User talk:Notfrompedro/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited False Positive (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosemary's Baby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Typo
You might want to correct the typo in the ANI thread you recently opened: it's being going on since at least mid-2020. Thanks again for the great investigative work you're doing, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pure happenstance that I stumbled on it. Everyone I have seen who did a bunch of COI refspamming was pretty subtle at first but then they push it too far. They usually get caught after doing their thirtieth edit or whatever. If they were less greedy they might never be caught. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, it should perhaps have been obvious that an ace from the University of Toronto would have had a COI. But enough beans, I'm commenting because you didn't correct the typo. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Got it. Thanks. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! I see that you've started work on mass-reverting our now-blocked promotional editor(s). I also see that some (only some) of the content you've reverted was in itself quite valuable. I think the best way to go about it is if I go through your edits and re-revert what I still recognize as good stuff (I have some background knowledge in most of the subjects they edited). I wanted to let you know of this beforehand though, since you might get a lot of these nasty revert notifications, which is never pleasant. Thanks again for your great work here, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A great deal of it was the same text added to a lot of articles.  Some might be helpful and that could probably be re-added. I found a good handful of Virani references added by other editors so obviously some people believe his work can be educational and helpful. Do what you need to do. :) Notfrompedro (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the adding of the same material to many related articles, even where it wasn't due, was one of the giveaways for their edits being of a promotional nature. In many cases, however, it's perfectly sensible to add the same or similar material to related articles (I often do this myself), so in those cases I might keep, say, two out of five of their similar edits (the remaining three often not being due). And yes, Virani himself seems to be a perfectly legitimate scholar (I think the disruptive editors might rather have been some kind of 'fans'). Thank you for your understanding, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with BLPvio-only accounts
Thanks for reverting that edit at Adam Schiff. One note, though: I know that this is partly a matter of individual editors' discretion, but in my opinion, when an account's first edit is to make a politically-sensitive BLP violation, it's best to start them with a warning well above uw-vand1. WP:VAND advises: If the behavior continues, or if it is clear the edits are in bad faith from the outset, the use of a higher-level template (level 3 or 4) may be appropriate. Creating an account just to violate BLP and NPOV is a strong sign of "bad faith from the outset", so I left them a uw-biog4im for their second edit. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 21:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I will try to do that in the future should the situation present itself again (which I hope it won't) Notfrompedro (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, people like that pop up fairly often in certain topic areas, so good to be prepared for.  Personally, my philosophy is, when the disruption is coming from an account, only start with a level-1 if it's plausible that they just don't know that they're violating policy; reserve starting with level-2 for rare cases where an edit was clearly not-okay but was only minimally disruptive; start with level-3 if there was disruption; and start with 4im if it's a case of BLPvio, harassment/PAs, or egregious vandalism. Again, some discretion involved there, but that's my personal approach.  -- Tamzin  (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good advice. Thank you. :) Notfrompedro (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. Keep up the good work. -- Ashley yoursmile!  16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Notfrompedro (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Hello. I just wanted to point out what I added is not "original". I neither wrote the articles or book I cited. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The first reference says the character was "likely" an amalagamation of two real people. You used that and the second reference to draw a conclusion not stated in either reference which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The whole backstory of the character is the same of Moorehouse. I disagree. However, I'll look for a better source. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Even if you can find another source that says the character is based on Moorhouse, the rest of what you continue trying to add is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It would not be. If she's based on Moorehouse. Then Moorehouse's history is relevant to the character. Meaning that when the critic outright says Tarantino invented something it's not true. However, we are good. As I have figured out a way to word it without any disagreement. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I won't say anything about Pussycat's inspiration. Although I already found another reference. I'll word it based on the first article and book alone. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you read WP:SYNTH? The very first sentence is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are attempting to do original research by taking sources that have nothing to do with this film and using them to rebut a review of the film. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Its not a review of the film. I'm not sure you read it. I can just delete the whole thing. This isn't worth it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a review of the novel of the film. Deleting things you don't like isn't valid. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I added it. However it contains historical inaccuracies. Terry Melcher is not a fictional character. He is a real person. The review claims Tarantino invented something about him. There are historical non-fiction books that were written well before his that clearly show he did not invent it. I wouldn't have added the review in the first place if I knew it was going to be such a big deal. It's best if it's not there at all at this point. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I added a quote from the Post review. It's also positive though so at this point I think there's enough of those. Which is of course great for Tarantino and the novel. As far as Wikipedia though, let me know if you find one with a different perspective. That's what I liked about that other one. Personally, I thought it was kind of out there but I understood it and it was certainly a unique and different perspective. Of course the issue I saw with it was the historical inaccuracy which maybe means it wasn't that good in the first place but it certainly was different. If he had known the history or just didn't say that part it would've certainly added to the page. If you come across anything else like that please let me know. Again, thanks for the sources. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I found a Pajiba review that is somewhat critical Review: 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' the Book Somehow Makes the Film Way Less Interesting but otherwise the reviews seem pretty positive. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I noticed the positivity as well. He's a good writer. Thank you Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Forcing a non-neutral viewpoint of author Graham Hancock
Deleting my talk comments regarding Graham Hancock as being anything other than a Journalist is inaccurate, biased, and not researched. Terratian (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing on the article talk page discussing this edit. Your edit summary claimed it was "highly contested" on the talk page of a completely different article, Graham Hancock, but all that talk page shows is you contesting it and nobody agreeing with you. That isn't how consensus works. Your edit was disruptive. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There are over 20 attempted edits with users such as yourself reverting changes, with little or no respect for the work of or the definitions being ascribed to the author. Do yourself a favor and pick up a book and actually read the talk pages before making claims. Terratian (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are admitting that every time an SPA attempts to subvert consensus it is denied. Yes, that is how Wikipedia works. If you can't be civil your future comments on this talk page will be deleted without acknowledgement. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard H. Palmquist source edit
While the article in the reference you just added to the Richard H. Palmquist page is good, removing the IBT article I previously included obscures some key information. In particular, the IBT article makes it more clear that initially Camping provided funds but was not a key member of the operation, and that Camping's organizational role started several years later. Your edit claiming that Palmquist "partnered" with Camping seems to further obscure what happened here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlingame61 (talk • contribs)


 * As I noted in the edit summary, IBT is not a reliable source and it is listed as one of the perennially discussed sources with a consensus of unreliable (see WP:IBTIMES.) If you can find a better source with the same content feel free to readd it. I tried but the East Bay Times article was the only thing I could find. The lack of sources is why I tagged it with a PROD the article in the first place. The truth is there aren't really references that aren't WP:PRIMARY about the subject. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Miracle article
Please ping me if the editor keeps editing the article and I'll block him. I've told him I will. This is just promotional nonsense and time-wasting. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Roger44223's persistence made me search for "Matthew Edward Hall" and I found a handful of SPAs who only promote this person.


 * MusicGeek03
 * Musicgirl2004
 * Dustmanner
 * The links they add all show the same image for "Matthew Edward Hall" that Roger44223's links do and even call him a "Royal Musical Artist" as Roger does. These older accounts were promoting Hall as a musician but I guess he has moved on to Godchild. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And we have a winner! I'll block them all as CU confirmed socks of MusicGeek03. Thanks for your persistence.  Doug Weller  talk 16:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

L. Murugan
Vandalism is going on in L. Murugan article. That IP user sourcing left articles as reference. If that should be added then it's to be added in the last line of article citing unclearness, just showing one left article as proof clearly prohibits neutrality. Example see article of M. Karunanidhi, as language issue remains unclear they added only in last line. Hope u take necessary ones Nahtrav (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

rESPOND
I did it because the whole of Italy are racist, rude, cheats. They do not deserve a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmongUsIsC00l (talk • contribs)


 * That is not true and not a valid reason to attempt to redirect an article. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

/* On politics and social issues */ Dr. Adrian Rogers never said the quote about slavery at any time.
To the people who keep removing the edits that have been made. This entire paragraph needs to be removed. It is a fabrication made by a man that wholeheartedly hated Adrian Rogers and is 100% false. I have been editing Adrian Rogers content for almost 18 years, I sat in his church for 11 years and I am surrounded by words that he has spoken, both in print form and in recorded form and can guarantee that he never made such a statement. Even the speech pattern that is quoted is nothing like what Adrian Rogers would say - this is a lie and needs to be removed. Clearly I am not a professional Wiki editor and do not know the route to properly remove this false content. Any assistance in doing so would be greatly appreciated by both myself and the Rogers family and the millions of people that listen to his messages on a daily basis.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Matthews (talk • contribs)


 * This is what the article talk page is for. There is already a discussion there but there is a consensus there that the section is referenced and verifiable. If you have a conflict of interest you especially should be limiting yourself to the talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Kate Dillon Levin page
Hi notfrompedro thank you for the edits to my page - I'd like to submit some more edits for your review. How do I do this? LucyJean74 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)lucyjean74


 * The talk page of the article itself is the place to suggest things with full transparency. Your suggestions don't need my personal review as I hold no more authority than the next editor. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Notfrompedro
I appreciate you putting my post back up...

However, I took it down cause there is no point to it anymore... They just don't want to listen and now I have 2 people against me on this.

So again, thanks but it's pointless. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you feel that a conversation is pointless then you cease to participate in it. You don't blank the talk page. If everyone else in the conversation opposes your view then quite possibly your view is incorrect. Wikipedia works on consensus so people have to attempt to engage with each other. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No one wants to even consider this. They are showing images from 1975 for crying out loud. Look, they are not interested, they want a RC, even though Weberman & Canfield are fair from reliable sources. So it's kind of useless. Maybe you don't get what I'm saying or maybe you want to keep it up as some payback. Not sure but it's not going to amount to anything. You say I DON'T black the talk page? Why is that? On my recent post they did this... "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." so.. yeah, I think I can blank it. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You cannot blank the talk page. See WP:TALKO. Closing a discussion is not the same thing as blanking the content and the reason for closing the discussion was explained to you: No original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm DONE with this... Stop bring it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Mo Jordan (talk • contribs)


 * Then walk away but you don't get to deleted content on your way out. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the admin can do it and THAT is what they will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Mo Jordan (talk • contribs)


 * Closing a discussion isn't the same thing as deleting comments. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing Company Page: Kitchen Stuff Plus
Notfrompedro, I am having a difficult time editing my company page. I am simply trying to add the company history - I don't understand how that is considered promotional or why you keep removing it? I am not sure how to site it, seeing as there aren't textbooks or articles indicating how the company was started. Same as raising funds for different causes, how is this promotional? It is simply stating community involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.70.36 (talk • contribs)


 * If it is your company than you have a conflict of interest. According to WP:COIEDIT, you should disclose your COI and propose changes on talk pages. Stating community involvement serves one purpose: to make the company look good which is promotional editing. Wikipedia requires articles to have reliable sources that are verifiable to readers. If you cannot cite a source then the information doesn't belong in the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Uthiyur page
I am very well knowledgable in that subject of article Uthiyur. Almost all are good. You may only find little parts to be not good. Please don't remove large parts or revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.42.81 (talk • contribs)


 * None of it is "good" because it all depends on references that are not reliable sources. YouTube videos of monkeys, Wikis that anyone can edit, and commercial travel sites are not acceptable sources. Wikipedia is not a tourism website. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu Sentiment
Three people have deleted my proposed corrections, all with verified sources and new content that is factually correct. There are no reasonable explanations. It appears to be gatekeeping and if you allow sources like SASAC who are in the centre of hostility and politicisation, regarding scholars who are misquoted and smeared, it is clinical bias. I take issue with that as Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial. This page is inaccurate and hostile. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It was explained every single time in the edit summaries. Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. They aren't a place for you to write a whole new article because you are angry that the page is protected. You are attempting to evade the protection by just ramming your own version through via the talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A. There is no explanation aside from 'unconstructive'. B. The article is inaccurate and your editors have deleted the evidence that I provided for that three times. C. I did not write a whole new article, I wrote new content for the existing one. D. I requested a new page because the anti-Hindu sentiment page has an automatic redirection from Hinduphobia. E. Suggesting 'you are just angry that the page is protected' and suggesting it is about 'ramming my own version through' is highly offensive. Your entry is dishonest. It needs to be corrected urgently.Jnanashuddhi (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Look at the edit summaries here. I know you saw them because you keep going to that history page to hit "undo". When you go accusing other people of having a bias based on nothing more than disliking the content of an article then you don't get to complain about it being "highly offensive" for someone to talk about your intentions. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do get to complain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Hindu_SentimentJnanashuddhi (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good luck. Dispute resolution is for helping people discuss things. You don't seem to want to discuss: you want to make demands and cast aspersions about other people being biased because they don't agree with you. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

International Free Expression Project
Hi Notfrompedro, I wanted to just point out that I brought back some of the changes after your revision in the [International Free Expression Project] article. I'd made them after the promotional language was added because I didn't notice the promotional language (or I would have reworked the language myself). The changes were to the infobox, some grammar, deleting the orphan label and adding categories.

I mostly wanted to flag these changes so you don't think I was undoing your reverting -- just some of it that I think was unintentionally caught up in the reversion. Let me know, though, if there is any issue with some of the edits I just made/brought back. Thank you! Ddramacat (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Ddramacat


 * You claim to be employed by International Free Expression Project as per WP:COIEDIT you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly and instead you should propose changes on talk pages. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove some parts of article
hi Notfrompedro, you removed some parts of this article Javad Foroughi. as you know and see the refrence is related to an Israel website and iran has a vs to Israel. please check the article and if it needs to be completed please complete it. thank you.007saeed


 * You think because the reference is Israeli that is a valid reason to just deleted the content? It is not. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You are frivously editing/rolling back content on numerous articles for no apparent reason other than because you can. This Talk page is littered with other editors who seem to have the same issue with you. Continuing with this nonsense can get you banned from Wikipedia - a space where readers are trusting editors to make information more reliable. Quit being a bonehead!72.174.131.123 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You have been jumping IPs to add hoax content and disrupt articles. Your edits remove referenced content which is vandalism. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

undone my edits
I am sorry Notfrompedro, but i did not intend to promote any website, just that Indian LGBT organisations had less representation in the page, hence i did so. Please discuss about the edit gently, and not just give such notices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prerak k (talk • contribs)


 * You do know better because you have been reverted and blocked for doing the same thing multiple times. Creating new socks to continue the same behavior will just lead to more blocks. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_remailer
YAMN is a working remailer system. Have a look at at the references and to the Yamn pinger https://tincture.ws/pinger/classic/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.6.25 (talk • contribs)


 * There are many working remailer systems. Your edit removed a valid "citations needed" tag and consisted of unreferenced promotional text which is identical to Draft:YAMN so clearly you are also the other IP that was adding YAMN content to the article. Both the draft and your edit were copyvios of this page and have been tagged accordingly. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As my English is not good, I suggest that you or an other person could rewrite the article about YAMN that he will satisfy the wiki requirements. I only wanted to contribuite informtion to wikipedia. SORRY that I did not do this in the right mannor. This was the first and last time that I will share information to wikipedia.

By the way there are only three working remailer systems: Mixmaster, Cypherpunk and YAMN. Mixminion is dead for many years. If you want to inform yourself more about the remailer community I suggest that you read https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server. Besides a lot of SPAM (unfortunately) you will find a lot of information here.

> so clearly you are also the other IP that was adding YAMN content to the article. My router automatic changes the IP regular.

SORRY that I did work to you.

79.159.6.25 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ISU
Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc." - Cabayi (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Abdullah Al-Nafisi
Hi Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes? Notfrompedro (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

why did you delete my edit? What is your source? I am an Arab and I know English. Is your source Al Arabiya TV, which is supported by the Saudi and Emirati regime, which hates Dr. Al-Nafisi?! also He is a prominent Kuwaiti politician who is accused by Saudi Arabia and the UAE regime of this accusations because  his political positions Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

We should be neutral on Wikipedia :) Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about this edit your reasoning was your personal view that "Al-Arabiya channel hates the prominent Kuwaiti politician Al-Nafisi" which isn't valid. The content was referenced and if you take issue with the reference then use the article talk page and discuss it. Stop deleting information because you don't like it. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Al-Arabiya is supported by the Saudi and Emirati regimes first, and they hate Al-Nafisi because of his political positions, of course. We should not write partial words from an interview with someone Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The source talks about partial words from Dr Al-Nafisi interviews, only if you watched the entire interview, you will find a big difference Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Like I said WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to censor content. Please use the article talk page to discuss the content of the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

UAA
Thanks for the report at WP:UAA but please note that some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

about deleting my edit
Hello, I am from Afghanistan

Unfortunately, today I saw that on Wikipedia and on the Afghanistan page, my country's flag and logo have been changed to the flag of the Taliban terrorist group that has occupied the country. This is a great shame for the great media of Wikipedia.

Please do not support terrorists.

To be honest, I wanted to change that photo, but it was locked and I had to edit ten first, and then in four days I could change the Afghanistan page on Wikipedia. For this reason, I just wanted to make ten quick changes to get permission to change locked pages. Can you help me and change the picture of Afghanistan page? It was a big mistake to approve this change. Artmojtabaa (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited the Afghanistan article and simply reverted this edit of yours as it was unreferenced (WP:BLP requires references for statements about living people) and it consisted of personal views (MOS:EDITORIAL). Adding a series of unreferenced additions to articles just to be able to edit another article isn't a good use of everyone else's time. You can always use the talk page of the Afghanistan article to discuss the issue. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Quick note for copyvio-revdel
Hey - thank you for helping keep Wikipedia free of copyright violations, your efforts are really appreciated! Just a quick note, when adding the revisions to be revision-deleted, you only need to enter the ID and not the entire URL (see my edit). Many thanks, and keep up the great work ~TNT (she/they • talk) 06:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That makes it much easier. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ESSAR Steel India Limited page deletation
Hi, Trying to delete the ESSAR Steel India Limited page because AM/NS India has merged with ESSAR Steel India Limited. So now it's not standing alone anymore. I am wishing to remove all the ESSAR Steel pages linked with the above-mentioned page. For the same, I am facing the issue to delete it by using the Proposed deletion process as it's showing "This page must be substituted" even after following all the steps. I request you to delete the ESSAR Steel India Limited page and the other ESSAR Pages linked with it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNS INDIA (talk • contribs)


 * You cannot continually readd a PROD notice. Once it has been removed for any reason it cannot be added again. You don't need to delete that page at all. Create the new page and if it meets the criteria for inclusion then ESSAR Steel India Limited can be redirected to the new article. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

remove
I m removing his OR as he did with mine on THAT TALK page. If you're going to remove him than remove his edit on my post too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.241.182.119 (talk • contribs)


 * You didn't remove any original research you deliberately deleted half of someone else's comment. Your comment here about the article talk page being for ex Kmart employees to "shoot the shoot" and exchange gossip about Kmart is incorrect. Talk pages are not discussion forums and are to be used solely to discuss ways to improve the article. Your edits on the talk page are disruptive and you know it. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve but it will likely end in a block. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kmart
Thanks for dealing with that. Meters (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wise Music Group
Dear Notfrompedro,

Thank you for reaching out. I am one of the owners of the Wise Music Group. I understand that the editors do not want a conflict of interest in the articles Wikipedia presents; however this is not a news article.

The information I have written is factual and is a much more accurate representation of the company and what we do. The previous version provides only a limited view, focusing on imprints bought over 50 years ago, This does not represent what we do or the over 200 employees that work in many areas of music around the world. How does this help anyone looking for information on Wise Music? Shouldn't that becthe objective of Wikipedia?

What part of the article that I have added warrants that all the information I have supplied be removed? For example, that we are headquartered in London or where our offices are located? What imprints we own? The composers we represent? Who the the Board and executives running the company are?

I do not understand why you feel you have to remove everything I have written. If you don't like the style it is written in that I can understand, but the information contained in article is correct.

best regards,

Wisemusic1 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read the conflict of interest guidelines. You may believe that your edits are factual and accurate but they were blatantly promotional and unreferenced. Wikipedia relies on verifiability using reliable sources. Per WP:COIEDIT you should propose changes on the article talk page but the information must be verifiable and from reliable sources. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest that I add information that your readers might find informative, because as the owner I find the current representation limited. I am happy to go through it line by line with you.

Should I start here with Line 1?

Wisemusic1 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. I will be notified automatically. Everything you added both today and earlier using an IP was a massive amount of copyright violations. You cannot just take text from your company website and paste it into Wikipedia. We don't need to do a line by line on copyright violations with the express purpose of promoting your company. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how there can be a violation if I am the copyright holder and the one posting the material..But you tell me how I can add information in a manner you will find acceptable. Should I post it here for you to review or on the talk page for Wise Music.

Wisemusic1 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless you released that text into the public domain it is a copyright violation. Your website has a copyright notice at the bottom of every page. I already explained that per WP:COIEDIT you should propose changes on the article talk page but the information must be verifiable and from reliable sources. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Turkey edit
Could you please explain the reason for deleting the additions I had to the the Turkey wiki page? My additions came with direct academic references and were meant to fill the main loopholes in the introductory history section of the Turkey article. The additions were also important to break the conventional historiographical appraoch in this section which seems to focus simply on Mahmud II and the three pashas with a hundred years gap inbetween, ignoring the Young Turk Revolution, the Ottoman Parliement and the Ottoman multi-party democracy attempts etc., simply emphasizing specific figures and ignoring the multiplicity of the era as well as of history in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks2754 (talk • contribs)


 * I did in the edit summary. You made it appear that you were simply adding content but you actually deleted all mention of the Armenian genocide. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted that sentence out of an editorial touch. The Armenian genocide is given in details below in the article. I thought that in the introductory section it makes the brief and general historical intro out of focus. It was simply an editorial decision. Anyways, I would completely understand if you were only putting that sentence back. But why delete my additions as well during the process? I would appreciate if you can restore them.


 * It was a completely undiscussed "editorial decision" and one not noted or explained in an edit summary. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: I did not delete "all mention of the Armenian genocide" in the entry. Simply a sentence in the intro. The detailed information is below in the article. And I am not asking why you have restored it. I am completely fine with it. What I am asking from you is to restore the important addition I did to the intro, which you have deleted with apparently no acceptable reason.


 * I reverted your edit as I said in the edit summary. You did remove all mention of genocide in the lede. You added a single sentence which incidentally is also covered later in the body so if your excuse for whitewashing any mention of genocide in the lede is that it is mentioned later then that would also apply to information about Young Turks. You readded the sentence but then deleted it yourself so why are you demanding that I add it back? Notfrompedro (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I repeat: Armenian genocide in the lede is fine. But I want the addition I had (which had nothing to do with genocide but is important to fill a significant gap in the lede) to return to the entry. You have deleted it. I tried to put it back, but wiki declared "conflict of editions", and I simply cannot add it anymore. What should I do? Any suggestions? Finally, I would kindly invite you to be carefull with your language. Accusing people you do not know and have no idea about for "whitewashing any mention of genocide" is unfair.


 * You reverted your own edit. That has nothing to do with me. You omitted to mention your deletion of genocide in the lede both here and in your edit summary and then tried to pass it off as an "editorial decision". That is whitewashing. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So I can put it back. Thanks for the info. As for the rest of your comments: NO! That's not whitewashing, the Armenian genocide info is detailed below in the entry, and it is fine, hence I have not touched it. The sentence I have deleted in the lead is to general, not refering simply to the Armenian genocide but also Assyrian as well as Pontic Greek genocides in one breath and by relying simply on one very minor article as a reference. I still think that the sentence (and the backing reference) is NOT strong enough to be there in the lead. If you are proper editor of Wiki, rather than being extremely agressive and rude to voluntary contributors like me, you should work on improving that sentence and backing references, so that it would make sense to be there.


 * I haven't been aggressive. I explained why I reverted your edits and when you attempted to deflect I clarified the reason was because you deleted information. We are all voluntary contributors. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
We need three more revisions deleted from that article's history, ones saved at 11:25 and 21:01 UTC on 8/21. --  Denelson83  23:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't do any revdels on that page and don't have the permissions to do so. Looking at the logs I think Bearcat did the revisions. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Beer-Lambert law, Clausius-Mossotti relation
I find it quite strange to remove contributions, the correctness of which is proved by derivations that they contained, which can be found in a recent review (https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cphc.202000464) and followed ways that were already persued by Max Planck in 1903. Beenhereb4 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Your self-promotion has already been explained to you on your talk page. Adding your own papers is WP:REFSPAM. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If this is self-promotion (you really know who I am?!), remove the references, but let the equations speak for themselves.Beenhereb4 (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to 7digital page
Hello! Thank you for your note @notfrompedro. In terms of edits today, I simply changed the order of clients to be consistent, from most recent to least recent - each one has a news reference attached to it. Previously, the order was inconsistent. I am an employee of 7digital. Looking forward to your input! Larap7DIG (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As per the template I put on your talk page, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing. Also the COI guidelines advise that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Masih (surname)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Masih (surname)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 07:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My Profile Page
Hi @Notfrompedro - I've updated my user page and created a profile specifying my items. Happy to go through next steps - including, if helpful, providing the submissions that I created to you to review as they have well documented sources! Best, LaraLarap7DIG (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * per WP:COIEDIT, "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly but you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed." Your edits need not be reviewed by me personally but use the article talk page. Best practices for editors with close associations is worth reading as well. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

—==Orange Room== Hy how are you, actually my friend a mistake or misunderstanding happened, Jooroom did remove material without sources, I did only restore the edits who were removed and opened a dialogue on the talk page with Jooroom asking him about sources and reasons. Please see the 3 edits before mine and the talk page of the article.

I hope you act quickly because this will only enabled Jooroom who is the founder of the Orange Room and he is removing all the recent updates of his forum activity. I m an editor who is working on many unfinished articles in Wikipedia. (I recently changed with unanimous consents the important article of Elizabeth Tudor by adding two important paragraphs about the discovery of North America ( English Settlement in Virginia and the East India company) 20 diff hist +32‎  Elizabeth I ‎ Specified the time period 14:19, 15 June 2020 diff hist  +721‎  Elizabeth I ‎ Important addition about the most important trade company in British History and perhaps World History; the Company was Chartered in Elizabeth Reign

13:09, 5 June 2020 diff hist +990‎  Elizabeth I ‎ Important addition about most important colonial venture in Elizabeth Reign; the establishment of the first English Colony in America.

I worked recently on the Orange Room removing nothing only adding recent facts ( with sources and references) which were removed by Jooroom who is only here mainly for promoting his Forum. So I didn’t add anything only restored the materials removed by Jooroom without sources or reference plus I invited him to a discussion on the talk page; But your actions will kill all the efforts and end the discussion before it’s beginning. In that case I will stop editing this article and leave Jooroom changes because frankly I m a positive contributor and I don’t want conflicts or problems. But unfortunately the self promotion of Jooroom concerning the activity of his Forum will have prevailed. In conclusion my work in the Orange Room was always with references except my last 3 edits which removed the 3 edits of Jooroom who were without references. Please check the 3 edits before mine ( you will see the changes of Jooroom without sources or references and without explanation) and finally please check the talk page of the article; I leave the decision and the fate of the article to you .Jooroom is only making a self promotion of his Forum. Thank you very much

High Regards. SeriousHist (talk)


 * I reverted this series of edits which adds content with no references at all. It dealt with accusations of censorship and violated WP:NPOV. Content without references should be removed per WP:BURDEN which is what I did. Can you make one large comment instead of a series of small ones so I don't have to get nineteen notifications? Notfrompedro (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)



First sorry about the notifications; in general all my edits pass with almost unanimous consent ; sorry if I have bothered you. Second I think your changes about the nature of the article are very positive unfortunately the only references are inside the Forum itself; I have studied it for many weeks before making my edits. Unfortunately Jooroom control the Forum and its contents. It is very difficult if not impossible to establish a direct reference; any editor need to go to a deep study of the Forum to find the information. I guess you did your best, I think it is much better than nothing. Anyone reading this article will be alarmed about its content. Thank you very much High Regards and again sorry if I bothered you ; for me this article is closed ; I m moving to something else. SeriousHist (talk)


 * You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Forum links are WP:USERGENERATED and therefore not reliable sources. If there aren't enough secondary sources for the article than perhaps the forum isn't notable to have a Wikipedia article. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So could it be a candidate for deletion from Wikipedia.

SeriousHist (talk)


 * Right now it appears to fail WP:NWEB. The only references all return errors so there is no way to know if The Orange Room was the subject of them but even if so there is only one reference which would appear to meet that criteria which is well short of the "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" which is required. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So can you please guide me how to ask for it deletion if that doesn’t bother you. SeriousHist (talk)


 * You can start with a WP:PROD but that can be removed by anyone within the week it is up. If the PROD is removed, WP:AFD would be the next step. If it comes to that I can help you but try a PROD first. Lay out that the article fails WP:NWEB and doesn't appear to have valid reliable sources to meet notability. That should do it. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much; will work on it and will keep in communication. SeriousHist (talk)

Hy how are you, I launched the deletion process; thank you for your professionalism and guidance.

SeriousHist (talk)


 * You're welcome. Let me know if you need any more assistance. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Tagging user pages for speedy deletion
Hello, Notfrompedro,

Do not tag for deletion dozens of User pages of an active Wikipedia editor! Your first step should have been to post a message on their talk page asking for information about them. Your behavior is how we might treat a vandal or troll but not an editor in good standing. If you had looked at the page history, it's clear that this editor is using Wikipedia for class assignments and these user pages are works by their students. I assume when the class is over, they will tag them for deletion. But what you did is disruptive and I had to spend time undoing all of these page taggings.

If you see a strange situation like this and the editor is an active editor, you should initiate a discussion and talk with them, not tag all of their user pages for speedy deletion. Please do this in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This goes back to at least 2019 so they haven't been tagging them for deletion. There is a whole load of editors that only edit each others sandboxes for this project and none of it has anything to do with the encyclopedia. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Chuhdary
What does it mean? AReditorPK (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It means you continually keep creating an article which duplicates an existing article and therefore doesn't need to exist. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Explain please
"isn't about pop culture" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:58C:6301:E1A3:A598:28E9:15E0 (talk • contribs)


 * The media section of Humpback whale isn't for instances of humpback whales in popular culture like the unreferenced content you added about Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. It is part of a larger section entitled "Relation to humans" which has nothing to do with films. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If your the 'expert' please add a suitable media section, like on similar wiki pages in which such detail may be mentioned in please, you are, kind sir, akin to such expertness.

Please reinstate the article in the appropriate section. Animals quoted/used in films should be credited.


 * Trivia sections don't belong in such articles. There is no list of appearances in pop culture for Lion or Giraffe. We can't have an endless list of every time a Humpback Whale appeared in a book, film, or song. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

But sir, this is just your opinion, and I ask 'why not'? especially when the main focus of a movie film focuses on one specific animal type. Wiki is an interactive encyclopedia, and more and more people are forgetting the purposes of this place.


 * It isn't my opinion it is the manual of style. See WP:TRIVIA. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wetting
Notfrompedro, you have deleted the information about the discovery of the impact of airborne hydrocarbons on the wettability of graphite. This is however well documented here in this article published in Carbon (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2013.04.056). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionatescientist (talk • contribs)


 * You put the same block of text in multiple articles. It was clearly refspam as its purpose was to promote the paper and David Martínez Martín. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi
also Are you interested in writing about a prominent Turkish journalist, writer and translator? Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep going to people's talk pages and asking them if they want to write about a Turkish translator? Are you trying to get someone to write your biography for you? Notfrompedro (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am From Kuwait :) Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That didn't answer the question. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not turkish person ok ? T Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't answer my question. Why do you keep going to people's talk pages and asking them if they want to write about a Turkish translator? Notfrompedro (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I think he's notable Gazeteci Sabah 1453 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A_%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88_%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1 The never-ending quest. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's because all of the regular & draft pages with his name have been semi- or extended-protected and he can't write the article himself. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

(Primewrldwyd (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)) Primewrldwyd (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to explain. I wasn't doing original research.
My edit on the list of bisexual people had been removed. I just want to point that the number of famous of bisexual are much more than just than list of confirmed bisexuals. Many bisexuals in particular hide their preference for males just like gay males do and so I edited in that page to remind people that the list is far from being a true representative of notable/famous bisexuals. I wasn't doing original research, I was just pointing out a commonsense point. There's no way that list of bisexuals is complete and represent the total of all famous bisexuals in the world. Vamlos (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If you think it is "a commonsense point" then it is original research. The idea is that it is so obvious to you that it doesn't require reference or discussion isn't how verifiability works. Nobody would ever claim a list is complete or "represents the total of all famous bisexuals in the world" so you don't need to qualify it that the list fails to do so. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of sources that there are many unconfirmed gays and bisexual famous historical figures, celebrities, notable people. I simply want people to understand that the list is not a 100% fully confirmed list of famous bisexual and we both know they are way more than the list suggest. I edited all of that previously to avoid some people who thinks that this is a 100% full list. I also want to show people who read these wiki pages(friends and families ) and make them understand that they are only seeing a fraction of famous bisexual confirmed and they play a extremely important role on our society. Vamlos (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are talking about Lists of bisexual people right? A list doesn't need to include every single instance ever of the topic and no list claims to do so. Your edit added personal commentary and original research. You have been warned about doing this on other articles and talk pages so you should already be familiar with this. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But isn't this page Lists of bisexual people also original research ? They didn't provide a single source when they created that page and I took it as they didn't need a source because everything written in there is considered general basic knowledge. Do I need sources to claim that the wiki list only include a fraction or partial number of famous bisexuals ? Part of reason I though I didn't need a source is because I though everyone would consider it as general basic knowledge. There's a unknown number of famous bisexual who still did not reveal their true sexual orientations.Vamlos (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This has references. As does this page. And this one. Please actually take some time to read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Claiming something is "common knowledge" isn't acceptable. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Hartford Times
I'm attempting to update some facts about this newspaper, but was denied. HT Facts (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your account appears have been created solely to make promotional edits to The Hartford Times. Please read WP:COI and specifically Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Your edits were unreferenced as well and Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Diane Anderson-Minshall
Can you help me with Diane's photo's I have that crazy person still messing with me? All I wanted was to update someone who I believed was doing something good for my community. @aspieaboutit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspieaboutit (talk • contribs)


 * Please don't call other editors "crazy". This accusation is a personal attack as well. Don't accuse people of being transphobic for asking if you have a conflict of interest. As for your question it looks to me like what you did here was remove a photo which was reverted. A photo being out-of-date isn't a valid reason to remove it unless you have a substitution. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI - User 47.157.129.133
You may want to contribute to the ANI discussion about user 47.157.129.133 since you were previously involved in the user's talk page with warnings or notices. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:4425:751C:D9BD:7885 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Help
Why my created draft has been deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brij_Kishore_Sharma_%22Tara%22_(poet)/sandbox I know about it is wrong to make autobiography but see references as references he is notable because of his name in many newspaper articles so I want to know where is problem Is there is problem in References or there is problem in the subject or there is problem in my writing and I want to know how to make that article more better to get his name in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" (poet) (talk • contribs)


 * The references are fake. You uploaded photoshopped references to the internet archive and then used them here for your autobiography. Going to the actual websites and searching your name retrieves zero hits. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No it was dead link but I have some livivng links but not from newspaper articles like my profile in Waterstones and Google Play Profile and my registered ISBN and my news in Wikinews and my name in my publisher's website sample of my written book so by this all sources does my page can be created or not and one more thing I want to say that there are many wikipedia pages with dead links but why my created page can not published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" (poet) (talk • contribs)
 * You are trying to claim that a five day old article is now a dead link? But luckily you did a screengrab first? How about the fact that under the names HARSH_VARDHAN_SHARMA_"TARA" and HARSH BRIJ you were promoting the same stuff? How many socks do you plan to use to promote yourself? Notfrompedro (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a newspaper photo clicked article and in India the some epapers will become dead in 2 days but normal news which the official website gives will dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" (poet) (talk • contribs) And if my name appears in newspaper with the link of the epaper so by that does my name will in wikipedia or not
 * Do you honestly expect anyone to believe these legitimate periodicals published anything with such abysmal grammar and patently untrue statements like "top ten best writer in India"? You have had countless socks blocked and numerous versions of Draft:Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" deleted. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

, does this have anything to do with User:Dr.Ji? Drmies (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CU shows ❌. Different continents. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I misread this; I don't know where my brain has been. ✅ that Brij Kishore Sharma "Tara" (poet) is Dr.Ji. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jpgordon, thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Hangst edit September 2021
Hello Notfrompedro, could you tell me what kind of source is considered reliable, so that I can proof this edit? I am myself working at CERN and as these things were not hidden ever, it's first hand experiences I spoke about. Aotracosamariposa (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS to learn about what sources are and are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Your edit violates WP:BLP as it isn't relevant or newsworthy and it just gossip. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh it is relevant! Especially for young women starting at ALPHA it is important to know what you will be dealing with. Aotracosamariposa (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the guidelines I linked to above. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

South Korea
About the South Korea article - enough reasoning was given in the edit summary. Please find a single mention of "heavy government funding" in the article cited. There is none, which means it is falsely cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk • contribs)


 * The article clearly states "the country's government poured millions of dollars into forming a Ministry of Culture with a specific department devoted to K-pop." Stop deleting referenced content you don't like. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A funding to a GOVERNMENT MINISTRY. A government ministry is funded by the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports kpop is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized industry. The Ministry of Culture is not THE kpop industry. It is no different from funding the departmnet of transportation which oversees facilitation of automobile companies in a country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk • contribs)


 * Both references explicitly discuss how the government view the entertainment industry as an asset and has spent millions to support it. Stop making blatantly POV edits. Use the talk page if you take issue with very well referenced content. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Viewing it as an asset and spending money on a government ministry that supports it is not directly funding the entire industry. Stop making blatant biased reasoning. I proivded a logical edit summary and if you still want to view "millions to a government ministry" is the same as "millions directly flowing to an industry" than you have no authority to delete edits based on your tastes.

ALSO, know that this "Ministry of Culture" in Korea is called Ministry of Culture, SPORTS and TOURISM. "a central government agency responsible for the areas of tourism, culture, art, religion, and sports" not just kpop. You can use the talk page if you are able to provide any well-referenced content about how this article shows that there is "heavy government funding" into the entertainment industry. Note that South Korea is a capitalist country - its companies are mostly privatized.


 * The article doesn't claim "direct funding". Use the talk page and stop vandalizing articles to match your political POV. And don't slap fake warning templates on my talk page. I never removed any template or blanked any content. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"Funding is the act of providing resources to finance a need, program, or project." The Korean government is not providing resources to finance Korea's pop culture. Period. And you don't have evidence for that in the article. The article only claims that the government views the entertainment industry as economic strength and has provided funding for the Ministry of Culture, which has a department that has to do with the entertainment industry. It does not say this funding received by the ministry "provides resources to finance [Korea's pop culture]" In fact, https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2020/06/08/south-korean-culture-ministry-launches-hallyu-department.html, this department was only founded in June 2020, WAY after Korea's pop culture had become influential on a global stage.

YOU are the one being political by claiming that an article that clearly says "a funding goes to a ministry" means that the entire entertainment industry is being provided financial resources by the government. You fail to provide ANY excerpts and are now playing with words with "direct" and "indirect."

Provide an excerpt or evidence that clearly shows that the Korean government funds, or "provides resources to finance," Korea's pop culture. If not, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to revert edits made with proper edit summary and evidence.

And NO, I absolutely have the right to make edits on a page with proper reasoning and evidence. You are playing with words - no reasoning - and you also have no evidence that shows that this pop culture is funded by the government. THIS DEPARTMENT IN THE MINISTRY THAT YOU CLAIM HAS FUNDED KOREAN POP CULTURE GROWTH WAS ESTABLISHED IN JUNE 2020. You have a problem with this edit, you should be the one going to the talk page with additional evidence. Any wikipedia user can make edits without being bombarded by your biased reversion without proper evidence.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please be mindful of edit-warring; while I agree that the content you're restoring is reliably sourced, it's still a violation of policy to breech WP:3RR except in cases of blatant vandalism/spam, which this is not. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I thought removing referenced material with deceptive reasoning would count as vandalism. That user has a history of making incredibly POV edits without consensus such as this and this and this all to do with making Korea look good and removing any criticism. They even accuse other editors of having an anti-Korea bias.
 * Minutes after you warned us both they reverted again claiming I had abandoned the dispute. Does bad-faith editing ever rise to vandalism status or can POV pushers just force other editors into endless "discussions" where they can play I didn't hear that and continue editing? Notfrompedro (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked from editing that article for a week; we'll keep an eye on it. It's easy for anyone to fall into the 3RR trap even when you think you're doing the "right thing," so don't sweat it; if you have any doubts about whether or not it meets the criteria of blatant vandalism, conservatively assume it's a content dispute, and follow WP:BRD; recruit other editors via WP:THIRDOPINION (or Dispute_resolution if the other editor(s) won't engage in BRD or if no consensus can be agreed on. I know that's a lot more work, but it's better than getting yourself blocked. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I will do that from now on. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

JASON Project
Hi Notfrompedro, I received your note regarding proposed edits to the "Jason Project" page. I created a draft page as suggested. Link is: []. The prior content had some very outdated and on a couple points erroneous information. This draft info is intended to be very factual, and I believe would not be disputed by anyone knowledgeable about the organization. It should also be easily verifiable at "www.jason.org" or other independent sources. JasonLearning (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your draft is completely unreferenced as were your edits to JASON Project. You clearly have a conflict of interest so I recommend you make suggestions on the article talk page with reliable sources that are independent of the article subject. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro, Thank you for the guidance. I have updated that draft page with independent references. Page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SSmithJL/DraftJasonProjectPage. It was difficult to find simple ways to document some of the more mundane business facts, like the specific timing of the three different organizations names since 1989, but I believe the references in those additional sources document the relationships between the names. I tried to find a publicly-available business registration page for the organization, but since District of Columbia (location of incorporation of this nonprofit) does not make that available without a login, I did not include it. I am trying to update this because the current version of the page also has some legally-inconsistent statements (like the reference to subsidiary relationship with National Geographic, which ended in 2011).



I finally realized what you meant about the "talk page", and I placed the suggested edits there, with the additional independent references that can help confirm validity. I also found the guidance note on disclosing potential conflict of interest, and I added a disclosure to my account talk page. Let me know if this appears sufficient. Thanks again for your guidance.


 * You don't have to ping me on my own talk page :) If your suggested edits on the talk page mirror the draft you wrote it would be better to simply link to the draft and explain that you would like an uninvolved editor to incorporate your suggested changes. Using the talk page to craft a duplicate article isn't really what talk pages are for. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro Thanks for the patience as I tried to figure out how to do this in the right way. Sorry for the unnecessary ping! I thought I might need that syntax to let you know I read and responded to your earlier guidance. I just replaced the copy in the Talk page with a link to the draft page as you suggest. I also added to the draft page information that responds to someone else's question on the Talk page - asking why we are named "JASON".

Regarding the template
Hello Notfrompedro, first of all, I hope you have a great day. Secondly, thank you for reversing my edit. I don't know everything about this topic, and therefore I'm glad you're here to help.

I merely have a question, you stated that Marx wasn't an anarcho-communist. Which is fair and square, I very much agree. But is this really reason enough to be excluded? Emma Goldman, was as far as I know a proclaimed anarchist. And since she is included, (for having a great deal of influence I suppose) I think it seems slightly odd that Marx, and critique of political economy, would be excluded. After all Marx critique of Proudhon, was no small event.

Thank you for any response. Pauloroboto (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The navbox should contain links to articles about the subject and not ones which criticize the subject. Since the First International Marxists and Anarchists have conflicted. It would be like adding Rush Limbaugh to a navbox to Template:Democratic_Party_(United_States) because he talked about them a lot. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. But what if there was some group, that was both dems and republicans? Like e.g anarcho communists. Where two groups mix, to form a new movement. Wouldn't that negate your argument? And hence the reason for it not being included? And also, regarding critique of political economy, I recall Proudhon being on the same track regarding critique of political economy. But not to Marx liking. Wouldn't that deserve to be included on merit of that alone? Thank you for your fast reply. Pauloroboto (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ancoms generally speaking aren't Marxists. Per WP:NAV the templates should be as small and specific as possible to aid in navigation. Putting in things that may be related tangentially but that would require in depth explanation to make clear would just be confusing. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would claim that critique of political economy isn't tangentially related, and that marxists might be communists and communists might be marxists. But that page could sure use some input from anarchist thinkers who has critiqued political economy. Pauloroboto (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Edmund Ghareeb
I am Dr. Ghareeb's assistant. I helped create his Wikipedia Page many years ago. I am going to populate the page with links. Will I be able to work on his entry? The information that I'm contributing is the same sort of edits that I made many years ago. I also added his picture to the Wikipedia entry many years ago. Please let me know how I should proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperry18 (talk • contribs)


 * I replied on your talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have left my edits to Dr. Ghareeb's wikipedia entry on the talk page. I am going to work to populate the entry with links. Please review my edits and let me know if there are any problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperry18 (talk • contribs)

Rollback?
Hey Notfrompedro, I noticed that you have an affinity for countervandalism— you like to patrol recent changes too. Perhaps you’d be interested in applying for rollback: in case you didn’t know about it, it’s a small button which reverts vandalism in one click… and it’s even faster than Twinkle. I think it’s a great gadget to have in a vandal fighter’s toolbox. Here are two courtesy links: Rollback and Requests for permissions/Rollback. Best wishes, Helen (💬📖) 19:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Notfrompedro (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Definition of a Digital Twin
Hello,

When removing my external link, you also reverted to the originally drafted definition of a Digital Twin.

There is no relevant source provided for the initial definition provided, and it does not correlate with reality. There cannot be a fundamentally 'real-time' virtual representation of anything, and many digital twins which are used in industry can be refreshed at 15 minutes intervals or less (far from real time). The key thing is that there is a process to synchronize a 3D model with the real world asset, and that happens at a specific frequency and fidelity.

Compared to the original definition, the definition provided by my edit--which is based on an diverse consensus--is more specific, clearly defined, locked in with stakeholders from diverse industries, and distinguishes a digital twin from fantasy. The previous definition is uncited, unclear, and lacking a basis in reality.

Is the problem in the citation or the definition?

215.71.54.64 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Your edit added a promotional link which you know from the warning and the edit summary. If you have a conflict of interest you shouldn't be directly editing the article at all. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Other than hoping that people will use a consistent and meaningful definition, I don't have a conflict of interest. Are you saying it would be appropriate to recommend the consortium's definition without citing them? 215.71.54.64 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * So you are saying you have no connection at all to the consortium? You don't need to ping me on my own talkpage. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this. I'm not financially involved with them, but I do participate and contribute. I suppose I do have a COI. Would the right way to go about this to be a request to have the definition changed, but not request the citation? It confuses me because almost any citation would seem to be considered "promotional" in some regard, but it matters most that there is a real and substantive definition floating around rather than having people mismarket what a digital twin is.


 * If you are involved with the organization then you have a conflict of interest. Please read Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your userpage
Please see here regarding the seemingly-accidental creation of your userpage. Not restoring the full thread since the user has now been indefintely blocked. -- Tamzin [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know Notfrompedro (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Meat
Hello Notfrompedro,

Thank you for the note. The section "Culture" in Meat is inaccurate given the evidence in the Religious section of the page. Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism all pre-date the 20th century, and these religions questioned the eating of meat.

Also, the restored version removes other edits and additions. If you do not think these other changes should be made, please state your reasons seperately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifmer (talk • contribs)


 * With all due respect that isn't how consensus works. You have been reverted by multiple editors so you need to discuss this on the talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies for any mistake on editing etiquette. Talk for the Culture section added. --Zifmer (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

August 17 article
Hello.

I have added an additional event and sources for these two events in the article August 17. Autopatroller User:Bruce1ee said that credible sources are acceptable for the topics to stay.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.13.173 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this is in relation to. The only editing I have done on August 17 was to revert this edit which wasn't done by your IP address anyway. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I just wanted the confirmed users who edited in that article know, so that the sourced addition I just put is not reverted. That is all. 31.200.13.173 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Romero page
Hello! Just wanted to drop a thank you for updating George A. Romero. I'm still new to editing and am learning as I go. Thanks again! Spf121188 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy on the talk page. If you have any questions about editing feel free to ask. If I am unable to answer I may be able to direct you to someone better able to. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, ANI
There was an ANI thread about you that I just closed. In situations like this, please consider at a minimum using an explanatory edit summary -- it's disruptive to edit-war without attempting any form of communication (even when, as here, the substantive issue is totally straightforward). Thanks. --JBL (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see that you did leave template warning messages on their page, which I guess is a form of communication. Nevertheless, in a clear-cut case like this, it is never necessary to edit-war because there will always be someone else willing to revert bad edits. --JBL (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out to me about that thread. I think MikeRyan22 left out the fact that he did it before and when someone else reverted it they did explain "Wikipedia is not a place for original research about whether or not an authoritarian regime is necessary to implement socialism" but you are absolutely right that I should have used an explanatory edit summary. I apologize for not doing that and for getting pulled into an edit-war. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Sockpuppet investigations/Aisect123, found this socking case after the AfD.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 13:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Good work! This is clearly another sock. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The quacking couldn't be louder.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 13:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I reported at WP:AIV due to the rampant self promotion and noted that it is a sock. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies
I want to apologize for undoing a warning issued by you to User talk:JoeyHarlow for vandalism. On its face, it looked like the user was the subject of Joel Harlow. It looked like some simple edits of a DOB, perhaps by Joel Harlow himself, but then I saw the name change. Just wanted to apologize, and I've added the warning back. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No harm done but thanks for letting me know. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Human body
I have edited human body topic because scientists hve found that both men and women kept producing gametes as long as they are reproductively active and after both male and female menopauses, they both stop doing. That's why I edited it. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nowdays, sexually transmitted diseases are extinct because the world has advanced further. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Have not hve Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Both male and female genitalia unite in reproduction so there is no doubt in it. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You have racked up warnings for months about using reliable sources and to stop adding original research to articles. Stop adding your own views to articles. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christine Forrest


The article Christine Forrest has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Tenuous. Passing mentions only. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  scope_creep Talk  20:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Would she not meet WP:NACTOR as having had significant roles in multiple notable films? Notfrompedro (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from Joaquin Phoenix without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''The edit was almost entirely correct. I tweaked it in about 15 seconds. You should have done the same.'' Sundayclose (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit was almost entirely incorrect (excepting the single claim that Phoenix's mother believed in Jesus). Reinstating it almost unchanged was wrong, and doubling down with a warning on this page (inexplicably one about missing edit summaries) was entirely wrong. Grandpallama (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The other editor completely misconstrued the source. Phoenix said "my mom's Jewish, but she believes in Jesus, she felt a connection to that" and "But they were never religious. I don't remember going to church, maybe a couple of times" which is pretty far from the initial assertion that she claiming she believed in Jesus while leaving out her Jewishness and that Phoenix attended church in his youth. The source also doesn't claim "themes of Christianity changed some of his perspectives" but explicitly said playing the role changed his view on forgiveness. As literally nothing the editor claimed was accurate there was no need to rewrite it as it doesn't need to be there. It is undue weight for perspectives that aren't even true. I absolutely used an edit summary which you know because you acknowledged it in your edit summary. WP:DTR Notfrompedro (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor that you reverted presented the quotation accurately. And "playing the role" is very much related to "themes of Christianity". I'll repeat: You did not have to revert the entire edit simply because it had some inaccuracy, only tweak it for more accuracy. Instead of taking a few seconds to do that, you made a knee-jerk revert. That continues to be my criticism of your revert. You didn't do much to improve the article by removing the valid part of the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you are incorrect. I showed with direct quotes where the other editor slyly reinterpreted it to say what wasn't actually said. It isn't relevant to Phoenix's beliefs as one role has no bearing on his overall beliefs. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the editor making the edit to gain consensus for its inclusion, not on other editors to "fix" problematic additions; it's also a spectacular failure of following BRD to revert back in disputed content rather than open a talkpage discussion (something I've encountered you doing before). Especially when that disputed content is to a BLP and contains significant misrepresentations of a source in order to insinuate a non-religious Jewish actor had some sort of Christian awakening. Grandpallama (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you delete?
Why did you delete mu contribution ti faw? SperandioG (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It was WP:REFSPAM. You were adding your own paper to the article with the summary of "Added relevant sources" which wasn't accurate as you didn't reference any existing content. What you did was add a single sentence so you could reference it with your own paper. Notfrompedro (talk)

Well, models can be used for supporting pest management and this information was missing in the text. That is why I wanted to add this information. Regarding having added my own reference, well this does not mean that it is spam. And more important, how did you know that are my own reference? Would it be possible to add information about the importance of modelling in pest management? SperandioG (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you take a moment to read WP:REFSPAM? Also WP:COI would apply here. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)