User talk:Sam at Megaputer/Archive 1

Be careful with cleanup templates
I fixed up one of your recent taggings. Please read Template:Multiple issues and the template documentation for any template you intend to use before using it.

You can also go to a template's page, such as Template:Multiple issues, then click on the "What links here" link on the left side of your screen (mobile browser mode and the mobile app may not show this link). Look for lines with the word "transclusion" in them and follow the links if you want to see how others have used that template.

Please consider going back over your recent edits which used templates and make sure they are used correctly. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And nice work on Bambino Mio. My tool only helps me identify promotional editing - it doesn't tell me what to do with it. I apologize for my sloppy cleanup on that article. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I wound up undoing all edits from April 14 onwards, someone basically rewrote the article, removing all the references and making it sound more "promotional" than it was before. I'm not going to claim the page is in great shape now, but at least it has references.  You were the one that gave me the idea to remove the awards, which were in the "old" version too.  I also removed the product listing.  In both cases, the lack of references was a major reason.
 * Now, I may have erred - there is a non-inline reference that's a book that might have covered both the "awards" and the "products" list. I didn't notice that book until after I had already deleted those sections.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way
You might want to read this. I don't recommend replying, just read it and take it to heart and edit accordingly. That message is what got my attention in the first place re: the diaper article above. I have that editor's user page on my WP:Watchlist. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, after posting the above I looked at the contribution history of the editor who raised the issue. I see no interaction between him and you, so it's very confusing.  It may be that the editor confused you with someone else, or it may be that the editor has two accounts, which is sometimes okay.  In any case, if you remove large blocks of content, it's a good idea to explain things in the edit summary or on the talk page or both.  When you do revert to an old version, it's usually a good idea to search the "last version before you reverted" for anything good that needs to be preserved.  This isn't always feasible, but when it is, it's good for not just the reader but for the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of Slovenský plynárenský priemysel
I have removed the tag from Slovenský plynárenský priemysel, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Beagel (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: PolyAnalyst has been accepted
 PolyAnalyst, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=PolyAnalyst help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hello! Since the article Polyanalyst was created, you have made about 45 edits to the article. Have you not read our WP:COI policy? You need to stop directly editing that article. We are not here as a promotional vehicle for your company. Let me know if you agree to stop editing the article directly, and use the standard method (talk page requests) instead. I will leave the standard COI warning next. Possibly (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of paid editing guidelines, and to the best of my knowledge I am complying with them. WP:PE states that it is "strongly discouraged" for payed editors to edit pages directly, which seems to suggest that it is not prohibited. I will gladly use the edit request template in the future, but if there is actually consensus that this as a requirement rather than a just a strong suggestion than the guidelines may need a change of wording. The purpose of my edits was not to insert promotion, but to ensure neutrality in hopes of getting the tag off. As I've said elsewhere, that tag is really supposed to facilitate cleanup and not to hang there eternally as a badge of shame. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work on Enel, by the way. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am glad you have agreed to use the talk page for future requested edits on PolyAnalyst. Editing the page yourself will not help to remove the "paid edits" tag, as you will just be generating more paid edits that need to be checked. Leave that to completely uninvolved editors, and it will eventually get cleaned up. Possibly (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia vs Wikipedia
I can't help but think the above probably belongs somewhere else, like at meta.wikimedia.org. Did you talk to anyone at the Wikimedia foundation? I've never seen an editor run a research project from their user account, as it could be seen as divergent form the task at hand, which is building an encyclopedia. On the other hand, Meta and wfmlabs is full of this kind of thing. --- Possibly (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This tool only works on English language Wikipedia, and it is going to be released in full after the study is over. So the main thing that's going on here is the release of the new anti-promo tool, but it is important to collect the data now because after the release the opportunity to collect high-quality data will no longer exist. I did mention this at a WMF office hours, but I'm not sure that this is something they care to be involved in. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To oversimplify things a bit, you can think of the tool as a read-only interface that shows a list of articles in need of TNT. In this study, we release half the list and withhold the other half, hoping to show that the articles we release become less promotional while those we withhold stay the same. At the end of two weeks the study is over and we will release the whole list. The tool can also be configured to assist in finding articles for deletion, tag management, and high-impact cleanup, but the promo-detection feature is the main thing. As someone who can recognize promotion and has experience in AFD, you are exactly the kind of editor who might enjoy this tool. I'll happily give you access if you'd like to try it out. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can see you are well intentioned, but you may have problems selling this as you your self are a paid editor. It also sounds like a corporate product, so volunteer editors may be skeptical. Anyway, I wish you luck with it. --- Possibly (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that the tool is not being "sold" so much as given away for free. I think if people try it, the tool's merit will speak for itself. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary
Please don't promote your new "tool" that has no community approval everywhere - it just screams advertising for Megaputer. EGGIDICAE🥚 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey dude, new tools don't need community approval per WP:BOLD. And as far as I am aware, it is standard practice to make a few posts to alert the community that a new tool exists. I see these kind of posts all the time. Otherwise, how are people supposed to know? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, WP:BOLD is an essay about editing content, not spamming a tool hosted by a company who pays you to write about them on Wikipedia that potentially has access to users data. EGGIDICAE🥚  19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)