User talk:Intforce

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)

Nomination of XIX International Chopin Piano Competition for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XIX International Chopin Piano Competition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XIX International Chopin Piano Competition until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yuja Wang

I understand your revert of the removal of her birthdate, but I don't think it's inclusion is yet justified as we don't have multiple sources. See WP:DOB. But there are other sources that could be added, see [5] and [6]. I don't want to add these myself, sorry I can't say why. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise is to only list the birth year, I guess. Though the IP which claims to be her Wang's assistant is hardly verifiable to be an actual objection (nor is it in any way effective, in this case, given that her birth date is all over the internet). intforce (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Technical University of Munich

I was hoping you could help me understand your decision to revert my edit on Technical University of Munich. I am unaware of notability guidelines for sub-sections. Can you point me toward some articles on this topic?

I know that the edit made it so that the GNI received more coverage than other research institutes, but I would not have thought WP:UNDUE would apply here. Even if other research institutes have more media coverage, the issue is just that information on the other institutes has not been added yet, not necessarily that they are more or less deserving of coverage.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on guidelines so hopefully you can clarify!

Thanks. Chagropango (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Chagropango, welcome to Wikipedia.

While the GNI may be relevant to TUM's research activities, your edit raised several concerns. WP:UNDUE applies not just between topics but within sections – the disproportionate coverage of three detailed paragraphs versus single sentences for other institutes suggests undue weight, regardless of potential future additions about other institutes. The level of detail given is excessively granular for an encyclopedia article, with specifics about individual symposiums, funding, etc. that would typically be considered trivia unless the institute has demonstrated extraordinary significance. WP:RECENTISM is particularly relevant here, as the institute was founded in 2020 and hasn't yet established the kind of broad, documented impact that would warrant such extensive coverage in a general encyclopedia article about TUM. The granular details about funding breakdowns and specific research projects could be seen as promotional content rather than encyclopedic coverage, especially for a recently established institute.

I would suggest condensing the content to a single sentence in line with other institutes' coverage. If you'd like to create a separate article about the GNI, you may want to review WP:ORG for organizational notability guidelines. intforce (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Requirement

Please analyze the structure of this sentence, "The two imagine what their happy life together would have been had their relationship thrived along with their careers,". Tikitakazu (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are confused by the conditional clause ("had") here. To be precise, we have a third conditional with inversion (had their relationship thrived... instead of if their relationship had thrived...). It is perfectly fine to use those in encyclopaedic writing. intforce (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about inversion. Thank you for having revised my edit. Tikitakazu (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Logo Upload

How to upload logo on wikipedia like other pages have it AdiDas5501 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content. intforce (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

University of Cologne: Rankings

I had a look at the University of Cologne's Wikipedia entry. The university's positions in the international rankings are presented in detailed tables. Unfortunately, the results are no longer up to date. I could see that you have changed something in the past with regard to rankings. Do you happen to be familiar with these tables? Dou you know how to edit them? Thank you! Judith Wojda (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the past, I used a script to compile those tables. However, it is quite a bit of a hassle to collect the data. If you can get the raw dataset (e.g. Excel or csv) from the three (QS, THE, ARWU) subject rankings (e.g. by contacting them), I could update them again. intforce (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I will try to collect the data and let you know. Thanks for your help. Judith Wojda (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You could try to contact them directly. To get the year-by-year comparison, we would also need the previous year's data (i.e. QS 2024 & 2025, THE 2025 & 2024, ARWU 2024 & 2023) intforce (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will look into that and get back to you asap. Have a great day! Judith Wojda (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)