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.

regarding your message

OK! Feel free to ban me. I'll figure out how to get the page deleted entirely. You people are truly evil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.113.58 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

157.131.113.58, this isn't a puzzle. I gave you some reading material so you know how this works. By building consensus and discussion. Wikipedia is not a social media platform, you cannot pick and choose what you want to show but you can discuss how a fair, and balanced view of you appears. This is an invitation to join, not a banishment - as long as you're willing to learn. Ifnord (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was trying to edit to page after I noticed some mistakes. It was my first time so when I clicked the wrong button, I panicked. I was editing the section on a word document after finding several highly noticable grammar mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.148.96 (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Heart cross section.jpg

The file File:Heart cross section.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesting

In "Global Marine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation" (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), Elliot A. Norse points out that "Using 'harvest' as an euphemism for killing wild lobsters, sardines, sea turtles, petrels, or dolphins lulls people into a false sense of security. That explains why lobbyists for fishing, whaling, hunting, and logging interests use the term. There is no reason not to use 'harvest' in discussing true farming operations in which humans control the organism's life cycle. ... But killing members of wild populations is not harvesting." (p. 89) Thus, one's insistence on using the term "harvesting" is just as much at variance with the principle of Wikipedia's neutrality as my admittedly subjective criticism. Please help to find truly neutral terms that would avoid both pitfalls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.206.49.189 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not the user whose talk page you commented on; however, I also reverted your edits to Atlantic goliath grouper. I think the issue here is that you are conflating two different definitions for harvest. The verb "harvest" is not being used in the sense of harvesting a crop, but in the sense of catching animals. For example, Verb 1.1: [to] catch or kill (animals) for human consumption or Verb 1a: to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (salmon, oysters, deer, etc.) for human use, sport, or population control userdude 19:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No conflation on my part; just the opposite. See Elliot A. Norse's definition: "Raft-cultivated nori, planted mangroves, maricultured abalone, cage-reared salmon, and captive-bred crocodiles are all crops that can be harvested. But killing members of wild populations is not harvesting." (p. 89) The Atlantic goliath grouper was never kept in fish farms, and thus the term "harvesting" is inapplicable to it.

@114.206.49.189: Since I just reverted you again - "harvesting" is the bog-standard term used for all kinds of hunting, fishing, snaring, collecting etc. of wild animals (and plants) for human consumption in a wildlife management context. It is used in all scientific publications, in regulations and in the popular literature. That is why we use it in Wikipedia articles, and why informed editors will keep reverting changes to that usage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges."

This is how Wikidpedia, a source of information ran by hypocrites, protect the biased information. Wikidpedia claims to promote neutrality, but condones bias. Such hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven867 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take this debate to the article's talk page. I am not bonded to the article at all. Ifnord (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Editing of "Sex Scandal" Page

Hi, I'm apparently the holder of the IP in which the artcle was edited (apparently, because this only came to my knowledge today). Unfortunately, I am not sure as to why it identified under my IP address, as I do not recall editing the document myself. Though the network is shared, the people that use the network are very unlikely to go into said Wikipedia article, even less so to edit an article, including the article in question. Thank you for restoring the article, however I am now unsure as to whether my network has been compromised or not.

Best regards,

02:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)152.32.102.100 (talk)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Always good to see you around Ifnord! :) S0091 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's so kind, S0091. Thank-you, I appreciate it. Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Data on Tariq Alhomayed Page is False

Mr Alhomayed page is edited with plenty of false attacks towards him personally He is a public media figure and such allegations is not appropriate. please advice about needed action to control the page and put it right way. Regards

Please see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Inford.

Can you point me in the right direction? Films I have directed are on here but I don't seem to have any common link. I'd like to correct that. I tried to make the change on the page for KILLER MOVIE, but it was deleted. Thank you for your guidance.

Best,

Jeff Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:5526:3100:18A:E5BC:5D87:ADF8 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Simply crowbarring your website into the the article appears more like advertising. Ifnord (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Dandrige

Hi,

The information in which you have linked the Jerry Dandrige character with homosexuality is absurd. There is clear evidence throughout the movie that Jerry is indeed Heterosexual. Firstly he slept with many female prostitutes. Secondly he seduced both Charley’s Mother and Girlfriend.

To suggest there were sexual Positions between Jerry and Billy Cole merely on the basis of Billy being on one knee to dress Jerry’s hand wound is ridiculous. This information should be reporting facts on the movie and not baseless theories on the characters sexuality. There is zero evidence of homosexuality in the movie, therefore opinions of yours and others are not factual and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7867:4600:198C:5631:3E65:BD51 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have no opinions on this character. What you're doing is unilaterally removing referenced information from an article. Please, go back to your talk page and read the instructions about how to resolve your concerns - in a nutshell, develop consensus on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the references you refer to can not be accessed via the links for verification, therefore these citations are not credible and therefore should be removed. Also like I said the information is opinion and not fact. There are also no quotation marks to support what has supposedly been referenced. I once again ask for this information to be removed, as there is no evidence/citations to support this unfounded rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7867:4600:198C:5631:3E65:BD51 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for that article is located at Talk:Jerry Dandrige. Ifnord (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your UTRS Account

You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 15:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you did make a mistake. i removed a mugshot photo from the bio because it is Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

This photo is affecting the reputation of the individual public figure and it should removed permanently D — Preceding unsigned comment added by The blue angel 77 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The blue angel 77. You are removing referenced content. One cannot dismiss content simply by saying it is tabloid, though I have added a CBS reference to aid. I might also point out the Streisand effect where, when one tries very hard to whitewash something, it simply draws more people to repaint it. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot

this reference content is poorly source. Please replace by another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The blue angel 77 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same mugshot is in the CBS news reference. Ifnord (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erzurum province

Hi Dear, Perhaps you missed the discussion on the talk page. Please see the history of the edits too. There is no disruptive editing on my part. Thank you, 176.33.83.45 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

176.33.83.45, I did not miss it. The consensus appears clear there. References are references, your select removal of those that do not agree with your perception of truth is contrary to our policies. Wikipedia does not exist for you to publish your truth but for us to write about what has already been established. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? It's not about my conception of the truth. It's about the references being made up. What do you have to say to that? 176.33.83.45 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, note the following from Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." 176.33.83.45 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting information

There is a lot of wrong information on here and although what happend might be correct that does not mean you can just characters in unfair chatogries. Your making characters sound different from how they actually are.