Jump to content

User talk:Nthep: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 129: Line 129:


== Wikidata weekly summary #648 ==
== Wikidata weekly summary #648 ==
{{cot}}

<languages/>
<languages/>
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
Line 231: Line 231:
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Danny Benjafield (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=27557411 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Danny Benjafield (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikidata&oldid=27557411 -->
{{cob}}


== A barnstar for you! ==
== A barnstar for you! ==

Revision as of 09:08, 5 November 2024

Wikidata weekly summary #634

Extended content

Wikidata weekly summary #648

Extended content

<languages/>

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for clearing out many copyvio revdel requests of mines. Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work! :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #649

Extended content

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

Wikidata weekly summary #650

Extended content

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello. Thank you for addressing the copyvio request at Tomoyuki Yamashita. The issue is not that our article reproduced the full text of Yamashita's "Last Will" from 1946; but that our article reproduced the full text of Yuki Tanaka's English translation, published 2005; which has its own copyright. Rotary Engine talk 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotary Engine are you sure the translation is Tanaka's? Nthep (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

You declined a revdel of Draft:Barney's World. Even if the current revison is attributing the source, the previous versions are not. They need to be deleted. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
That is why I chose to drop you a message. Thanks for that. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
thx, I was just in the middle of adding a reply to the same link. Nthep (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #551

Extended content

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)[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]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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