Open main menu

Response to your messageEdit

Thanks for the response and there is no conflict of interest.

MamamooEdit

Hello,

Mamamoo fans want the blackface incident section removed for certain reasons.

1. It is unfair they have the controversial incident when other kpop groups have done mistakes pertaining to blackface or racial slurs. Mamamoo is the only kpop group who has this sort of negativity on their page.

2. We want the same treatment

3. Justice

4. Peace

Also, why does the incident included on their page? the page is semi-protected. We mean no harm.

Conflict of InterestEdit

Hi KSFT,

Thanks for your help and I will definitely follow the guidelines to first Disclose the required info and refrain from editing myself and request an edit instead.

I edited today the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_modelling article to include Datamine Software, the company I actually work for, which is probably something I shouldn't have done. Probably the best would be "I work here, and it is not listed, should have been, please add to the list if you agree with me" and request the edit.

This said, it is a bit weird that there is a list of Software companies there, including competitors, and it really doesn't seem like it is that unbiased. Another thing is that several other companies have articles published and I find it unlikely that unbiased third party individuals are responsible for the articles. The company I work for is renowned for its geological modelling capabilities and it is a bit surprising that it would be left out on a list that also has its main competitors.

I was actually drafting something, definitely not for the purpose of advertisement, but for the purpose of providing information, trying to just relay information similarly to what we can find in some other pages. I think this industry is big enough to have people seeking info and they would like to find it in Wikipedia, but not big enough to have people writing articles on mining software companies.

If you check, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOVIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maptek

and what I am doing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Henrique.buchhorn/sandbox/Datamine_Software

I am definitely avoiding the use of expressions like "sophisticated" or "simplifying and accelerating routine tasks" like the Maptek article and adding external references as much as I can, not only from the company website.

Anyway, my question is, will this article be refused right out of the bat because I work for the company or if the conflict of interest is stated but the article is found to be impartial and purely informative, it can still be published?

Because I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and I will not willingly do anything that goes against any of the guidelines.

Your assistance will be much appreciated.

Cheers

Henrique.buchhorn (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Henrique.buchhorn: It looks like you've appropriately disclosed your conflict of interest on your userpage. Your draft shouldn't be declined only because of your conflict of interest, but it can be very difficult to write neutrally about your own company. Both of the articles you linked to look promotional, so you're right not to base yours on them. KSFT (t|c) 02:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018Edit

Hello KSFT,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Hello KSFT,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI clerk applicationEdit

Hi KSFT, sorry this is out of the blue. We've done a less than stellar job of managing the SPI clerk applications, which is something I've been trying to work on. I've removed your application since it is fairly old, and you're less active these days. Feel free to reapply in the future if you're still interested :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "KSFT".