User talk:Ifnord/

This is an archive of my talk page, please do not make modifications to it. If you want to leave me a message, please click here. Thanks.

unverify[edit]

Hi, Why have you made citrofortunella a unverified article.--Bjwebb (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have got some links here.--Bjwebb (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

[2]

Also look at

Embee[edit]

I have rewritten this article so as to establish notability under WP:NMG. I would be grateful if you could have a look.

I have removed my nomination after seeing the re-write. Ifnord 17:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Students_for_economic_justice[edit]

Ifnord, thank you for the definiton. I looked it up just before I received your message. I did not create fake accounts. Please check the IP's of corser and iammaggieryan. I asked them both for help - iammaggieryan did considerable work on United_students_against_sweatshops and corser did not have time to do many edits. We're trying to work with the moderators, so please let us know what we can do to improve the articles.jimotron, November 3

Timbits[edit]

Hi Ifnord. You recently tagged this article as a copyvio, with source answers.com. I should point out that answers.com, and numerous other websites, copy information from Wikipedia consistent with the GFDL licence. So, citing anything as a copyvio of a page on answers.com is wrong. There is a comprehensive list of mirrors and forks of Wikipedia - these should be excluded from discussion when considering copyvio issues.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, please let me know. Mindmatrix 01:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Civil War Unit[edit]

I went back and added some content to the Civil War pages you flagged. See my talk pages for my comments.evrik 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GBU-37[edit]

Hi,

Some content has been added to GBU-37.

Just letting you know that I'm recommending that there is now consensus to keep.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggeting[edit]

NUGGET (AfD discussion)

You based your opinion merely on the presence of a load of schoolchildren defending this article. Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What this appears to be is a collection of school kids who cry out, "Listen, you old farts! We have this funky new word/concept/idea and we're going to use it, spread it around, and grab this chance at immortality. If you disagree, we'll make fun of your self-inflated intelligence." So be it. Then make a web page and tell your tale. But, this isn't encyclopedic. I voted delete, and made it strong delete because of all the silly puppetry. I don't see my vote changing. Ifnord 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUS[edit]

I've changed my vote on this AfD to keep, based on evidence of radio play, record releases, and tours that leads me to believe that this band is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at this pleese[edit]

I use wikipedia all the time, but I don't have an acount. You say on your page that you propose articals for deletion. I found this Substub (Dated Dec 1st 05!!) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandip The entire text of the artical is :

Mandip is an Indian name, which means "Light of the mind". There are no famous Mandips, however, a mention must be given to Mandip "Bansal" Singh, Romancer and Mandip Singh Nijor (Technologist) of U.K.

If you think it would benifit the wikipedian comunity please put it up for deletion.

Please help if you can!! Thank you in advance!!

Everyone, with or without a wikipedia "account", can proposed an AfD (Article for Deletion). I am very suspicious of people who would ask me to do it for them, usually there's an ulterior motive. If you wish to learn more about proposing an AfD, click this link[3]. Ifnord 21:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

École Mondiale World School[edit]

I have turned this article into a school stub. I believe that there is enough verifiable evidence to justify a standalone article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You rock"[edit]

lol.. Thanks.

Why? :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== A quick note you wrote to Mistress Selina Kyle==[edit]

you wrote the following two notes to User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle

Just a quick note to say that you rock. Had to tell you. Ifnord 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Why do you rock? Nothing specific; I don't think you can just do one thing, no matter how nifty, and get the stamp of coolness. But as I was nosing through your talk page, comments people have left about you, and your replies - I was struck by how you came across. It's good. Ifnord 04:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that I just recently posted to her talk page, and my comments along with another comment that was critical of her were quickly removed and not responded to... which makes me suspect that there's a reason she "came across" well. Themindset 08:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Themindset doesn't like me because he has a big fat crush on Eminem and I uploaded a picture of him how he looks without the normal huge amount of makeup, extra-complimentary lighting and photoshop touching-up he has in his press photos: A scrawny little geek. ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 15:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why he would write on my talk page. I read his, he sounds like a pretentious snot. Ifnord 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I don't edit out stuff that makes me look bad. So yeah, maybe I do look like a pretentious snot. I'd be ashamed to edit my talk pages the way Miss Selina does, it's quite unbecoming. Themindset 17:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And why come to me to complain? It's her talk page, I wouldn't presume to tell you how to edit yours. And I certainly wouldn't go to some third person's talk page and whine about you. Ifnord 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But insults, nice - you guys are made for each other. Themindset 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmm[edit]

Didn't notice the "This user is a mental health provider" tag on yoru userpage before (or maybe it wasn't there)

- Are you a psychiatrist or something?

Just curious :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha.

So what's "something"?

And by the way you realise those templates link to non-existent articles?

Since you're obviously experienced and maybe even an expert on the subject, maybe you should do something about that :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. (OMG I see the fnords!!!) Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I saw your signature on the "Outside View" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary

I just wanted to say thank you for doing the right thing.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vis-à-vis articles for deletion/Pirate Party[edit]

Good on you for taking up my dropped nomination. I regretted retracting my nominatin the milisecond after I hit "Save page". --Ezeu 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pedelec[edit]

A new comment was left at pedelec deletion discusion. --CylePat 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another comment was left for pedelec deletion discusion. --CylePat 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another new comment has been left for pedelec deletion. --CylePat 02:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I monitor pages I vote on, no need to leave me a note every time you make a comment on AfD. Thanks. Ifnord 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections[edit]

Hi. Unfortunately your Wikipedia user account was created slightly after the cutoff for voting on the current round of ArbCom elections. The voting page says:

In order to vote, you must have an account registered on or before September 30, 2005 and 150 edits by the start of the election (January 9)

Your account was created on 3 October 2005, so unfortunately, according to policy, your votes will not count towards these elections. I'm sorry. Regardless, welcome (belatedly) to Wikipedia! Are you from Brisbane? - Mark 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG[edit]

Thank you, I have accepted. Let's see what the panel thinks :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic[edit]

I removed your expert tag from hypersonic in adding material. Copyediting is always welcome, and if you want to re-add the tag I won't be offended.AKAF 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Not to be snooty, but Wikipedia:Speedy keep. HTH. R adiant _>|< 13:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC streets[edit]

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.138.150.228[edit]

Looks like 66.138.150.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is in Texas, and probably a school, from the time stamps on the vandalism, as well as the style. I'll see if he comes back tomorrow. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus?[edit]

I'm confused why you closed the Rebecca J. Nelson AfD vote as "no consensus" rather than "keep." The vote, after relisting after more information about this scientist had been added was Keep=12 (or Keep=13 if you count a pre-relisting vote that was later changed) and Delete=2. Of those two votes for deletion, one was by a person who explained that they personally thought the article should be kept, but that an article on a Nobel winner that they started was deleted so they thought this one should be, leaving us with one unambiguous "delete" vote after relisting. I would have thought that would be a consensus for "keep," not a finding of "no consensus." Can you explain how this works? Crypticfirefly 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/Quarl[edit]

Hi Ifnord, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:44Z

Young Zaphod Rfc[edit]

An RfC has been filed against Young Zaphod. See (and endorse) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Young Zaphod. --Karnesky 12:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monotypes Article[edit]

I have a question on a fairly recent revision you made to the The Monotypes article. I checked the history and it said you removed a "weasel word." I was just wondering what weasel words are and some examples of weasel words... so perhaps I can write better articles in the future. Thanks, VincentGross 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikinomics Article[edit]

Any other suggestions on where I should place this content? I am working on this subject in my economics class and I would like a central place to put the material for my class dicussions. Since the terms seems to be creaping into our vocabulary it seems like a reasonable title for an article.

Thanks - Dan --Dan 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:AFD[edit]

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this club hold conventions? What is their membership levels? So far it seems their greatest hold to notability is that one of their members went on to work on a blockbuster movie - but their work is uncredited.

Yes, it holds its own conventions every year, and has at least twice been the club behind the hosting of New Zealand's annual national convention. I'm not entirely sure of its size, but it's the main club in Auckland, a city of one million people, so that should give some idea. As to Philippa Boyens' work being uncredited in LoTR - she co-wrote the screenplay with Peter Jackson! It'd be difficult to be that more credited! Grutness...wha? 05:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

China Dolls[edit]

Thanks for creating China Dolls and letting me know about it. I've replied on my talk page. --kingboyk 13:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Red Links[edit]

Hi, I see that you have removed red links from the article Deadly Dozen. I wanted to know whether is there any Wikipedia policy on this. Till now I have held that red link is a guide for future contributors about what the author thinks is worthy of an article. This means that when you see a red line, you ought to think: Maybe I should create an article on this. Instead if you don't see any red line, it may mean that the topic is not considered important enough to have an article on. Please discuss this issue so that we can arrive at some consensus. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that wikipedia recognizes red links [4] & [5]. They are there to serve a purpose - to prompt the user to write about them. All the requested articles show up as red links. Please do not remove red links unless you are sure that the link is not worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia. --Bhadani 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses are on Ambuj Saxena's and Bhadani's talk pages. Just to save you a trip, I do not remove redlinks willy-nilly nor do I think they're a bad idea. I only have issues with redlinks that are likely to remain perpetually broken because they are non-notable, unencyclopedic, advertising, etc. Ifnord 19:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, misinterpretation and all. Anyway, now what matters is that there is consensus between us, so why waste time debating and let's start editing rightaway. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolidge Middle School[edit]

Thank you for presiding over the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolidge Middle School (Massachusetts), but please remember to add the appropriate {{oldafdfull}} or similar template to the talk page if the outcome of the debate results in the article being kept. Bahn Mi 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your constructive critisizm during my RfA! It has decided to postpone making me an administrator based upon recent consensus (or lack thereof). Thanks for the kind remarks and I hope to continue to see you around the project. Cheers, Zsinj^Talk 08:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

My RFA[edit]

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: recent nominations to afd[edit]

It may be helpful if you mark these non-notable bios as {{PROD}} so it doesn't gum up the AfD page and waste time. I also think there's a speedy deletion category for non-notable 1 line bios. So no need to tag an article as a speedy candidate and list it on AfD as happened here. --BWD^(talk) 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response on BWD's talk page. Ifnord 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question about future albums[edit]

So since an album by a highly notable major-label band that's due out in 9 weeks is "crystal ballism," where do you place your line for future albums by music acts? I'm honestly curious, because I don't understand the AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response on Badlydrawnjeff's talk page. Ifnord 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your response at my talk page. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your response to my response at your talk page. ;) Ifnord 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Statistical game theory AFD[edit]

HI Ifnord, a comment on your keep vote per "a real topic, verifiable and notable per Slowmover". I just thought I'd point out

Slowmover voted delete,
The topic of statistical game theory' may be real, but the author admits that what he's written about is not actually about the same thing that the term is used to mean in the published literature,
What the author has written about isn't really verifyable until someone is able to verify any of what the article contains, and that hasn't happened
"Notable" usually means that the topic is written about enough that it's worth explaining why people find it interesting, but the author hasn't provided any evidence that the "ideas" he's presented have ever been published before.

Best regards, Pete.Hurd 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response on Pete's talk page. Ifnord 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian. Come here, we shall have a party tonight. The biggest laddus have been ordered. --Bhadani 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Ifnord, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince you that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again, but I sincerely hope that at some point I would be able to convince you of my transformation. Looking forward to working with you in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and the kitchen sink....[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to say I got a good laugh out of your cluster of tags on the top of Beady Long Legs. Very nice. I need to develop that kind of a command of what's appropriate. I'm personally trying to cut my teeth at "policing" by spending a few minutes a day stepping into the "stream" of new articles that are being produced and trying to speedy-delete the beyond-obvious crap, stub the stub-worthy, and tag all those inbetween that need it. Anyhoo, have a good one. Bobak 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I keep that page open in another tab as I work too --that, speedy delete criteria and stub categories (with a few more pages as bookmarks for easy reference). Bobak 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Results and Thanks[edit]

Ifnord/, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 07:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakoske and the Picmin[edit]

I added this note to User Talk:Sakoske, the busy Pikmin fan who is creating short articles for every Pikmin species:

Please note that all the Pikmin species are listed at Pikmin (species). It is not necessary to create a new article for each one. You can edit Pikmin (species) to add new species, if you like. --John Nagle 05:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She might need some help merging and deleting, or it may have to be done for her.--John Nagle 05:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your rv action on the "Efax" stub[edit]

lfnord, i recently added that information since Premiere Global Services is an internet fax provider. If you look, you will see that we're legitimate midcap company so this is not an advertisement. Can you please revent back?

Redirect[edit]

Hey I see that you put a speedy deletion tag for How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life to Kaavya Viswanathan. If you could help me that would be great thank you. Kyros 03:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Molly Parker.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Molly Parker.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Demand Note[edit]

Hi Ifnord, the {{featured}} tag was not missing on the article Demand Note; this tag should only be on the article's talk page. The tag that goes on the article itself is {{featured article}}; it adds the little FA star at the top right of the article, and you can find it towards the end of the article. All the best, Schutz 00:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shirk[edit]

If you revert this back to a disambig page, you have a responsibility to fix all the more than 20 links that point to this page. Every one of them is using shirk in its Islamic sense, so they should point directly there. There is not a single article in WP that links shirk in the 'avoidance of work' sense. See official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colonies Chris 09:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Straightway School; Dream interpretation; Abrahamic mythology; Son of a bitch; Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi; Jumu'ah; Divisions of Islam; Ayah; Cheaper by the Dozen 2; WCWM; Salaf; Brandon School, Goleta, California; The Kids Will Have Their Say; Battle of the Trench; Rough Cutt; Sawm; Hanif; Josh Abraham; Islamic science

Cleanup: Sierramont Middle School; Home Gardens, California; Li Hongzhi
Merge: J-school; Roeper School (Michigan); Isra and Mi'raj
Add Sources: Sunnah; Nubuwwah; Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era
Wikify: Jacqueline; WQDR-FM; Hubert
Expand: Shi'a view of Umar; Islamic art; Ihram

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you have identified yourself as an Anglican, and so I thought that you may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Municipal Signals Association (IMSA)[edit]

I am open to any help you can offer to make this article acceptable to wiki admins everywhere <tired grin>. What I really need is some specific guidance on what would be an acceptable fix. And some time to do it... I do have a real life and a day job. See my comments and proposal at Talk:International Municipal Signals Association (IMSA). Thank You. --Steve 02:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Admin moved the temp page. Please go to Talk:International Municipal Signals Association (IMSA)/Temp and let me know if you think there's enough good content to move everything back to the original page at International Municipal Signals Association (IMSA). And THANK YOU for all of your patience and help along the way thus far.... --Steve 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyRussian's RfA[edit]

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Ifnord, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fnord[edit]

Right you are! I had never heard the word, before finding it through a WikiLink. Is it pronounced "fin-ORD" (like fjord with an "n")? Also, I can't figure out what your username means. Is it "I fnord", using "fnord" as a verb?

Relatedly, do you think there should be a double link to Subliminal message in Fnord? After I placed {{Hidden messages}}, I deleted the redundant link, thinking that there was no reason to have the article linked twice, once in the template and once in the "See also". I'm not sure why you put it back. Λυδ α cιτγ 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nice userpage. How do you reconcile "This user is an atheist" with "This user is an adherent of Anglican Christianity"? Λυδ α cιτγ 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, about going to church for the rituals. I guess I'm similar, in that I still go to synagogue despite being an agnostic.

I might have some monarchist tendencies; I'm not sure yet. But if you can reconcile monarchism with socialism, I can reconcile monarchism with libertarianism! I don't know if you've ever read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, but if you have, you'll remember Stu LaJoie's shocking statement that he is, in fact, a monarchist. Reading that was the first time I took monarchism seriously, as a political philosophy. The more I see of the utter idiocy of some Americans, the more I think we need a strong leader who is not elected by these fools.

Anyway, nice talking to you! See you around, Λυδ α cιτγ 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the hardest thing to work out for any system of government (who should be in charge). I'd say that's what kills Communism - the power-hungry leader, who distorts the system for his own self-interest. How does your socialist philosophy deal with this problem? Λυδ α cιτγ 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi[edit]

Yes, a mistake. Thanks for correcting it. Cheers TigerShark 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiacal[edit]

I'm not normally a fan of userboxes, but I love the situational irony of "This user is skeptical of superstitions such as the Zodiac" followed immediately by "This user is a Scorpio" on your user page. Classic! Ziggurat 23:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Indeed, I tend to be a bit too curmudgeonly about userboxes, but I've always had a soft spot for Template:User selfref-3. Ziggurat 03:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Christian Cults in the United States[edit]

Greetings! I know you said you wanted to speedy the article...do you think it might fit under A6, attack articles? I'm thinking of slapping a {{db-attack}} tag on it myself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro capite, -NOT- per capita[edit]

I studied Latin at High School (5 years), and beside that, as I am currently living in Italy, I can ensure that per capita is a term that is never used. In Italy the proper terms are:

Pro capite

reddito pro capite

the latter means income for each head. --Clearcontent 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to use Latin words and terms in English, we should respect the traditions and the history of a nation aged 2500 years; in other words we should simply use the words in their original form, meaning and context. I admit that it usually happens. This is the first time I see such a big mistake. It would be better touse personal income, for person, for head and so on. After all, those articles do not cite sources, and I really believed they were just the result of some editing mistakes. Also, please do not forget WP:BITE. Best regards. --Clearcontent 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm really sorry and I apologize if my words seemed somewhat personal. I do not know you personally, it's the first time I meet you as a Wikiuser, so, please believe me, there is nothing personal. I just was upset that the first time you reverted my edit you didn't contact me. I really see no personal attack. What is wrong in saying that we need to check this subject in a good Latin-English dictionary?

Cheers. --Clearcontent 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your suggestion, I'll try it immediately.--Clearcontent 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Medill School of Journalism; Ayah; Rough Cutt; Divisions of Islam; Hanif; Islamic science; Straightway School; Center School (Connecticut); Coe Elementary School; American Psychiatric Association; Coptic Catholic Church; Great Coalition; Cedar Ridge High School; School-to-work transition; Salaf; Dream interpretation; Sawm; Cheaper by the Dozen 2; St. Anne's Catholic School (Southampton)

Cleanup: Muhammad as a warrior; Halal; Ford Academy
Merge: Western Carolina University; Isra and Mi'raj; Islamic concept of God
Add Sources: Sunnah; Christo-Islamic; Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era
Wikify: Psychology of torture; Muzammil H. Siddiqi; Dua (Islam)
Expand: Islamic art; Shi'a view of Umar; Ihram

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of A&W Restaraunts menu items[edit]

Uhm... Yeah... thing is about that... if you look in the history of A&W Restaurants then you'll see what we had before I did that original change to the separate menu. Only problem with a new page like that, is that I don't have enough information to create something like McDonald's Menu page. I will admit that there is probably lots of information on the Internet, but how much of it will be on A&W's international menu items? I'll see what I can do on my days off Thurs and Fri, but I can't guarantee anything... NetStormer 03:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now it doesn't read like an add[edit]

Much better now :-) David D. (Talk) 05:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of religious freedom in Canada Re-write[edit]

I did a Re-write couldn’t make the sandbox thing work kept resetting so I put it on my user page it mostly the same article as beforeUser:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada if you have time tell me what you think.Ansolin 17:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With me WORDS spell check just give up after the first 50 and goes for a smoke hehe, if you have time please correct but keep in mind it just a work in progress me and deet are still hammering stuff out:).Ansolin 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraband pastries[edit]

[6]. — Jul. 20, '06 [00:15] <freak|talk>

No Gnaa nowhere[edit]

Thanks for the nice note on my talk page and for your confidence on the AfD page.

As I wrote on the AfD page, I knew nothing before seeing the name come up in the list of AfDs (the 2nd AfD) a few days ago. I had just received this Nigerian map (for a business trip) the same day and was intrigued to see if I could find it on the map. What I subsequently dug up represents the sum total of what I know about this area. I'll need some geo-spatial data on Nigeria in the next year, so this has actually been a semi-useful exercise.

The other AfDs (and 2 RfAs) I had recently picked at random to help with were so very unpleasant, controversial and process-y -- people of bad faith on both side misquoting WP:RULES at each other in various attacks. It was nice to just do something that took some encyclopedic beavering; I suspect that sometimes people on the process-side of the community (frequently including myself) lose site of the fact that this Wiki-beavering is what makes Wikipedia useful (and process keeps it semi-reliable). It's been at least 500 edits since I took a book down off my shelf and wrote a basic, encyclopedic block of text.

So thanks again. --A. B. 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox RfA[edit]

I thought I should point out that Yanksox's account has actually been open since early February (i.e. 5 months) [7] You may have read the grey stats box, which is rather misleading. Tyrenius 22:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA[edit]

Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here!
Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags on Reparative therapy[edit]

I don't think it counts toward WP:3RR if you revert different sets of changes to the same article. But regardless, so far you haven't really given me a reason to revert - I added three tags to three sentences that need citations. If they can't be produced, the sentences should be removed. If they can, we should cite them. As far as I'm concerned, barring a more convincing argument from you, that's all there is to it. -Smahoney 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wickethewok's RFA[edit]

Thanks for your support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Relisting AfD articles for more consensus[edit]

Edit the AfD, and slap it with the {{relist}} template with subst.
Go to the AfD's day listings, and comment out or remove the listing.
Readd the AfD listing it in a latest AfD day list.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ifnord! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe 's talk 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA and your vote[edit]

Hello Ifnord,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I will work on improving my focus on the encyclopedia, an accurate criticism you made in your vote. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Ryulong RFA[edit]

Hi... technically I'm not supposed to be here... I was blocked for reverting a FALSE incest quote complete with bogus source that Ryulong fought very hard to uphold on the Jeremy Clarkson article. (ITS ALL IN THE HISTORY) It's a long story... but regardless... I was OPPOSITION vote 16 and my vote was deleted by #3 supporter within 90 seconds!!, MrLefty and my suspension was increased to TWO weeks instead of one, I believe, so that I'd miss the end vote. Ryulong, along with his ASDMIN bully friends have pretty much destroyed my enjoyment of the site. When I first discovered the FALSE quote, I deleted it citing that "IF YOURE GONNA SAY THAT JEREMY SAID THAT ALL OF USA PRACTICES INCEST, THEN YOU'LL NEED TO BACK IT UP" as it seems too controversial. He reverted me 3 or 4 times claiming that "jeremy could have easily said that"...(Im trying to make this short as possible)... he deleted it... I tried to open a topic on the JC talk page and he deleted my topic 6 times then had me blocked by his admin buddies for VANDALISM I think? Anyway... I told THIS story on the admin page where instead of being smug, rude and cocky, he apologised to me and removed the quote saying that it was a mistake. This was certainly not a mistake... he tried fervently to keep tha page innaccurate and I have been blocked for suspending him and have also had a valid vote thwarted.

I just thought that you should know about it because of your NEUTRAL vote.

Although the page now is just how I think it should be(factual), I am now very concerned that this chap will be ADMIN. He and his admin bully buddies can make life miserable for a LOT of wikifolk. It's just not cool.

You know how the kid acts nice and sweet when the teacher is watching and then twists your nipple when the teacher is not looking... thats what this guy does.

When the edit war was going on, his gang suspended me and then he told me "I AM ACTUALLY LAUGHING OUT LOUD".

Is this a fake vote from MrLefty?---> [2]

Heres the one where they deleted my vote---> [3]

I'm sure you know that I have waged a small war against this editor, Ryulong using a number of IPs and ISPs, but that does not invalidate anything I have said here.

Please look into my claims... I haven't lied and I think that you will see that my claims are true. If you have any sway AT ALL... don't let this 18yr old testosterone fueled, egomaniac become ADMIN. He will abuse the tools and will only bring misery.

Is that normal to delete someone's topic from a discussion seven times? Seems unfair somehow. He has no powers yet, but abuses his knowledge over others.

Mate, I'm very sorry for the essay.

Thanks for reading.

YourCousin--86.29.112.234 16:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Thank you card![edit]

Dear Ifnord, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Despite I've never had the pleasure of talking to you until now, dear Ifnord, I really think the best gift that my RfA has given me is to meet people like you, as I see that you're a great editor and an awesome person. From this day on, I also consider you my friend, and I'd be happy and honored if you accept me as your own :) With a big hug, your friend, Phaedriel

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Blogs[edit]

What you need to do is subst {{relist}} like this {{subst:relist|~~~~}}, after the last vote. Computerjoe 's talk 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hey Ifnord, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. I hope I'll meet your standards by the next time on RfA, but in the meantime I'll go back to some nice article writing. Thanks for your !vote :) --james^(talk) 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi, I've looked at your RfA standards, and seem to meet them - is there another thing I can improve on to get your vote in the future? Thanks M a rtinp23 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was posted twice when the server was having problems M a rtinp23 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm not expecting you to change your vote, just checking for any other requirements so I know what to aim for in the future. Thanks for the input :) M a rtinp23 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution[edit]

I was wondering why you decided that the debate was for keep rather than no consensus. There were 4 deleted/merge votes and 4 keep votes (of lower quality), and I think that would at least get a no consensus decision, rather than a keep. Just wondering. Renosecond 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA[edit]

I would be honored to receive your nomination. If you need anything for your nomination, please feel free to ask. :-) --Zsinj^Talk 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your view of 1FA and would openly oppose it if it were mentioned during the RFA. I have not been a major contributor in getting an article up to featured status, although I am sure there are many FAs that I have touched in my other regular tasks. --Zsinj^Talk 23:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was preparing my answers to the questions during the time between now and my previous reply. I have accepted the nomination and added it to WP:RFA. Thank you. --Zsinj^Talk 00:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite satisfied! :-) Having taken roughly an hour to formulate my answers based upon my answers from my previous nomination, I feel secure in the positions I have established. --Zsinj^Talk 00:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabulon (2nd nomination)

You participated in the discussion last time. Please participate in the discussion this time. Uncle G 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trunking (auto)[edit]

Would you believe 280,000 Google hits for Trunking + car? =) Ifnord 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how absurd. Oh well, nice catch - I guess. I still wonder if it would survive WP:AFD... At least it no longer sounds like the rest of the drivel I've been deleting for the last couple hours! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wangi/RFA[edit]

Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T4[edit]

OK, you have created a situation where we have two articles on the same subject, so you can solve the problem thus created. I will oppose the use of the word "euthanasia" in the title of the article on this subject, since it is incorrect. Adam 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with a shorter name if you can think one which describes the topic of the article without using the word euthanasia. I wasn't able to. Adam 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm not here to solve a problem you have created for youself. The title of the article must say what it is about. This article is not about eugenics, it is about

killing
people with disabilities
in Nazi Germany

If you can find a shorter way of putting those three elements in a heading, you're welcome to do so. !Adam 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have done nothing to solve the problem of two articles on the same subject which you created by reversing my redirect of the old article to the new one. Since you created this problem it is your responsibility to solve it. If you don't do so I will reinstate my redirect. Adam 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems: the title of the new article and your decision to keep the old article alive instead of redirecting it to the new one.

On the title, I am open to suggestions, but article titles are supposed to reflect the content of the articles. As I said above, the article has three elements: killing, people with disabilities and Nazi Germany, and the title should reflect this. If you think the title is too general, then you will have to make it even longer to be more specific: The T4 program to kill people with disabilities in Nazi Germany. I am happy with the existing title, but I am ready to hear alternatives, provided they do not contain the word euthanasia.
On the two articles, I am opposed to "merging" them. Anyone is of course free to edit the new article, and if you think there are elements of the old article which can be added to the new one, that is up to you. But a "merged" article would necessarily be a hybrid of the old and the new, and I don't see the merit in this. As I said above, you created this problem. If nothing has been done to solve it by tonight (my time, in about 12 hours), I will restore my redirect. Adam 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tie Guard[edit]

Hi, just a response to your closing of the AFD vote on Tie Guard. You said the result of the vote favoured a merging into University of Waterloo, though all of the "merge" votes except one actually favoured my initial suggestion of merging into University of Waterloo Faculty of Mathematics.

Anyway, it looks like the correct thing was done (the "Tie Guard" content is now on the Faculty of Mathematics page) but I was wondering if your closing comment was intentional or a typo. --saforrest 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville's RfA[edit]

Hello, Ifnord, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION OF REFERENCE TO EFAX

We've already been through this dance and it has been definitively determined that eFax is notable as a trademarked service of j2 Global Communications. The company has over 10 million people using this service! Please leave it alone. You can respond to me at adeljeff@hotmail.com

My RfA[edit]

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your support on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address the concerns raised by the opposing !voters before running again. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks!

-- RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MED[edit]

Hi,

the project's page has been redesigned, please comment and consider listing yourself as a member.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail[edit]

You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching User:The Transhumanist18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

efax and eFax (fax service)[edit]

Ifnord, I hope you like my work on these articles. Rwxrwxrwx 10:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon[edit]

There's yet another AfD. Thought you might be interested. —Hanuman Das 14:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Denise-Poirier-voice-of-Aeon-Flux.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Denise-Poirier-voice-of-Aeon-Flux.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kimsalmon.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kimsalmon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. David Gerard 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Charles Frodsham.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Frodsham.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Renata 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ana_María_Polo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ana_María_Polo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mickeyl.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mickeyl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tina_turner_break_every_rule.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Tina_turner_break_every_rule.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gtakei_partner.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Gtakei_partner.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo acjetz.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo acjetz.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tina turner break every rule.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tina turner break every rule.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bedknobs and Broomsticks.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bedknobs and Broomsticks.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HellHath09.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:HellHath09.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matt carrol.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Matt carrol.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jeffersoninparis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeffersoninparis.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mummy box.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mummy box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Charmed and dangerous.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charmed and dangerous.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Frugal gormet.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Frugal gormet.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HellHath09.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:HellHath09.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tech n9ne absolute power.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tech n9ne absolute power.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Xmas phil spector.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xmas phil spector.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Roland Joffé.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Roland Joffé.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:World of morrisey.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:World of morrisey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skilling enron.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Skilling enron.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Memoirs_man.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Memoirs_man.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dh gb 80-grammy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dh gb 80-grammy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crimean Astrophysical Observatory logo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Crimean Astrophysical Observatory logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Denise-Poirier-voice-of-Aeon-Flux.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Denise-Poirier-voice-of-Aeon-Flux.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Imsalogo.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Imsalogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Iwerkslogo.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Iwerkslogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Home costa.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Home costa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Cindy-cook.gif[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Cindy-cook.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OSTA logo.gif[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:OSTA logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:David.mctaggart.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:David.mctaggart.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Austin kate.jpg[edit]

Image:Austin kate.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Kate Austin.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Kate Austin.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Sharwoods logo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sharwoods logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Ken lay enron.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ken lay enron.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 80.63.213.182 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Rock-a-hoola.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rock-a-hoola.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:China dolls.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:China dolls.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sensible cover.jpg)[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sensible cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:China dolls.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:China dolls.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Xmas phil spector.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xmas phil spector.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ifnord/! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Re: GMA News TV notability[edit]

We got notability guidelines for television outlets. It appears to meet them. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. --Ifnord (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm writing an article for a distant notable relative. Please advice how I can address the issue of getting the article removed. Thank you.

See WP:BIO for the notability guidelines on people. Cheers, benzband (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud and Blood 2[edit]

I share your concern, but unfortunately most people appear to stand by the bad current guidelines. That's the fundamental flaw of Wikipedia... Der yck C. 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on "Tripod"[edit]

Just a reminder, you tagged the tripod article with a merge tag but you didn't explain he reasoning for the proposal (cf. WP:MERGE III). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD revisited[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Bennett Guitars (2nd nomination). Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eBuddy[edit]

As you supported my PROD of eBuddy article, you might want to state your opinion in this AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psychiatry logo.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Psychiatry logo.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Psychiatry logo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Psychiatry logo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014[edit]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors[edit]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kindly share ur email ID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:00, April 23, 2015‎ (talk) 92.97.185.246

No. Ifnord (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gramatik[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you have added the {{fansite}} and {{tone}} templates to the article Gramatik. It would be helpful if you would discuss on the talk page what issues you believe the article has regarding its tone and point of view. Thanks.  Adrian^[232] 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and done. Ifnord (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ifnord. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Rossner books[edit]

I am having difficulty with your peremptory redirects of these articles. I see that you have included a bit of material for each in her bio article but the result is the elimination of valid information about each of these books, including the plot summaries. Many of her books were widely reviewed and highly regarded, and while we do not want our book articles to be only plot summaries, and overly detailed ones can certainly be cut down, those summaries (and other content you've effectively removed by redirect) are important parts of the coverage of the works. Can you please explain your intentions here? --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those books have no article other than detailed plot summaries. As it stands, they're a collection of mini Cliff's Notes. Is that "valid information"? Ifnord (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I've worked on, at least, have information about the books' reception, and in the case of Emmeline there's also context about the book's inspiration and the opera based on the book. These are pre-internet books, and digging (and in some cases database subscriptions) will be required to identify additional sources, but it just takes a quick look at Newspaper.com or Google Books results, for example, to see that these books were the subject of substantial coverage, and some of them (August, for example) have been described as not merely notable books but as important ones. These are significant works by a significant writer; unless there has been some discussion and consensus about Rossner of which I am unaware, these articles should be improved, not disappeared. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Union[edit]

The existence of "fact" tags is not an excuse for not doing any legwork and looking something up, nor is it a reason to tag onbious facts that anyone familiar with the subject would recognize as valid. Your ignorance of a subject is not excuse for tagging something without researcing it. If you don't know anything about the subject, you probably have no business editing the article.

Now, feel free to archive this so your talk page will be nice and clean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

left a comment on bluegrass companies talk please give me a shout back, shouldn't we be discussing it on the afd page? --208.111.114.126 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

really enjoying our bluegrass companies battle my friend :) looking forward to your next comment :) --208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News7 Tamil[edit]

I've removed again the claims that News7 Tamil operates with a Christian bias. No reliable source is given for this claim, and Facsix was correct in removing it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I owe Facsix an appology. Thank-you for the head's up. Ifnord (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indibloggies deletion[edit]

I saw your note voting for the deletion of this page. I just wanted to register here my dismay, because you mention that its a blog, which shows that you probably have no idea on what is difference between a blog and a blog award website. Its pretty funny One random wikipedian (who actually has made almost nil contribution on English wikipedia) marks an article for deletion, and then he and you together are able to delete it, while so many people contributed towards the creation of that page. Would you please hold the same standard and vote for the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies), because Indibloggies was parodied upon this weblog award site. Why is this pages still there (despite the notice hanging there since over 2 years (since Feb 2015), but Indibloggies was deleted in a hurried manner? Debashish (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debashish: That discussion involves notability for that specific article. Unfortunately, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedic article, please visit WP:GNG. It was not compared to another article, and it does not logically follow that any other article needs to be either deleted or included simply based on another article's AfD; please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord: I think you conveniently evaded the crux of my message. Why is it that this article was deleted in a hurry when a similar article in all respects has a notability notice since past 2 years and has still not been deleted. From your note I presume that you are not a subject matter expert on blogs, what made you suddenly take a decision on this is my query. Now on notability, I don't think you were non partisan in your decision:

* How does an article which stood on Wikipedia since many years suddenly became non-notable? Is it because the site is defunct, if so why is there is a page on Yahoo Geocities still there. Its there because Geocities made a huge difference in the life of people using internet and even if its closed its services long ago, it still has a historical significance.

* The article links to various Newspapers, Google Scholar quotes etc, all necessary citations are there. How is it still not notable?

* There has been no other blog award from India that ever ran so long or enjoyed so much popularity, I am sure you didn't care to research on it, before jumping to conclusion. Debashish (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you want to accuse someone of removing content without explanation...[edit]

...Maybe check to see if they have given an explanation? In this case, there was in fact an explanation. In fact, it appears to be YOU who did not provide an explanation for your undo. 164.67.77.247 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had the same experience on the Weinstein effect page. I DID leave an explanation.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is being discussed.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

70.112.229.80 While you put an edit summary, I didn't think it was a sufficient and encouraged you to use the talk page to get consensus from other editors. I spend the bulk of my time trying to revert vandalism on articles but I do make mistakes. My intent to to neither discourage constructive edits nor push any point of view, I do not have any attachment to the articles I edit. I would encourage you to register a username, this would make any future edits less likely to be tagged as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience. Ifnord (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Likewise, I try to prevent vandalism to articles as well. No hard feelings, and cheers!70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not good-faith editing, hence the level 3 warning that I left them. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize, @Home Lander:, for taking so long to respond. Your comments are well taken and I appreciate the opportunity for growth and development. Sorry, and thanks. Ifnord (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bible[edit]

I was removing bad information from the article; not inserting it. Banzernax (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Banzernax: You removed referenced material which you appear not to agree with and added unreferenced material. Please have a look at WP:POV. Ifnord (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material is correct. The reference is the word of God. Banzernax (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Hello, Ifnord.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not quite the same userbox. ;) Ifnord (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manx Fencibles (badminton club)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you commented on this AFD. There is a similar AFD going on here, and if you'd like please share your thoughts here as well. [8]. Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur[edit]

Hi the reason why I removed it is becaude it is undue furthermore that section on Sikhs and Hindus shows one side plus if you look at Jammu article there is no mention of a Muslim massacre which took place so its unfair mirpur should accomidate the Hindi and Sikh agenda. 82.132.228.105 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.228.105 You are welcome to add information if you provide a reliable source. Please see WP:cite. But, articles are not compared to one another, they stand on their own. Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above ip is a sock of a community banned user. —MBL ^Talk 08:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister wiki case has been accepted[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ifnord. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kettlethorpe High School[edit]

Hello, I'm VsauceMichaelStevens. I wanted to inform you of the Kettlethorpe High School Page (which I had just edited a short time ago). I consider myself someone who greatly cares about the reputation of the facility, so I have a great distaste to the school being referred to as "Sketty Ketty" in casual sentences and compared to a "Siberian Work Camp". Neither of the paragraphs listed even have correct punctuation such as full stops at the end of sentences. I would have very much liked to fix these problems and make grand, insulting sentences about the facility seem like only certain opinions (as opposed to them being presented as truths). I did attempt to do this, but all of my edits have been removed from the page and the page itself has been completely reverted back to its primitive, unpolished state. As I said before, I care very deeply about this School so being restricted from trying to improve the state of the page very much distressed me.

I hope you can find me the means of fixing this issue. VsauceMichaelStevens (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When your edits refer to a teacher as "disgruntled", I doubt you're interested fully in the reputation of the facility. [9] I have requested page protection to try and mitigate vandalism; I encourage you to contribute in a constructive way. Ifnord (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ifnord. Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. If you don't want enable email just for this, you can email me at pearley

wikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Best, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gole Turkey[edit]

The climate chart of Gole is false, the source is a blog without referencing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.208.192 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rokicki[edit]

Hi. Sorry it was a mistake. I thought I was only removing an unedited part. Koemtjoe (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments about Cabalen[edit]

Glad you enjoyed my reversion of some just deleted material describing food served at Cabalen that were removed by some over zealous editors (on 6 November 2017‎ and 22 December 2017‎).

If you are interested in reading about exotic food items that are served by that restaurant, please looked at the deleted newspaper references (just ignore the unreferenced deleted material). Since I don't have time to read all of the deleted newspaper references and restore some of the recently deleted material, you might be able to find some interesting material about other delicacies that needs to be re-added to the article, especially those that may have pictures in Wikimedia Commons, like the one I just found, but sadly no articles in Wikipedia:en (I wish someone would be able to write an article about Gatang Kuholl and similar dishes, since those are just meaningless words to me right now.) You might help be restoring some of the recently deleted material that could be supported and justified. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of FMW 4th Anniversary Show for deletion[edit]

I don't think I found it non-notable. It was the biggest annual event of FMW and there is no specific reason to find it non-notable. It was the most significant event in the company's history and the sources have indicated it. If you still want to delete it after adding enough sources and working very hard then I shall restrain myself from wasting time in working hard to create articles in Wikipedia.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such people who may want to get detailed information on the event which they may be unable to get on other websites will be convenient in getting information on FMW's flagship event at Wikipedia. A free encyclopedia, as it claims, must provide information on FMW's biggest yearly event. Maybe puroresu fans are looking for such information and they may find it helpful. This information is definitely not false or wrong. Sources provided in the article are accurate, not only in the FMW 4th Anniversary Show but also in FMW 5th Anniversary Show, FMW 6th Anniversary Show, FMW 7th Anniversary Show, FMW 8th Anniversary Show, FMW 9th Anniversary Show, FMW 10th Anniversary Show, FMW 11th Anniversary Show, and FMW 12th Anniversary Show. The information in these articles may be helpful for readers who want to read and research on these below mentioned articles. Thanks. --Mark Linton (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the deletion tag from these articles because I don't find them non-notable. If you still want to delete then you are admins and you have authority to do it. I cannot do anything about it and I don't need to give any explanation on it. I have already worked very hard and provided enough sources, which are true. If you will encourage me to expand these articles by removing "deletion tag" then I will provide more information and I think sources are enough to give information. If you do have any solid and suitable answer to my claims then do reply me on my talk page instead of deleting these articles and if you wanted to place "deletion tag" then you could have done it when I created these articles. Now, I can only request you, not to delete them after a lot of hard work and after a very long time. Thanks.--Mark Linton (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly respond to me on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FMW 4th Anniversary Show discussion as I have provided YouTube links as significant coverage to the FMW Anniversary Show adhering to your WP:GNG policy.--Mark Linton (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 Remix[edit]

Just ignore my first edit, I accidently deleted more than I wanted, so I undid my edit, so I could start over and deal with it correctly.2601:1C2:4E00:BB1:B005:7074:5B1:915F (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to Get Away with Murder - I responded to your message. You are incorrect about how to make a name that ends in 's' possessive.

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great work reverting vandalism. L293D (✉) 18:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: Thank-you, so much! It made my day. =)

New page reviewer granted[edit]

Hello Ifnord. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sharron Ullrick"[edit]

Greetings. I started a discussion about the notability status of the subject in the article's talk page. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord, I see you started the AfD process, yet I cannot locate the place where the relevant discussion is taking place, eg in the log or under the starting letter. Do you have any links? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome:I actually tagged it with Prod, I did not AfD it. If you think Sharon Ullrick meets the notability guidelines, simply remove my tag from the page. That ends the process. Prod is much less formal than AfD, any objection stops it. Ifnord (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll most probably let the process go as initiated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article page Eric Edwards[edit]

I saw your response in the decision to delete this page. I disagree that iMDB is not credible; I have never heard that you can pay to be included there, and even then there's a considerable difference between professional actors' profiles and amateur film students. Julio P. 01:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I was just posting right above and saw your message. IMDb belongs to the category of "websites whose content is largely user-generated" and for this reason it "is also generally unacceptable" as a "reliable source". For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation[edit]

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Imsalogo.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imsalogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Allen Academy Edit Deletion[edit]

Hello, I would like to request that you undo the deletion of my recent contribution to Bishop Allen Academy. As a contributor to the Bishop Allen community, and a frequent observer of its ongoing affairs, my update to its page was both accurate and constructive, contrary to your claim. Please undo the deletion - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wewuzkangzayo123xd (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ifnord (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about yes? Wewuzkangzayo123xd (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Michelle Slatalla page[edit]

Hi there, The reason I removed content from the Michelle Slatalla page was to try to fix the ref error messages at the bottom of the page. They said that the refs (which I removed) weren't used in the piece. Please advise the best course to correct these error messages if not to edit as I did. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosied28 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - country or continent?[edit]

I noticed you reverted an edit of mine. I made this edit because not everybody agrees on what is considered part of Australia. Wikipedia articles should not take sides on what comprises the continent. It is clear what comprises the country. It is not in any territorial disputes. --2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C:I agree, the policy is not to provide original research but to only write what is already established. If you wish to make the changes, simply include a reliable reference to support it. --Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened up a discussion Talk:Australia_(continent)#What_comprises_the_continent_of_Australia? to discuss the change. Please consider notifying others about the discussion. --2601:183:101:58D0:5D57:4B1C:A325:C74C (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Marks[edit]

Hi Ifnord; I made the article, as I started other surfers articles Johanne Defay, Bianca Buitendag, Courtney Conlogue. She is notable as she is a member of the elite - top 16 in the world (http://www.worldsurfleague.com/athletes). Unfortunately I could not find more information about her (maybe because she is very young) but, as the above articles, I hope other users can help to improve. But if the article do not meet the policies, OK. Caiaffa (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Caiaffa: Unfortunately, criteria for notability depends on having reliable sources. It's not a critique of the subject's abilities, simply that they do not meet the criteria for an encyclopedic article. Without reliable sources, articles about people are usually quickly deleted. Ifnord (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord: I did some adjusts in the page. If you think it is OK for now (until we have something more), great... if not, I think we have to wait for more references. Anyway, thank you for your attention.Caiaffa (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Caiaffa: You may want to look at WP:RELIABLE. Basically, an article about the subject from a reputable news source is a good reference while a mentioning the subject in a blog or website isn't. Ifnord (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have added where the committees are currently operating globally as you suggested and done a light improvement and update. Thank you Ifnord — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.127 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Rashid[edit]

Suddenly why the Article is being put in Deletion Mode ? What wrong has been done while writing the Article for that Professional Footballer ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham shinde (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubham shinde: Please see [10] for a detailed explanation. Ifnord (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Grant[edit]

Hello. Sorry, but I insist: Hugh Grant was born in Pieve di Cadore, Veneto, Italy. Is the truth --79.44.130.121 (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shame! You are a very big ignorant! Hugh Grant was born in Pieve di Cadore, Maurizio Sarri is minister of Education, and for your very lower knowledge the premier of the United Kingdom is Toto Cutugno. Please return at school, study and start to read some newspaper, because you are total out of world. Ciao--95.236.76.13 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Page Change[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Thank you so much for reaching out to me. Lorne Michael's Wiki page is currently posting false information about his place of birth.

He was not born on a kibbutz on Palestinian donated land re: this Vanity Fair article. Paul Simon who is a personal friend of Lorne's was kidding. This article was written in jest and by a celebrity, not a credited journalist and therefore is not a credible source. We are working to get this article corrected but that is proving to be a real challenge. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/05/lorne-michaels-snl-anniversary

Unfortunately over time other news outlets have picked up this information as fact without doing proper fact checking hence the pages multiple sources.

Please see below a current source that states his actual place of birth which is Ontario, Canada. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/awards-chatter-podcast-lorne-michaels-saturday-night-live-1031587

Can you please let me know how this can be resolved permanently? As the Wiki rules state - it is against the sites policies to put live false information. And as this information is in fact incorrect I am hoping it can be fixed.

Thank you 173.213.212.215 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Danielle[reply]

@173.213.212.215: There are many references that are considered more reliable than the Hollywood Reporter which state he was born on a kibbutz, including The Guardian. I would also urge you to check out your user page regarding the conflict of interest you appear to have and our policies for disclosing paid editing. Ifnord (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ifnord,

Thank you for following up with me. I have read through the COI documentation on the Wiki site and apologize for not going through the proper protocol when attempting to make this change initially. Moving forward I will not make any changes before submitting for approval first.

Re: our earlier thread The Guardian has confirmed the correct birth date information and revised on their article. It now states Lornes’ actual place of birth: Toronto, Canada as opposed to Palestine. I’m hoping this will suffice as The Guardian is a reliable outlet and has made the change.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/feb/17/lorne-michaels-kingmaker-comedy-saturday-night-live

Thank you again 173.213.212.215 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bearded Lady with Chicken Lady.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 'Mieczysław Moczar' Page[edit]

The use of the term 'Communist Party' is unhistoric/anachronistic with regard to events in 1968 as that party had been dissolved thirty years earlier.2A00:23C4:BC35:1000:E580:9458:9213:AAE9 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communion and Liberation edit warring block[edit]

Hi, I'm still respecting the edit warring block on the Communion and Liberation article but brand new users with the same replacement behevior are keep popping out. What can we do? I think they are sockpuppeters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lzzy303

...But after 3 days still not investigantion result. Maybe the Communion and Liberation page need a pre edit warring lock? Thanks for your message on my talk page and your assistence and contributions. Jasmir54 23:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User 112.120.136.152[edit]

Hi; this user appears to be continuing to vandalise. — 64.245.141.66 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Aiono[edit]

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alefosio Laki, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Aiono. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Correctional nursing[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Correctional nursing at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dvostruki obruc cover.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie incognito[edit]

Tf did you revert it for chief I’m a ridge alumni and that is what our coaches told us Chief. Brodosauras (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply add a published reference to substantiate it and you can put it back. Ifnord (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof that my Internet address is shared?[edit]

On my talk page you put a template which says that my Internet Protocol address may be shared, but you gave no proof. 83.179.253.70 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not know what an IP address is. You access the Internet from a network, Tele2 AB/Swedish IP Network in this case. You are not the only person who uses that network. Ifnord (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Correctional nursing[edit]

Hello Ifnord. As you have been unable to respond to comments left at this DYK nomination, and you have not been able to address the concerns raised by the DYK reviewer, I have now marked your DYK nomination for closure. If you wish for the nomination to continue, please respond there as soon as possible. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you still wish to continue your DYK nomination? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: This was my first attempt at a DYK. It appeared to fail on so many levels, a little overwhelming frankly, so I will not work on that again until I have looked at the process more closely. Ifnord (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About a recent change[edit]

Hi, In Shopping TVA (TV channel), the section erased is the same that the article Shopping TVA (TV show), so it’s not essential an there’s the link appropriated at the last sentence in the history section. Thank you.

Recent Changes to Ground Meat[edit]

Yeah, but it was funny tho, wasnt it ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HottyTotty9 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re China–United_States_trade_war[edit]

I already put an edit summary in the article so please double check your messages next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.119.85 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is insufficient. You simply said "Who is this guy," but it is referenced material, from a credible source. The reference explains who he is and why it matters. My message further said you should discuss this on the article's talk page to find consensus. Ifnord (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wular Lake in state of indian occupied Jammu and kashmir[edit]

in this article "Wular Lake" the author has misguide to all the readers regarding the Basin country of this lake intentionally or unintentionally. The states of Jammu and Kashmir are disputed states among two nuclear power countries of the south Asia. As per UNO resolution in 1948. So please mention these states as "occupied". For references please check. 1) "http://undocs.org/S/RES/47(1948)" 2)http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/1948.shtml 3)https://www.thoughtco.com/un-resolution-referendum-on-kashmir-2353455

I hope it will help you to correct the information as true knowledge is essential for every human begin.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.250.150 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Question[edit]

Several months ago you reviewed an article I wrote on Michael Serwa you opinion on the article was "Well referenced. Good job". Another Wikipedia writer recently nominated the article for deletion discussion. Would you mind contributing your thought on this matter regarding the Michael Serwa article and its deletion discussion. Thanks. Notthesteps (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Notthesteps: I have but I do counsel you to conform to the Conflict of Interest (COI) policy, if applicable. The Wikipedia community takes a dim view of those who do not, and the articles they create. Conforming to the COI policy shields you from those who raise the spectre of an undisclosed COI. Ifnord (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the AFD[edit]

Average life coaches do not have a Forbes article with them as the subject

Except that it's NOT a Forbes article, it's their self-published blog section. The Portfolio piece is an interview, so effectively a primary source, and Citymatters is a hyperlocal site (their term) with no reputation as a reliable source I'm aware of. If this is how you analyze sources, maybe you shouldn't be approving new articles, like you did this one.

Also, you forgot to mention that you were canvassed to this discussion. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you take up a lot of screen space in your discussions, rather than simply type out text. I also note from your talk page you are a little confrontational. I feel the combination akin to bullying rather than discussion. Perhaps you shouldn't be proposing articles for deletion.

I notice that you deflect from your failure to do basic due diligence. I notice that you don't understand how reliable sources work. I notice that rather than correcting or even acknowledging your mistake you've decided to bluster. You shouldn't be reviewing new articles -- no "perhaps" about it -- until you know what you're doing. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Hi this is an inappropriate content. There are many people with named Savita and it hurts others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.209.173 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Otte[edit]

Eileen Ottensoser is not the maiden name of Eileen Ford. Her maiden name is Otte. This is proven by the thousands of obituaries online stating her name. I don't know why Wikipedia insists on switching it back to Ottensoser all of the time. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.137.70.23 (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe Le Pew and Kermit the Frog[edit]

Have you never seen any hentai? Kermit is constantly returning to the swamp so as to aquire sexual acts from female frogs from the swamp who are addicted to the male sex organ. Looney Tunes continually implies that Pepe Le Pew is sexually attracted to the female animals that he chases and is mainly interested in preforming carnal acts with the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FletcherBarton (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am trying to update the Southern Illinois University School of Law page. However, I cannot seem to do so in a way that saves and is reflected. These updates are to correct outdated information.

Please advise how this should be done properly so that our information is properly reflected on the page. As it is, the page is misleading.

Thank you.

Michele Mekel Director, External Relations Southern Illinois University School of Law mmekel@siu.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.102.58 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Source[edit]

The source was me. I've known that for as long as I can remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freckles1634 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the content[edit]

At first sorry for the incovenience. In this page, I am trying remove some paragraphs which are not well suited with the article, as well as the sources[9],[10],[11] are weak and controversial. The sources are not reliable enough to refer.

Removing Content[edit]

I removed content which is out of date and misleading on the company page of my employer, and received the following message:

'Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You have removed referenced material'

how can I prove that my change was valid?DeborahBlatman (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeborahBlatman: If you work for the company, please address the conflict of interest notice I placed on your talk page. It explains Wikipedia's policy there. Your efforts to remove negative publicity about your company should be discussed on the article's talk page prior to removal, especially since it is referenced/sourced. Ifnord (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

problem[edit]

I have a problem with a source that I tried to correct the word boi(slang) article which encourages false info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdawg320 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigdawg320: Simply add the information,with references. Please see WP:REFB for help with that. Ifnord (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

wus poppin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunswikipeedia (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove vandalism[edit]

I was trying to remove vandalism added to a page by a user that seems to have a history of such activity. When I did, I received a message saying my edit was not constructive and possibly vandalism itself. How can I remove the inflammatory comments? 98.220.203.96 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@98.220.203.96: Please let me know the article and I'll have a look, your IP history shows no edits other than this one. Ifnord (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Here is the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_López. For some reason, the warnings I received were to this user(?), User talk:2601:249:B01:8E50:3C16:21BF:4D77:C25. I appreciate it.2601:249:B01:8E50:9CBD:6B58:413A:3A4D (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the article's subject is accused of monstrous acts, those allegations belong in the section it's already in. He is most noted for being an athlete; Wikipedia strives for a neutral tone and doesn't exist to be a pillory. Ifnord (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ifnord, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Excellent job! Jebcubed (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebcubed: Thank-you! It's been a busy morning, hasn't it? Ifnord (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invergordon[edit]

Hi Ifnord. Whyte & Mackay, who own Invergordon distillery, were sold in 2014 from an Indian company, United Spirits, to a Filipino company, Emperador Inc.

Best, 89.242.133.183 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@89.242.133.183: I stand corrected and apologize. I have already reverted my edits; I appreciate your polite correction, thank-you. Ifnord (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it![edit]

Why do you revert my edits on supercentenarian articles? Please stop it! 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@217.21.239.230:You are making mass changes to lists, blanking them, without discussing these changes on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, you should use the process. Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Ifnord (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected List of Irish supercentenarians to List of British supercentenarians because the supercentenarians born in Ireland were born when Ireland was part of the U.K., therefore they were British-born. Is something strange with that?

Besides that, you reverted me on List of French supercentenarians and List of German supercentenarians even though that was not at all reasonable. In the list of German supercentenarian, I made an update because Elisabeth Tränkner recently passed away, do you think that's unacceptable? In the list of French supercentenarians, I removed two people because they were German people, NOT French people. 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ifnord,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Don Dupree[edit]

Don Dupree worked at Pace Academy in Atlanta, Georgia until he got deported to Budapest, on November 16, 2018. He loved XXXtentacion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommythomastom123456890 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Don Dupree[edit]

Don Dupree worked at Pace Academy in Atlanta, Georgia until he got deported to Budapest, on November 16, 2018. He loved XXXtentacion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommythomastom123456890 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ifnord. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Wilber articles[edit]

My changes are being done in good faith and I have properly argued my position regarding Ken Wilber's standing as a philosopher yet my edits are being reversed without any considerations or arguments against them. How can people contribute if a few editors decide they can take control of articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahrez (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ken Wilber's Article[edit]

I fully understand the policies you've described. But I am not attempting to force my own opinions into the article; I am clarifying Wilber's professional activities to better convey the range of his work. He has edited anthologies and published scholarly papers, which qualifies him as a scholar, and has developed a philosophical system of wide acknowledgement, which qualifies him as a philosopher, as other non-mainstream thinkers such as Alan Watts and Robert Pirsig are qualified in wikipedia, and not simply described as writers. In regard to consensus, it is difficult when there is a spirit of admins controlling articles to reflect their own particular biases, a rampant issue in many other articles - see Dean Radin and Sheldrake for instance. In this regard, the 'consensus' might not be a force for good and might prevent new voices of being able to enter and contribute, and despite what you've said, wikipedia purports itself not only to be free in cost but also in the supposed equality of its contributors, which has been lacking as practice by many admins that excessively control articles by reverting constantly, a practice that I deem uncongenial and sometimes hostile, and which has been described in a couple of message boards as one of the main reasons new people do not contribute. So when after a single second someone reverts my contribution which is learned, as I am a psychologist knowledgeable of the field, it is a sign of a breach in the communal creative process that at times appears to be highjacked by a small minority of very controlling editors. Dahrez (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Conservative Association Updates[edit]

Ifnord, thank you for your concern regarding the content that I updated on the Association's page this evening and I'm sorry if you found the explanations posted for these updates insufficient; I hope that by now expanding upon the short explanations I put will help. It is a bit of a shame that you've reversed almost all the edits I made, since several were adding new informative material, which is now lost. Since quite a few edits were done - I believe you have reversed 11-13 edits - I shall only dwell here upon the sections I removed, as I presume these were the edits you found most objectionable. These predominantly focused in the controversies section, as some had been explicitly repeated earlier on the page (such as the champagne comment), redating and reordering the controversies (hence Parris' comment about the Association in 1969 has been moved to 1969 not 2010 likewise electoral misconduct in 1965-), while two 'controversies' were removed as they related to the misconduct of two individuals (who happened to be members of the Association) and did not stem from the Association itself, so could hardly be viewed as the Association's own controversies. A further comment was removed as it (by its own statement) relied upon an unsubstantiated rumour about why the Association's colours had change. Now that I hope these removals - amongst the additions I made - have been properly explained, I have taken the liberty of reinstituting them; if you have further objections, please contact me directly rather than just reversing them, if not, then keep up your good work - we need people like you to continue policing genuine vandalism on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.130 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@131.111.5.130: Thank-you for your civil message. When I look for changes to Wikipedia, I usually only see the last edit. It appeared to me as if you removed referenced material without discussing those changes on the article's talk page. There are editors who attempt to "whitewash" articles by removing controversial material that does not paint the organization in a good light. Those changes should be made by consensus and not by someone with an agenda. In this case I reverted 16 of your edits, 15 of which I probably shouldn't. Let me see what I can do to change that. Ifnord (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your kind reply. I don't have an agenda yet equally believe that organisations should not be painted in a false light, which I fear some of these controversies do, by being unsubstantiated or unrelated to the Association itself. As I don't know how we can establish a broader 'consensus' on this matter, I propose that we individually look through the controversies that fall into such categories. Firstly, 'Confusion over Colours'. The fact that CUCA's updated colours 'bore more than a passing resemblance' to those of a Club is hardly 'controversial' (it hardly 'arous[es] debate or discussion of opposing opinions' to use a dictionary definition). Worse, as you presumably noted, it proceeds to repeat a 'rumour' that a committee member belonged to that club, and so implied that this was the motive behind the change. That is why I removed that 'Controversy' because a) it is not a controversy and b) because it, by its own confession, relies upon 'rumour'. Can we agree to remove this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.130 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Edit[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

I am new and trying to update the Nunda, NY page to include the writer Heath Pfaff. You've removed it first for no reference, which I did add, then the second time for promotion. How would I cite something for where he lives and not be a "promotion"? His facebook page, his amazon page? Could you tell me what to put so you don't remove the edit? Thank you! Morbid3500 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbid3500: If the writer is notable, a link to his article would be sufficient. If he does not have one, chances are that he shouldn't be listed. Facebook, Amazon, etc. are not reliable sources. Please see WP:BIO for more information. Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord: I think he's more notable than the painter from here, but going over the page it is still a little unclear as to what would be considered significant for authors. I think he would be notable enough to be listed, but maybe not enough to have a full page, much like Rose Shave on the page. How do we determine that difference?

@Morbid3500: Please see WP:BIO. If he meets those criteria, and has the appropriate references, then no one should remove him. Ifnord (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord I know we disagree on the author, but did you even bother to look up the artist you removed from the Nunda page? She even has a gallery at the museum of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid3500 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbid3500: Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, it's neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Please peruse the notability guidelines for what acceptable additions are. The references you added are poor. One is a blog published by the local historical society, the other a book self-published by the same society. Ifnord (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again![edit]

Thanks for adding the tags to the Servant Leadership page. My students are working on it this semester and they can use the feedback! Dr Ashton (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny mills[edit]

I was clarifying that he is english and he did pretend to play football : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.66.43 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Himynameishiya[edit]

Hi for Pavlova can you put New Zealand before Australia for Origin because New Zealand made the pavlova first and it is part of kiwiana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himynameishiya (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the beginning of the article - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an American nonprofit[1] anti-vaccine organization which has been widely criticized as a leading source of misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] While NVIC describes itself as the "oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections"

This part is good and not bias

,[10] it promotes false and misleading information including the discredited claim that vaccines cause autism,[11][12][13] and its campaigns portray vaccination as risky, encouraging people to consider "alternatives".[14]

The author should change this, he simply states that they gave misleading info, instead, he should say some people believe it promotes false... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natewlee (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images on Austral Storm-Petrel Page[edit]

I removed images of Northern Storm-Petrels (Hydrobatidae), which have been split from the Austral Storm Petrels (Oceanitidae) and are therefore not the subject of the page. The two pictures I removed and additionally the image of the Fork-Tailed Storm-Petrel chick are all Hydrobatids and should be removed.

2601:142:0:5F79:25CF:BB93:A3DF:3DB2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:142:0:5F79:25CF:BB93:A3DF:3DB2, it would be helpful in the future if you included that in the edit summary so that people patrolling for vandalism would know why images were being removed. I'm sorry for reverting your edit, I will go back and undo it if you have not already. Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve your removals[edit]

My correction to the Aztec calendar stone article was clearly not original research. It would help things if instead of removing addititons which correct something that you instead would do a quick search for a source, or even request that the editor do the same, that way the article would be improved twice (the correction, plus the source), rather than being made worse (removing the correction). Furthermore, it is WP policy that things that are generally believed and understood do not need sources. Nonetheless I have edited the article to include a source so that even people unaware of this and how to improve Wikipedia should be aware of what is obviously not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:37.165.122.3, the article's references identify it as a calendar stone. You are changing the name of an article's subject - without adding references. If this is what you believe the subject's name should be - that's original research. If a valid source has published it, that would be a valid change. Please supply your references to back up a change in name. Ifnord (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the original post, I have added a source. And it's not what I believe the name to be, it's what it's most commonly referred to. You can search yourself on Google for both versions and see what you come up with. Now please stop your vandalous reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that a source was even needed, as per WP:WHENNOTCITE, again, as I mentioned in my original message to you. - 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your zeal for editing the article is admirable. Please, remember that Wikipedia's foundation is consensus-based (Please see WP:CON). Your changes require sources because the subject's name has already been discussed and a consensus reached on the article's talk page. You are welcome to reopen the discussion but not make arbitrary changes and then state anyone disagreeing with you is a vandal. Ifnord (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit without trying to improve it or salvage what was there (WP:DISPUTE), you did not explain why you reverted this nor did you try to engage in discussion with the editor in order to agree the way forward (WP:REVEXP) you then reverted a cited edit (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). Furthermore, you posted warnings clearly designed to intimidate someone from making an edit you did not like (I can't find this specifically on the policies' pages but I'm sure it's there). You then continue to falsely claim that I didn't cite the edit, which I did. You also falsely claimed that the edit was based on original research, now you change your tune and say it's a problem because of lack of consensus. In fact, I did re-open the discussion and there in fact seems to be more of a consensus nowadays that the page name should be changed. For which I opened a request move discussion, in the mean time I was changing the lead in, with a source, to correct things for those visiting the page before the move. You're right, vandalism has a specific meaning nowadays, but your edits are certainly disruptive to the project's aims and goals. This is all poor behaviour from a user and I would ask you to improve your conduct so as to improve the state of Wikipedia. We already don't have enough editors, it does not help things when the few editors we do have act incompetently and irresponsibly. If you wish to discuss why the title should not be changed, then the article talk page is the place to do it, not through edit wars. - 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not rebut your Wikilawyering and in the spirit of not wanting to feed an obvious troll, have a great day. Please, avoid my talk page and concentrate on editing. Ifnord (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What policies[edit]

Perhaps instead of making unconstructive edits, then trying to blame other editors, you could explain which policies I violated by correcting an article on wikipedia with a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Apologies, I didn't see the previous reply, I will look at it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.122.39 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Hawkcombe head and Ven Combe[edit]

I have responded to your proposed merge of Hawkcombe head and Ven Combe with Somerset at Talk:Somerset#Proposed merge with Hawkcombe head and Ven Combe suggesting the better merge would be with Porlock or Hawkcombe Woods. Would you be happy with this (so we can remove the merge banners)?— Rod ^talk 21:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Rod. Ifnord (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Recent Changes Patrolling[edit]

Hey. Are you a Recent Changes Patroller? I am! Anon. U. 15:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Alan Hoffmann, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Ifnord, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Everedux (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:173.170.115.36[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that User talk:173.170.115.36, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
It is an "attack page", (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rekonedth (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Ifnord![edit]

Happy New Year!

Ifnord,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

AfD Closure[edit]

Would you be willing to review the Gambo deletion discussion which you closed a few weeks ago? I went back to look into improving the article and it doesn't look like any of the sources provided by the "Keep" !voters are actually reliable. The preexisting sources were not RS, and the only one provided on the deletion page is a blog. Frankly I'm not sure how one would go about rewriting this as an NPOV-compliant article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dlthewave, a review of a closed AfD would be appropriate if the closer did not interpret consensus properly. I think that three keep !votes, a strong keep !vote, and no dissension, other than the nominator is clear consensus. If the article was deleted, one could petition WP:DELREV for a review; since it was kept, it would simply require another nomination at AfD to start a new discussion. If you wish to start a new AfD, I would counsel making a stronger argument to delete in the nomination. Ifnord (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that consensus concerns the quality of the arguments, not just the number. Comments such as "AGF for off-line sources" and "...without checking the pages of each cited book there is no reason to believe they are insignificant" indicate that editors didn't even bother to evaluate the sources, several of which turned out to be unusable fringe pieces. It probably would have been better to relist this one, but I'll take your advice and consider nominating it again since some time has passed. –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capitol Sound.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeg elada aeg armastada poster.jpg[edit]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake[edit]

Iam so sorry for what has happened. Iam new to this and I do not know the proper method of voting. Thankyou so much for restoring all the deleted messages I would be so grateful to you if you tell me the proper method of voting.

I apologize once again. Ssaarraayyuu (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Deleted Items[edit]

Hello Ifnord, my name is Marcus Coleman. I recently removed statements and edited my page to how I would like it to show up. I personally feel the statements are libelous and don not need to be included. Also, information regarding my honors were incorrect. I would be very appreciative if you could restore the page to the edits I made. If you have any questions feel free to email me at marcuscoleman0@gmail.com. Thank You

Regards,

Marcus Coleman

I would strongly suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss removing referenced material prior to removing themselves. Please also have a look at our conflict of interest policies I added to your talk page. I would also counsel you not to post email addresses as all pages are visible to everyone. Ifnord (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

I gave a valid reason for editing my page. Some of the information written is incorrect and libelous. I do not have an external relationship with the person/persons who wrote the information of my page. I request that the edits I made be restored and displayed on the page. Thank You

username for IAPPAccurateReporting[edit]

Hi, The username I chose is not associated with a company that i am aware of. I am using initials of family members. Please advise -- if it is not acceptable, I will of course apply for a new username. Thank you! IAPPAccurateReporting (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change[edit]

Thanks for reaching out regarding some edits I made. I'm trying to have the title and all of the references in an article changed from "Saint Mary of the Assumption" to "Saint Mary Mother of God" Craighickey18 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craighickey18, you may want to have a look at WP:CITE to learn how to references changes. References provide verifiability to your proposed changes. Ifnord (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Please remember that redirecting is an alternative to deletion, as anchored in policy, and this is something you can do yourself. Simple tagging of articles for non notability issues usually results in a perma-tagged article. See: Hall-Woodward Elementary School. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholder committee legal status around the world[edit]

Very good thought I will add the status onto the page and to summarise the SNAC committee resolution is advisory like most AGM resolutions. The SNAC committee is only able to put forward a resolution to be put at the AGM if its 5 member members have over 100 shareholder members or 5% of the Shares. Then that resolution with text is put forwards for all shareholders to decide which is the norm for all limited companies owned by shareholders. The text could be for the termination or appointment of a Director etc which is always been the case. So no change there. The only difference is that the SNAC committee can use company money to provide a short list of suitable candidates for replacing Directors. However any good Chairman of the Board will already have those to hand in case a Director gets run over by a bus, heart attack etc for every role so would not be needed unless it is to replace the Chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsome P (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you deleted my sentence on Pret A Manger as the bot assumes it's advertisement, but it isn't I am a former Pret employee adding to the Pret artice. I write about Pret on expret.org Please advise.[edit]

Hi, you deleted my sentence on Pret A Manger as the bot assumes it's advertisement, but it isn't I am a former Pret employee adding to the Pret artice. I write about Pret on expret.org Please advise. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExPret (talk • contribs) 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not a bot. The advertising you put in was for your website. Ifnord (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news edit deletion[edit]

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit. The only reason I removed it is because "Liberal" is NOT on CNN and MSNBC pages, which are both liberal leaning. Sorry for wasting your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsurewhattonamemyself (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Heyo sorry Ifnord for changing something. I was joking with my friend about how I could be famous online and went and put "hello :P" to joke with her. I immediately went back and changed it after though. I was also wondering how wiki works with that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.82.50 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flex[edit]

Hi, I had no intention of starting an 'edit war', and so it seems rather unfair for me to get that warning, when I'm endeavouring to ensure that the article remains as comprehensive and accurate as possible, given that for less mainstream articles, it can be tricky, for e.g. to reference every single past presenter, or they are not warranting of their own articles ('notability'). When I last read the guidelines on 'notability', it was noted that there was flexibility around this and some mods/admins seem to take it literally all the time. It seems now, that in my bid to try and protect the article from bad edits by 165.225.81.21, we end up with an article that is now all the poorer for it through cultural vandalism. 94.72.231.204 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay so basically im monkey add in[edit]

sorry about that m8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicalyimbigmonkey (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake.[edit]

Hi, You were right, I made a mistake and forgot to add the reason for changing the content. I am Ms. Matthaus/s Assistant and we want to remove 90% of the content on her wiki page until we re-write her bio. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLM7771 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marijana Matthaus page[edit]

Hi, Im just wondering why we are in an editing war over Marijana Matthaus' page? I wanted to edit text that someone previously wrote that was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLM7771 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot simply remove an article, especially if it contains references, without discussing this on the article's talk page. Please, also comply with the COI requirements I have posted on your talk page. Ifnord (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

shirley[edit]

why did you take my post down poopie brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.199.113 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edits[edit]

Please stop undoing any edits you do not have actual information about. It would be much appreciated as the public deserves to know th truth not just headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaktruthtopowerfacts (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Dover sole.jpg[edit]

The file File:Dover sole.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic 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) 01:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I've read your message regarding my edits on Bulguksa[edit]

The only changes that I've made are regarding image syntax and the addition/change/removal/relocation of images for a more appropriate/comprehensive representation of the topic. No changes were made to any of the sentences in the article, and the images were all extracted from Wikimedia Commons among many other images, as they seemed to better represent what the original pics were trying to convey. It was some painstaking work in progress, and yet every change has now been reverted. Could the article return to where I've left off with my edits? If you compare the article before&after my edits, you probably could see how it's been improved with more and clearer images.

Best regards, S_h_y_numis

S h y numis, it would be helpful if you used the edit summaries to allow people who patrol for vandalism to know what you're doing. Ifnord (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Rebuke of Me[edit]

Hello Ifnord, I am writing this as I recently discovered the message you sent me and the ban I received. I find the whole situation quite amusing as I have never before edited a Wikipedia article and the only edit that I believe is attributed to my IP is, and I quote, "Afterwards he became a super hero named fido the pimp ho, where he would go out and get rid of shameful hoes." I have no recollection of writing such a thing, and I can only assume that some deviant typed away on my keyboard while my head was turned. Failing that, I sincerely apologize if I did the deed in a state of idiotic comedic "brilliance" or drunkenness (which is highly unlikely as I do not drink). Anyways, thank you for your diligence and your time spent (if any) on this feeble attempt to clear the meaningless reputation of my IP. Again, I apologize for the event that has transpired and bid you a fair adieu. Hello again! I realized the idiocy in leaving my IP out for all to see, so I now am adding this edit to change my digital signature to a username (one I'm quite proud of I might add). I suppose the dastardly fellow (or I in the aforementioned unconscious trance) should have thought of that during the event. Anyways, I again bid you a fair adieu. ADaftBugger (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADaftBugger: Unfortunately, I have no idea of what you speak. I am neither an administrator nor capable of banning anyone. If you seriously need help (with using Wikipedia), please let me know and I will try to answer questions or point you to the right resources. Ifnord (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant[edit]

Hello sir, all i did was to undo a edit that "deleted" info that was in the link/source material. Quote from source that is in lead: " I sat there in the driver's seat [..] staring at the gauge cluster -- which contains no tachometer, no indication that you've turned on your headlights or turn signals, and no fuel gauge". Thank you.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added appeared to indicate that the car had no headlights, not that there was no indicator for headlights. I have fixed that. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Content[edit]

Please do not restore the changes I made. I have removed information that is inaccurate and was added by someone else besides us.

Thank you,

Vandalism[edit]

Hello, Ifnord!

I found that you have just warned an IP user in this edit [11]

I just raised questions about this user in the Teahouse [12], and the most recent comment from Quisqualis says that a first-level warning is appropriate. (I didn't elaborate in my Teahouse question about who the vandal was or who has already responded/reverted this editor.) It seems that you supplied the first-level warning. Is it appropriate to move on to the next step? Jkgree (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the IP registration, and the IP is registered to the Mobile County (AL) Public School System. Obviously, that affects how this should be handled. I just wanted to add this info. Jkgree (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jkgree, I'm not sure what your question is but vandals generally get a series of warnings, starting with level 1 and moving up to level 4. At that point they are generally reported to the noticeboard for administrators as further warning are redundant. IPs generally "restart" the warning process at the end of a month, because multiple people generally are attached to them. If the vandalisms are especially egregious, you can skip some levels but administrators are reluctant to block IP address unless they have been sufficiently warned. Ifnord (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop destroying test cases[edit]

! 78.55.22.17 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you're doing with accurate edit summaries so that people who patrol for vandalism can see you are doing something constructive. Ifnord (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox settlement#Display type if name is not set. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen K. Amos Information.[edit]

You recently advised me to not put unfounded information about the above "comedian", the information I gave was founded as I know several people he's molested backstage at comedy festivals. It is well known information. Do not aggressively assume my information is unfounded when you yourself have no idea it's not. By deleting founded information, you are giving the person the right to any sexual misdemeanours.

May 2019[edit]

Hello Ifnord. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Rollback should never be used to edit war.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! GAB^gab 20:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GAB. What I really appreciated was the edit summary. "Trusted user", that made me smile. Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Robertson[edit]

The line about no one wanting the left back's shirt that I added is literally in the letter, referenced in the previous line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.53.227.45 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics page[edit]

Thanks man :)

The Cryonics page uses unbalanced language, contains errors and therefore needs changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, you're welcome to make changes but please cite any that are controversial such as labeling cryonics suspended animation. That exists only in fiction, to my knowledge. If you find a reliable source that says otherwise, by all means include it. Ifnord (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not suspended animation, then what exactly is it? this does not require 'reliable sources' :) it's basic logic see e.g.

Suspended Animation does not only exist in fiction - see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23993241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, medically-induced hypothermia treatments aren't cryonics however. There is no freezing; the freezing is the process that makes cryonics irreversible (at least, as some believe, for now). To be in a state of suspended animation, there must be a way to return the body to life. The chart you show here is inaccurate. Ifnord (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point (you said "medically-induced hypothermia treatments aren't cryonics however") Yes I know, I was making the point that suspended animation isn't science fiction :)

I will do a better chart :) the basic message is that the essential character between cryonics and suspended animation is the same and therefore the terms can, with provisos be used as synonyms. Can you recommend any changes to the chart? then maybe we can upload it to the page, I can reference it

There is no credible reason why cryonics should not be reversible, how to do so has been described in the medical literature multiple times see an old one here e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435395 (full paper on authors website) here http://www.merkle.com/cryo/TheTechnicalFeasibilityOfCryonics.pdf

[BTW There is no freezing ideally involved (so that needs to be changed at least!) see here where it is explained a bit https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320325191_Assessment_of_ethical_aspects_of_cryonics_An_emerging_technology ]

Therefore it can be credibly claimed that cryonics "a FORM Of suspended animation" as I said - which I think is accurate :) can I at least add that, with proviso's?

many thanks, and good work

OK, so, my first suggestion is: Add "cryonics is a form of suspended animation". Is that possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)That source is of course total junk (see Medical Hypotheses). There is no known way to reanimate the corpses the cyronics companies freeze, especially after each one has had fluid forcibly squirted into its brain tissue. This is all well-sourced in our article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypothesis is published by the distinguished publisher Elsevier. You have given no objection to the *actual contents* of the article. Could you do so?

But regardless, what about this one? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197 this is peer reviewed

"fluid forcibly squirted" into tissue is often done in medicine - your point is what exactly?

Referring to persons in 'cryonic suspension' as corpses too is prejudicial. That usage needs to be removed.

However, given some folks clearly strong feelings on this topic, would a compromise be to refer to it as 'Quasi-suspended animation'?

Additionally, to repeat, there is no credible reason why cryonics could not be reversible given reasonable developments in technology. I would also therefore like to see categorical statements suggesting otherwise to be amended.

I have made some good faith edits here and they have been reverted for quite poor reasons :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, I recommend using the article's talk page for discussion of an article. User talk pages are great for communication between individual editors but changing article's content often requires consensus which needs the input of other editors. The quote about fluid being squirted is from Alexbrn (who is always welcome to comment on my page) not me, and is a good example of why discussion needs to be in a wider forum than an individual's talk page. Regards, Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that, the talk page just seemed a bit empty when I looked at it tho :) Who's in charge of allowing changes to be made? I thought it was you because you kindly replied to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, as for who's in charge - it's you. And me. And 20+ million other registered users. I would recommend strongly having a read of WP:CON to understand how the consensus concept is applied to editing. You may also want a read of WP:FRINGE to learn about how Wikipedia deals with non-mainstream ideas. Ifnord (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's nice to hear... so why were my little edits reversed within a few minutes without any discussion :)

Thank you, I read those links

So, basically I can give a good reason why I am making changes on the talk page, and then make changes. I don't want them reversed without a good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, there's much to learn about Wikipedia and the editing process if you wish to go deeper. I can recommend WP:OWNERSHIP. Every edit is up for revision and reversion. People will add and remove content, sometimes with malice and sometimes with good intentions. The famous Randy in Boise (WP:RANDY) is an example of a hypothetical editor who believes strongly in something (in this case fighting skeletons in a historic battle) and continues to want to include it in an article. Randy isn't being malicious, he honestly believes this to be true and wants to ensure everyone sees the real truth. This is why we insist on reliable, secondary sources for content. I could say that I have extensive medical education, training, and experience and therefore my edits on articles about health are the "truth". But, I am not a reliable source, WP:YANARS. As the famous cartoon goes, on the Internet, no-one knows you're a dog. Ifnord (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Ifnord...really appreciate that background and the links to info. I will study them p.s. I'm not a dog, I'm a cat ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just made a comment on this David Gerard characters talkpage suggesting we could tidy up Cryonics but the comment got removed :) I've made a suggestion about a possible edit on the Cryonics talk page tho - what's gonna happen? Will David Gerard delete that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorus75, I would again recommend you use use the article's talk page rather than on an individual's talk page. User:David Gerard is an editor, like you or I. Use his talk page to talk direct to him but he's at liberty to ignore or delete your comments. The article's talk page is where editors achieve consensus to changes to the article, and comments there (made in good faith obviously, not malicious text) should not be removed. Ifnord (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ifnord, will do :) Theodorus75 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrio anguillarum wikipedia page[edit]

This page completely plagiarizes reference #1. The content must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.84.54 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation - I will sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.84.54 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead[edit]

Why would a US species be written about in BE? Also, part of the paragraph was AE. 75.111.203.5 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Schmidt[edit]

Hi, you added a notability tag to this article. WP:NAUTHOR applies and his significant book has a full page write up in the New York Times [13]. In addition other full page reviews are noted in the article. Would you object to me removing it? Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Szzuk. I went back to the article to remove the tag but didn't see the information you mentioned. If you wish to add it in and establish notability, I certainly wouldn't mind if you removed the tag as well. Ifnord (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ijaaz Ebrahim[edit]

Hi, why you proposed the Article Ijaaz Ebrahim in to Deletion? What was the problem with that article? Actually he is an actor who works in Malayalam Cinema in India. And we people think that a Wikipedia article is must for his fans and supporters to know more about him!! There was enough references, external links & contents for the article...

So cloud you please tell me that why you proposed for deletion?

Here I am attaching the URL. So please let us know the reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijaaz_Ebrahim

Thank you!!

die[edit]

ronnie needs to be on american tode or i will commit cry myself to sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcexoticanimalz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined PROD[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

I found JK! Studios while doing new page patrolling, and I see your PROD tag got removed. You might want to take it to AfD now. --Slashme (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm 90.255.142.14. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --90.255.142.14 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on my mistake[edit]

I am only adding what was told by Snyder. The deletion message was unintentionally removed as I wasn't double checking my tabs. I apologise for that. However, I refrain from adding needless things. But there was an error where test audiences said SC was unwatchable. It was the executives only. Not the audience. I only meant to edit that. Apologies for removing that notice for deletion Bjthegeek (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Pont[edit]

The page was updated to move the old information into coaching career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughcookie44 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toughcookie44, it would be helpful if you used an edit summary to let people know what you're doing. Ifnord (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida[edit]

There is no question whatsoever that Florida is across the southern border of Laurium. I'm not sure why you would remove this. --2604:2000:14C3:4031:1070:3702:45DA:A7D3 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that lists Michigan and Florida as neighbours, please add it. Ifnord (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Hi, I'm new. (Duh). And struggling with citations. ChattanoogaTREND.com is a 3-year-old business publication with 7000 readers a month. Maybe I'll figure out that citation part soon. Any advice? I'm reading all the important advice pages I think. My career started as a UPI reporter, so I completely understand objectivity and staying neutral. The magazine's a great reference guide on all things Chattanooga. We don't have an Associated Press bureau here, sadly. ````

Hello, User:AnnRubyChattanooga. Thank-you for looking for more information about writing here. I think you will find WP:CITE helpful in using references and sources. You'll find WP:NOTE helpful for our standards of notability - which we use to decide whether or not content should be included. You will find WP:CONFLICT useful when writing about topics you may have a conflict of interest in - and details about how to disclose that and whether or not you are being paid to edit here. Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank for the help with that IP, Ifnord. They were on a roll! S0091 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

"there's a good feeling from rescuing an article"

Thank you for watching over new additions, with specific messages, for beginning articles such as Behavioral medicine and Correctional nursing, for welcoming new users and telling them how to reference, for rescuing articles, for service from 2005, for support "obviously" following your standards, - mental health provider, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2254 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, so much, Gerda Arendt. That was a kindness. Ifnord (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BS political attack on page for the epoch times[edit]

Please remove the cheap, BS, "conflation of trump and nazis" political attack from the page on The Epoch Times. See this sentence: "It has been criticised by mainstream news outlets for its favorable coverage of right-wing politicians in the West, including Donald Trump,[8][9][10] and of far-right groups in Germany.[11][12]"

Are you going to answer or continue edit battling?

About reversing procedure[edit]

Hi Ifnord! I reviewed the article Anastrangalia dubia and I jumped to conclusions too fast, the original author intended to correct a misspelling but made another one. Thank you for the heads up. One question about proper procedure, after a vandal edit has been identified, whats the warning policy? Should a user be always warned, only if they are registered and not an anonymous user, only after the second or later attemps...?

Thanks in advance, lets keep making Wikipedia a better place! PerinPeron21 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, PerinPeron21, welcome to the anti-vandal ranks. It's generally thankless but somehow very addicting. You've been warned. As for warnings, there are generally four levels. The first assumes good faith, maybe it's not what it looks like. The second is a true warning while three and four are more direct and indicate they may be blocked from editing if they continue. Generally any edit that appears vandalism should be followed up with a warning on their talk page, regardless if they are registered or an IP. If you're using a program like Twinkle, you'll be brought to their talk page automatically. Take a look if they've received a warning already; if not then add a 1st or 2nd level warning. If so, then choose the next level. When they hit a level four, it's time to stop warning and report them to ARV. We generally do not issue warnings after a fourth level, simply keep reverting until an administrator takes action. You can find a lot of reading at WP:CVU if you want to know more. Ifnord (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

section removed from article "Social privilege"[edit]

In regard to this edit removing unscholarly and redundant section of article "Social privilege":

The edit summary *does* explain why this section was removed: this entire section is unscholarly and relies on the experience/writings of one "first year" student at Princeton - does not belong in an encyclopedia (this section can be re-written using actual scholarly sources)

You will notice that the section in question is redundant as the article already has a "Criticism" section. The section under question also contains no scholarly sources, only a link to an opinion-piece in the Princeton newspaper and a brief rebutting comment in a New Yorker article. This section reads like self-promotion and adds nothing of value to this article. If you can offer any substantive reason why you think this section does belong in the article, that would be nice to hear, otherwise I will continue to delete it. 8.9.88.165 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8.9.88.165, the section you are blanking is referenced by the New Yorker - a reliable source. Please discuss these changes on the article's talk page prior to reverting again. Ifnord (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors on the talk agree with me and that section has now been removed by another logged-in editor. It's great that you patrol against vandalism and I appreciate your efforts. But you are setting the bar for "reliable sources" so low that it is an insult to old timers like myself. This is why I no longer edit logged in because I hate getting into endless discussions like this one. An opinion piece in a college newspaper written by a student and a passing reference to said opinion piece in the New Yorker does not qualify as a reliable source for this topic. The very first sentence on WP:Reliable_sources says, "making sure that all majority and significant minority views" - this constitutes neither a majority nor a significant minority view. The reliability of the source is contextual, in that it depends on how it is being used: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." There is no reason to think that a freshman student at Princeton who penned a controversial opinion published in their newspaper is a reliable source on the topic of "Social privilege" nor does the passing mention of that controversy in the New Yorker qualify it as a reliable source in this context either. Don't automatically assume bad faith on the part of IP users who are doing their best to maintain standards for this project. 8.9.88.165 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW[edit]

I pinged you disagreeing with your assessment at ORCP, but I think you should consider RfA at some point. I haven't looked too closely at your contributions, but you've always struck me as a reasonable person, which is pretty much all being an admin entails. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, TonyBallioni. Your opinion holds much weight to me. When I notice your view is different from mine, not often but it happens, I ask myself to look twice just to be sure. As for my own RfA, I find myself more and more concentrating on anti-vandal tasks and I do not know if there really is a need for another admin doing that. At the same time, I do not relish explaining some edit I made a decade ago when I didn't know the project well. If I thought there was a pressing need for admins, in areas that I feel comfortable, I would volunteer. Ifnord (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, speaking as someone who does not like Huggle warriors, I think there is a strong need for anti-vandal admins who get how Wikipedia works and what it’s purpose is and who also gets what is a big deal and what isn’t (i.e. the difference between poop vandals and LTAs.) Generally speaking, I think you fall into the category of people who have their wits about them and would likely be a net positive. As for the need argument: for the first time since we’ve been keeping records, we’re at less than 500 active admins. That’s down 30 from about 6 months ago. We do have a real need now, and its something I think more people who are fine without the tools should consider since it would help the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, TonyBallioni, I do value your opinion. I'm also appreciative of your positive message. I will do a little introspection of what I've done over the past year or so; if I think RfA wouldn't be too brutal then I will come to you for more guidance on how to survive it. Thank-you. Ifnord (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I haven't looked too closely, but as I said, my gut reaction when I see your name is generally a positive one as someone I find constructive to discussions and the project. Just after having a brief look, I would suggest doing some audited content (GA/DYK) if RfA is something you're interested in. Less so for the resume padding than for the fact that it shows you how the editors sysops are here to help edit daily, which I think is a positive. Anyway, if you have any questions, you can ask me here, on my talk, or via email. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Viacom article[edit]

Ifnord,

The reason I got rid of that information is because that article is for a past company not the current one. 76.223.244.197 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. My appologies for any inconvenience. If you have not already reverted it, I will do so. Ifnord (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion epidemic on the Disney Parks, Experiences and Products page[edit]

Edit history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Disney_Parks,_Experiences_and_Products

Someone decided to add in promotion for themselves or their favorite vlogger(s) in the attractions section and has caused a back and forth contest between other vloggers and/or their fans.

This activity started with this edit yesterday: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911310766

The unrelated/unsourced section has been removed for now but will likely be back. Throwawaybutnotrlly (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Throwawaybutnotrlly (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be made clear this information is not properly sourced and contains unverified claims of the Walt Disney Company. It is also not accurately attributable to 'attractions.' Throwawaybutnotrlly (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxi Lopez[edit]

Sir, Argentina professional footballer and former FC Barcelona and AC Milan player Maxi Lopez is signed for which new football club and from which country according to new reports. Ram sasankan (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ram sasankan, simply add the new reports to the changes you wish to make. Please see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I have recently updated a content about Kaziranga National Park. It was removed citing factual issues. I talked about statues, I have proof of the statues of Kajir Ronghangpi, where can I upload to you so that you won't remove my added content, again.

User:Krorahul10, simply add the proof to the changes you wish to make. Please see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Trethewy[edit]

Hello,

You restored content that I deleted on this article. I summarised the edit, the reason being that there were no citations. Please see WP:PROVEIT (viz. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.")

I have deleted the two sections again, if you believe any part of the content to be factual, please provide a source when you restore it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.30.153 (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrio anguillarum[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the scrubbing of Vibrio anguillarum by User talk:128.119.84.54. I will look into this further; it would have been helpful to identify the source text from which the content was allegedly plagiarized. However, based on a quick look, I believe that the source material has been adequately credited, and I was unable to find any obvious examples of plagiarism. Given that this article was created by a small group of undergraduate students as a learning exercise to highlight a particular subject they were interested in, it is unfortunate that User 128.119.84.54 has taken this position. I will ping the User and see if I can get more information; if not, I would appreciate your thoughts on the best way to move forward. --talk:Curt99 "keeper of the virosphere" 03:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt99 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Warnings[edit]

I did not do such vandalism that you claim I have done Haileyreed (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Ifnords that best dude HavocEidolon (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Cheers! HavocEidolon (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HavocEidolon, you made my day, mate. Thank-you. Ifnord (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!103.231.217.50 (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenii Dadonov edit[edit]

Hello there, I wasn't trying to vandalize the page or make fun of the person, his nickname in the hockey world is actually "Daddy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.81.242 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.137.81.242, I appreciate the communication. All you have to do to re-add it is to use a citation. Please see WP:PROVEIT for details on how this is done. Ifnord (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-admin closure of Abdali Medical Center[edit]

Hi, can you please reopen the AfD you closed for Abdali Medical Center as non-admins should not close for any "close calls and controversial decisions" which this is most definitely one. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, HighKing. I think consensus was established that the article met GNG, not a close call. But, if you are requesting it to be reopened, I would have to agree it controversial. I will reopen. Ifnord (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate what HighKing said, yeah, this was not a good WP:NAC by a longshot. I see you've got a fair bit of experience with AfD NACs, so this should have been obvious. It's already been closed and re-opened multiple times, once when I backed out my own close on request, then again when a close was overturned at DRV. I'm sure it'll get reclosed with the same result, but please leave the messy ones for admins. Not to mention that, from your own comment, it sounds like you've formed your own opinion about notability. That's another good reason to stay away from closing it. Closes need to be made by a truly dispassionate observer. If you've got any personal feelings at all about the outcome, walk away from closing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, RoySmith, and I appreciate the communication. My thought process was, after seeing this relisted and stale for over a week, it was obvious that consensus was established that the article met GNG. In retrospect, I should have simply piled-on with a keep. Ifnord (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reopening. As a matter of interest, ~~were you simply counting !votes (seeing as how you say consensus was established) or did you read any of the arguments?~~ Can you point to 2 references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP (or GNG, take your pick)? Not trying to start a fight but I've put considerable time into explaining why the references don't meet the criteria and I cannot fathom how someone as experienced as you and with your knowledge of our guidelines might take a different view. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I reread my comment and it came out totally wrong. I didn't mean to imply you didn't read the arguments. I've struck that part of my comment now and I apologize. I suppose what I'm asking is how did you weigh up the different arguments and how did you look at WP:NCORP guidelines in relation to the sources (or did you)? In your opinion, why were the arguments against the references not persuasive. Apologies again and thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, perhaps it would be better for me to expand my !vote on the deletion discussion, and I will do so. Thank-you for being civil; I take no offense from any thing you've posted, I understand you've placed a great deal of effort in explaining why you believe the article non-notable and if I thought someone was being flippant about my efforts I would not be happy. Ifnord (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "right-wing terrorism" on the 2019 Halle synagogue attack page[edit]

Dear Ifnord,

I recently tried to change the description of the "2019 Halle synagogue attack" page. I'm certain the term "right-wing terrorism" is used incorrectly to describe the attackers ideological standpoint.

The attacker has been documented without doubt, to be a neo-nazi with a strong hate towards jews (antisemitism).

As other pages on wikipedia clarify, the description "right-wing" DOES NOT fit the ideology of National Socialists (Nationalsozialismus), which is clearly a left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-indivdualistic ideology.

It's therefore, a gross mischaracterisation of people identifying themselves as right-wing, pro-capitalism and pro-indvidual freedom to be associated with any kind of collectivist, socialist and fascistic ideology.

Best, A — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyDietz101 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville High School[edit]

Hello, I am learning how to properly edit a page so thank you for your advice. I spent a good deal of time correcting outdated information about Louisivlle High School and you removed all my work. I had cited many sources and added many references. I understand the username issue and requested a global change with my own initials. is that alright? If so, can you put my edits back? LF Louisvilleroyals (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisvilleroyals has now been renamed as Lvhslf. I have posted a message at User talk:Lvhslf, dealing with various issues, including those mentioned above. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for protecting my talk page. 👍 CyanoTex (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenê[edit]

Why did you take down my edit it was accurate, he is dating someone else ? Fact CheckingW (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact CheckingW, you inserted a comment that the subject, who is married, is concurrently dating someone else. If true, and you can WP:PROVEIT with a reliable source, then put it back. But, we cannot put up controversial information without such a reliable source. Please see WP:BLP. Ifnord (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internalized Sexism[edit]

You reversed the changes made to the above which references only sexism towards women. And completely invalidates all sexism towards men. The quotes and misinformation only supports a woman's point of view. Every subject is a post attacking men and calling women the victims. You are only supporting sexism by doing so. All I did was remove the references of male blaming. Are you really going to support that it claims men are to blame for misandry? Look at every post in this entire section. It's clearly written by someone with an agenda. If you let it stand, you are part of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A11:F4:9EF:97E6:9E24:26EA (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2605:6000:1A11:F4:9EF:97E6:9E24:26EA. You are removing referenced material, you should discuss those changes on the article's talk page. What you can do, without discussion, is add to the article. Using references, write the counter arguments. Rather than delete sections you may disagree with, add sections that balance it. I am not bonded to the subject, don't think I have edited it previously. But, I'm opposed to removing referenced material from any article because one doesn't agree with it. Ifnord (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about removing referenced material, it's about removing material that is based on opinion and is not backed by facts. Almost every reference is a quote from someones opinion, especially the writers opinion, who is clearly biased. But I understand your point on this. You are just doing your job and I can appreciate that. Thanks for letting me know what procedures I need to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A11:F4:9EF:97E6:9E24:26EA (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man wanna be friend I now I can ur own you account. You part of Wiki Editor.[edit]

Can you fix my boxes Ilyas1234IsBack (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally ill people in United States jails and prisons[edit]

Hi Inford - I saw that you added a subsection on malingering to the Causes section of the above article. What you added is basically accurate (although it's a complicated topic), but is malingering a major cause of mentally ill people being incarcerated? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, User:Markworthen. I understand your point but it appears to be a major cause of the numbers of incarcerated people who are labeled as mentally ill. Let me see if I can clean it up. Ifnord (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you're coming from, and it's a valid point. I look forward to your revision. :) All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Sereda (musician) wiki page, COI[edit]

Hi Ifnord, thx for pointing out COI to me. I was unaware of this guideline. Years ago someone published a wiki page on me which contained inaccuracies. I edited that. Yesterday's edits (by me) were only meant to update the page. As an infrequent editor I was not aware of specific routes to follow or actions to take. This recent update was spurred by a google search where my name and wiki was combined with another David Sereda's photos, website and links. I am happy to disclose my authourship, and provide sources for any recent edits. I appreciate your patience as I learn how to do this. thank you david sereda Davidsereda786 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Murray's picture[edit]

Hello Inford,

The use of the image that I have uploaded on the site for the author Douglas Kear Murray, has been authorized in an express manner by Mr. Murray himself. I am his personal assistant and he has made the specific request of having the picture updated. Please let me know if there are any additional procedures that I need to comply with or if it's necessary to submit any kind of proof regarding the author's authorization for the use of the image.

Many thanks,

Maria Delgado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDelgadoDKM (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MariaDelgadoDKM. I have left you a lot of suggested reading material on your talk page to consider before jumping into editing more on the article about your employer. Ifnord (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bearded Lady with Chicken Lady.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bearded Lady with Chicken Lady.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maximinus[edit]

Thank you for safeguarding the wiki, but this is not the case. I cited the reference of you would pay more attention and not just rollbacked the script. The citation is reliable. Please pay attention to it and I quoted word by word from the source itself: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/28*.html Please note the 3rd paragraph. I would be thankful if you roll it backwardsسیمون دانکرک (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward for your point of view on the sources that I rendered. And if there is no problem would be nice to roll it backwards. Thanks سیمون دانکرک (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability[edit]

I invite you to consider and compare Herodian and Ammianus Marcellinus' reliability of books and the contextual differentiation concerning their methodology and characters and occupations. Simply it would suffice to read their reliability assessment in Wikipedia. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH EDITS[edit]

Greetings,

I edited the Native American Church page, because frankly, my previous major edits from years ago have been erased & filled with absolute misinformation by either a malicious entity or someone who doesn't know any better. Being an Native American Church member, and knowing what is sitting here on this page is absolute misinformation/propaganda/garbage, I am going to be doing major edits on this page to restore what used to be a sensible page of information and been ruined & filled with New Age platitudes that have nothing to do with this way of worship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nativeamericanchurchrestore108.93.9.152 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 108.93.9.152 (potentially, also User:Nativeamericanchurchrestore). Please remember to discuss the removal of referenced material on the talk page first. Also, when adding material that may be controversial, please include a reference. Please see WP:PROVEIT for more information. Additionally, we do not censor or remove information because a group considers it a secret. Ifnord (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Edit[edit]

Hi, I edited the Venento Page and I edited and stated that Pewdiepie's wife was from there. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what was wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:8500:E9F0:B8C3:F21:14EC:C6C (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Thank you for changing your mind and withdrawing the AfD so as to avoid wasting of the precious AfD resources i.e. the time of contributors there. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inford[edit]

I suspect J.M. is a Serb because he is allowing unfactual information on the Serbian list (ex. Azithromycin) and removing things from the list of Croatian inventions. I've been repeatedly asking for him to get banned. You shouldn't go by his edits at all. I'm not a sock puppet. Please visit my Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E576:CD:402D:D7F3:C694:848C (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, USER:2607:F2C0:E576:CD:402D:D7F3:C694:848C. I'm sorry, but your Facebook page is not really relevant. What you need to do is read a little about how Wikipedia works. By repeatedly removing content you disagree with, you will likely be prevented from editing at all. That doesn't mean you are right or wrong, but it's considered disruptive by the community. Please see WP:HOW for more information on contributing to this project, I would heavily counsel you to look at the section on discussion and consensus. Ifnord (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good God... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/28*.html Did you check the source on maximinus ? سیمون دانکرک (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, سیمون دانکرک. It was a mistake on my part, I apologize for any inconvenience. I have reverted the article to your last edit. Ifnord (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So pleased with your professional attitude. You've just recorded an unprecedented record here that I haven't met yet.سیمون دانکرک (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello سیمون دانکرک, thank-you for your kind words and your understanding that well-intentioned editors will sometimes make mistakes. Ifnord (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Allen[edit]

They still won't agree that the info of his arrests should be moved. I already brought the issue to the talk page, but no one else is replying besides just you. 2600:1000:B046:3B4B:854A:4231:B91:F3C3 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2600:1000:B046:3B4B:854A:4231:B91:F3C3, consensus takes time to build. One can ask for a request for comment, which would broadcast it to a wider audience. You should also consider registering an account; while everyone is welcome to contribute, some editors view IP editors with suspicion and question their motives. Ifnord (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by rollback abuse[edit]

Stop your disruptive rollback abuse, and answer my concerns at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:122.170.21.91

Calling constructive changes a 'vandalism' is vandalism in itself. Be careful. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a talk page. Please, use it to discuss your desire to remove referenced content. Especially if you find multiple editors disagreeing with you. Ifnord (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You always need to get an appropriate reason before reverting other users. You are not allowed to revert if all you are doing is rollback abuse and reinserting clearly misrepresentation of sources and the use of self-published sources. Talk page is used only if you have appropriate reasons to offer for validating your revert. 122.170.21.91 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello Ifnord: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 18:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

thx[edit]

thanks for reverting page on potato chip i couldn't undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIlIlllIlIllIllllIIlIlI (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren County, Virginia[edit]

You left no edit summary, so I'm not sure why you deleted the sourced content here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Magnolia677. The edits appear to only be promoting an individual writer/reporter. I am not bonded to the article or subject at all. Ifnord (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to express the full story, organize the subject matter, and add information because the way the article was worded, it wasn't accurately representing the scandal. The individual you removed was a key figure in the scandal and Jennifer McDonald was the sole board member charged with felonies. The matter is actually so complex the scandal probably needs its own article. Please accept my apologies, because if you read my edit, you'll note that it's hard to even know who to trust, including the local media. It wouldn't be out of the question to suggest that they have someone closely watching the page. The whole subject is the craziest thing I have ever seen. Every elected official in the entire county was charged with a crime, not just one, of five, or ten... all of them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalface1981 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Timmins[edit]

You reverted an IP removing some content at this page, but I believe they were good changes, going some way to address the tagged problem - that it is a personal essay. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dorsetonian. I will take your word for it; I undid my edit and apologized on their talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. Ifnord (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Ifnord![edit]

Happy New Year!

Hello Ifnord:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Stacy London Page[edit]

I tried to edit her page because it has some totally wrong information (it says she has no children, but she has a baby). Could you help me out with doing it correctly?

Source for baby: her IG bio says "momma" and there are photos of her, her partner/wife, and her baby. https://www.instagram.com/stacylondonreal/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/p/B1z5xOIFLRw/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.199.204.203 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

47.199.204.203, the problem is that those are not reliable sources. We cannot point to a photo and say, that's her wife and child. There's photos of her with Oprah, for example. Can we say she's dating Oprah? Please see WP:VERIFY. If you can point me to a news source, or anything else that specifically states she is married and has a child, I will help format the citation for you. Ifnord (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my wrongly accused vandalism.[edit]

You are simply wrong. If you accuse of such heinous accusations again, your editing rights will be revoked last warning. Don't let it happen again. Im not mad, Im just disappointed.~ Wikipedia Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceNineLives (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RT America[edit]

You claim I deleted a section without explanation. I stated it was libel in the edit summary and posted a link to a youtube video where the individual in question discusses Adam Holland's libel. The man in question, Ryan Dawson, is not a holocasut denier. The video addresses Holland's accusations. I ask that you delete the libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.22.24 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

74.102.22.24, I'm not sure what part of the section you believe is unreferenced. The section that he is a holocaust denier is referenced. Twice. Ifnord (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't referenced. That an accusation is referenced is irrelevant to whether it's libel. Do you understand what libel means? That someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true. Once again, I posted a video of the person in question answering the accusations. You have not acknowledge the video. Your argument is basically "so and so said this about this person and since it's linked to an article it is fine but lets forget the video you posted." Why did I even bother? 74.102.22.24 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)someone who knows what libel means[reply]

Libel, the act of writing an untruth that damages another, hinges on truth. There are two referenced sources that support that person is a holocaust denier. When I went to check, there were countless others available. If someone puts up a YouTube video that says the ocean is made out of jello, we would have to go with the voluminous references that say it is in fact water. I would recommend any further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

university of bunderburg account[edit]

Hello Ifnord, I note you recently took down an edit which I attempted to post local public figure Jack DEMPSEY.

You advised there were two issues with the edit;

1 the post was not constructive and 2 my username "universityofbunderburg implies the edit was made by a group as apposed to an individual.

I would like to address these issues for you now in relation to matter 2 this is a straight up error with no malicious intent I am happy to have the username changed to something more appropriate such as IamNotAndrew? Please accept my sincere apologies in relation to this matter.

In relation to issue 1;

I disagree I believe that the edit is in fact constructive while some of the suggestions that were made about Jack DEMPSEY's son were wildly unsubstantiated my intention was not to address the cold hard facts about Brennan so much as address the commonly known folk law about the figure. And Folk law being of course unsubstantiated there are no cold hard facts as they can not be proven however it is my belief that the public deserve to have this information (or collection of common beliefs) documented somewhere. I believe that WIKEPEDIA has an obligation neigh a responsibility to publish these beliefs.

What will it take to have the edit restored to the page? I am happy to enter an in depth discussion here to convince you of the validity of the edit. Universityofbunderburg (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

love you

920869riley (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Life magazine entry[edit]

Hi. The entry on Newport Life magazine is being considered for elimination, or being folded into the page for the Newport Daily News, based on the assertion that it is a supplement to the newspaper. That is not true. It is a stand-alone magazine and has no connection to the Newport Daily News, except that they share an office and are owned by the same company. There's a different editorial staff, designer and sales team for each publication, and they are distributed by entirely different means.

I'm the editor of the magazine. Last week I went in and updated the Wikipedia entry on the magazine, which was about nine years old and contained a lot of out-of date information. I tried to make the Wikipedia entry straightforward, concise and informative, and cut out a lot of copy that struck me as promotional-sounding. So it feels kind of ironic that now the page is being threatened with elimination, when it seems like it should be more in line with what Wikipedia is seeking. Please let me know if there's something I can do to preserve the page.

Thanks for your help.

70.163.99.196 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Fred Albert[reply]

There are two problems with that article. Firstly, you. You have a conflict of interest and represent paid editing, see the multiple links which you appeared to have ignored on your talk page regarding this issue. Secondly, the magazine simply isn't notable enough to be included in a global encyclopedia, see WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hi. FYI, I've sought broader input on the broad issue, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Notability_lists

--2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014: Hello. I had no issue with you adding that the person had a double life, simply that it was unsourced. I do not know how meaningful "double life" is to a reader, ie: does it mean he was a spy? But, as it is now sourced, I wouldn't remove it unless I could write something clearer. Ifnord (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wha'll be King but Charlie?[edit]

The article says, after this edit, "The author of the lyrics is disputed and the time of writing is unclear but it was well known by 1745. It may have been written by Carolina, Baroness Nairne ...." However, Baroness Nairne was not born until 1766. I don't know who wrote this song or when it was written, but this chronology doesn't work. Maybe Nairne wrote additional lyrics for an existing song? I'm just guessing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Metropolitan90. From what I can gather, the tune is much older than the lyrics. The best references I can find for dating the the lyrics show an unknown author but there are references for Naine, albeit without dates. I postulate that the lyrics and tune were already known but Nairne may have been the first to widely publish it. I was going to see if I could find additional references to support that. Ifnord (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Vult[edit]

I simply removed an unsupported claim. If the removal of references is the problem, then I will edit the page again after 24 hours but leave the sources. Is that satisfactory? I have no intent of vandalizing articles. True Sakana (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apttus Edits[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

I am the Apttus Marcom Manager, Barry Smith.

I noticed you re-instated my edits on the Apttus entry where I had removed the "Controversy" section.

I had initially edited/removed it due to the fact that is was based on allegations and rumors based on a former CEO of the company and has nothing to do with the current day to day operations of Apttus. No litigation has been concluded, and the entry itself uses terms like "allegations", "accusations", and "reportedly".

Kirk Krappe's involvement with the company is mentioned in the History section, but he has not been the CEO of Apttus for about 2 years now. If someone wants to make a Kirke Krappe page and post about him there, fine, but this information is not relevant to our current business practices.

If we use Amazon as an example, Amazon has a Controversy section, but those are controversies that the COMPANY is embroiled in (price-fixing, non-competition activities, etc.) But the current CEO, Jeff Bezos, has his own page for HIS controversies (divorce, dick pics, etc.)

ApttusMarCom (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Barry T. Smith[reply]

Hello, ApttusMarCom. The difference between your Amazon analogy and your company is that your company's controversy takes places within the company, sexual harassment at work. It is cited in reliable sources. Whether or not it has been adjudicated is not relevant, merely that it is properly referenced. I would encourage you to discuss this on the article's talk page for community consensus.

Also, please have a look at the links I left on your talk page about paid editing. Ifnord (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animation for the epicycles page[edit]

Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Dear Ifnord,[reply]

some time ago I've created an animation (https://gianmarco-todesco.github.io/epicycles/) and I've added it as an external link to a Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle).

The link has been promptly removed by NonsensicalSystem. I've managed to convince him to restore the link, but then you have reverted my change. Would you be so kind as to explain to me which is the proper way to contribute to Wikipedia with interactive animations?

Please let me clarify some points:

IMHO the animation is similar to the other animations already linked to the page but it has some characteristic qualities that make it not a mere imitation
It is an useful multimedia support to the concept expressed in the page
It is open-source, with an MIT-licence
True: it is hosted on my own github page, but in that page, there are no ads and no links to myself, my company, my job, etc.

best regards

Gianmarco-todesco (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Greg Foster Wiki[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

The Greg Foster wiki page contains personally slanderous material that is legally liable. Additionally, Foster is in need of health assistance, something that should be shared on this page. Therefore the purpose of editing this page is to ensure that the slanderous material is deleted and the request for help is published. Moreover, the family remains in dispute over information contained in the deleted material. This renders this material aggressive, legal libelous and in violation of Wikipedia.

I don't know why a user would initiate an edit war for this 5X Olympic medalist who needs a heart transplant an money to support that. Don't know who would want to publish slanderous material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.111.2 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 4.14.111.2. The material(s) you are attempting to remove are referenced by reliable sources. You need to discuss such deletions on the article's talk page prior. You may include any facts about the dispute by the family, provided it too is reliably sourced (see WP:PROVEIT) to produce a more balanced article. But, adding promotional edits about fundraisers would fall under WP:SOAPBOX - one of the things Wikipedia is not. Ifnord (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about my last edits[edit]

Sorry, but Bright Side post United States according to the Youtube Stats and then i trust it

However, the article has a referenced citation that the company is in Cyprus. Ifnord (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jerome Adams[edit]

Hi Ifnord. The "information" I removed was political commentary which took quotes from Jerome Adams out of context to try to portray him in a negative light. The paragraph provided no substance at all. It was in violation of Wikipedia's "Biography Policy" for "tabloid information." I changed the commentary to say "Adams has received mixed media coverage on his handling of the COVD-19 outbreak," which is relevant information that does not have political bias. Rbro777 (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rbro777. The problem is that you removed a section with two references and replaced it with an unreferenced statement that looks like WP:OR. I have no opinion on the subject but you should either discuss the changes on the article's talk page first or replace the information with better sourcing. Ifnord (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ifnord The references didn't have anything to do with the information there. They were just more political commentary. Rbro777 (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I overlooked this. one reason I use the text is to add a bit more info, but the ban part is over the top. edited, and thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the page history. There was a vandalism by a user and you keep putting it back for Tarik Freitekh[edit]

Please check the history of changes to The page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgordan22 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesgordan22, regarding the subject's net worth: this figure (A billion dollars) appears to be plucked out of the air, it has no substantiation. It could be half or double that. Please use a reliable source before simply returning it. Ifnord (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

change to Sandy Stimpson's page[edit]

These edits were made to restore a tone of neutrality to page, which had been alerted by the previous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenZoghby (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits appear whitewashing, removal of reliably sourced material which isn't flattering to the subject. Please use the talk page to discuss removing them. Ifnord (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Schubert[edit]

Are you sure this is a non-controversial deletion? Bearian (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy Butler[edit]

What the heck is happening. How can posting malicious content be protected and okay by anyone’s standards? 2017 data is woefully inaccurate and never corrected by the small towel paper that printed it. Of course, Wikipedia immediately printed it which has been causing damage since. Help me fix this Crazyeyes85 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the subject of the article, related to the subject in any way, or receive any compensation for writing about the subject? Ifnord (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ifnord[edit]

Hi,

I received your message regarding Positiv. In no way shape or form, are we receiving compensation for our channel. In recent weeks, we have received numerous complaints from our TBN viewers, as they have found some content on the channel inappropriate from a Christian perspective. Although owned by TBN, we are doing our best to ensure that the channel is not really affiliated with TBN or its family of networks. If there is a workaround for this, please advise.

Thank you very much for your assistance. 2600:8802:2100:941:BC13:962B:3B18:D9B9 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The potential problem is that you are being paid, not the channel but you personally, for the editing on Wikipedia. Ifnord (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi BinHendi is a known billionaire in the UAE and I added this correct information.[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

Mohi BinHendi is one of the most respected businessmen in the ME and he owns a few huge companies that are worth few billions, all the businesses he started are owned by himself and he is a private and low key businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orca111 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orca111. Please wee WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what’s your problem?[edit]

?? Matthewforman1967 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

change to Sandy Stimpson's page[edit]

Hi, I restored Mayor Sandy Stimpson's page to a more neutral tone after changes were made by a political opponent. Would you please advise? Thanks, JenJenZoghby (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JenZoghby. There is a difference between making a page neutral and whitewashing. Your edits appear more the latter than the former. I am not bonded at all to the subject of the article but when I see referenced content removed in such a way, I'm thinking the editor has a point of view conflict. There are ways to add content to balance out a perscpective - that's perfectly acceptable and you're welcome to do that. Please bear in mind WP:PROVEIT as you do. Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from RandomWookiee[edit]

Hello, Ifnord. You have new messages at RandomWookiee's talk page.
Message added 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for the information. RandomWookiee (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Knowledge Ventures[edit]

Dear Inford, Hope you are well and safe in these challenging times. I am following Deep Knowledge Ventures activities for 5 years and I am 100% sure, that the information about Deep Knowledge Group (which is not Deep Knowledge Ventures), added by people in a last few weeks is provocative and they are trying to tie Deep Knowledge Ventures (as a fund) to activities which are not related to them, so I didn't make a mistake, when editing the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Knowledge_Ventures.

Please let me edit it once more.

Wish you all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom2020a (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

post keep getting removed[edit]

It is a known fact that any person that holds the beautiful name Jess is also a lover of Joe, I am displeased that my more than correct edit had been removed by someone out of the hate for love and passion that a Jess can hold for a Joe. the connection between a Jess and a Joe is something that can not be unseen, when I fist saw this love it was 1986, I had just graduated highschool and started this long hard journey we call life. I was walking in my small quaint town when I first laid my eyes on her. it was like a twinkling star in the night sky, or a sunset on the beaches of California. im sure you have already guessed it, yes her name was Jess. My jess was like no other, strong, kind, and beautiful. I write this simply because I am Joe, (middle name jacob) and I thought the whole world should know about the love held between me and Jess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob561 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your message[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIHNGST (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False information[edit]

Hi, I removed some information indeed as this page is constantly filled up with lies and false information. Can you please let me know how to protect it? I'm one of the sons of SVDM. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huayna 65 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to RedWarn[edit]

Hello, Ifnord! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OANN owner's page[edit]

You reverted my edits to the clearly biased entries while claiming I didnt explain why. I absolutely did, adequately and in detail. you just chose to ignore them because you have an agenda. you have no business editing wikipedia and i know exactly what you are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.37.72 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lee (New York politician) edit war[edit]

I don't tend to template the regulars but I note that your reverts on Chris Lee (New York politician) were edit warring. The articles weren't overt vandalism and they aren't exempt from 3RR which you were close to. The IPs make a good point about Gawker as I've said on the talk page (which I would gently remind you hadn't been edited for a year before I wrote about the protection). Please discuss your issues on the talkpage and I hope the IP editor will engage in a constructive discussion. Woody (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woody. The references removed included more than Gawker, it included other sources as well. I am not bonded to the subject or the article at all, this appeared simply whitewashing and using Gawker references as a smoke screen. I was not going to violate 3RR, hence why I asked for the page to be protected, and started a conversation section on the article's talk page at the same time it was protected. It is unlikely I will edit the article further, I generally just patrol recent changes and this will very quickly slip off my radar. Ifnord (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the New York Daily News in there as well which also doesn't fall under the crystal clear sourcing. I see you've commented with some better sources on the talk page. In future I would suggest Bold, revert, discuss rather than screech up to the 3RR limit and go to RFPP in cases where it isn't overt vandalism. Once you revert someone for something that could be contentious, open up a talk page discussion and ask them why they want to make changes. If they continue to edit disruptively or refuse to engage in discussion after that then they will be blocked. Woody (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Fiorentino[edit]

Hi. I was actually going to revert that anon IP as well, since they've made non-constructive edits here in the past. But I looked at the cited newspaper article, and it doesn't mention a word about that director or about her having been married. And looking online, I'm not actually finding any WP:RS so far confirming a marriage — in fact, even UPI has a minibio of Fiorentino that cites Wikipedia as the source. I'm wondering if, given, WP:BLP, we might want to delete that claim of marriage until we can reliably cite it? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide called Byrum her "ex-husband", without giving any years, but since that claim has been in Wikipedia since March 2006 without citation, and [since September 2012] with a false citation, Wikipedia may have been the source of that claim. I'd like to find something more definitive.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I found it: A 1996 story from a reputable newspaper, Allentown Penn.,'s The Morning Call. It doesn't give years, but states Byrum was ex-husband by this time. I'm going to swap out the cite with this one.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle[edit]

Me Slickestofnips (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vachanamrut[edit]

Hello,

Why did you only post a warning and undo my edit when I have the right to edit and remove the biases. Have you actually looked at the information that is being taken out? It misleads the reader.

Regards 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

136.2.16.181, the message I placed on your talk page is quite detailed. I'm not sure which part of it you do not understand. In brief, you are in violation of WP:3RR and are removing referenced material without discussion on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the text clear, just not your reasoning for putting it only on my page. If something is wrongly posted in the article, does Wikipedia not allow me to edit it? If someone is disputing that edit, they are gladly allowed to discuss it. Blatantly misleading information is in the article. 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Sampradaya Page[edit]

Hello - I noticed your revert / warning for the unregistered user on the Vachanamrut page. This same unregistered user has been making large edits/deletions on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article without engaging in talk page discussion despite many attempts to begin the talk. What can be done to avoid such conflict/constant edit warring? Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now this user is lying. There is an active discussion going on and I only removed content that was not in a neutral point of view and made several edits that another user agreed with. 2:1 is not a consensus but this user has been monitoring the page and editting like they own the page. I would like a moderator to intervene cause this is out of control. How can a breakoff group that didn't exist be the source for an article of the group the broke off from? 136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply: see WP:3RR. Ifnord (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So wouldn't the other user be getting warnings as well?136.2.16.181 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signifying systemic racism[edit]

Why is a visible minority officer who was never found guilty of anything the only thing listed under Ottawa Police Service controversies? When there are plenty of white officers who have been found guilty of criminal charges and have current charges pending and all their stories are easily located online not mentioned? This content is not only highly offensive, inappropriate, inaccurate and racist, it is defamation of character and contributes to the issue of systemic racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojusticenopeace100 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nojusticenopeace100. When there are two people, one hungry and one with food, the best solution is not to remove the food - it is to procure food and give it to the hungry one. In this case, the best result is not to remove referenced material regarding one officer but to add referenced material regarding all the officers you have mentioned. You are welcome to do so; if you need help with referencing, I will be happy to help. Ifnord (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So extreme homophobia and literal mass murder of homosexuals is neutral?[edit]

As above. It's not a false dichotomy, you're either against murder of LGBT peoples or you're for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.213.138 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

58.7.213.138, your edit was a condemnation of Islam, it added no referenced material to the article. Wikipedia is not a platform to share your opinions, please see WP:NOTADVOCACY. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Oksana Salamatina and I just read all you wrote regarding me. You don't know anything about me and yet you judge in the most negative way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.240.38 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scout's Oath (film)[edit]

Scout's Oath (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you let me have the code from this deleted page? --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, evrik. I did not delete the page and do not have access to the history. Only an administrator can return deleted pages. You could ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse if there's one available. Ifnord (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. --evrik ^(talk) 02:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hello,

You reverted my edit back to original for Kyle Walker-Peters as vandalism however what I have edited is actually true. Within Southampton fansdom, a great many of the fans call him Kevin Ward-Prowse. They do so due to the initials of his name being the same as our club captain and youth product James Ward-Prowse. when both names are initialised they become very similar and since Ward-Prowse has played over 250 games for Southampton many fans correlate the WP with Ward Prowse.

No one knows why Kyle became Kevin, it just happened organically and the name is said endearingly and affectionately.

Please take time to review your judgement and I hope you change your mind.

Kind regards

Bearlegion

Bearlegion, please see WP:PROVEIT, especially if it refers to a biography of a living person (BLP). Ifnord (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffamation on Babacar GAYE[edit]

Hello, I am here to explain why i edited the page of Babacar GAYE. He was accused of supporting child abuse and rape and it is totally false. People in UNHQ were shocked by that that's why i modify the page. UN SG has of officially praise Babacar Gaye for his action for UN. Yes there is child abuse in UN missions worldwide but babcar GAYE is not responsable of that. Yes Un SG ask him to resign due that context but he can notbe hold responsible of the behavior of french troops which were not under UN mandate et UN troops which depends on their countries. Babacar GAYE had many mandate renew by Kofi Annan & Ban Ki Moon. It is not wrong to put this awful message on his legacy. He is a proud son of Africa with unquestionned ethics, a exemple for african military and it is a shame that wikipedia allows this kind of things to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themadgee (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Removal[edit]

Hello,

I would like my Dom Marcell page removed as I am no longer a singer and am now an attorney. Do not want this appearing when clients search my name in Google.

Can you assist? Thank you.

Dominique Dmcollin2016 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Edit Giraavaru people[edit]

The people of malabar cost are not tamils but malayali. Also Giraavaru people were known as Tiya before. Thiyya caste from kerala indian state where malayali people live. Current references are enough for edits

They appeared more constructive than yourm om.[edit]

Can't someone do anything fun while in quarantine? Loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.30.110 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously going to block me from editing?[edit]

Do you realize how much stuff I'm already blocked from doing for the next 10 days? Or are you just some pig who doesn't care? Loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.30.110 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Fine article.[edit]

Sorry I am new to this. I edited the Cordelia Fine article because I believe it uses a source incorrectly. At present the article says 'Harriet Hall, who often writes on alternative medicine and quackery, said of Testosterone Rex in the Skeptical Inquirer that "Testosterone Rex explanations are demonstrably false".' This makes it sound as if Harriet Hall is disagreeing with Fine's book Testosterone Rex. In this quote she is talking about the concept Testosterone Rex. Hall states 'Fine calls it Testosterone Rex: the familiar, plausible, pervasive, and powerful story of sex and society. Testosterone drives masculinity; it allegedly explains all those male/female differences'. She then says 'Testosterone Rex explanations are demonstrably false', i.e. explanations that rely on familiar, plausible, pervasive, and powerful stories of sex and society are false. Hall concludes the article by saying 'Cordelia Fine’s book provides compelling evidence that men and women aren’t really very different other than in their anatomy. There is no such thing as a “male brain” or a “female brain.” There are no essential male or female natures but rather an individualized mosaic of features. Testosterone isn’t very important. Biology can’t be used to explain or excuse societal inequalities'. These arguments are the arguments of Fine's book. Hall agrees with the arguments in Fine's book.

WikiF3114 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiF3114. You are absolutely correct. My misunderstanding, and it mine - not something you did, was because the title of her book was also Testosterone Rex. I initially read it as a condemnation of the book, which you correctly point out was not. My apologies, I have changed the quote, perhaps it is more clear to readers now but your edits are welcome. Ifnord (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know if I'm doing this right but I changed the quote to be the conclusion to the Hall article since I think it is a bit clearer on both what Hall thinks and what Fine's book is about. Should I now delete this message on your page? Sorry I'm new to all this! WikiF3114 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiF3114. Messages are generally left on people's talk pages but rarely removed by others. The owner decides how they want to delete them, keep them, or archive them (as I do). Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your patience and civility with me. Ifnord (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korean band Seventeen[edit]

I have never heard of this band, and so I would never have edit its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agihard (talk • contribs) 16:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent[edit]

Hi please how do I protect a page from being edited.

I've read the process on Wikipedia but I can't find the "protect" button at the top of the page I wish to protect. AyOfCanada (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC) AyOfCanada (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AyOfCanada, you cannot protect a page. From the very first words on the main page, "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Ifnord (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Life Field[edit]

Just to let you know why I "reverted" your reversion: There were two other vandalism edits (same vein, claiming it was now the Dodgers' home) by another IP editor before the three you reverted; I manually reverted all of them, which caught up your good-faith reversion. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RBBrittain, no worries, good catch. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to 2016 Republican Primary an Arizona[edit]

Somebody put Timothy Cook as one of the people on the ballot there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.23.208 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sociotype[edit]

Hello, Ifnord. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sociotype".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pamphlet[edit]

Sorry i didn't mean to do anything I was just trying to get off the page and accidentaly clicked the wrong button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT-ATTectorClassStarDestroyer (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mods on Il-114 page[edit]

Hi, i'm spending hours on updating and improving wikipedia articles, so please don't undo what i change without asking. I forgot to sign up before editing, my bad. Can you revert the mods i did ? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le chat de tom (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that others have reverted your edits as well. It seems like you really need to use edit summaries to indicate what you're trying to do, otherwise it looks very much like random removal of referenced content. Ifnord (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe you have in fact made an error,[edit]

as Thom Tillis is literally worse than Hitler. 71.29.42.147 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essiac[edit]

Hi Ifnord. The information I provided to the Essiac page was from the existing source (5) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/essiac-pdq#section/all so there is no need to add extra sources. It appears that data was cherry picked from the source, so I was trying to balance it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.21.50 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yskvllover69[edit]

Is still being disruptive, and I'm going to bed ✋ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.225.235.238 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RRNO[edit]

Hey Ifnord, not here to give you a hard time, but re this, did you actually look at the stuff they were edit warring over? I won't go into details, but I've just spent twenty minutes mashing the revdel button and e-mailing oversight. You weren't the only one to miss it of course, I'm just stunned that it survived in article space for the better part of a month: sometimes edit warriors have good cause... Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, Girth. I saw it indeed and was watching it; I note you deleted the user page that I placed a speedy on with the same content. I have been chastised before for not placing warnings before reporting or taking further action. The warning also gives instructions to potentially new editors on how to escalate and deal with problems. Ifnord (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord, sorry, please don't interpret this as chastisement, just food for thought really. It was pretty confusing because the two accounts were almost identically named, and the one that was adding the content to the article also added it to the other account's user page. The one you warned though was the one removing the content. In a case like that, I'd urge you to report immediately - the stuff they were adding was serious enough to block without warning and suppress, in my view. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you warned both of them about edit warring. Well anyway, all tidied up now I think. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth, I took your message in the spirit you sent it - as simple information not a finger-wagging. What the situation needed was an admin, and there you arrived. All's well that ends well. Cheers, Happy New Year. Ifnord (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord, cool - and the same to you, may it be a Better New Year for all of us! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daz Sampson[edit]

I promise you, Daz Sampson isn't dead. He's just messaged me telling me to fix his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.217.159.113 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't support the death, I will revert it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ifnord (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dries van Agt[edit]

Hi! In the source that is concerned with Van Agt's declining cognitive capabilities, Gerdi Verbeet is interviewed about a whole different subject than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So the source isn't in accordance with the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.181.6 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi I'm the one who edited Ritual purification the other dayWakaWakaEhEh23 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Boarman[edit]

Hi Ifnord and thanks for the message. I am brand new to editing on Wikipedia and learning the ropes. I've been an amateur genealogist for a number of years, specializing in southern Maryland. Admiral Charles Boarman was also my 1st cousin, 7 times removed. As such, I am certain the edits I made are correct. I didn't realize you changed them back and I even made more edits before I saw the notification that I received a message from you. This is indeed a learning process and I certainly need to learn how to cite sources.Belain1737 (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ifnord now I don't know what country you are from but from looking at your read page I can see you are probably not from Israel I have noticed that you changed my edit that I did removing the claim about the religious zionist party being far-right.[edit]

Due to your profile I think you think I was trying to vandilize wikipedia which I wasn't I simply didn't understand why a party that friends of mine in-directley voted for was considered far-right as a fact. This is the link to the article which says the party is far-right ( https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/04/24/in-the-lead-up-to-the-deal-of-the-century-state-department-report-codifies-administrations-middle-east-policy/ ). Now I wanted to learn more about the website who made this claim to see if it was trust worthy because I have never seen it before however I did not find a wikipedia article about that website. I think you have made a mistake can you please undo it?

Hello 93.172.234.132, I am not bonded to this article at all. But, you've changed the subject's political orientation to a label that does not exists. And removed a reference which supports it. All you need to do is find a reliable source which supports the new political affiliation and then include it with your change. Please see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sdrqaz[edit]

Hello, Ifnord. You have new messages at Biowikician's talk page.
Message added 14:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(In case you weren't watching their page) Sdrqaz (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sprecher[edit]

The text that I was trying to add is in the public domain. One paragraph links to the exact same story, reference 14, and the second paragraph to an article on Politico.com. These two paragraphs make it clear that he and his wife, Ms. Loeffler, were not investigated by the DOJ nor the Senate Ethic Committee. Not adding them leaves the impression that they are under investigation. That's not true. That leaves the Wikipedia page incomplete.

Malayalam[edit]

Hi, you left me a note, citing the reason "unconstructive". What you mean by unconstructive? I reverted unsourced edits of a new user Yaakohv, who obviously doesn't know that linguistic sources are needed for the proposed type of edits. There has been no attempt to justify the proposed edits on talk page either. Please self-revert your revert as this keeps the wrong version with insufficient sources, which was also tagged as an unreliable source by visual edit.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charles Moore edit[edit]

Hello Ifnord - you reverted changes I made to a section on the Charles Moore page without making any comments. I believe I made a reasonable case for the section to be removed as “controversies big or small” regarding an individual with a decades-long journalistic career could include anything a contributor would like to use to smear the reputation of the subject. I am not a regular contributor to the site (hence not having an account) but I acted not in the spirit of vandalism and profoundly believe that inclusions of this kind damage the reputation of neutrality Wikipedia has proudly nurtured, and I would ask you to consider my comments more thoughtfully before dismissing them. Thank you for taking the time to read this. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.37 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 86.8.202.37. I left a message on your talk page indicating you had removed large amounts of referenced material. Convention is to discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. You are free to add referenced material to counter what has been written but removal is generally seen more as whitewashing than maintaining neutrality. I am not bonded to the subject of the article at all, and have no opinions otherwise. Ifnord (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits to enhance the focus on Ms. Neuberger's professional life versus her personal life. Why are you reverting them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.58.184 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaddySaurus, ChrisEvan12, and now PamDawes[edit]

Hi Ifnord. Yesterday you took care of the DaddySaurus account that was deleting sourced info from the [Chad Johnson (television personality)]] article. Today a new account, PamDawes, deleted the same info from the Bachelor in Paradise (American season 3) article. With this edit, they also left a cryptic address of some kind in their summary. Is it possible for you to also look at that account? I believe it is the same person again. Wes sideman (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wes sideman. I am not an administrator and have no other tools available to me than you do - I just know my way around here. You wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, there are many links there that point you in the direction of who can help with very specific issues. Ifnord (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help.[edit]

Hello. Its me. EasF757D. I recently saw you have rejected some of my edits. I don't really care as I was being irresponsible. I am a new editor and I need some helpful advice. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasF757D (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EasF757D. You may want to start at Help:Introduction. Ifnord (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Message[edit]

I have no clue about an edited page nor is my IP public. Can the message be a mistake? Or do I need to invest in cybersecurity lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.16.113.84 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 210.16.113.84. When you log on anonymously, the system looks at your IP address. If it is a phone or a home Internet service, you probably get a new one each time you disconnect from the Internet. Since the message I left for that IP is almost a month old, it probably wasn't you and you do not need to worry about any security issues. Ifnord (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaczynski revert[edit]

You reverted the change from "Domestic Terrorist" to "Eco-terrorist" because "His reasons were complicated but did not wholly depend on ecological ones". Yes, his reasons were not "wholly" ecological, but were still mostly ecological. If that is not relevant enough, then why did you not change it to just "Terrorist"? Why back to "Domestic Terrorist", while the domestic aspect wasn't deliberate, rather just coincident. That domestic aspect of his terrorism was less important and less defining than the ecological aspect. So if the ecological aspect wasn't important enough to call him eco-terrorist, then there are even less reasons to call a him Domestic Terrorist in the 1st sentence / in the main description of article about him, like it was some important thing about him. He wasn't deliberately targeting US citizens. The reasons why he attacked only in the US were just an unimportant side-effect of the methods he used and the much more strict checks @ borders when using international mail.

Rewriting article[edit]

Hello can you help me with a draft that I want to get acceptable for an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Devoe Syent713 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Syent713. Please see WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (writer)[edit]

I'm almost done writing an AFD nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJL. I considered that, but there is a claim to notability for winning the Whitbread Award award, which is notable. Costa Book Awards. Ifnord (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Thank you for the ping] His name does not appear in the definitive list of past winners, so I have my doubts there. Either way, discussion is here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, MJL. I have already cast my delete !vote. Ifnord (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vetri Association nominated for AfD (Notability)[edit]

Hello Ifnord, I completely accept your claim on notability in Vetri Association. I claim that it has notability in organizing an contest with The Petri Dish for local Tamil community and Metro newspaper coverage in malaysia. Mahilan2k (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Winnie_the_Pooh page changes reverted[edit]

Hello, Ifnord I noticed that you reverted the changes I made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_(Disney_character). I believe I have made an adequate explanation on why the paragraph is inaccurate and needs to be removed. My original comments on removing the paragraph:

Begin quote ---

Claims that Winnie the Pooh is banned in China is completely untrue. The relevant paragraphs are hence removed to improve content quality. Some relevant proofs: 1. Winnie the Pooh plush widely available on taobao.com (Chinese amazon and ebay equivalent): https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E5%B0%8F%E7%86%8A%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%8E%A9%E5%81%B6_16.htm. 2. Winnie the Pooh animation series on iqiyi.com (Chinese hulu/youtube equivalent): https://www.iqiyi.com/v_19rrgd1pc0.html

--- End quote

It's obvious that Winnie the Pooh is not banned in China.

Hello. You removed a reference from a reputable source like The Guardian and replaced it with the Chinese versions of ebay and youtube? I think this warrants further discussion on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I'm confused.

I have given multiple pieces of evidence showing that Winnie the Pooh is not banned. And you removed my evidence and replaced it with an orientalist news piece from BBC?

A simple search on weibo.com shows that Winnie the Pooh is not banned: https://s.weibo.com/weibo?q=winnie%20the%20pooh&wvr=6&Refer=SWeibo_box

My previous edit (the one you removed) on the wiki page also listed several pieces of evidence showing the wide availability of Winnie in China.

Did you actually read my edit? Or are you purposefully deleting them and changing the wiki page for some hidden agenda?

AND BTW, in my second edit, the Guardian new piece was not removed

From your editing history, it appears you have only one focus - whitewashing the article about Chinese controversy. Prior to suggesting any "agenda" I have, please inspect my editing history. Further discussion regarding this article should be on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I updated the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winnie_the_Pooh_(Disney_character)

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Have a good day.

I appreciate you taking the time in discussing the issue with me.

I just updated the thread with my response on the Winnie's wiki page.

I'm looking forward to your insight :)

Re: Edit of Journeyman[edit]

Hello, I may have been in error, however I felt the inclusion of an extremely ugly, negative review was totally unnecessary for this article. What good does it serve? What information does it contribute besides demonstrating a reviewer thought his opinion was superior to Clapton's genius?There are many very good reviews available and none were included. The album is considered one of the finest Clapton has recorded, so I deleted it and thought the overall article was much improved as well as being better balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writedgl (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Writedgl. I encourage you to add those positive reviews, to make it more balanced. But, removing a negative review and leaving that section blank does not improve the article. Ifnord (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR BOGUS REVERTS[edit]

Your reversions to include “conservative” in the Newsmax article are bogus. What about NPOV?? When it comes to your propaganda NPOV and all the other Wikipedia slogans mean nothing. We don’t see labels attached to CNN and MSNBC Which could also be easily source to 8 or more references (as you seem to give great weight to). Stop turning Wikipedia into a leftist propaganda tool. It’s much bigger than your politics.

We don't compare articles to others, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Newsmax is known for being conservative, to not include that would be disingenuous. It's own website describes the traditionalist values that it subscribes to. Ifnord (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marin[edit]

Artcle violates policy re: bio of living person. It has been filled with negative material by someone with a personal or professional grudge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.113.160 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 142.120.113.160. You have removed referenced material. Please, discuss such changes on the article's talk page first. Ifnord (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

flex seal vandal[edit]

we've got to get this dude banned. can you help me put him on the admin noticeboard Im kind of new at this.KommanderChicken (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KommanderChicken. He has already been listed on the appropriate noticeboard but it may take some time. Generally we stop posting warnings after the fourth level as some vandals do this for attention and we have to kind of ignore them. Have a gander at Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Ifnord (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for controlling the flex seal vandal KommanderChicken (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, KommanderChicken. Thank-you! Ifnord (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your effing problem[edit]

Jesus why are you such a nag? You gave me a warning for having a bit of a laugh?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49info3 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, but seeing as I do hold the world record for most corndogs eaten on campus, your content checks have no authority over me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.247.31 (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why must you conceal the truth?[edit]

So you keep removing legitimate information from The Bishop's School page, including the most prominent student-run publication that you seem to have a bias against. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.247.31 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 72.220.247.31. Please see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was correct[edit]

The vandalism was introduced in this edit. And the article itself later cites the 73% claim in another section. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:VikingDrummer#Hi. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that in this edit summary, I said "vandalism by user Ifnord", because you weren't the author of the vandalism, you just reintroduced it. That was an error on my part. I see that you are a frequent reverter of vandalism, and that means occasionally you will make mistakes, including accidentally reintroducing vandalism. I hope it's all good now. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 72.209.38.247. It's all good. Have a great day. Ifnord (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do this[edit]

On your edits on Ottoman Caliphate and 31 March Incident you did not give a reason why you removed the added details about Cypriot-Islamists (Anti-Islamist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.162.223 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 173.79.162.223. Your comment on the page is confusing for readers. The group is Islamic but you add they are not. There is no context to explain this and you need a source, please see WP:PROVEIT for more information. Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did prove it, the cite says that, or..... I'll find it

Seder plate[edit]

Basically no one includes an olive on the Seder plate. The traditional Seder plate has the six items listed, and the orange is the one modern addition that anyone has even heard of. The current section is a bunch of citations to a JTA article published on multiple sites, so they don't constitute multiple independent sources. That was basically a fluff piece listing every variant the author had heard of. It doesn't even say that anyone puts an olive on a Seder plate, just that there was one 2008 campaign to so. It even says that the main reason people would put an olive on the plate is completely different than the one listed in the article. To include the olive would necessitate also listing the other things in the articles, like tomatoes, chocolate, kiwis, and artichokes. All of these are more notable than olives, but none belong in the article, because they're just non-notable pieces of trivia. The only reason to include it would be the POV pushing of one small activist organization. You might as well list that a Seder plate appeared in an episode of Gossip Girl, which is true, verifiable, and more notable because many times more people saw that episode than have even heard of an olive on a Seder plate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.52.136 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 98.213.52.136. I understand your point regarding the small activist organization. I believe their mention is too high in that section and may not be appropriate at all. But, there is a massive number of Google hits to indicate that olives, representing peace and having nothing to do with that organization, are increasingly a traditional addition to the Seder plate for celebrants. If tomatoes, chocolate, kiwis, and artichokes had similar references, I would advocate adding them too. Ifnord (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling lies and i will expose the truth weather or not you like it[edit]

Is an old time Hebrew The Agbaba is old Yoruba attire you know that, I will definitely create another page to expose the lies that you have formed to treat your own insecurities, for the mis education this is the real history weather of not you like it and want the actual truth!

And why did you use a picture of someone who isn’t even Yoruba man, when there are so many figures out there to use, this just show that you are begging it and what does not belong to you its worn by the Yoruba People like it or not, that’s your cup of tea!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1so2dkrXw0&t=4s — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTaught (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down[edit]

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia.." Drama queen much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.228.66 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Trisha Suppes[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Trisha Suppes for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, John B123. I am wondering if you will reconsider your tag on Trisha Suppes; there's really not many ways to say, "Dr. X graduated from Y and did her residency at Z," and that verbiage appears on a lot of academic physicians. It's disheartening to work under a tag that's as long as the article. Ifnord (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rewording you've done looks fine now so I've removed the tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have tried to correct some information regarding The Coptic Orthodox page. De information that I removed should be put on another wiki page. I have explained why I removed this information. The page should be about general information over the Coptic Orthodox faith. For comparison if you go to the wiki page of sunni islam or judaism you will not get any event regarding a specific person who did something wrong. My point is that this information should have it's own wiki page and should not on the same page like the general information.

So I would like to ask you to undo your restoration.

Sincerely,

Hello. You have removed a large chunk of referenced information. While I am not bonded to this subject at all, I note there is currently discussion on the article's talk page on this very matter. I suggest you go there and assist developing consensus before removing it. Ifnord (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?[edit]

Hi there, could it be that you made a mistake here? The user did not edit that article. - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DVdm. No, it's not a mistake. This is a warning for an attempted edit which was caught by the system and disallowed. You can see the attempt on their filter log. Ifnord (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx! - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Lock the edit option[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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.[edit]

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[edit]

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

GDP OF PAKISTANI STATES DATA OF 2023 PUBLISHED[edit]

HOW POSSIBLE to know gdp of 2023 AND GDP OF PUNJAB PAKISTAN IS HIGHEST ON OTHER SITES EXCEPT WIKIPEDIA EVEN THIS WAS EARLER CORRECT ON WIKIPEDIA MESSAGE BY A INDIAN CITIZEN

Please remove section from Spike Protein article[edit]

Hi I erased the section that says the vaccines do not kill cells because it is false. These vaccines rely on vectors (gene delivery capsules) that are in widespread experimental use. They always kill cells when they are used (toxicity) in vivo or in vitro. It is decades old research, so much so cell toxicity is incorporated into the advertising of the commercial suppliers of these gene vectors. The links I gave for explanation of erasing the section are links to the commercial providers of these gene vectors. They discuss toxicity and methods to reduce it for adenovirus [14]. and lipid vectors [15]. Does that mean these vaccines are unsafe? maybe they still are under emergency FDA approval, not general approval. Vaccines only get emergency approval if no treatments exist for a disease (coincidentally no treatments have been approved for COVID, not even monoclonal antibodies... why? prediction: no treatments will be approved until after the vaccine gets general approval-- this is the maximum cash scenario). Anyway the cited articles are crap. No scientist would write the Reuters article and the other article is from an activist group. Why give false information? Let me just erase it. In this case nothing is better than somethign. 68.134.68.237 (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my edits.[edit]

Hi, I am the director and owner of Cinematograph AB. I have just been adding the correct and true info that Cinematograph AB is the producer and distributor of 3 Ingmar Bergman films. It is not advertising, i am not paid. It is simple adding correct facts that is relevant to the reader. (like that IPhone is produced by Apple)

If you own the business, you are being compensated for your edits. Please see WP:PAID and WP:COI. Also, adding your company's website in the introduction appears very much like advertising. Ifnord (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to publishing article[edit]

Hi - I removed section about diversity etc from publishing under "History of Publishing" due to bias, and the odd inclusion of it.

While diversity is a real issue across virtually every industry, I cannot see how it is included here in a way that makes sense within the context of the article. For example, the true history of publishing is white men owning everything and running everything. In that case, the history section would state that.

But then I cannot see given the centuries old patriarchal system, how virtually all articles aren't written this way. History of Music Publishing, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music_publishing -- could virtually have the same things inserted into it.

I'm not sure wikipedia articles are the place where lack of diversity is added on to many articles, and then there are glaring omissions. For example, the same sources that show publishing as white women also shows publishing as women, which is significant.

Essentially, it doesn't read like History of Music Publishing and similar articles, which do not put in statements about diversity.

It's also highly biased to US-centric. Every country in the world has book publishers and other types of publishing. They're not run by white women but by the people of those countries.

The publishing article is purporting to be an overview of what publishing is, with links to more detailed articles. Diversity in book publishing is hugely important. I've added a talk section on publishing about writing a separate "book publishing" article, because a lot of excellent sourced content has been deleted. In that article a long section on diversity in publishing around the world would be highly appropriate. Would like to know your thoughts.

Hello, Thewritingfish. Firstly, we don't compare articles to each other WP:WHATABOUTX. That being said, I have no problem with you adding referenced content that would state that white men ran the companies, but you have removed chunks of referenced material that say something else, that the preponderance of the writings were written by women. That is useful to the reader, and I think noteworthy. On the whole, diversity is a very hot topic, and as more referenced material is available it should be included, on this articles and others. (It's also helpful if you sign your messages using four tildes or use the "Sign your posts" button just above the edit summary box.) Ifnord (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - wiki just ate my text! argh. Okay, I'll try again. The section is highly US biased, based on a study by a US company. It promotes a sort of country blindness, where the default is the US. Nigeria has publishers and they are diverse. So does every country in the world. Chinese publishers are not run by white US women and are arguably larger than US publishers. So the first objection is that the inclusion of this study on diversity itself promotes a limited view of the world that is US centric. Saying publishing is not diverse is unconsciously only talking about US publishing. South Korea has a thriving publishing industry and they're mostly South Korean. So does Japan, China, India etc.

The publishing article is not "US Publishing". It's purporting to be about the general topic of publishing globally, as clearly publishing did not start in the US. The addition of that section pulls focus, ignores the rest of the world.

I do agree diversity etc is important and hot topic but then this section could easily be expanded with info about Chinese publishers, and the absolutely massive markets around the world that dwarf US publishing.Thewritingfish (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been thinking about this article and how to come to consensus on it. I think the study and the section about it should be deleted as it is outside the scope of the article. The referenced text is explicitly about the demographic breakdown of the US market, based on the output of Lee & Low. Although their study is primary source of research, all the articles about it are secondary about the same two studies. It gives the appearance of a bulk of referenced material when it really isn't.

The publishing article as a whole is still skewed toward being about book publishing, containing royalty info for example, but this doesn't justify the inclusion of the Lee & Low material.

I'm struggling to see why in the history of publishing section this wouldn't simply grow far longer - parts about chopping down forests for paper, publishing and apartheid, publishing and racism, newspaper publishing and influence, and so on.

I do agree the demographic makeup of publishers, the authors themselves and the book topics is a noteworthy topic, perhaps for inclusion in a book publishing article itself that covers not just the US but other countries as well.

To sum it up, the addition here feels like someone wants to look up the discovery of a chemical, any chemical, and appended to each and every single article is "the scientist was a man" text. This is true on many topics. To put it another way, the article on hydrogen isn't the place for sexism in science to make an appearance. Thewritingfish (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Word of Honor[edit]

I changed the word of honor wiki because was relevant information. What was written was unnecessarily long and also malicious. I don't know why that person keeps changing it back. The long paragraphs was relevant on Zhang Zhehan's page and not word of honor. The wiki page is on word of honor, the tv series and hence should only be written as such. Suspected vandalism on their part. They're rather aggressive and have bad grammar. Do as you see fit. But I stand by that if anyone is curious about the "controversy", they can just check out the relevant page. We don't need that in word of honor (tv series)'s page. I don't even see the relevance of that section. But if it's there it should be concise.

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for self reverting Ratnahastin ^tålk 16:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ratnahastin. I was going to apologize on your talk page but got pulled away. Thank-you for being understanding. Ifnord (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the other Warner Bros. films articles (2010-2019, etc.) and you will see that there are little to no references. Like I said, once the films are released, there's just no need to have the page bloated with references for past movies.

the juniper tree summary[edit]

hi inford i did change the juniper tree summary my reasoning for this was that the old one was false information thank you for understanding

Quick note[edit]

The revision [16] is great, but ideally wouldn't be marked as "minor". Thanks for taking care of this. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. As a vandalism patroller, I use a semi-automated program called Twinkle to assist. The indication of "minor" is automatically added by it, I assume because I am not actually changing anything but reverting to the prior edit. Ifnord (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I recall a discussion about that years ago, but I thought that default had been changed. I also thought Twinkle gave a bit more of a note about the reason. Thanks for explaining! Hobit (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Content[edit]

Hello.. My name was in the section notable in Lakshmipur district... I wanted to add a link beside my name and now my name has been removed from notable.. Please check this issue and add my name again in notable. Many many thanks in advance. Tc Riman Zahir Chowdhury (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riman Zahir Chowdhury. Wikipedia is not a directory for self-promotion, please stop trying to advertise yourself. If you are notable enough to be included in a global encyclopedia, someone will write about you. Ifnord (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok but my name was already there.... I don't know if I did something wrong that it got removed. You can check if you want. If possible from your side please add my name again. Thanks Riman Zahir Chowdhury (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Riman Zahir Chowdhury. If you are notable enough to be included in a global encyclopedia someone, other than you, will write about you. Ifnord (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creepy pop up bot.[edit]

Remove that IP thing now 74.75.9.45 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help. Ifnord (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Curtis Chapman[edit]

Hi Ifnord, I manage Steven Curtis Chapman, on behalf of the family, I am trying to edit a few things mainly they would like to paragraph about their daughter's death removed and shorted in the personal page. Thank you for your help. --67.187.111.115 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Mark Mattingly[reply]

Hello, 67.187.111.115. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --67.187.111.115 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)mark[reply]

A Barnstar for you![edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your work removing vandalism is appreciated! LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, thank-you TLA (Three Letter Acronym) fan!

The Magic School Bus (TV series)[edit]

Canada did not produce the series, and thus it is not a Canadian series and only an American series, I have tried told you many times already.

You could read the article and discover it was produced by Nelvana, the Canadian animation studio. Ifnord (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding case being dismissed daniz salih[edit]

Hello ive been stopped from editing on clerkenwell crime syndicate It is fact as reported in daily Mail regarding daniz salih and son of pat adams Case was flung out cps offered no evidence against mr salih

Stanley Holloway[edit]

Hello Ifnord, you just reverted my removal of citation of primary sources on Stanley Holloway; basically I considered that since facts like Holloway's birth at Manor Park are covered in his ODNB entry (which I was about to add just now), there's no need to use deprecated primary sources. I see that per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's made clear that if possible the primary sources at places such as Ancestry are to be avoided, and since so much of the article's content is already covered by published sources in this case it appears to me unnecessary. "Be bold" and all that. Also, using things like probate records is original research, and the published sources already cited (particularly Holloway & Richards) give enough detail on the family so as not to necessitate adding so much detail on the grandfather etc (per NOTGENEALOGY)- he's only really relevant as a) a successful enough businessman to make the family comfortable, also mentioned in the ODNB entry and Holloway & Richards as aforementioned; b) the reason for the relocation of Holloway's father from Poplar to Manor Park- itself of dubious encyclopaedic value given the grandfather's address is debatably of absolutely no relevance to Holloway's own article.

Hello, 88.109.215.181. Original research is not providing a reference, so using probate records would not be a violation of WP:OR. But, I see your point regarding the ancestry references. You have removed content along with those references, however. I would suggest you discuss those changes on the article's talk pages prior to removing them again. Ifnord (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Ifnord. To my understanding (at least such has been quoted against me previously) "original research" lies in the contributor doing the research himself and coming to the conclusion that the Augustus Holloway in question is the right man, with synthesis arising from the combination of mentions in published sources of, say, "Holloway's grandfather being a successful brush-maker" with, as in this case, the probate record (which doesn't give birth date anyway, so that at least requires a source). I removed the entire paragraph on the grandfather because no secondary/ published sources are cited for even one piece of information, and also because, as the rest of the section goes on to indicate, the sole relevance to Stanley Holloway is indicating why his father, George Holloway, came to be at Manor Park, Stanley Holloway's birthplace. One rarely encounters such detailed information on precisely why an individual happened to be born where he was; if so, generally in terms of countries rather than areas of a city! The only relevant facts about the grandfather- covered by the ODNB entry and by Holloway & Richards- are that he was a fairly successful brush-maker thanks to whom Holloway's own family was comfortably off. His wife's name and other children are not relevant to an article about Stanley Holloway and anyway lack reliable- as in not primary- sources. The details of George Holloway's occupation, marriage to his employer's daughter, and children are all in Holloway & Richards; the Ancestry.com 1901 census return is unnecessary (and deprecated per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). That George Holloway left his family is, as shown, covered by Holloway & Richards; the probate record citation is, as with the other citations of probate records here, original research and, again the information scarcely relevant. The text "George Augustus Holloway later remarried and moved to Forest Gate, East London. The England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858–1966 shows George A. Holloway's death as being registered on 13 June 1919." itself is troublesome as the Probate record would not give details of his remarriage or move to Forest Gate; what the contributor is saying is that THIS probate record, for A George A. Holloway, shows a different widow's name than "Florence" and presumably a location of death as "Forest Gate".

Just to add, I observe discussion of this point- the consensus seemingly being the detail on the grandparents was excessive, let alone the quality of sources- has previously taken place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanley_Holloway/Archive_2#Family_background ; the user, Cassianto, evidently responsible for this excessive detail, expressed his approach in that talk page, thus: "The whole point of this article is to allow people a reference guide about all aspects of somebodies life and work. Maybe this article should read Stanley Holloway He was born, worked in a few famous films,

then died. That way it's all facts something which none of you can complain about. My intentions were honourable in getting down on paper little or unknown information, complete with references, citations and evidence to back up my research about a famous person, so at least there was a record of it, but I have been humiliated and treated with utter contempt. I really cant be bothered any more. Bastardize the article as much as you like. You all think your'e academically brilliant but in reality you have no more intelligence than a loaf of bread." Which I feel all speaks for itself, frankly.

Atari[edit]

Hi, it seems like you're either mistaken or might just be a troll vandalizing the Atari page (possibly even a white supremacist). Soulja Boy announced recently that he acquired Atari. I know Atari's Twitter claims it's untrue, but he actually showed documents proving that he owns the company.

In the future, please do research before starting edit wars. I'm nice, so I won't report you to the staff, but someday if you do this again, someone might not be as forgiving, and then you might end up getting banned. Best of luck in improving your behavior in the future! :) 2600:6C64:737F:9113:1CCC:9306:1ACA:6593 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZytjjz2FME Here is proof that Soulja Boy is the new owner of Atari. 2600:6C64:737F:9113:1CCC:9306:1ACA:6593 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to look at it as I assume it's the artist themself saying they own it. If you put up a similar video and used that as a reference that you owned the Hooter's restaurant chain, should it be included in Wikipedia? Ifnord (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, The contract was for Atari Credits and not the company itself, Next time do your homework 2600:8801:F200:FD:D09E:37C9:C812:B7D2 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skandar Keynes Article Edits[edit]

You wrote:

"Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Skandar Keynes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page."

I did explain why, though the edit summary doesn't allow lengthy explanations. I wrote "[I] Removed [the] claim that the name Skandar is Proto-Iranian. Alexander of Macedon was born *long* after the break-up of Proto-Iranian."

To elaborate, 'Alexander' is a Greek name in origin, and didn't have forms in Iranian, Turkish, or Arabic until some time *after* the spread of the fame of Alexander of Macedon. Alexander was born in 356 BC, which is many many centuries after the break up of Proto-Iranian, and so of course there is no such thing as a proto-Iranian 'Skandar'. You can confirm any of these facts for yourself by referencing the relevant articles on Wikipedia itself.

David R. Watson

Metohija[edit]

Subjects from the article have been removed as they could be and are racist to many people as it is a sacred territory with many churches, the subjects that are removed are removed to prevent racism of any kind and false information about the land Vkaosidkc (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is about Word of Honor.[edit]

Hi! This is SaunderingShadow. I understand this is a message to address changes. I made a change in the word of honor wiki and it seems like you thought it was a suspicious change. Yes, I did create an account to change that section. Because I feel like it's not relevant to the actual series. It is still viewable in multiple streaming sites like YouTube, Netflix and Viki. It was only taken down on one platform in China, called Youku (if you're familiar). I'm not familiar with Wikipedia so sorry if I overstepped. I just wanted to make the change because it seemed to be done in bad faith against the series as it reads like it's not viewable anymore.Thank you for your time and also for your hard work! Hope you have a great day/night! SaunderingShadow (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related edits from SaunderingShadow and 2409:4060:301:FBAE:24D2:629C:523:2B1B[edit]

Hi, I am suspected that both users SaunderingShadow and 2409:4060:301:FBAE:24D2:629C:523:2B1B are the same person. Kept amending the Word of Honor and Zhang Zhehan wiki pages to his/her liking. Very aggressive if we reverted their edits, so please can you have a look at these accounts.

Thanks 90.255.18.110

recent edit in article Oxidosqualene cyclase[edit]

Hello,

This is regarding the changes I made to the article Oxidosqualene cyclase that was reverted by you. The source comes from a person Uffe Ravnskov who denys the scientific consensus that High levels of LDL cholesterol raise your risk for heart disease and stroke.[17] and as stated in the Lipid hypothesis article, he has reject the widely accept hypothesis and his studies in the topic were flawed.

Hence I had removed that study as he is not a reliable source. I didn't revert back to my version because I didn't want to engage in an edit war, so please consider restoring my version

Thank you! 2409:4042:208E:DCE5:E462:A6C5:3F40:A122 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2409:4042:208E:DCE5:E462:A6C5:3F40:A122. The reference is published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, which is a peer-reviewed journal and considered a reliable source. You are welcome to add additional references which counters Ravnskov's research but the scientific method encourages others to test and challenge any hypothesis. If his research is flawed, then you are welcome to add those references as well. Ifnord (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I removed that source was because the author is not a reliable source and as stated in lipid hypothesis article, he has rejected the scientific consensus of that topic. So I removed that source.

Also I didn't make any changes in the contents of the article, I only removed that citation as it is not a reliable.

So please consider restoring my version.

Thank you!2409:4042:208E:DCE5:F2A1:F6C8:F0E8:BC99 (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments[edit]

for a wonderfully helpful, gentle and educational revert summary to a new editor! --00:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Bushel C andle[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021[edit]

Hello Ifnord,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Charumitra[edit]

Hi, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charumitra, you appear to be wanting to close as Disambiguate but you have closed it as Keep. I dont think both are same, Please make this clear in your comment there. See WP:AFDFORMAT Venkat TL (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Venkat TL. You are absolutely correct. Done, and thank-you for pointing that out. Ifnord (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE and IPs[edit]

Hey there. Thanks for templating my IP of the day. I'm an ooooooold and mostly inactive editor who edits from IP because I don't want to be tempted to look at my watchlist. I am not in any way, shape or form associated with Lawson and honestly he sounds like a twerp. However the PROD on the article wasn't appropriate as he appears to be a notable media producer. I made an effort to clean the promo material off the article. Please be cautious about WP:BITE and remember some of us IPs are old wikipedia hands. Best regards. 24.224.182.26 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, 24.224.182.26. There's really no way to know if an IP belongs to an old hand or someone brand new. I understand some experienced hands hate being templated but unless there is a talk page history, there's no way for me to tell who knows what. Thank-you for your work on the article. Ifnord (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on torture[edit]

My name is Keith. I was tortured by the United State governement. I edited the page. I was repeatedly beaten as an eight year old child. The police have repeated threatened me with harm. My family threatened as well.

This is my account of torture and government beatings. I watched as other children were beaten. I call for justice as the police the US government ignors these beatings.

I swear and attest to my account; whether I do wish to do so it is under the penalty of death which the guns pointed at my head to silence me have attested to.

I scream in terror from me beatings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.4.242 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 71.10.4.242. I am sorry for your experiences but please see WP:ORIGINAL and note Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your personal stories. Ifnord (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what to do as I am continued to threaten with death. I am sorry but the public needs to know they will drag your children away with machine guns. I scream every day from my beatings. I don't know what else to do! Please help the scream of the low income children rapped every day scream and scream and scream. The scream haunting my dreams from the US government beating them over and over and lie and lie and lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.4.242 (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They threatened to kill my little boy! My little boy they want to kill!

Everyone says sorry but nothing is done but point guns at my head to silence the screams of terror from my beating and torture by the US government. You can not know the terror!

We need to talk about this as a country and the lies being told! I watch the poor being dragged down though lie after lie.

Wiki page[edit]

Hello I was wondering if you can create a wiki music page or article of me Cz it seems like you have to find someone to create one for you And how much do you charge ? Yung rsa2 (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yung rsa2. Creating an article requires no money, anyone can do it. You should not do it for yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO. Also, paying someone else is strongly discouraged, please see WP:PAID. If you are notable enough, someone will do it for you - without cost. Personally, I would never write or edit for money. Ifnord (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment at Islam in Finland talkpage[edit]

Hi there's a Request for Comment at Talk:Islam in Finland#Survey, please provide input since you have been involved in the discussion around Islamic radicalization in Finlan on the article talk page. Regards, A Thousand Words (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking my account[edit]

Hi Ifnord,

I respectfully believe that blocking my account is unfair. All of the material (and references) included in my edits genuinely represent important work in the area. For example, under the topic "Temporal Networks" I included the following citation: Braha, D., & Bar‐Yam, Y. (2006). From centrality to temporary fame: Dynamic centrality in complex networks. Complexity, 12(2), 59-63. I encourage you to examine its citation count, as well as its content at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b68a4e4a2772c2a206180a1/t/5c603f90a4222fa3c7db036a/1549811602636/Complexity_Braha_Original_w_Cover.pdf Does this sound like promotion? This is the first paper published in this area, which for some reason was not included by the people that established this Wikipedia page. I look forward to your honest response. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefer12 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sefer12. You continue to dodge the question about your relation to Braha, D. That is the reason you are blocked. Ifnord (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nurislam Sanayev[edit]

I made the edit at the time because Indian wrestling fans were going very over the top with their edits of Nurislam's page over an alleged "intentional biting" incident. It felt like it wasn't fair and was heavily based in anger due to Nurislam defeating a very popular Indian wrestler in the Olympics. It was not a mistake. As you can see in this link (https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/wrestling-governing-body-says-kazakh-athletes-bite-unintentional-no-action-2021-08-05/), the UWW (United World Wrestling) decided it was unintentional and thus I don't believe it to be a scandalous incident that requires being listed on Nurislam's Wikipedia page. I still feel this way and I feel that the entire section should be removed.

HELLO GOOD SIR. DO NOT GIVE ME THAT. THIS IS CORRECT INFORMATION DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. PLEASE STOP INTERRUPTING MY WORK THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppphgg1 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in San Diego Natural History Museum[edit]

Hello!

On the San Diego Natural History Museum page, I edited an image thumbnail text because I do not believe that a blue whale was depicted, but rather a shark. It was reverted so that it said that there was a blue whale. If there was indeed a blue whale, then I'm sorry for failing to locate it, but is there a blue whale in the image in question? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.132.149 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 70.95.132.149. I went through the museum's website to track it down and you are right that it is not a blue whale. It's not a great white either, but a megalodon shark. [18] I have made the correction. Good eye! Ifnord (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/* Controversy */ delete unjustified misleading information[edit]

Dear Ifnord, this case is past to india court for arbitration, before that lets better delete, thks 103.104.171.53 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section is referenced. If you believe it misleading, feel free to add more referenced text to balance it. Ifnord (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in Portland State Vanguard[edit]

Portland State Vanguard is a student-run publication, and the tables of staff editorial positions on Wikipedia is part of institutional knowledge. Re: Edit "A massive indiscriminate list of every former editor is not useful to the reader. Replaced with notable former editors, the ones who have articles about them already." For purpose of Portland State University's usage by Student Media & Alumni Direction, the staff table is useful reading. Please consider allowing the edits!

131.252.78.198 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)drinkwatermakewords (media fellow w/ Vanguard)[reply]

Hello, 131.252.78.198. As you stated, this is institutional knowledge. Not part of a global encyclopedia. We are neither a historic record of a student newspaper's annual editors nor a showcase. I would encourage you to have the institution memorialize these people, but for inclusion in Wikipedia they must meet notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted defaming statement on my personal page - Steven Blackman (Writer)[edit]

I deleted the following line from my personal bio.

"'After his show The Umbrella Academy was being accused of antisemitism, he claimed to be Jewish.[6][7]"

This is a very misleading and defaming statement.

To be clear, of the hundreds of articles written about the show, a single fan accused me (and the show) of being anti-Semitic because one of the characters spoke Yiddish. In my public response, I indicated that the character, which I created, spoke many languages (including Yiddish), was not Jewish and was most certainly is NOT anti-Semitic.

I want the line removed for the following reasons:

First, the statement implies that "being accused of antisemitism" was a widely held belief when, in fact, it was a ludicrous accusation made by a handful of individuals in a single newspaper that was reprinted. It was quickly discounted.

Second, the statement "he claimed to be Jewish"... implies that my Judaism has not being confirmed or is in question. It is confirmed and is a fact. I am quite proud of my religion and heritage. And other than this one individual, no one has suggested otherwise.

I have continually tried to remove this sentence from my bio, but it keeps getting put back on. I would like it removed.

Thanks,

Steve

172.250.56.110 (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevance[edit]

The Onion, and similar/comparable sites, aren’t legitimate sources of information— despite how dearly you seem to hold onto them. 142.68.128.157 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paciello[edit]

His father was an heroin addict, he was arrested for burglary & auto theft & drug charges. Elder brother, George had a hand in a bank burglaries in Hallandale, Fla. & Gulfport, Miss.

Why bring this up if the main page is about Paciello's crimes & not his family's crimes ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Days4EverFan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am apologize[edit]

I am apologize for vandalizing Philip Island and Thomas Derham i do not wish to be banned 71.115.231.134 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not sure what's promotional about it, thought it's an interesting piece of information where the game may be bigger than its original. How do you recommend me to write it differently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan Biolab escape[edit]

Evidence  given to UK Government Committee

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.66.128 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Uset talk:2601:644:8D81:8690:F4B0:574C:66E:D9C2 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. First of all, I only reverted it three times. A fourth removal would constitute edit warring. Secondly, I had a valid reason for removing the aforementioned content on Faces of Meth. The only reason why Skywatcher68 removed it is because it was directly challenging the idea that mention of racial issues belong in every single article. No matter how irrelevant to racial issues to article may be. 2601:644:8D81:8690:F4B0:574C:66E:D9C2 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2601:644:8D81:8690:F4B0:574C:66E:D9C2. I did not revert your edit because I can see the point that the material seems crow-barred in and not terribly helpful to the reader. As an IP, I have no way of knowing that you are an experienced user so I left a note explaining the edit war policy. I neither said you violated it nor said you did not have reason to do so. Ifnord (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Apologies about the brashness, and unwarranted warning. You can imagine how it is for people who don't hold... shall we say "peer-reviewed" beliefs. 2601:644:8D81:8690:F4B0:574C:66E:D9C2 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Section[edit]

How do I delete a section on my Wikipedia page? Everytime I delete the personal life section, someone reverts it back. None of this was approved and I am concerned about my family's safety. 76.102.213.140 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed[edit]

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	😂 ~ ToBeeFree (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kindness, thank-you. I especially love your new signature, ~ ToBeeFree. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webbs[edit]

Stop deleting references to the Webbs' outright racism. 98.127.92.241 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ty[edit]

Thank you for showing me the sandbox, I'm still new to wiki and did that quick "test" before writing a new paragraph without knowing there was a place for it. I'll avoid any future needless edits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSperer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, I hope I'm doing this right. I tried to post an image on The Anime Man's profile and the picture was from wikimedia commons as well as copyright free. Can you explain how I can get a better picture or what I did wrong since I thought I went through the right avenues?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platysaur (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Platysaur. Yes, you're doing this right. But, your question about the image; it is not copyright free. It has been uploaded as such but tagged for deletion as there is no indication the author has released it from copyright. It is set to be removed. Copyright is a serious concern here, we protect the holders of those rights in order to protect the encyclopedia. Unless you yourself took the image, it is likely protected. If you found it on a website, it is likely protected. Ifnord (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha[edit]

Why you reverting my edits.I try to clean to make it more easily readable 103.149.158.245 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently removed content from Sneha (actress) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. Ifnord (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Comaroff article[edit]

Hello! New information about John Comaroff's sexual harassment allegations has come out. Harvard has found him guilty of the allegations against him and placed him on unpaid administrative leave.

However, I've noticed that previous attempts to include the allegations, with the exception of one sentence in the intro, have been deleted by an account with a bare IP address (73.149.247.184). Sadly, as I expected, the IP address originates from Cambridge, Massachusetts, meaning that either Comaroff or someone close to him and loyal to him has been deleting the info, although it is authoritatively sourced, claiming it is "incorrect biography" or similar.

The article needs some reworking as it is, and if no one else adds the new info, I'll try to do it by the end of today at latest. I worry, though, that whoever's been vandalizing the article will keep doing it. Would you be able to help keep an eye on the article, maybe just for a week or two, and revert any edits aiming to whitewash his reputation? If you can't, could you refer me to someone else you think would be able to?

Many, many thanks! Scrawlspacer (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Buist wikipedia page[edit]

Hello, I am responding to your message. I found that I had a wikipedia page about me - I never wanted this page, nor did I know it was here. I am trying to remove the whole page as the living owner of the person this page is about. Can you please help me? thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epid1956 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my changes being reverted again and again by other users?[edit]

I have been trying to edit the page titled "Sapphire"

The Sapphires in India do not come from Kashmir but from a town in Jammu division. I am just trying to correct the information. Please tell me on what basis did you revert back the changes.

Stop being bias[edit]

The allegations against Ted Yoho are alleged. There is no direct evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopBias222 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is not information that you do not agree with. Fact remain facts, even if you do not like them. You are free to add referenced information, see WP:PROVEIT. Ifnord (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I like it. I hope it did happen. But there is not evidence it did. Just adding the word allegedly makes it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopBias222 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Henry[edit]

You said my comment wasn’t a reliable source, but he’s literally my great uncle. We are blood. How is that not a reliable source? I’m adding information about his sister - my grandma - Angela Susan Henry Little. She married Larry Little - my grandpa - and he and John Henry had their own business together at one point called LDL international. My information is straight from the source.. Mandishawn (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mandishawn. I responded on your talk page. Your family's verbal history is not considered reliable, please provide a published source - see WP:PUBLISHED for more information. Ifnord (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John w henry[edit]

There’s no published sources because not many people know about her because people like you don’t want to let it be published. It’s not “verbal” when there are literal government forms such as birth certificates etc, that prove that they are related but okay. Mandishawn (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J[edit]

I dint edit j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.244.54.60 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unverify[edit]

Embee[edit]

Students_for_economic_justice[edit]

Timbits[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Civil War Unit[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GBU-37[edit]

Nuggeting[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P*U*S[edit]

Can you look at this pleese[edit]

École Mondiale World School[edit]

"You rock"[edit]

== A quick note you wrote to Mistress Selina Kyle==[edit]

hmm[edit]

Howcheng's RfA[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Vis-à-vis articles for deletion/Pirate Party[edit]

pedelec[edit]

Arbcom elections[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG[edit]

Hypersonic[edit]

Thanks[edit]

FYI[edit]

DC streets[edit]

66.138.150.228[edit]

No consensus?[edit]

WP:RFA/Quarl[edit]

Young Zaphod Rfc[edit]

The Monotypes Article[edit]

The Wikinomics Article[edit]

Re:AFD[edit]

China Dolls[edit]

Removing Red Links[edit]

Coolidge Middle School[edit]

My RfA[edit]

RFA Thanks[edit]

My RFA[edit]

Re: recent nominations to afd[edit]

Serious question about future albums[edit]

Comments on Statistical game theory AFD[edit]

Hello[edit]

Hi[edit]

...and the kitchen sink....[edit]

RfA Results and Thanks[edit]

Sakoske and the Picmin[edit]

Your rv action on the "Efax" stub[edit]

Redirect[edit]

License tagging for Image:Molly Parker.gif[edit]

Demand Note[edit]

Shirk[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

International Municipal Signals Association (IMSA)[edit]

CrazyRussian's RfA[edit]

Fnord[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi[edit]

Zodiacal[edit]

Pseudo-Christian Cults in the United States[edit]

Pro capite, -NOT- per capita[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

List of A&W Restaraunts menu items[edit]

now it doesn't read like an add[edit]

Status of religious freedom in Canada Re-write[edit]

Contraband pastries[edit]

No Gnaa nowhere[edit]

Yanksox RfA[edit]

my RfA[edit]

Citation tags on Reparative therapy[edit]

Wickethewok's RFA[edit]

Re : Relisting AfD articles for more consensus[edit]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

My RfA and your vote[edit]

Ryulong RFA[edit]

You've got a Thank you card![edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Blogs[edit]

My RfA[edit]

My RfA[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution[edit]

Re: RfA[edit]

Jahbulon[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUS[edit]