Talk:Tobias Huber

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tobias Huber article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Kipepea (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown.

document approved[edit]

Document is accurate. Tag has been removed. Editor confirms no personal interest and no financial gain. comment added by Thaisus— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.110.184 (talk) 15:03, March 02, 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "approved", you mean approved by Tobias Huber? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All statements are supported by the cited references. Everything in this article is approved/supported by commonly available informationen. comment added by Thaisus

document rechecked[edit]

Document has been rechecked and tag removed. Editor confirms no financial gain. Looks fine and is accurate. comment added by Thaisus— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.110.184 (talk) 15:03, January 29, 2018

cleanup completed[edit]

Document has been cleaned up and additional references have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaisus (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Thaisus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Okay. Also please follow WP:COI. Best Doc James (talk · contribs

Additional references added[edit]

Article has been looked up. Looks fine. Lot´s of additional references have been included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graka2017 (talk • contribs) 04:21, December 6, 2017 (UTC)— Graka2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

False statements by user Superbass[edit]

These statements by user Superbass are false: "still no explanation for these templates given, user:saidmann became even blocked for an edit-war placing them in de:wp"

Saidmann did not take part in the edit-war there and could therefore not be blocked for it.
de:wp does not even have either of the two templates that are used here (although it would definitely benefit from also having them).

--Saidmann (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked for similar behavior in a similar article. In the German language Wikipedia you were told by many people many times that you may set templates because of concrete problems but not because of suspicion due to the origin of the article. That means you can use a template because of self-reference in "Scientific contribution" if that is true, but you may not claim or imply that the person portrayed has (probably, possibly) paid for their article simply because the article author has created some other paid articles. I don't know exactly what rules and viewpoints apply in the English language Wikipedia, but if you don't reduce the templates to a concrete problem description, we could find out by a message to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If an effect of denunciation is appreciated here, which I can hardly believe, I have to accept it. Then you have found a place where you can achieve pillory effects for "maybe" undisclosed payments. --Superbass (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all articles by Ventus55/Kipepeia were tagged by others. Only in the rare cases where such an article had been missed did I complete the tagging process. The insinuation that I had been looking for "a place" to do something evil is just ludicrous. --Saidmann (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do an evil but a malpractise

If an article has problems with it's quality, references or NPOV, point out that. No more and no less.
If you think the article might have been written under conditions of undisclosed payment but you have no individual proof for that, leave it. Read the box above: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". The assertion or suggestion that a person has paid for his article is such material. You risk harming people, and still I have no hint why that shoud help the article more than just pointing out quality problems. --Superbass (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here for an advise --Superbass (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are no "material" of the article. And for a risk ("nay") there is no need of proof. It is enough, if it is reasonable. The function of the tags is to point out that a check-up is needed. Not more and not less. --Saidmann (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it, no matter in what language you're told it. If you have a flat wheel, you fix the puncture. You don't tell everybody about the colour of the nail that was probably the reason. I'll wait for for reactions from the noticeboard. --Superbass (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and still I have no hint why your action should help the article more than just pointing out quality problems. --Superbass (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without the tags there is not much reason for anybody to improve anything. I suggest you collect some information as to why we have tags. --Saidmann (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said without tags. There are tags without assumptions that only point out secured problems. Tags for missing citations, refs and for POV exist - you don't use them because you'd miss the pillory effect --Superbass (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I did not choose the present tags. I only filled them in in the odd overlooked article. I assume, though, that those who chose these tags for this series of cases had good reasons to do so. ..Saidmann (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Required clean-up not yet completed[edit]

The clean-up that is required in the COI and UPE tags is not yet completed. All refs in "Scientific contribution" are self-refs. As such they are not sufficient to document relevancy. --Saidmann (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)#[reply]

Article complies with BLP guideline[edit]

Statements in this article are confirmed by cited secondary literature. Basic science articles are cited additionally to secondary literature and are key to demonstrate relevance of scientific work. COI template removed. --92.77.240.61 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UDP tag has already been removed in the article about 'Tobias B. Huber' in the German wikipedia. There is a detailed discussion about this issue on the talk page of the German article. As it was the same issue for the English article, the UDP tag can also be removed here. --84.173.29.76 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written primarily by an undisclosed paid editor. And now we have a bunch of IPs with a COI trying to remove the tag?

Paid editors do not typically make sure the refs actually verify the content in question. So basically everything needs to be checked.

German may have a greater tolerance for paid promotional content. What they do their does not determine what we do here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]