Talk:Interpipe Group

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Untitled

My rationale for assessment:

worlds #2 rail wheels manufaturer = actual or potential monopolist on a market strategic for world transportation
Ukraine's/East Europe's ever largest bank sell deal underway

Ukrained 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

There are strong indicia of unpaid COI editing here. First, there is off-Wiki evidence that you can easily find. Second, a string of SPAs have been adding highly tendentious material that paints Interpipe in an unduly positive light that are editing in an extremely naive way. One of them seems to be an Interpipe executive. 2600:100F:A110:5D:F8E8:2CE6:283:4E97 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of criterion RD1

I improved the article by adding citations to many sources as was asked in the top template box (more citations needed). Additionally, I formed a structure of the article following style tips, and added internal links, new facts, and numbers.

Hence, in my opinion, the latest version of the article more meets the requirements after my updates than the reverted.

So, I ask you not to delete all my contributions which I've done for the last few months. If some of the lines are considered incorrect citations they can be reviewed one by one and edited. I'm ready to update the article, where needed, and I would be glad to receive your advice and comments. Artpine98 (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting and COI

Repeated reversions of edits violate the rule of a Neutral point of view and are a sign of COI. The IP user hasn't provided proper explanations for deleting all contributions. I assume the user is a competitor or works for a PR company reverting the article exclusively on Fridays. Artpine98 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory look at the editing history will show that your editing patterns closely match those of a long string of SPAs that add promotional content and whitewash this article. Reverting your edits on sight is entirely appropriate in these circumstances. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:51C9:8D0B:8B81:C87D (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been announced that the article requires expansion and more reliable sources. I have added updates from the last few years to the History section using well-known mass media sources. The history section is typical for each company article and this can be easily checked through a Wikipedia search. I was surprised by how IP accounts began to attack all my edits, and now I believe there is a clear purpose behind it.

The IP user (or users) show signs of COI due to couple of facts.

Firstly, the user is focused on preventing any edits without proper explanations, labeling anyone who contributes as having a COI. Additionally, all reverts are done exclusively on Fridays. It seems to be the systematic work of a company and not a real person. So it might be some PR agency or PR department of one of the competitors. While being so engaged in the topic, avoiding Wikipedia login instead of IP is an indication of attempt to hide real intentions. Edit's history shows that IP users added only critical information and were focused to revert any other contribution.

So there are obvious signs that IP users have clear intentions to use this particular Wiki article for their purpose which is a sign of COI and needs additional attention from admins and real editors. Artpine98 (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artpine98 I've gone ahead and removed some of the material you were trying to add. On Wikipedia, we care what third party sources say about the subject. We don't care what the company has to say about itself. And yes, these claims were printed in a third party source. However, if you notice, the source explicitly refused to state any of the claims in its own voice. So stating in Wikivoice that these claims are true is inappropriate. If you want to add this material into the article, I strongly recommend you find a better source. Because, yes, if you add material sourced like that, you cannot be surprised if somebody else asks you if you have a conflict of interest.

But if you truly believe the IP editor has a COI, you can always open a thread at WP:COIN. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian, thank you once again for your review and suggestions. That's good that the article was cleaned from inappropriate information and sources.

So I spent some time, went deep into the topic and following your advice found trustworthy sources such as Reuters, Bloomberg, Business Standard, etc. Also, I've found and added information about the factory in the 19th century using The Ukrainian Encyclopedia, CIA archive documents, etc.

Further, I consider adding some information about company structure.

If you have time, please, have a look at my contributions because I have a mistrust of unknown IP users who are very active in attacking everything I do and accusing me of what I haven't done. Artpine98 (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a very severe copyright violation. You plagiarized almost every word you wrote directly from the source. This does absolutely nothing to bolster your credibility given that you have already been warned about this behavior. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:3065:7DAF:A2B5:2848 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been trying to get one over on us by using native advertising from Interpipe which was placed in Forbes. It was clearly labeled as "brand voice" AKA paid advertising. The source was clearly labeled as Interpipe. This will not stand. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:3065:7DAF:A2B5:2848 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the Division or Product sections you mentioned as a copyright violation. So please be more accurate in checking before accusing. Artpine98 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding unsourced material. Please refrain from adding material sourced back to Interpipe. Please stop adding promotional material. This is getting totally ridiculous. I am tired of cleaning up your messes. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:89F7:79CC:32F8:C25F (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is manipulation. No unsourced material has been added. I followed the advice and my new contribution was based on reliable sources like Reuters, Bloomberg, etc.

But there are some recent weird actions by the IP user.

For example, the IP user deleted a line referencing the Interfax agency and claimed it was a deletion of material sourced from Forbes. Additionally, the user wrote that one of the paragraphs had no sources when, in fact, four sources were added. Artpine98 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the article and immediately see several paragraphs without citations. Please stop your nonsense. This is very tiresome. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:89F7:79CC:32F8:C25F (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines said - citations should be placed at the end of the text that they support. You can check it here - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources All my contributions are supported by sources. A paragraph doesn’t mean that this is material without a source, it just helps to structure a text. Please, check carefully before accusing. Artpine98 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at articles you will see the standard practice is to put a citation on each paragraph. 2600:100F:A110:CF2C:68C0:8C0F:B63E:DA2E (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]