is that the unpipe tool is happy to link to [[Networks]] when I assume we'd agree that [[Network]]s is better. I do fix these up manually when I use the tool. I don't fix up [[Frequencies]] to be [[Frequency|Frequencies]] which it sounds like would be your preference. I think the tradeoff between easy wikitext and adding a redirect to the path is a wash and don't see one as being particularly superior and don't consider it worth fighting the tool over.

The link preview readout is two sided. It is arguably astonishing to see a different target name than the text you're hovering over as is the case with a piped link. Landing on a different page than you saw linked is also astonishing but the system does try to address that by indicating "(Redirected from Networks)" at the top of the destination page. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You keep stating that the difference is a wash and not worth the effort, but you are the one making dedicated edits to depipe links, with edit summaries (which I do realize are script-generated defaults) that link to the script page, which in turn links to two of guidelines that I don't interpret as requiring all possible links to be depiped. So you're saying it's not worth the change (adding a redirect, etc.), but keep in mind that you are the one making the changes and I'm the one advocating for the status quo (except for redirects with possibilities, which I agree must be depiped per the guideline). Again, I think the script is too heavy handed versus what the guideline calls for. — voidxor 16:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you have made a valid technical point there. We generally don't want to change things unless it is a clear improvement. I am making some individual link changes that are arguably a wash and therefore not improvements. However, I believe each of the edits I'm making (with multiple link adjustments in each) are overall clear improvements. In this context, I don't think it is critical that I go through the output of the tool and manually remove the individual changes that are a wash. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I need to edit the page about Anubis. It contains a serious flaw. It mentions (like most other sources) the jackal as the source of the image of the god Anubis. It should be Egyptian Wild Desert Dog (now extinct). --Manje Ressler (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Manje Ressler, this is going to be a problem if I understand the issue correctly. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and if the sources are wrong, the article is going to necessarily be wrong. Do you have any reliable sources that support the Egyptian Wild Desert Dog? ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do. There is a recent scientific article based on research into the origin of the Podenco, a breed that has a striking similarity to images of the god Anubis. I will add the source, of course, when I am done editing. ~2026-18305-90 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Manje Ressler, what you can do in this case then is add language describing the multiple interpretations in different sources. If your intention, however, is to replace the jackal with the Egyptian Wild Desert Dog, that would be something that should be discussed on the article's talk page first. ~Kvng (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will consider the different options. It is a widespread misunderstanding/misnomer, so I will need to bring good evidence to the table. Manje Ressler (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Kvng. Pleasure to meet you. I am reaching out because I noticed your involvement in many computer-related Wiki Projects (like Computer security and Computing) as well as your position as a new article reviewer. With those interests in mind, might you be willing to take a look at the draft article I put together for Cyabra, the computer technology company? If you think it is ready for publication, I'd really appreciate your help with making it live on Wikipedia. I'm still learning the ropes of this platform, so any feedback you may have is appreciated. Thank you, RotemBaruchin (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@RotemBaruchin, looks pretty good. Thanks for taking care of WP:DISCLOSE. What do you think are your WP:THREE best sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)