User talk:Nthep/Archive 77
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nthep. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 70 | ← | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 |
Copy Vio at Hee Oh
Hey @Nthep
I have seen you recently rev deleted a copy vio from Hee Oh. While patrolling through RecentChanges, I found this edit by the same IP, with my usual routine, I rolled it back using Twinkle and warned the user of unsourced content. Later realized that it was the same copy vio content added by the same IP. Now I cannot add it back with a rev del request, neither can I report it anywhere, that is why I kindly request you to rev del my rollback, and the IPs copy vio.
Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav Done. You don't need to add it back to add a revdel request, in fact adding it back is the last thing we want. Nthep (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is why I chose to drop you a message. Thanks for that. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav (talk page watcher) Forgive the unsolicited advice, but there's a user script, which I'll link here, that you can use to request rev-deletion in this situation without adding it back. In fact, removing the copyright violation is an important part of the process, so thanks for doing that! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- thx, I was just in the middle of adding a reply to the same link. Nthep (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses No need to forgive, and thanks for the advice. After all, we are all here to improve the wiki. Bunnypranav (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bunnypranav (talk page watcher) Forgive the unsolicited advice, but there's a user script, which I'll link here, that you can use to request rev-deletion in this situation without adding it back. In fact, removing the copyright violation is an important part of the process, so thanks for doing that! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is why I chose to drop you a message. Thanks for that. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #551
Extended content
|
|---|
 Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-10-28. Missed the previous one? See issue #650 Discussions
Press, articles, blog posts, videos
Tool of the week
Other Noteworthy Stuff
Newest properties and property proposals to review
You can comment on all open property proposals! Did you know?
Development
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer. Weekly Tasks
|
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
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
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Wikidata weekly summary #652
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2024-11-04. Missed the previous one? See issue #651 Discussions
Press, articles, blog posts, videos
Tool of the week
Other Noteworthy Stuff
Newest properties and property proposals to review
You can comment on all open property proposals! Did you know?
Development
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer. Weekly Tasks
|
Please take a look at Interpipe Group
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?