User talk:Notfrompedro

Hi Notfrompedro! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:30, 8 March 2019 (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)

@Apaugasma: 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)

@Apaugasma: 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)

@Apaugasma: A great deal of it was the same text added to a lot of articles. [1] [2] 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) | o toki tawa mi. 21:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: 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) | o toki tawa mi. 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: 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. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: 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)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: 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)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: 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)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: 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)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: 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)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: 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)

@Burlingame61: 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)

@Doug Weller: 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)

@AmongUsIsC00l: 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

@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)