User talk:SherlockHolmes21

May 2021
Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mohammad Tawhidi seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hi Notfrompedro. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions. As you are aware, rollback should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith. For what reasons did you make the decision that deleting objective information in Mohammad Tawhidi was more sensible than making constructive edits?


 * Your edits had been removed before and you kept pushing them. They *were* vandalism because they violated WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPREMOVE. You created views out of whole cloth by "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (see WP:SYN) to disparage the subject of the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mohammad Tawhidi. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Notfrompedro. I have never heard the expression "you created views out of whole cloth by "combine [sic] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" before. My objection is the page you have returned it to is poorly written, only contains references from media articles, and is unbalanced. I respect the WP:SYN) policy however I am sceptical about your view that the constructive edits were disparaging. I remind you that virtually every single sentence I added contained a reference (and it takes intellectual labour to produce high quality - referenced articles). I am the first person to introduce scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to the page, and thereby increase it's objectivity. I am happy to be mindful of inferences however, you have not provided sufficient information about your concerns. I am worried that your decision to delete edits rather than contribute to contructive edits is motivated by intellectual laziness.


 * Claims like "Although, Tawhidi claims to be a scholar of Islam he has no academic qualification" and "Tawhidi's assertion that he is a scholar of Islamic theology does not fit the facts" are disparaging. It is unreferenced as well. Saying he "claims" something and then giving a reference for that but turning around and questioning it violates WP:BLP. You are mixing references to create a conclusion none of them assert on their own. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mohammad Tawhidi. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

→ Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.(SherlockHolmes21)

Please keep WP:3RR in mind. You made constant reversions of an entire page instead of constructively removing edits that were inadvertently against WP:BLP and WP:SYN. Where (NPOV), Verifiability (V), or No original research (NOR) issues arise politely point them out and correct it. Your reverts without explanation are unconstructive. I was not aware of WP:SYN. Thank you for bringing it to my attention (SherlockHolmes21).

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection (SherlockHolmes21).

Please outline your specific Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR) concerns so that we can work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors (SherlockHolmes21).


 * If you had bothered to read the guidelines I posted you would see that reverting "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" on BLPs the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. WP:BLPREMOVE. You are adding disparaging material that is not sourced and that is why it was removed. I also never used rollback as you have claimed. I don't have rollback functionality. You are throwing everything you can think of at me to excuse the fact that your edits violate WP:BLP guidelines. Notfrompedro (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gain. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)