User talk:Notfrompedro/2021/May

Six months

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Notfrompedro/2021 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have taken the actions provided at Standard Offer. I have not edited in six months and I have already agreed to avoid having two accounts which got me blocked. Am I able to be unblocked? Notfrompedro (talk) 5:27 pm, 30 March 2021, Tuesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Notfrompedro has complied with the standard offer, and in addition has agreed to avoid having two accounts. SilkTork (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: @Materialscientist:

Checkuser report: I see no evidence of recent sockpuppetry or block evasion from this user. Note that the original unblock request indicated, "obviously not new themselves" and it is unclear if that has been addressed (or even needs to be addressed under WP:SO). --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: As neither of the checkusers I pinged have responded would you be willing to assist me in being unblocked? Notfrompedro (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: as blocking admin. Currently I'd be inclined to unblock - even in the original case I don't know whether there is information I'm not aware of, but actual rule-breaking other than the disclosure aspect seemed minimal, without use of multiple accounts/account & IP in the same editing area. Regardless of that, given the status quo, how do things stand now? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As an FYI to Notfrompedro, I think at least your ping to MS and possibly your ping to NRP, wouldn't have worked because of the way you pinged. Material's ping, when you fixed the {{ wouldn't have worked because you didn't sign the edit (pings need a signature or they don't fire). NRP's may have, but it's possible it got missed because it was inside the unblock request. Nosebagbear (talk)

@Nosebagbear: Aw man I didn't realize pings needed to be signed. I feel dumb now. Thank you for letting me know but I guess I won't bother fixing the pings since you're waiting for a response from the blocking admin anyway. Thank you for replying and being open to unblocking me. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As with Nosebagbear I'm OK with unblocking. There is a concern that this is not a new account; though we have no evidence of any prior account, and, under Clean Start, people are allowed to create new accounts if they wish, as long as they were not previously problematic, and as long as the new account is not problematic. The new account at least is unproblematic, and absent evidence of prior problematic behaviour it's appropriate to assume good faith. I am, anyway, one of those who doesn't mind if a previously problematic user returns usefully under a new account and does not repeat the problematic behaviour. I would consider that a positive. In addition, they only made a technical error with the alt account (editing in two separate discussions, but on the same page) - they do not appear to have intended to deceive. And they have now fulfilled the standard offer. Amanda has not edited for a month, and may be occupied elsewhere, but out of courtesy we should wait a few more days to see if she wishes to contribute to the discussion. SilkTork (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@SilkTork: It has been about a week since you commented above and I was wondering if you are still amenable to unblocking me? Notfrompedro (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. SilkTork (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lunar Injection Kool Aid Eclipse Conspiracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoops! I fixed it. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

CoI

Please read [[1]]. The tag is from April 2017. Look at the differences in both revisions.Thanks!

@122.168.163.201: Yes and it still applies and your IP address comes from the same region as the school. You making a single edit doesn't remove the COI edits of the past. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the article, removed all the mistakes. All of us contribute to articles we are familiar with, does not mean it is a CoI. Please remove the tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.163.201 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@122.168.163.201: You might want to actually read WP:COI if you think having a relationship with the subject of the article doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Being neutral is more important than having a CoI

@122.168.163.201: You are avoiding the question. Do you have any connection at all with the subject of the article? Your IP address is from there. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

yes, i never avoided any question. and i have been extremely neutral

@122.168.163.201: Then read WP:COI. You shouldn't be editing the article and the tag absolutely stays as it applies to your edits along with the previous ones. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

it is completely neutral, you want the article to be a stub?

@122.168.163.201: The person with the conflict of interest doesn't get to declare their own edits neutral. That is why people with COI shouldn't be editing the page at all. Please read the guidelines and use the article talk page to suggest edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There is CoI in each and every article. If people have no knowledge about the subject of the article, how do expect them to contribute anything?

@122.168.163.201: Not everyone who edits articles has a connection to the subject of those articles. I have never edited an article I had any connection to. The conflict of interest guidelines are there for a reason. I've said all that needs to be said on the subject because we are going in circles here. Please don't edit articles with which you have a COI. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (April 2017). I have done this already, so please remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.163.201 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@122.168.163.201: Someone with a conflict of interest cannot clean up someone else's conflict of interest. The tag especially applies since you started editing it further. Since you refuse to actually read the guidelines and just want to argue that they somehow don't apply to you I'm not going to reply here anymore. The guidlines: WP:COI. Read them. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) Having a COI is, as quoted from said page is contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I enjoy Jazz music, but I do not have a conflict of interest. However, if I worked at a Jazz club, I have a conflict of interest with regards to that specific Jazz club. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Mistaken reversion of plot on Dear Evan Hansen

Hi, I believe you may have mistakenly removed the plot summary on Dear Evan Hansen. I'm not sure what exactly's been going on with the plot summary being added and removed lately, but the plot summary on the article was not copied from fandom.com. From a quick glance of the edit history of Dear Evan Hansen, that plot summary has existed on the article in essentially its current form since at least 2019, most likely having been added much earlier than that given Dear Evan Hansen first opened on Broadway in 2017. In turn, checking the edit history on the fandom.com page you linked to, the plot summary was only added to that article in March 2020. I find it much more likely that the fandom.com article plagiarized Wikipedia, not the other way around. I've reverted your reversion of another user's re-adding of the plot summary accordingly. If I've misunderstood your intentions, please let me know.Fci guy (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fci guy: I saw a massive dump of text and a google search found a lot of websites with that exact wording. One dating to at least 2018 and one from the Course Hero website. Perhaps they all took it from Wikipedia but I thought it better to be safe and remove it. I'm not going to war over it or anything so if you feel confident reinserting it then go ahead. Perhaps it did originate here. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Notfrompedro: That's fair. I just did a more in-depth search of the edit history of Dear Evan Hansen to double check. It seems that a plot summary which strongly resembles the current one in form & wording was first added to Dear Evan Hansen in this edit from 1 February 2017. I did a Google search with the same parameters as yours, filtering for anything before 1 Feb 2017, and I couldn't find anything resembling the plot summary, so I think the evidence does point to the plot summary originally coming from Wikipedia. Thanks! Fci guy (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fci guy: Good job on the research! It looks good to keep the edit but it probably wouldn't hurt to put something on the talk page so future editors know if it keeps getting removed. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your depriving people of increasing their knowledge.

Hello. I shouldn't like to be thought do opinionated as to be beyond beung taught. So, in order not again to be thought of as a "Weasal" speaker, (re. your Edit just now of a perferctly acceptable interesting snippet of obscure information on the 'Airbags' Page), I shall learn the lesson you purport to 'offer' and and speak plainly: that was a first-class example of why , whilst yet only marginal, in the 'Talk' sections of various Editors, a growing number of disaffected people are speaking of what I'll here term the automatic capital punishment sentence given by unaccountable editors; so inexcusably blunt in its application; so charmless in its action; so offensive in its censoriousness; as though a 'god' has been given an offering by the poorest of its subjects, and can now feel the dribble of its expectorated rejection splattered all over their face. It can't help but give the impression that actions of this sad kind are done merely so the Editor can privately approvingly bask in an ever higher number of edits next to their name; significantly, those numbers low or voluminous reveal nothing of the quality of those actions. I hope it may be seen by the above that I have taken your criticism to task, and now, thanks to you, may no longer be accused of mincing with "Weasal" words. Some don't know by such expressions that they are strikingky, unnecessarily offensive; especially to complete strangers: tact, man: tact; knowledge isn't all; human kindness is an art. I refer you to the Marylin Monroe 'Talk' page where I dealt with this matter in greater detail, when speaking of the 'What Happened on 23rd. Street' film. Heath St John (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So you have a thesaurus. Good for you. I will be terse: please read WP:RS and WP:OR. You put your own views into an article with no reference at all so I reverted it. I didn't insult you and I'm not depriving anyone of knowledge. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Welcome back!

RedPanda25 17:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Thanks for the kindness and the kitten! Notfrompedro (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

144.82.114.137 Contributions

Hey! @Notfrompedro. I noticed you reported to AIV and repeatedly warned this IP for the addition of this source to Conversion to Christianity. Looking at the source it seems appropriate for the article and in the context used. Seddon ^talk 20:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seddon: The editor keeps sliding into articles in completely different contexts like here which seems to reference something about Philip Jenkins which isn't even mentioned in the reference. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The source matches the claim Philip Jenkins allegedly made so it's better to cleanup the sentence and just delete the reference to Philip Jenkins. Seddon ^talk 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seddon: The IPs edits meet the exact description at WP:REFSPAM. Why would it make sense for me to rewrite an article to suit a reference that doesn't belong there in the first place? Notfrompedro (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You are now a pending changes reviewer!

Hi Notfrompedro! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
• A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
• Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the great work, and in a few months time, I'll make you a rollbacker! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you! I will do my best. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! You deserve it! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Information / Simplification

Hello,

I am messaging you in regards to a change I created to the David Gilmour (BusinessMan) page.

These changes are authorized and created by David Gilmour to correct facts and simplify the information provided.

Please revert the changes as there are many incorrect and not needed items on the page.

Thanks,

David Gilmour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Business Research and Development (talk • contribs) 15:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Business Research and Development: If you were hired to edit this article per WP:DISCLOSEPAY "Editors must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia." Notfrompedro (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not paid or hired to edit the article. I am the the person in which the article is about and would like to change inconsistencies. What information do you need from me.

@Business Research and Development: The conflict of interest guidelines state "COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead." You can read more at WP:COIEDIT. Deleting vast quantities of referenced information is pretty much always going to be reverted. WP:COISELF explains what to do if you feel there is something that needs immediate attention. You can contact Wikipedia via WP:OTRS or use the noticeboard at WP:BLPN. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the spam reverts...

...but please keep WP:3RR in mind. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Does spam not meet the "obvious vandalism" criteria at WP:NOT3RR? I assumed it did but if it does not then I clearly made a mistake here and I'm very sorry about that. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought so first, too; the only warning template I've ever received is a 3RR warning from Oshwah about this.

Spam is often not done maliciously; there is a lot of spam from people who genuinely believe that their addition improves the encyclopedia. My first contribution in 2006 was adding my website link to German Wikipedia articles about the game Locomotion, because my website contained downloadable add-ons for the game which I personally – as a child – found to be pretty helpful to as many people in the world as possible. Spam may be vandalism, but "obvious"... mh, rather not. And no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thank you for the explanation. I will be more cautious in the future. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your reversions

1. You restored inappropriate material without indicating why. You only spoke to one small portion of it - but reverted a great deal. This is not proper. (I restored it without that small portion - pointing this out).

2. You used tools to do this. This is not proper.

3. You claimed that a reason was not adequately given for an edit, when the edit summary in fact properly stated "ce, d unrelated refs, restoring what he actually tweeted, d what does not relate to subject."

4. You then restored the material, on that basis. That was not proper. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep using inaccurate edit summaries to bowdlerize an article. It is vandalism when you aren't honest about what you are actually doing. The tweet doesn't say what you claim it does and the other version is actually referenced. Stop. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

can you help me @_@

I need help Sarah afton (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sarah afton: I did try. You replied with this. What do you want from me? Notfrompedro (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)