Jump to content

User talk:Nthep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikidata weekly summary #551

[edit]
Extended content

Please take a look at Interpipe Group

[edit]

There have been a series of editors on Interpipe Group engaging in serious copyright violations, POV pushing, adding material with no sources, adding material sourced back to the subject, etc. The problem is on-going. I am just a volunteer and have no idea how to deal with this. I also don’t have that much time Thanks. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:89F7:79CC:32F8:C25F (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user is manipulating and falsely accusing me of things I haven't done. That's easy to check.
The claim about "adding material with no sources" is untrue. I added four independent sources to the edits. However, the IP user removed the lines that were sourced from the Interfax agency, labeling this action as the deletion of the Forbes material with adding a link that had no connection to the actual edits.
The IP user spent a lot of time attacking my edits and reverting the article without trying to offer any suggestions.
So the only point I agree with the user is that your attention to edits is needed. Artpine98 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has issues similar to many articles about companies in that it doesn't really explain why it's notable. There are, in my opinion, too churnalism references. The references to constructionweekly.com are just quoting what Interpipe has announced without any apparent attempt at independent verification. mining-technology.com starts off ok then turns into directly quoting of Interpipe material "our ..." gets used repeatedly so you have to wonder how much of the rest is an objective assessment or a repeated press release. The history looks ok until we get to the last 10-15 years. Then I look at some of the statements and say "so what?" For example, "Interpipe Steel Mill melted its millionth ton of steel, just 15 months after the launch of the facility" Is there anything to compare this with? Is this achievement good, bad or indifferent? If there are independent sources that not only verify the statement but also put it into context then it's that level of quality that's needed.
I think writing about existing companies is a really hard area to edit in, so the advice I'd offer is look for quality over quantity. Fewer statements with good sourcing are going to produce a better article, than numerous non-contextualised statements with less good sourcing. If you can't find an independent reliable source for a statement then just don't put it in.
Please don't be discouraged by what I've written, we've all been there when we first started editing. Putting almost anything in, because we think it's an improvement, when actually it isn't. Take a step back, think about what you're going to add and consider, is it adding anything to the readers understanding of Interpipe? If the answer is no, then don't. Nthep (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and advice. All my last updates were exclusively based on reliable sources like Reuters or Bloomberg. I've been more precise about information double-checking and avoiding press releases or company promos.
Additionally, I've checked the lines you mentioned. They were added a couple of years ago by other editors.
Thanks once again. I will follow your advice by further contributing. Artpine98 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all the churnalism in the article was down to you. I was commenting on the article as a whole. Apologies for not making this clear. Nthep (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that.
Unfortunately, there are new issues with the IP users again. Don't know if this is the same person commented here or the new one. They just delete lines and put false claims in descriptions. So I assume they are strongly motivated to keep anybody from adding to the article. This behavior is specific to IP accounts only.
What do you do in such cases? Artpine98 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have different views to you about what is relevant content (veracity isn't the issue). That's an entirely valid point of view. What isn't acceptable behaviour is an edit warring, even a fairly slow burning one, like this. The onus on establishing relevance falls on those who wish to include the material. So, before there are repeated removalue of content, there should be more discussions on the talk page explaining why the content is relevant as often edit summaries are not enough. Nthep (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Wikidata weekly summary #652

[edit]
Extended content

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #653

[edit]
Extended content

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2024

[edit]
Delivered November 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

How to rename Wikipedia page without account?

[edit]

Hello Nthep! Could you please help an anonymous Wikipedia user? Last week, Norwegian Wikipedia user Ranværing has created this page:

Draft:The_train_accident_between_Bjerka_and_Finneidfjord_in_2024

There is a list of train accidents, but the naming convention seems to be that the year should always come in front. This is why I tried to request to rename the article to 2024 train derailment at Finneidfjord, but I made a mess, because I never took the time to learn how Wikipedia is working inside and outside.

I usually try to stay away from Wikipedia, because editing tends to be time consuming, but I am very curious, so I use Wikipedia a lot and I am not shy to make corrections when I come across obvious errors. I have added tons of references manually, but my efforts to edit in good faith were often met with hostile reactions (...).

It can also happen that I get carried away on one subject that I found in the news. I edit Wikipedia in all the languages I know, but Welsh is not one of them. I do read Norwegian and I know exactly where the train crash has happened: The train was much closer to Finneidfjord, than to Bjerka, hence my renaming proposal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_(2020%E2%80%93present)#2024

So you have deleted the mess I made, but who can please rename that page about the train accident at Finneidfjord, to fit naming conventions?

Thanks a lot in advance! (No, I will not register an account...) 82.173.160.29 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've commented on the page, it's currently a draft, if it gets accepted as an article, the title can be sorted out then. There's no point moving it at the moment. Nthep (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #654

[edit]
Extended content

AFC for Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you deleted the previous versions of this AFC, or at least I believe this is the cause of the struck out links for *all* previous versions. Presumably this was done in reaction to a reported CV. I want to flag that the reported CV affected exclusively *one section* in the AFC, titled "Education and Training at the Gatsby Unit" or something close to that effect, which was added (by me) at some intermediate version. Therefore, deleting only the version(s) affecting the said section should be sufficient for clearing the reported CV. Note that I can no longer verify the reported CV if the version(s) affecting it remain deleted, while I believe I had attributed the source of the content by inserting references. I'd be happy to check the reported CV and fix accordingly, for which I think that the deletion of the previous version affecting this section prevents verification of the reported CV and corrective action. At the same time, I believe it is not justified to delete other previous versions not affecting the said section. Many of the other previous versions of this AFC had content and references that will be helpful to keep track of. Therefore I request to please kindly revert the deletion of all previous versions. Thanks. Orivasplata (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orivasplata yes, for some reason I applied revdel to too many versions. I have reinstated the versions prior to the point at which the violating material was added. Nthep (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep Many thanks. I believe the content in question may not have constituted an unambiguous cv meriting a speedy deletion request, after all. I reiterate: the source of the content in question had been credited with citation, the source being the About page within the website of the Gatsby Unit, which is publicly accessible. Even if this was indeed a cv, it is easy to fix (removing the content in question, and/or replacing with suitable content). Besides, the content in question was non-extensive. I and I'm sure other users would be grateful to receive guidance.
On the other hand, having checked just now the copyright cleanup instructions, item (iv) appears to be relevant:
(iv) change the decline parameter in your AfC copyvio decline template from cv to cv-cleaned – or remove that decline entirely, since you've just cleaned it, and re-assess the draft on its other merits; and
Therefore, could the AfC be re-assessed based on its merits, please, since it's been cv-cleaned. Thanks. Orivasplata (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orivasplata there wasn't a case for a speedy deletion which is why I declined that and limited things to revdel of some revisions. I did mark the template as cv-cleaned but I didn't conduct the review. You can either ask Lemonaka to re-review or, as you've already asked for another review, just leave it until someone reviews it. Nthep (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #655

[edit]