Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

And there is also This archive

If u don't have a time machine go buy one from tesco !!!! 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.63 (talk)

I will stop reverting this untill u go to each and every wiki page and revert all future projects ! Else I don't see the pint ur WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL that's all. U do what ever you want. 109.155.16.75 (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your edit mentioning critic reviews. All of the reviews can be summarized in one sentence rather than 4-5 individual reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthraghubangalore (talk • contribs) 00:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One review can be acceptable but multiple reviews projects the article as a biography rather than a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthraghubangalore (talk • contribs) 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thankyou for your comments sir. But why are you reverting edits for reasons of no consequence. And about the Niranjan Vanalli page, is Karnataka Sahitya Akademi Award a non-notable award. Sahitya Academy is like the booker of the state in India. its just like saying Filmfare Award in India is non notable just because Oscars are of higher value. Please think about it. And in the Kamal Haasn page I think when all actors have the sidebar, why not Kamal Haasan - he's a complete artiste who received India's third highest civilian award! Thankyou --Vighnesh HJ (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.karnatakasahithyaacademy.org/# This is the Kannada Sahitya Academy Award website. Sir it may not be equally prestigious as Booker, but Kannadigas refer this as Karnataka's Booker that's all. I will add more references in the coming time. Thankyou--Vighnesh HJ (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why are you deleting the content from pages like Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 6) and Nach Baliye 6? Nadesai (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known practice across Wikipedia. Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 8), Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 7) and all the seasons just to name a few. Then why are these pages exception? Nadesai (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disputing the very claim that these are "crappy". The pages I mentioned are very popular and the objections to those have not been raised in spite of they being in existence for many years shows that it's accepted at Wikipedia. That's my point. Nadesai (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm sure you're familiar with all the relevant policies, so this is just a courtesy note that I've invited White80setalphago (talk · contribs) to discuss, at Talk:Internet Killed Television, whether to include the section on a member's medical conditions. I look forward to you participating in the discussion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Internet_Killed_Television#Health_Concerns have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I reverted a misguided addition (diff) at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Full that you might want to see. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: the linked LTA page had been created, too. I've asked to have it deleted as an attack page. —rybec 02:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I don't know how I missed that. And seeing it would have told me that TRPoD knew all about it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Football card (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Spaulding and Gypsy Queen

Cutler Bay, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Landfall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing excellent work over there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I added a short note about this article on User talk:Jreferees talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Red Pen - Why such a long edit summary?[1] -- Jreferee (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to show that I considered many factors that may have impacted its relevance to the article and did not find any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cynic in me says "well actually it's just another puppet of Nitin.mittal998 == Nitin.wiki998, who is blocked for all sorts of reasons". No objection if you want to take ownership of this edit's appropriateness yourself. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a thread here [[2]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About edit war to insert material removed from Panti per WP:BKP. I have strongly suggest he self-revert, but I expect him not to do so, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He actually now has read the policy -- all OK. Collect (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that since Paul Murphy did not get much RS coverage of his "homophobia" comments, that it may be UNDUE to place them into a BLP. His citing of specific names does not add to the article, and may be a BLP violation n its own -- it would be equally strong and not pushing WP:BLP if it were just changed to "Paul Murphy, MEP, supported Panti's use of 'homophobia'." Though I am uncertain just how notable the opinion of any MEP actually is, per se. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you mean in addition to the IT, the lack of coverage in the The Journal and the lack of coverage in the American publication The Advocate and the lack of coverage in The Independent? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes appear to be about as important as the endless material in the Congressional Record - the opinion of a singularly unimportant politician who is immune from any rules about defamation. We can certainly state that he supports Panti, but repeating allegations about living persons, even if the speaker has legislative immunity, is contrary to BLP. I trust you see the point I am making. Collect (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the endless quotes made by MPs are rarely if ever covered by all three major Irish newspapers let alone American press. So no, I do not see your point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It also featured on RTE [3]. Unimportant? Ireland has only 12 MEPs. Paul Murphy is a household name in Ireland. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP deled the material from the Independent about the spending of the RTE money in memory of a deceased Ions member. (Some of the money is going to a fund in memory of a savagely murdered member of the institute, Tom O'Gorman. ref in cite in article) Consider if that claim is appropriate to the Iona article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the strange emasculation of WP:BLP at WP:AN/EW I say "Hail and Farewell". If a retracted item gets printed by someone else, it can now be used in BLPs, even where the original "publisher" (in the case at hand, RTE) has removed it from view, and removed it from outside sites under copyright law (and paid a fortune rather than fight defamation suits). But the defamation can be placed boldly on Wikipedia in BLPs. I do not agree always with anyone, but this particular view of WP:BLP is one I personally can not abide. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note your continuous reverts to the Iona Institute page. This story has now been headline news in Ireland for 2 weeks. The story itself has been reported on BBC News in the UK and tonight there's a feature on Channel 4 news in the UK. This is by far the biggest controversy the group has been involved in. Paul Moloney (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that is just the point, at this point it is merely "controversy" - lots of hot air, millions of pixels, and naught for actual impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pen, by that reasoning the Seralini affair is just lots of hot air. Is that what you claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third parties have commentated on the impact of the "affair" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third party commentary exists (i.e blogs, senators, TDS, MEPs), but don't constitute secondary sources. They would be primary opinions. Journalists have written analyses of the events. Secondary sources "relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" and syntheses them together. That is what the newspaper coverage does. In the US there is a tendency to throw in opinions as well, but that is not the job of a secondary source. Irish newspapers stick to the facts as much as possible. Also Red, apply the exact same criteria you have described to every other section of that article. Do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have again proven my point. The Newspapers are merely reporting the incidents. We need a third party reliable source - NOT WIKIPEDIA EDITORS - to place the events into context and show that they have some meaning and importance. And yes, the rest of the article sucks too, but clearly that is not a reason to add more bad content to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Newspapers are analysing the events, they are not throwing in opinions. There is a difference. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this analysis? I have looked at lots and lots and lots of the articles and merely seen recitation of this happened and this happened and this happened but no "because" or "that means" or "its important" or any analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the very first source used in that section [4]. How you can say there is no in depth analysis there, I don't know. The kind of analysis you are looking for are opinion pieces, not factual articles. Opinion pieces wouldn't generally be reliable for inclusion except as opinion. They also exist, but I intentionally stay away from them. They are synthesising the primary sources, and that makes them a secondary source by definition. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Terence McKenna.
Message added 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think the article has been improved enough to remove tags. I little insertion and emphasis of mainstream consensus and description as fringe is probably appropriate, with due respect for the considerable effort of a relatively new editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited America Unearthed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Search Of (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. In case you didn't know; Edits in the topic area of "race" by anons that geolocate to Korea are practically guaranteed to be sockpuppets of User:Mikemikev. I.e., Nuke from orbit, destroy with fire, use the Death Star, fire all phasers, weapons free, strike with the red pen of doom, etc. Enjoy:) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you remove reviews from the critics reception from the article Heart Attack. It is unfair to remove the reviews there which are considered to be done by professional sites. You did the same in the case of Yevadu previously and Raghusri reverted back the changes citing your edit a removal of content on 13 January 2014 12:00. I too reverted your edit on the same basis. Hope you don't repeat it again. I would repeat to revert, it you repeat to remove. Thank you :| Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect i agree with you on this but how can u judge that skjbollywoodnews.com is not a reliable source, it is headed by veteran journalist Subhash K. Jha giving reviews from almost 20 years and all of the reviews are his, i didn't add anything which is spammy or out of context. Adding reliable source and comments are of what wikipedia is all about, you can't just consider anything spammy as per your opinion. I with due respect like you to take notice of all the reviews done by Subhash K. Jha and try to verify the fact before considering something reliable or not. You have full authority to delete anything anytime but considering a reliable source spammy doesn't solve the purpose. Final decision rests on you. And SK jha is the main source of content for IANS and all major websites. With warm regards Thank YouVaibhav.times (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Im jeffrd10 I can see that you are in a dispute with Pavanjandhyala and Are currently warring. I would like to remind you of the three revert rule and to remind you not to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours or I will report you. I also see no attempt at conceses so please instead of warring try to reach consensus on the article's talk page. Thank You.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]