User talk:Ifnord

This is Ifnord's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Ifnord^{Talk to me!}

Additional archived messages are here.

"Anti-abortion" is NOT a neutral point of view.

My wording was more neutral, as I was referring to her views as she would refer to them. Your language and use of "anti-abortion" is NOT neutral and a direct attack on her views.

Referring to abortion as a right is also not a neutral point of view and is charged. If you want to be neutral, then you have to remove that part as well.

First, let me say I am not bonded to the subject. But, a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right. Ifnord (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ on Talk:Anti-abortion_movements for additional notes and links on why "pro-life movement" and "pro-choice movement" have been largely changed to "abortion rights movement" and "anti-abortion movement" on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Plandu (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macure

Dear sir/madam, no vandalism was done on my part on any of the pages about tribes of Montenegro. Don't revert if you don't understand the material and the context fully.

Hello. I would recommend you discussing it in the article's talk page to build consensus before you remove referenced material. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

republic

I sincerely apologise for making this article biased. I very much value the neutrality of Wikipedia articles. I hope I have caused no offence. I am in great respect of the work you do for Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, 19wardi 19wardi (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 19wardi. The edit you attempted to make was that the subject was "biased". I am not bonded to the subject, and frankly was unaware of its existence previous to just reading it, but I monitor for such edits. If there is a reliable source which labels that subject is biased, then you would be free to return it to the article - with the reference. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horror film

Can you make the 1970s–present section on Horror film. Ghostfan96 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the edit option

This page is constantly vandelised by unknown users and they are adding wrong information regarding Ram prasad bismil . Divyanshu4226 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Divyanshu4226. Please see WP:RFP. Ifnord (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock the edit option because Ram prasad bismil ki was Kshatriya and the unknown users are changing it Please edit it You can also read the same in history books or on google Imrishi14 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaraakitty

Appreciate the feedback and I can see how it may borderline violate G10. Rest assured, I've been here for years and my only intention is to give under-represented topics/subjects the representation they deserve. Am beefing up the page with offline Chinese-lkanguage sources dating back to 2017. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwuemeka Ujam

Hi Ifnord,

Yes, you are right that I'm trying to make changes to the subject name on wiki. The comment I'm editing has been alleged and not substantiated by a reputable court in the jurisdiction. The above person will love to have it edited as it does not fully stand as a fact without any conviction.

129.56.78.77 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 129.56.78.77. The material is presented as an allegation, not a fact, and is reliably sourced. I would reccomend discussing it on the article's talk page prior to removing it again. You would also benefit from reading WP:COI for information about our conflict of interest policies. Ifnord (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name is spelled Ahmadreza Djalali NOT Ahmad Reza Jalali

Hello there! Here you some links from reliable sources regarding the spelling of the mans name.

https://www.amnesty.se/agerahub/iran-ki-forskare-domd-till-doden-2/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55231310 https://www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26911&LangID=E https://news.ki.se/alarming-information-about-ahmadreza-djalali

Do I need to get you more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9B1:4122:A700:D00B:1EBA:CD48:BB10 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2001:9B1:4122:A700:D00B:1EBA:CD48:BB10. You make a valid point. I will bring up on the article's talk page and see if I can make the name change and add some of the references you have provided. Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyx (or Erebus if you are so inclined)

In the page about the Greek underworld, it doesn't talk much about Nyx and doesn't mention Erebus at all, I am not sure how to cite things properly, so if you can provide constructive criticism if you remove it again that would be amazing! I'm sure they didn't include Erebus for the reason he isn't really relevant, but I do believe as he does live in the underworld he should be included. If you could help that would be amazing but you do not have to. LiminalMyth (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind?

I placed the reasons for removing the disputed statements. Stop lying. Not randomly blanking, not vandalizing, just removing potentially libelous statements and the usual (but expected) Fox bashing.

You have removed referenced material. Please, discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. Ifnord (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

To have a dozen well-respected wikipedians show me support in my first hour was gratifying. Thank you. Please feel free to contact me if I'm doing badly, if I'm doing well, or if I can be of help. BusterD (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious publishing group

Hope I'm OK to contact you in this way. I saw you recently edited the Science Publishing Group article. I just looked it up as I received a dubious invitation from someone at Science Publishing Group, and I notice the most recent edit is from a newly created account which has removed all mention of their poor practices, along with references, and replaced with assertions of good practices. I assume that shouldn't be allowed, but I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia editing, so rather than diving in I was hoping you might want to do what's needed to bring it back in line? Cheers --Michaell87 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michaell87. By all means use talk pages to communicate. Use personal ones, like this, for one-to-one, and the article's talk pages for consensus building amongst editors. The best way to learn our editing process is to jump in, WP:BOLDLY. Dive away! Ifnord (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fulton County

Can you explain why you deleted my updated information on the Fulton County fraud allegations?

What I wrote was backed up by two articles from the Georgia Star, so there are sources to corroborate.

I explained in detail on the article's talk page. It's the best place for consensus building. Ifnord (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I am leaving why I have made the edit to Alexandra page. The information that is post is not correct. It has no reliable sources besides tabloids which is against the rules from what I have seen. There is no relationship between Keanu and her. Neither side has confirmed it. By keeping it up you are leave incorrect info up and allowing vandalism.

I am not creating a war. It is the others that are by posting false information

Hello. There are multiple, reliable references which you have removed four times despite multiple encouragements to discuss this on the article's talk page. I am not bound to this subject but I do not think removal of referenced material from an article is a good thing without consensus from other editors. Ifnord (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remember seeing anything about discussing in the article’s talk page. Those are not reliable references. One even using the wrong name as a reference (still incorrect). Those sources are speculation, gossip and other people referencing an alleged relationship. Which not what this site is about. So you are allow vandalism.

I don't totally disagree.

I saw you added notability and primary sources tags to the Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends article. I'll see what I can find, but that show is kinda out there, so I don't totally disagree with those tags. I really only created it because it had a French equivalent, at least originally. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historyday01. I'm not bonded to the article one way or another but it attracted my attention while patrolling changes. Is this broadcast or is this a web comic? I didn't want to PROD or AfD it, as it is lengthy and well written, but it may not pass even WP:GNG currently. Some other language wikis have a much lower bar to notability than the English one. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. It a web series, but its not well-covered in various media. I'll see if I can find some sources for it, but I'm not completely confident I'll find much, to be honest. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli

Hello,

I see you have a problem with my edits on the Wikipedia page of the late President of Tanzania, Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli.

Please read the link below and let me know if you disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Magufuli#There_shouldn't_be_Eurocentric_views_on_a_Tanzanian_President_and_Tanzanian_issues