Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:08, 27 September 2022

User:Nightenbelle

User talk:Nightenbelle

User:Nightenbelle/Userboxes

User:Nightenbelle/Awards

User:Nightenbelle/Tools

User:Nightenbelle/Sandbox

User talk:Nightenbelle/Archive

Info before you post

If I declined your AFC- before you ask for advice, please review the comment I left and make sure you have read WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:Notability If you want to argue that I hate you personally and declined your article for personal reasons- please don't. Truly- I have no opinion- I make my decisions based on the sources and quality of the article and that's it. Its not personal. If you are here about a DRN case- I recommend you head back over there and post in the thread for that discussion. If I closed your DRN.... there's the DRN talk page if you have concerns- and one of the other mediators may be able to help you before I do. Or you can post here... I'll get back to ya.

I do archive this page as needed or after two weeks. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2

Icertis: How Should I Proceed?

Hello! This is Laura from Icertis. I'm returning here because I'm somewhat at a loss as to what I can do next to improve the Icertis page. The dispute above has fizzled out, for the time being, and the page is now in pretty bad shape, with three tags and not much content. After Hipal and Kvng went back and forth, a third editor came through and deleted a sizable chunk of the Technology section. They didn't leave a summary on one of their edits, so I posted to the Talk page asking for further clarification, but didn't get a response.

I know my role in contributing to the Icertis page is secondary. I'm a COI editor, so I make suggestions and then independent editors review and implement my ideas. That seems totally fair to me. What I'm having trouble with is that I'm not getting feedback that I can use to strengthen the quality of my edit requests, and the material I'm putting forward. And at the same time, I don't want to nag editors for that feedback. I'm also struggling with generally knowing how to approach the tags issue, since editors have disagreed. I know everybody here is a volunteer, and I want to be respectful of people's time.

You struck me as eminently reasonable, in that big melee above. Do you have any advice as to how I should proceed from here? I'm truly not trying to turn the Icertis page into a promotional brochure. I just want it to feature accurate information about the company and what it does. Any suggestions you might have on how to make that happen would be tremendously appreciated. Thanks! Icertis Laura (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look today and see what I come up with. I'm sorry you're hitting road blocks. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you for taking the time to help! The page has accrued quite a dense edit and Talk page history over the past few months. I know it's a lot to sift through. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I don't want to offer commentary on what other editors have been up to, but I can clarify my own thinking and straightforward details, as needed. Icertis Laura (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I honestly forgot about this by the time I was back at a computer, so I'm glad you commented again to remind me. I did take a look- and I agree with most of what was deleted. Talking about clients is inappropriate, which makes the blockchain bit questionable as well. However, I did re-add the bit about AI- I think that is useful / interesting. I have to be honest though- I don't see that the company is any more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other software companies. I'm going to try to do more research.... but unless there is something more notable than other run of the mill stuff- I don't see this article growing much. Just because something exists- doesn't mean it needs a huge WP article. I've worked for several companies in the past that, while cool and wonderful places to work, do not require an article, or maybe only a short one. Its just the nature of WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to review the page and give me this thoughtful reply. Obviously, I would love to have the Icertis page overflowing with information, but I understand that's not how Wikipedia works. If you do more research and find previously removed content or new information that you feel is up to the site's standards, terrific. If not, that's totally fair. Perhaps, as you said, the page deserves to be brief.

I did want to ask one more thing: do you have any advice on steps I should take to get the tags removed? Those bother me more than the page being short. I feel like they suggest that it's dishonest in tone or that I've made direct edits myself. When I started making edit requests, the page had a written like an advertisement tag on it, and I thought "well, if I follow all the COI and content rules, I should at least be able to solve that problem." Now it's got three tags. You see my predicament.

Anyway, thanks again for your help! Icertis Laura (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well- I did remove the advert tag- I don't feel that is an issue anymore, and I'm ready to make that case if needed. However- the other two are still accurate. Even though you are going through the talk page like you should- you are still the main person initiating adding new information- so the COI tag will probably stay for the forseeable future. The sourcing tag- that we could fix IF we could find more sources that were not press releases. And you and I both know that 90% of the articles used were created from company issued information. We're both in business- we know how this works. Until there are independent news articles not initiated by company press releases- that tag is gonna stick around as well. Sorry I don't have better news. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving everything a thorough review. I definitely agree with you that the page could use better sourcing. At the company we're hopeful that, as we grow, we'll generate more independent press coverage that we can use to strengthen the page further. If that happens, I'll return to the Talk page with some fresh edit requests and see what non-COI editors think. Hopefully with a little less drama than in this go-round.

It's been nice talking to you about this and I'll take your advice with me going forward. Take care! Icertis Laura (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Currency Guy

The ANI appears to have been archived without action. It was brought by someone who is not a party to the DRN. As a judgment call, I think that if it can be resolved by DRN or by RFC, that is a better solution than pie-throwing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just wanted to be sure you were aware in case it did blow up. It was on the same topic, even if not the same person. Still- I’m glad they are engaging Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have seen, it did blow up with another ANI. That is, the filing party blew the case up by losing his temper at the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be funny if it weren't so sad how many of these are predictable. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Nightenbelle,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Latest DRN Posts

The other problem with the request that you just closed was that they had top-posted it. I didn't even see their post at first (after you had closed it), because it looked like the last post to the article talk page was seven years ago. I have left him a note telling him to use the software the way it is written, so that he posts to the bottom.

The speed of light thread is incomprehensible. If there is no further action on it within 24 hours, I may close it as incomprehensible. I really am not sure whether the editor is a troll (I don't think so) or is scientifically deluded (a crackpot) (more likely). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the top posted discussion- it still had like 3 comments all of them in the last 24 hours. So- still need to slow their roll and discuss more first. The other one- Yeah I agree, I didn't know what else to say or do other than what you said. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, physics has its share of crackpots, although I have recently been learning that there are a variety of crackpot theories in history too (which are that periods of a few centuries didn't happen).

And the Most Recent One

The one about the Uyghurs is one of two topic areas that those two editors are quarreling about, with another dispute over another Central Asian people at Third Opinion. The basic problem is that they are enemies, and that one of them has a vendetta against the other one, saying that they are a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but CheckUser says that they are unrelated. They will end up at WP:ANI. Maybe one of them will report the other, or maybe a third party will report them. I don't know if there will be a survivor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anfal campaign on a "History and geography" request for comment. 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 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cities Guide Dispute

Magnolia hasn't replied to SusanLesch on the city guide dispute. If they don't reply within a few hours, I will ping them. If they still don't reply, the dispute has to be closed, but I expect that they will reply. I will leave it up to you whether then to take that dispute as a follow-on or to leave it to me because you have earned your pay on the Minneapolis dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I pinged them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if magnolia responds I’ll take it as follow up. If not- I’ll close it. I’m out driving today- but I’ll be home tonight to follow up on both. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be friends

I like your work u solve Racism and other things. could we be friends 201226nick (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Friends are always a good thing :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yay what times are u online 201226nick (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think u would wanna be friends. No one ever wants to be my friend. 😥 201226nick (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	hi 201226nick (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how I know u

I know u from thinker78's talk page 201226nick (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Eleventh First Edit Day!

Hey, Nightenbelle. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability Software Discussion

Hi @Nightenbelle! I’m glad you’re jumping in on the Accountability Software discussion. I’ve been alarmed that the page was rewritten completely a few days ago in such a way that it misrepresents what accountability software is used for. The editor took a new news story about a church misusing the software and is making it appear that the *purpose* of the software is to misuse it in that way! It’s really bad and I’m concerned he’s not interested in constructive discussion. If I post a comment he generally ignores it (like now - it’s been 6 hours). He usually only comments if I make a change that he or the other guy reverts back, but he never addresses all of my comments.

I really try to give the benefit of the doubt, but he *appears* to have an agenda rather than wanting an even-handed accurate article. Could use whatever help you can bring! I’ll take any suggestions as well. Thanks in advance :). Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 <!-- Message sent by User:Buidhe@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1110106306 -->
+== Accountability Software Discussion ==
+Hi @Nightenbelle! I’m glad you’re jumping in on the Accountability Software discussion. I’ve been alarmed that the page was rewritten completely a few days ago in such a way that it misrepresents what accountability software is used for. The editor took a new news story about a church misusing the software and is making it appear that the *purpose* of the software is to misuse it in that way! It’s really bad and I’m concerned he’s not interested in  constructive discussion. If I post a comment he generally ignores it (like now - it’s been 6 hours). He usually only comments if I make a change that he or the other guy reverts back, but he never addresses all of my comments.
+I really try to give the benefit of the doubt, but he *appears* to have an agenda rather than wanting an even-handed accurate article. Could use whatever help you can bring! I’ll take any suggestions as well. Thanks in advance :). [[User:Keithgreenfan|Keithgreenfan]] ([[User talk:Keithgreenfan|talk]]) 00:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)