User talk:Notfrompedro/2021/June

The following deletions you made in the List of female film and television directors article were disruptive and harmful to the article: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As a dynamic list, it is not restricted to only names that have a Wikipedia article. As a dynamic list, it requires that missing items (i.e. names) must be added with reliable sources (as explained by the dynamic list template at the top of the page). The names of film and television directors you deleted were verified with sources and met the criteria for a stand-alone list and the names in the list complied with verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view.
One director, Jordan Bayne, had her article deleted as a non-notable actress -- but inclusion of her name in the list regarded her role as a director (e.g. Argo (2006 film), The Sea Is All I Know^[1]) All you needed to do was un-link the name and explain in the summary that her bio article had been deleted.
I suggest that you make an effort to read every, single line of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making impulsive, reckless edits. I also suggest that in the future you abide by Wikipedia's consensus policy and reach agreement with other editors before deleting a block of material from an article. For a list, you can do it at WP:WPLISTS or the Talk page of a list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Per WP:REDLINK redlinks should only remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article. If an article has been deleted via AfD then clearly it will not sustain an article. Most of the entires I deleted had "references" to the director's own website. Primary sources generally are not acceptable as reliable sources.

When you reverted you claimed WP:EXEMPT1E applies but it does not. If someone is famous for a specific event then notability may not need to be met but "specific event" in WP:BLP1E is clearly defined as a news event. Making a film is not "an event" in this sense.

Further that guidelines goes on to say "If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." The names you added back in don't have notability or they wouldn't have been deleted via PROD and AfD.

My edits were neither impulsive nor reckless. You don't own the article and get to dictate that the guidelines which apply to every other article somehow don't apply to this one. Your tone was aggressive and I don't appreciate you claiming my edits were borderline vandalism simply because you don't agree with them. I had valid policy reasons behind my edits and you are entitled to disagree with me but that doesn't make my edits disruptive. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't believe an individual deserves a bio article, then unlink the name. That's all you had to do. The list is about female film and television directors -- not about female film and television directors that have a Wikipedia article.
When you see a source that you think is not good enough, in this list or any other article ... find a source that's better. We're here to build an encyclopedia and make information available to the general public. We're not here to wreck or suppress information. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't "suppressing information" to remove non notable entries. It isn't that I don't believe these specific entries don't deserve a bio article - the community doesn't. The articles were deleted via AfD or PROD.

Per WP:STAND "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."

Whether you like it or not these are the actual guidelines. You don't own the article and WP:CIVIL is another guideline that matters here. You can't just throw accusations at people because you disagree with their edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

	Well
	Thank you so much, I am a travel blogger and I thought it was more relevant to have a yoga school page listing yoga programs in Delhi instead of some unrelated page publicity of a travel website, talking about a movie that is not on Yoga . Indiarajjai (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indiarajjai: All of your edits have been to add travel websites to articles. Wikipedia is not for promoting your businesses. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, since I sourced every line that I added, I am assuming that you have an issue with one of the sources that I chose? I chose the New York Times and FLCCC Alliance. While I agree that the New York Times isn't ideal, I see it used as a source all over wikipedia... so I'm not sure what the issue is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you would support the use of the word "erroneously" to describe a physician opinion. That is opinion. Can you please explain your position here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I did not add commentary or personal opinion to any part of my edits. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@MsSMarie: Using the subject of the article's own website as a source is not neutral. You are also misconstruing the New York Times article as it never says Kory's ideas are now standard treatment. Even the Oxford report in the article speaks of "dexamethasone, a steroid similar to the ones that Kory and other I.C.U. doctors had been advocating." Similar to is not at all the same thing as claiming "Kory's recommendations later became standard of care" which you are repeatedly doing. Your edits are far from neutral and you should use the talk page instead of POV warring. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we're arguing semantics. Kory and other I.C.U. physicians advocated for the use of corticosteroids to treat Covid 19, and now that is standard of care. If you watch his original senate hearing he is talking generally about corticosteroids and he doesn't specify, so then my characterization is accurate. I am new to wiki and I just learned how to use the talk page, so I will use that from now on.

We aren't arguing semantics. We are arguing policy. References must be reliable and independent of the subject. You also have to accurately state the content which you aren't doing in the case of the New York Times article. You are putting your own personal interpretations into the article. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are worth reading here. Unless the source explicitly says Kory's recommendations later became standard of care you cannot claim the source makes this claim. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

NO AWARD

Please be courteous and explain how an irrelevant TRAVEL WEBSITE mentioning EAT PRAY LOVE , has used a citation to redirect to their page when this has nothing to do with Yoga or relevance of Yoga in Delhi. I dont own any business I just searched Google and linked to what seemed more relevant. You should list all yoga school names, and that would be a nice edit instead of promoting some random travel business page. You should delete that reference. Indiarajjai (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indiarajjai: I already did explain. Giving "no awards" to people isn't courteous. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit to the page regarding to the song "God's Gonna Cut You Down." The post, as it exists, erroneously claims that the Heavenly Gospel Singers recorded the song as "You Better Run On." While they did indeed record "You Better Run On," a casual listen will show that it is not the same as, nor a derivative of, the original song. I'm new to making changes on here, so I apologize for not going about it the correct way. Thanks! EasleyTim1977

You can listen for yourself on youtube or apple music, however, wikipedia does not allow me to include a URL link.

@EasleyTim77: Listening for yourself would be original research. You deleted referenced content based on a personal opinion. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Vibrio anguillarum Wikipedia page contains direct copy/pasted content from the following link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/raq.12188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8B:4401:5AC0:357F:1216:33BF:7172 (talk • contribs)

@2601:8B:4401:5AC0:357F:1216:33BF:7172: Thank you for pointing this out. I will remove it and give the editor who added it a copyvio warning. In the future, please use edit summaries so other editors understand why you are removing 90% of an article. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Who told that lingayats and kuruba will keep gowda Surname that belongs to only for vokkaligas, they are landlords and zamindars. First of all lingayat is not a caste they are mixed of all castes and they don't have any caste based profession and coming to kuruba community they are shepherds then how they will become zamindars and landlords to keep gowda Surname. Gbck (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gbck: All of your edits have been to delete referenced information from Gowda articles. You offer no explanation nor do you add any references. Your edits are disruptive. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to refer anyones article which contains wrong information and made up story. We know who we are and those who keep our surname will not become real gowda anyways thank you bye. Gbck (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gbck: You are talking about original research. Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable with reliable sources. You are deleting referenced information. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mgmtjamescarter. Hi, I wanted to let you know it's not self promotion. Please do your research on the topic. Thank you. Mgmtjamescarter (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mgmtjamescarter: If you aren't promoting yourself but instead are promoting a client without properly disclosing that you are a paid editor, then you are violating the conflict of interest guidelines. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: Also incorrect, I am not a paid editor. Instead, could you please help re-review after researching the topic Mgmtjamescarter (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mgmtjamescarter: So your name is literally "management James Carter" but you have no conflict of interest in promoting James Carter? Is that your argument? Notfrompedro (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: Correct. We'll assume you're just being passive aggressive here. So you're unable to assist us with this?

@Mgmtjamescarter: You don't have to ping me on my own talk page. We? Are you admitting that your account is a role account? You still haven't explained how your name is literally "management James Carter" but you somehow have no conflict of interest in promoting James Carter. Please explain. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kiaraakitty 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Are you talking about me reverting the vandalism from an IP removing swaths of information as "fake news"? It was my understanding that vandalism reverts don't count against 3RR. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes (and yes, re 3RR) - but please don't take this the wrong way. I felt the edit summary given by the IP should possibly have led both you and the other editor to have issued a 3RR warning to the IP if you had felt it was vandalism, but it seemed a grey area to me as to whether this was a content dispute or not. So, I'm just asking you and the other editor who created the article to be careful in future to avoid the silliness which has taken place on that page, and which you felt it was appropriate to respond to. I initially PP-ed the page, but then removed it as I spotted it was just one IP and two registered users who were in this back-and-forth game. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I take no offense at all. I was honestly asking you as an admin if I was mistaken in my understanding of the policy and/or in my actions on that policy. In my head the fact that the IP didn't budge from the same edits with the same unhelpful summary on a page undergoing AfD it seemed more like vandalism than someone legitimately attempting to edit. If I overstepped I apologize. I know nothing about the subject of the article and have no view one way or the other about them. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm like you - I have no knowledge of the subject, but you were quite right that reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR. My role is simply to try to reduce current and future disruption. And you've no need to apologise, but I am similarly happy to apologise to you and to Kingoflettuce if I sounded heavy-handed, as I'm sure you were both acting in good faith, but attempting a discussion/leaving Twinkle warnings is always the best approach when issues like these occur. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have 'slept on this one', and decided to 'strike' my notice above. You and another editor were both acting in good faith by reverting vandalism and warning the IP, and I landed on the wrong side of concluding good/bad faith. My apologies. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you. No harm done. :) Notfrompedro (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The troll is back at it, but this time with a more sophisticated game. Geez, I have ruffled some feathers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you adding the tag to JEC article?! I have already discussed this with you, your answers were unsatisfactory. You have changed the date of tag too. I will report you to an admin if you continue to do so.

The COI tag still applies as people with a conflict of interest continue to edit the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The tag reads A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) where do you think the contributor is not being neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.206.79 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppkli's edits serve to promote S. P. Chakravarti and Jabalpur Engineering College. As my talk page isn't the article talk page why are you asking here if the content of the tag is your issue? Please learn to sign your posts. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific than that. kindly point where is promotion being done, and by that i mean that exact paragraph, line and word. as for article about prof chakrabarti, the man has been dead for 40 years, why would anybody promote him, and please be specific about that article too. don't be so vague122.175.206.79 (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said, this is a conversation for the article talk page. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)