User talk:Innatenobility

Deleting sourced material without an adequate explanation

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

Before gutting the article further by removing large sections of sourced material, please propose your changes on the article's talk page first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a valid reason take from the authors of the very research that was removed. Innatenobility (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed material that is NOT sourced, is misrepresented or 'sourced' using broken or empty links. The cited research article literally says their statistics should not be used to rededefine established regional boundaries. Regional identity and defintion is NOT Innatenobility (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a series of data sets. Which the referenced authors also state in the cited paper. Innatenobility (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on the talk page here; please discuss proposed changes there. I've also posted in the Pittsburgh project page in case other interested parties would like to weigh in. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I also explained that the definition of 'mega region' as cited is not the standard, accepted nor indeed valid definition of region used consistently in all Wikipedia articles on metropolitan regions. It is completely arbitrary to allow this specific text only in reference to Pittsburgh and diminishes the validity and neutrality of Wikipedia as whole. Innatenobility (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innatenobility, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Innatenobility! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH

Adding statements like "Pittsburgh has not been associated with the Great Lakes regionhistorically as it does not lie within that region nor has the region's growth historically been connected to the Great Lakes" is a violation of our WP:SYNTH policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Hello, I'm AramilFeraxa. I noticed that in this edit to Greater Pittsburgh, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. AramilFeraxa (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been warned once about deleting well-sourced content without a consensus. Consider yourself warned again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you think so, it would be a better to discuss it first on the article talk page for example, rather than delete it. AramilFeraxa (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it in the article's talk page, as you can easily see. My points are valid and I specifically reference Wikipedia rules. No matter what I change it is immediately reverted by Ohnoitsjamie without my changes ever being addressed on merit. Is this really how Wikipedia works?