Talk:Bachelor of Technology

India

All Indian Institute Of Technology and National Institute of Technology offers B.Tech course various discipline(branches).

Bachelor of Technology

Moved from User talk:Matrix

Hi @Matrix. I am @Archer1234. I noticed your recent edit to Bachelor of Technology, where you reverted an edit that was a reversion of another editor's contribution. The explanation you provided was Unexplained content removal. Howvever, I note that the content removal was not "unexplained". In the edit summary, the editor wrote this: looks like a bunch of link spam to me. You might not like or agree with that explanation, but I don't think it is fair to call it unexplained.

A couple of other things to note. First, absent obvious vandalism or socking, the WP:BURDEN is on the one who adds content, not the person who removes it. If an editor objects to the removal of content, then the originator, per WP:BRD, should open a new discussion on the talk page to discuss the matter and get consensus for its inclusion. Second, if you look at the edit history of that article, it should be apparent that there is an ongoing attempt by new and/or low-edit accounts to add similar or substantially the same content to the article, which is getting removed as spam or wp:original research by multiple senior/experienced editors, including administrators. So, I think it is fair to say that the content is disputed and should not be restored without some discussion. The article may even need to be protected to force a discussion by those who want to include the content.

Anyway, while I won't get involved in the debate, I think you might consider self-reverted your reversion with an explanation encouraging a discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Happy editing. — Archer (t·c) 21:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Archer1234: It was the default edit summary on WP:UV (my bad, maybe should have used the custom revert feature?). I have explained on the IP editor's talk page but my point is that it was well supported with WP:RS, and it is an appropriate summary of a Bachelor of Technology for the page. I think as part of the WP:BRD cycle it is that we discuss at the article talk page next. Happy editing, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 21:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Archer1234, I appreciate you bringing this up here. It is deeply tedious to edit not logged in and be faced with the following situation: a brand-new account makes a large edit that obviously violates a bunch of content policies (WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, etc.) but in particular has all the marks of a paid editor adding link-spam; you revert the edit with an explanatory edit summary; and then you end up reverted & with a template that indicates that the reverter has not attempted to assess the validity of the edit summary, or probably even to examine the edit beyond the number of bytes removed. Yes, Matrix, of course you should have used the custom revert feature, but in fact you shouldn't have reverted at all because many of the added sources are obviously not RS, and you should not support Wikipedia being used for SEO by paid editors. Hopefully you will spend more than 2 minutes correcting your lackluster first effort; certainly I'm not going to re-revert just to be jumped on by some incompetent recent-changes reviewer. 68.237.27.46 (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you thought I was biting. Let's focus on the content, not the editor and start:

You said the edit violated WP:RS. While some of the sources are questionable (e.g. [1] is made by a job-hiring company), the majority are perfectly fine ([2] [3] [4], made by reputable companies like Times of India). These reliable sources probably also demonstrate notability.
Don't really understand why you're citing WP:UNDUE. As stated earlier, the reliable sources clearly demonstrate notability and inclusion for the subject. Maybe you're saying all the other countries don't have text like this in the article, but that feels like an "other stuff doesn't exist" argument. No need to sabotage the good work that has taken place.

Hence I will not self-revert. Happy editing, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 15:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop mentioning the edit summary. I gave a perfectly fine message at your talk page, which is fine if not better, since you are more likely to read it there. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 15:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is false that your message at my talk page was fine: like your edit summary, it falsely asserts that my edit was unexplained. It may be that you do not understand or do not agree with my explanation, but it is unambiguous that I included an edit summary that explains the reason that I made the edit. Instead of being defensive, you should own up to the fact that what you did was leave a mistaken edit summary and a mistaken template while reverting. I have not asked you to self-revert; I have, however, asked you to take responsibility for the poor content that you've now added to the article by fixing it. The fact that some of it is not as poor as other parts of it is not a good reason to reinstate obvious paid promotion with garbage sources. (The inclusion of references to the Times of India does not somehow make the garbage ok! But also see WP:NEWSORGINDIA.) If you cannot see how making an article on a subject like Bachelor of Technology almost entirely about India falls afoul of WP:UNDUE, there is very little I can do to help you. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, yes, your edit was unexplained. Your edit summary ("looks like a bunch of link spam") isn't exactly an ideal description of the problem, is it? But we could argue forever about edit summaries. Let's focus on content, since this is a content dispute.

You say the article is "almost entirely about India". I disagree. It's two paragraphs, which is an appropriate summary of Bachelor of Technology in India.
You say this is WP:UNDUE, but that doesn't make much sense. UNDUE is about viewpoints, that's not what this discussion is about. Maybe you're saying other countries don't have this kind of coverage in the article, but that is a very WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST style argument. The other countries should have this level of coverage, but we have to wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice content is missing.
I don't think this is "obvious paid promotion". Yes, promotional news in India is common. No, I don't think that applies here. For example, see [5]. Yes, it contains some tips and a general outline of the JEE. No, I don't see any obvious promotion for any company. Feel free to cite specific examples though.
You say "bunch of link spam". Yes, there is a bit of MOS:OVERLINK, but that can probably be sorted in 5 minutes. That does not necessitate the deletion of the content.

Happy editing, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I am moving this dispute to the article talk page, continue from there please. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC: @Archer1234 and Edu-info-goodwriting: — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]