User talk:Intforce

Hamburg

Explanation for your Hamburg change please. Everything you like, you leave as it is, and what you don't like, you delete. You deleted Bauer Media Group but Gruner + Jahr is still there. You deleted Heinrich Hertz, Johannes Brahms and Felix Mendelssohn, but Helmut Schmidt is still there. I wonder who is more famous. You deleted the Vltava info, although it was just a note not occupying space, and you deleted also the Stern info but Spiegel is still there. And you did all this, without explanation. And at Erfurt, note that it is completely uncommon to mention all the distances to different German cities. Justification for all this please Tibesti1 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I restored an earlier revision (see WP:STABLE) because your changes are problematic from multiple viewpoints.

• Major grammatical errors and MOS violations.
• Removal of {{Lang}} templates. They are there for a reason.
• Factual errors. Stating that the Elbe river is actually the Vltava river is simply wrong. And also has no place in the lead.
• Trivial additions not relevant to what a lead is supposed to do: summarize the most important contents of the article.

Quite frankly, you have to be very careful when editing the lead of a major article. If you disagree with my assessment, please discuss it on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD. intforce (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, let me tell you, the manner in which you go around here deleting things is not very pleasing. Treating my edits as if they were vandalism, although none of them has the slightest touch of that.

Secondly, a closer look at what you exactly do shows, that you can't have read carefully through all my edits before reverting them, but that you just randomly and broadly reverted all my edits from one day. Otherwise it is not explainable, that the Spiegel is now again called a newspaper in the lead, and not a magazine. You tell me to be careful when editing a lead of an article, when it is in fact the case that i'm the one who reads through it carefully and tries to improve it, and you are the one reverting it to a state full of mistakes.

Now that i told you the first mistake you made reappear again, it goes on. To begin with Frankfurt (Oder), your reverts are highly problematic.

• First of all, you deleted the second spelling variant as well as the local dialect variant from the infobox, although a look at other cities' articles shows, that it is in fact common practice to mention the alternative names in the infobox. For sure, you will be able to cite the Wikipedia rules that allow you to delete the alternative names from the infobox.
• Secondly, you deleted the info, that there also appears a gallic rooster in the coat of arms of Słubice and not just of Frankfurt. Now while one can do that, one doesn't have to do that. Maybe you can explain why it's better not to mention this.
• Thirdly, the name section of Frankfurt seems to be much too short to be justified. If there is not enough material for a name section, the alternative names are normally mentioned right at the beginning of the article.
• Fourthly, there is now again that sentence "The large lake Helenesee lies within Frankfurt's city limits." in the article. This sentence reads like a non-sentence, as if there is missing something.

Concerning Hamburg, my first question would be, if the lead is supposed to summarize the most important things as you wrote, why is it that Olaf Scholz being chancellor since December 2021 is in the lead of Hamburg. Do you really think that something like that would be in the lead of Britannica? It is obvious, the most famous sons of Hamburg are Brahms, Mendelssohn and Hertz, and you deleted all of them, while Merkel, Schmidt and Scholz are still there. But you will surely have a good explanation for that, too.Tibesti1 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tibesti1: You are treating this like a personal issue, when it's not. I have no intention nor desire to be hostile to you. All of us are volunteers, and I have no personal stake other than wanting to see each article improved. We do have policies and guidelines to follow here, but that is not the point. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and if someone disagrees with your changes, you discuss the topic on the talk page, so other editors can may in.

When you make a massive edit that improves some aspects while introducing a number of gross errors, you can not reasonably expect other editors to manually undo every error while keeping your improvements in. In that case, a reversion to an earlier revision is not an endorsement of the prior revision, as you imply, but simply a recognition of the fact that the newer revision has made the article worse from an objective viewpoint. To avoid this, make small, individual changes over time, and use the edit summary where you explain your reasoning behind the change, giving other editors the chance to review each change individually. intforce (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your Frankfurt (Oder) change. Are you telling me that i may not revert your last change there, but discuss each of the four points on the talk page, or change it back again in four different steps? Tibesti1 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the Marchian name is notably to warrant such a prominent inclusion in the lead and infobox. Adding a footnote is perhaps more suitable. intforce (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And what are the criteria for including Low German names of cities in the Low German language area? As we can see at Turin, there the infobox also shows the name in Piedmontese. Tibesti1 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion is decided on a case-to-case basis. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page if you disagree. intforce (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Africa (Saint-Saëns)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Africa (Saint-Saëns)

The article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns) and Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you have not yet started work on addressing the issues made in my review for this article. Please note that the nomination will be failed on 11 July, as stated in the review, if they are are all sorted by then. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Quantum computing lead

Hi! I see that you reverted my changes to the lead of the quantum computing article without providing an explanation. I think that it is always a good idea to explain your reasons for preferring the older version when reverting changes to an article. I had made the change to help make the lead more concise, and to mention the hype around quantum technology, as I had previously discussed with Igor Markov in the article talk page. Could you please explain your rationale at Talk:Quantum computing so that we can reach a reasonable consensus?  — Freoh 12:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Freoh, thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. I agree that the lead should highlight the practical limitations more. Nevertheless, I believe the earlier version had certain merits that deserve consideration, mainly in terms of flow and coherence, offering a clearer explanation of the relationship between classical and quantum computers, and introducing quantum supremacy in a more natural way. I also think that the phrasing "hype around the discipline" is potentially unencyclopedic. Additionally, I'm not too sure why you removed the final sentence that introduced quantum complexity theory, which was certainly useful. However, I value your thoughtful edits and encourage you to continue refining the article. intforce (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Intforce, I can agree that "hype around the discipline" doesn't seem encyclopedic, but it is semantically appropriate given the circumstances. Would you be comfortable with "unusually high expectations for" or "irrational exuberance related to" "the discipline" or some other appropriately elevated substitute? Igor Markov 23:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a universal scientific consensus declaring quantum computing to be overhyped? If not, I propose rephrasing "generated hype around the discipline" to something like "generated notable interest in the discipline" or "drawn considerable discourse in the discipline" to comply with WP:NPOV. intforce (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Your GA nomination of Africa (Saint-Saëns)

The article Africa (Saint-Saëns) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns) for comments about the article, and Talk:Africa (Saint-Saëns)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

My contribution of 'In fiction and popular culture' as in numerous other similar items.

Hello,

I contributed this section of 'in fiction and popular culture' in the same style as in other items such as 'heidelberg university' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_University), yale university (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University), harvard university (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University), University of Oxford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford), University of Cambridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge). Why can't university of Göttingen have such an item? I hope we'll put the section I contributed back to where they were. Thank you. GCGOC (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion is considered on individual merit, not precedent. None of the two entries you added are sufficiently relevant to the university itself that it warrants inclusion. The song does not even mention the university. The film contains only a trivial mention. intforce (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Different views about university rankings

Hello,

Again, I don't know where you're from, but I believe this must be a place for free speech and not censorship. Who says those rankings are the golden and objective criteria that one must buy?! These rankings are all products developed by commercial companies for business purposes. I added those words without censoring the original ones, so why censor my ideas? Do you recognize the 'marketplace of ideas' - a fundamental principle of free speech? GCGOC (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter what you or others consider "free speech". Wikipedia operates on a neutral point of view with due and balanced weights given to opinions and a strict exclusion of original research. If you want to add something, ensure its verifiability. intforce (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

OK - thanks: 'verifiability', 'merit' and 'not precedent'. Well said! I just found the following footnote to the Wikipedia ranking:

"Experiments show that the Wikipedia university rankings provide a certain overlap compared with the existing world university rankings. Besides, Wikipedia university rankings attach more importance to the overall economic and cultural contributions of universities and make up for some of the deficiencies of ranking index system." - Mining the World University Rankings from Wikipedia, 2020, available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9142517/metrics#metrics.

The edits I made previously to the paragraph about ranking were not just my own comments. Instead, the vast differences in the results of the rankings along with this new footnote (which I didn't add last time) well document my previous edits:

"In 2015, the Wikipedia Ranking of World Universities listed the University of Göttingen as the 23rd among the world's top universities and the 3rd best in Germany (with footnote). However, The University of Göttingen's rankings vary significantly across different business-oriented global university rankings, reflecting a wide range of evaluation criteria for and perspectives on its academic and research performance."

What I added was completely verifiable, and actually reflected the problem with the rankings of the university of Göttingen (probably with other universities as well) - esp. with the help of this new footnote as verifiable support. I do strongly think this edit should be added, even though this ranking is not mentioned in the text of rankings in most other universities. However, what others did or didn't do should not serve as the precedent for edits, as you mentioned. GCGOC (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In other words, I wanted to provide this source along with the outcome of the Wikipedia ranking as EVIDENCE that "the rankings vary considerably". This is neutral - I'm not saying which one should prevail, but just pointed this out, rather than let one voice dominate and suppress a different voice, no matter whether anyone thinks this is correct. GCGOC (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. There are dozens of university rankings. Do you wish to include every single one of them? It is common practice to stick to the most commonly known by their prominence in reliable sources. Cherry-picking the most favorable rankings for a university is violating NPOV. intforce (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Detail About National Pingtung University

Hello, I'm Shuting23521. I noticed that you removed the version I edited in "National Pingtung University". I have a few points I'd like to clarify. In the first paragraph I am sure those all base on the official website of the organization. I am not sure why it is unreliable. I hope you can cheak that again. Also, I know it was very different from the original version but the original version was describing NPUST instead of the NPTU in this directory. Even the original version was not based on any evidence. For the reasons mentioned above, I took the opportunity to modify the "Academics" section and listed the departments and research units. This was because the page lacked content, and I hoped that by providing this information, readers would be able to gain a detailed understanding of the university. These contents are still based on the official website.

I may have been negligent in the history section because I only mentioned the citation[1] within the paragraph (which is from the NPTU official website, describing a brief history), without explicitly stating in the title of the table that my reference was from the official website. This was my oversight.

I hope don't remove all of it.

first paragraph:

NPTU offers undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs across 7 colleges: Management, Computer Science, Education, Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Science, International, and Mt. Dawu.[2] Notably, the College of Education and the College of Management stand out as prominent academic institutions within NPTU. In the 2023 Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings, NPTU was globally ranked 801-1000.[3]

Academics:

NPTU has 7 colleges: Computer Science, Education, Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Management, Science, International, and Mt. Dawu. Also, NPTU has the Center of Teacher Education.[4]

College of Computer Science

• Department of Computer and Communication (B.Eng.)
• Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering (B.Eng.; M.S.) .......

Shuting23521 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shuting23521: Please feel free to add information that observes the reliable source and neutral point of view policies. Language such as "give Pingtung a bright future" is PR language and unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. intforce (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I will review the content again and make appropriate adjustments in the future. Shuting23521 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have confused Kyoto University and Osaka University

The subject rankings you added to Kyoto University are of Osaka University, and vice versa. You may check your edits in other universities' arcticles as well. 78.104.180.89 (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected the error. intforce (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hamburg

You forgot to revert my other changes at Frankfurt, Freiburg, Leipzig, Dresden and so on..... You are the one from the Hamburg dispute some time ago, where you also prevented some major changes that would have to be done, at the same time retaining those parts of my changes that you personally were ok with. Comparing the old and the new photo collage, it is obvious that the new one is far better. And you are using that talk page trick, exactly knowing that no one is gonna reply on the talk page cause no one is interested in it. Tibesti1 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You may call it "trick" or whatever you like, but talk pages but the way we build consensus here on Wikipedia. This is not a personal dispute between you and me. intforce (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

May i ask why you don't revert the other photo collages? And don't forget the already stable ones at Mainz, Wiesbaden and Stuttgart..... Somehow, your too many photos argument is invalid..... Is here a rule somewhere that a certain amount of photos may not be exceeded? What is the real reason why someone would prefer a much uglier collage to a beautiful one. Did he really compare the two collages or just blindly delete it because it contains too many photos in his opinion. Tibesti1 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page instead of framing this as some sort of personal crusade against you. intforce (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Again i'm telling you, if the amount of photos was the reason to delete the whole new collage, and you see that there are dozens of others of my collages with the same amount of photos.... you would have to delete them all. Otherwise your reasoning is inconsistent. There was someone else at Cottbus and Bautzen who insisted that the Sorbian names of the cities are to be treated equally in the introduction. Since then, this is wrong, because the English name is the one which is used most often in English, and not the official ones. It is crystal clear that the Sorbian names of Cottbus and Bautzen are not used as often as the German ones. Still he is convinced he's right.... And at Vienna someone changed the first photo to something that shows nothing. I know that i am right in all three cases, thank you for showing through you answers that there is no substance behind the deletions you carry out, including your Hamburg deletions last year. Tibesti1 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked at your other edits, and I have no obligation to do so. But your "but what about other stuff" argument is still void because each article exists on its own. Looking at your own talk page though, I see that you already have a history of dealing with other editors in bad faith. Once again, if you think there is a real content dispute, take it to the article's talk page, and stop harassing other users on their talk pages. intforce (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I know exactly that those are all tricks by you, to redirect everything you don't like to the talk pages, where the issues then resolve themselves according to your ideas, because not enough people participate there, and you neither... Secondly, i told you about the other two issues at Bautzen, Cottbus and Vienna, therefore it is obsolete to mention that here as new realization, and everyone with a common sense knows, that i am right, or is the name for cities at articles not the most used one in English, and therefore the German and not the Sorbian one? Also, everyone sees that the first photo at Vienna now shows nothing. But that's your second trick, to make it appear as if i am involved in many disputes, to discredit my contributions... It's all so clear... But showing the rule that states how many photos may be used in collages, that won't come here cause it doesn't exist. Tibesti1 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't help you here. If you do not wish to participate in Wikipedia's collaboration process, well, then... don't. No one is forcing you to be on this site. intforce (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

An the second stage of the trick.... I know that you are indeed right, and that as soon as someone doesn't like a contribution, he can claim it being discussed on the talk page.... However, also everyone knows that this is the best way to prevent changes one doesn't like. I don't think you are interested in a lengthy discussion about the collage either... You just hope that it's too stressful for me to open a talk page discussion and that way everything stays as you wish it to be. And now please stop writing more sentences of which we both know the complex, unwritten thoughts that are really behind them. Tibesti1 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw your discussion from Tibesti1's contribution site, and I do have the same feeling that you did add excessive images in the infobox, as we discussed in the Vienna case. And I would say that that Tibesti1 you are somewhat arrogant and always feel you're the right person and doesn't take other's advice. Adding too many pictures (even if they are of high quality) in the infobox may not help to improve the overall quality of the article but cause difficulty of reader to grab necessary information when they read. Vitsuha (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you now kidding me Vitsuha? 1. I didn't even revert your edit, although everyone sees that the first photo you inserted is completely unsuitable. 2. Then i even admitted that i didn't like the old photo that i used for the collage either, but that there was no better one (as we can see now) 3. I also admitted to understand that some people think it's better to use less photos. 4. I even wrote "Greetings" at the end of my message. And as a thank you you stab me in the back now? I didn't even change the obvious mistakes at Bautzen and Cottbus i was talking about above :-) It is interesting, that if you are being told about some obvious mistakes that persist at an article, you are far away from perhaps changing it. (The intro has to read: Bautzen (Upper Sorbian: Budyšin) and not Bautzen or Budyšin). Lastly, you must know yourself that your Vienna photo is unsuitable, and still you don't do anything to change it, although i was waiting for it. Instead you are reading my contributions and try to push me into a bad light.

This was your contribution:

This photo shows the rear part of the Belvedere park... The palace itself isn't visible, no important landmarks of the skyline are visible, there is just nothing to see there. This photo speaks for itself, it doesn't have to do anything with my supposed arrogance. And i didn't even change the photo back :-) Tibesti1 (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)