User talk:T-Nod

September 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bore evacuator, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Hohum @ ) 19:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I got lazy in a moment of weakness. Updated. T-Nod (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tracked articulated vehicle has been accepted
 Tracked articulated vehicle, 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=Tracked_articulated_vehicle 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! Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Berlagebrug
Hi,. I seems like a reasonable assumption that you watched the video released by Not Just Bikes earlier today which chided the state of the English Wikipedia article on Berlagebrug. I did too, which is why I was watching the article. However, the reason the Dutch Wikipedia's article is so extensive is that 90% of it is completely uncited. The attempt at expanding the article from the corresponding wiki is commendable, but we abide by WP:V to ensure that what we're saying is 1) factually accurate, 2) trustworthily so, and 3) carrying WP:DUE weight. Thus, I would encourage you to only port over the material which is cited by a reliable source (like De Telegraaf) while avoiding material that clearly isn't – which includes most paragraphs of that article – until a proper citation can be found. It seriously is appreciated, and I'm even going to put up a banner encouraging users to translate. Nonetheless, repeating the material as though it's fact without any citation is extremely dangerous.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  00:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:TheTechnician27, I don't see any danger here: there are no living people involved, and the bridge won't collapse because of some unverified claims. T-Nod and I are working on it, and I expect to pitch in as well. Yes, the Dutch Wikipedia has way too much crap, but we will bring this up to our standards. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's quite literally Wikipedia policy to only include that which is verifiable, and I know you know that because you administrate here. "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." The danger is that potential misinformation that someone on the Dutch Wikipedia made up out of thin air gets propagated elsewhere, circulating essentially forever, especially while there's a relatively high amount of attention on the article from the Not Just Bikes video. Just a few weeks ago, I had to perform relatively meticulous research to remove a subtitle from a video game article because said subtitle didn't exist (it was made up by the article's creator), and in the time it was here, it was propagated to YouTube LPs, TV Tropes, Amazon and eBay listings, game databases, etc. "You may have noticed that we are working on it", except that just adding unverified stuff into an article with the promise that it will be cited later (especially when you don't know the source exists) isn't appropriate, and 250 words of the article still remain uncited. Stuff like this is exactly what sandboxes are for. Eventualism in respect to factual accuracy is complete nonsense, because Wikipedia is available to the public at all times. I have confidence you'll get this sorted, but you and I both know that my reversion was exactly within policy, while the addition of the uncited material was not.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be entirely clear, though, I sincerely appreciate that you are working toward getting this all cited and dramatically improving this article, as it was quite anemic before. While I disagree with the methodology, the foreseeable end result and the amount of effort can't be discounted.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, @TheTechnician27. I am sadly aware of the different standards the Dutch wikipedia holds on a lot of these thing. I took an approach of first write it then cite it, thinking that cutting up the work into parts would mean it happens in chunks. I see your elaborate response now (with the example of the efforts you made to scrub misinformation about a video game and the consequences of that misinformation circulating way after it has been removed from Wikipedia) and I recognize that my approach was wrong an indeed dangerous. I also think that, given the type of article this is about, the danger is relatively limited (agreeing with @Drmies's assessment that this article is not about living people) but I think that is no excuse to be reckless with verifications. I'll work on reading an finding more sources, with help from other editors, and perhaps we can improve this article independently of the Dutch Wikipedia. When the English language Wikipedia is better sourced, I could even translate it back into Dutch to improve that article there as well. But again, I apologize for my recklessness.
 * And for the record: yes, I was alerted by the Not Just Bikes video on Youtube and its mention that the English page was lacking in information, and felt it was a calling. I have made it something of my personal mission to improve on pages on Amsterdam history, y'see, and also I thought well you can complain that a page is empty or you can do something about it I guess. T-Nod (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * T-Nod, you were not being reckless: you were doing the kind of thing that moves Wikipedia forward. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)