User talk:Notfrompedro

Archives

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Apaugasma: Whoops! Got it. Thanks. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Tamzin: That's good advice. Thank you. :) Notfrompedro (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that editor Notfrompedro is him/herself violating edits to BLP pages, specifically regarding this portion of the guideline, “… Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” This can be found by deleting my talk comment on Graham Hancock’s biography, requesting editors remove the biased tag which many editors including Hancock have edited calling Hancock a journalist, not a “pseudo” anything. I provided citations and a well grounded argument that this edit finally be made. Terratian (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I really appreciate you taking the time to write this. Keep up the good work. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: Thank you Notfrompedro (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]