User talk:Ifnord

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

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

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

Additional archived messages are here.

Your non-admin closure of Abdali Medical Center

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

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

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...

...for protecting my talk page. 👍 CyanoTex (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nenê

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

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.

Can you fix my boxes Ilyas1234IsBack (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally ill people in United States jails and prisons

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

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]