Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Are you having an issue with an editor on basketball related BLP's? Specifically Kenny Anderson?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what aspect of my modification is not justified. 1. That she starred in the television film of "Hear the Silence" (the original article states this) 2. That the film encouraged scepticsm about the MMR vaccine.I have not cited but could the wikipedia entry for the writer of the film, Timothy Prager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Prager 3. That she was sympathetic to the doubters. (is the source that I put for this not sufficient?) 4. That there is now a measles epidemic in South Wales. Is "The Free Library a sufficient source"? ^[1] Most of all I do not understand why it is acceptable to mention the controversery in the Timothy Prager article but not the Juliet Stevenson or Hugh Bonnington ones.

--Tomkirwan (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit about one of this article's categories, 'Category:American women novelists'. There is quite a bit of off-Wiki discussion about this issue by the subject and some on-WP discussion as well. There might be other on-WIki threads about this Cat., but I am unaware of them. Btw, the subjects themselves (including Miss Tan) are objecting to this Category.... Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad someone is going around to cleanup that list, but Duncan is unfortunately considered the face of unusual deaths back then. The newspapers when they reported her death called it terms like "goes out in style", "dramatic", and other gossipy terms that is normal for the press. The sensationalist press of the time probably thought "unusual" is too dull of a word. Remember we are dealing with two different standards of journalism here. Secret ^account 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok I apologize for my rather uncivil edit summary, and I fully agree that this list should be drastically trimmed, if not deleted (which wouldn't stand no chance because we both know a list like that will attract so much ILIKEIT keep votes that consensus would be impossible). What got me slightly upset was that you didn't even bother checking for sources before removing content on the list. Duncan is sadly known nowadays because of her strange death instead of her contributions to modern dance. It was very easy to source that. Secret ^account 18:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Film journalist komal nahta stated it as docudrama, as the film does not deviate from the event, RGV himself stated it, watch komal nahtas video review of the film, stop messaging me on thisMurrallli (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

adding verifiability, please waitMurrallli (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

this was stated and reviewed by several film journalists, I am not going with my personal opinions, I have added enough sources on this. Murrallli (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

hope u understand english Murrallli (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanx kindly dont waste my time Murrallli (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I added a couple of notes to this AFD where you bundled the above article. I could understand why you included it (it was in horrible condition) but I made a couple of points in the discussion and have had a crack at cleaning the article up. Would appreciate your thoughts as to whether you still think the article should be included in the AFD. Happy to agree to disagree if you still think it should go, but I thought I should let you know I had responded to that nomination in particular, just in case you didn't have it watch-listed. Cheers, Stalwart111 06:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, many thanks! Stalwart111 07:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hai dude we can only use reliably published sources, not any old thing we find on google. Claims about living people require the highest standard of sourcing.. And we should only be using secondary sources. The guidance is pretty clear that " Going down the Bollywood chute...with David Chute should not be used." try to correct. —Ajith real7 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2013‎ ‎ (UTC)

(I am the person that first wrote that on one of your sock account pages). what is this? what sock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajith real7 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hai dude User:Jayakrishnan.ks100 saying that going to be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. i am not using multiple accounts. weather i block i think you will not reverting it back because of fake source. Kamal Hassan is a Chameleon is not the meaning of method actor and is not reliably published source —Ajith real7 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2013‎. ‎

Hai dude User: Thilakan 1980‎ saying that (Reverting back the edits made by a potential "sock puppet" suspect. Ajith real7 - There are no personal opinions here. They are valid sourced materials. You cannot take authoritarian role and randomly delete exis) i am not sock puppt. what can i do if i Undid they tells that i am sock. so if i block. i think you will Undid that revision. thanks. —Ajith real7 (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2013‎ ‎ ‎ (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello and thank you!! I was told I cannot use a blog as a source; sorry, I did not know. I'd like to mention Alexa O'Brien because of her important work...I'll think about the references the next time! Clelia albano (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to be my tutor?? :) Clelia albano (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm adding legitimate links to a legally licensed site that streams the content legally on the drama pages. This is a value add for users as they can not only read about the drama, but watch it immediately. Most of the streaming sites online for KDramas are illegal. How is that spamming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason8345 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your earlier removal of copyvios on this page. For this edit, what is the particular site you found it copied from? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

they were taken from [1] and [2]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the second one that I didnt get a hit from Google.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think these are being removed due to the recent issue with me. Those ESPN sources have been used before and are all over the other articles the above user is also removing. They are facts/stats. It's not wording from an editor. When it is, I gave the source for it. This is actually very disruptive to revert all of that but at this point even though I wasted time, I could care less if it stays or not. It goes back to avoiding certain people and articles over petty issues. I worked hard linking that info and now it's being withdrawn in spite. I could fight it but it's really not worth it. Very counter-productive. Another issue that is wrong on here. Makes people give up and stop editing... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:ANI#User_talk:99.129.112.89, so let's all WP:AGF. I agree that there was a WP:PARAPHRASE issue. I suggest WP:DR be followed if anyone disagrees by discussing on talk pages, involving WP:BASEBALL, or inquiring at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.—Bagumba (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not worth it. I did that as a favor to you. I wasn't going to and wish I hadn't now, but I could care less if the baseball pages are current. I "half assed" that anyways just for your benefit. Funny, of all the problems I've had lately, it's all been from people on the MLB articles. Live and learn, I'm no longer interested in those topics via this IP. I don't live on here and this site doesn't define me as a person nor do I get my self-worth/value from it. I have other professional projects off the site I participate in that give me enjoyment without headaches. I am not here to defend myself, I was helping with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, not pleasing editors who are set on revenge and discord. To get respect, you have to give it. I gave good faith and was pleasant and left kind/nice messages. I built people up, "cheerleaded" for editors, etc. And this is the thanks I got. Human nature is a strange thing. I'm cutting off contact and I hope that won't result in more problems, since that is what caused it before. Me letting people know I was no longer going to work on it made people flip out. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom: Knock it off, and stay off my talk page... Move on! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks!!!

Clelia albano (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted to User talk:Max Borin. He was another Paul Bedson sock. Keep an eye out for them. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ani notice [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Am currently trying to address the issues raised. Regards, Jprw (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You've been pretty active in the royalty/aristocracy wikiproject in the past -- would you be able to have a look at this issue? Thanks. DS (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have 10 so far, and please stop making me go to that link, if you think there is not enough references, please search it up and put it in, don't ask the creator to search it up himself without any help, please add a reference your self. Remember this article is not mine, it's for the public to improve, stop pretending to behave like an admin and be real bossy ;) Regards PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Check the talk page on that article, I left a message for you there. Thanks PBASH607 (The One Day Apocalypse) (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've been very quiet how come

Why, have you not been following Wikipedia policies and want a nanny scrutinizing your work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

just curious, I guess I have been following the rules. Violetcries

Thank you for your help at Mau Mau Uprising!

Firstly, as you rightly say, it is not acceptable to delete sourced material that goes against one's point of view. Secondly, if the IP has sources in favour of his point of view, that is fine—of course, we can then include them and do the usual: "According to some scholars Mau Mau delayed decolonisation based on Black-majority rule; some say that they helped to secure the British exit and Black-majority rule; some argue that they at least helped to secure Black-majority rule; ..." In other words, there is no need for The Truth, which is what this IP appears to be aiming for.

I have tried to be accommodating with the IP. For example, despite its previous unsourced attempts to insert unsourced claims about Mau Mau delaying decolonisation, I have let her/him add—in the lede, no less—that Jomo Kenyatta (who was hardly pro-Mau Mau) thought the movement achieved nothing aside from delaying decolonisation. I am alert to the fact that I feel quite strongly and negatively about the British Empire, but am trying to engage constructively despite my feelings.

Dispensing with The Truth is what keeps, or what ought to keep, Wikipedia a nice and relaxed place for everyone, where all points of view are welcomed and incorporated.

Thanks again. LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to let the person calm down first and engage before arguing the points (WP:IAR and all that), IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The content you removed is not an "unsourced hoax". Again I think you are you are trolling and deliberately seeking out conflict. If you read the content before deleting it, then you would have seen this note at the end of the section:

<ref name="OMF path textbook" /><!-- all this section supported by OMF path textbook, p 258 -->

Please take more care. Lesion (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 3G (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
Hungama]] rated the film 2/5 and added "''3G'' doesn't work despite potential in its premise".{{{fact}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Chicago literature. It needs work but as it has multiple sources, could you please state where you want citations either with citation needed tags or with talk page notes to help other editors. As for tone, a talk page note, in general of examples would also help other editors to know what you envision there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're a funny guy/girl, I like you really. Thanks for making me laugh so much today. Lesion (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you've tagged Obverse Books as potentially not-notable and wondered what your rationale was? I run the imprint and it's featured in articles in national newspapers, has published the likes of Michael Moorcock and Paul Magrs, has the license for Sexton Blake and the continuation of the SB Library, and has been nominated for awards and appeared on shortlists of the best books of the year. This demonstrates sufficient notability I would have thought, but I'd be interested to know what else you believe is required? StuartDouglas (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see someone has explained to you that the Guardian and Irish Times, in particular, are both reliable sources (and that you were incorrect in your unfounded assertions re the Irish Times article). Good to know that we now in accord in this matter. Apologies for failing to point this out to you directly - but given your repeated quoting of providing reliable third party sources about the specific subject I assumed you would realise this. Mea culpa. I will continue to assume good faith on your part, in spite of your rather odd misrepresentation of my actions below.

Incidentally, I was not claiming inherited notability, merely pointing out that - much as any publisher would instantly become notable or publishing new JK Rowling - publishing multiple award winning authors, rather than simple unknowns - is a sign of a slightly more notable imprint. It was conversational, supporting evidence not primary. StuartDouglas (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Red Pen. Just a friendly reminder that civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars, and not to be ignored for flippant remarks like this. There are good ways to explain Wikipedia's policies to editors who may not be familiar with them. That wasn't one of them. Please try harder. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If being flippant is a violation of WP:CIV then there will only be 3 editors left on wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

:flippant remark withdrawn so I dont get blocked.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

striking even more flippant comment. eeek better ban me now to protect people from flippancy!!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The flippancy wasn't the problem, really. The snotty tone was, but I didn't want to violate WP:CIV in a civility warning.

Seriously, though, remember that any interaction can determine somebody's view of editing Wikipedia. The editor in question was making a good faith effort to show notability. The tone of your response was dismissive and rude — and counterproductive. If the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, you should explain exactly what sort of sources would establish notability for a small publisher, if coverage of the books they publish isn't sufficient. The only thing that your remark achieved is to annoy the editor and give a bad impression of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

no, there was no effort being made to show notability, merely claims that "My company is notable and deserves a page for every one of its products."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Er... that's not what the section above looks like to me. "Good-faith effort" doesn't mean "effort which shows complete understanding of Wikipedia's idiosyncratic definition of notability". He's trying. You have to try too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting this article based on your own prejudices and demonstrated lack of knowledge of even the newspaper in question. Thank you. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have full knowledge of the newspaper in question. It has a single two line review of the book. Not in any manner significant coverage. the review is fully covered in the article about your company, the publisher. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TPROD's assesment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on User talk:TheRedPenOfDooms. Mdann52 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May I know when was I blocked? Referring to [4]. JK (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPOD, I have now blocked your two "siblings" as socks of Gogdygody. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I did some cleanup, but I'm not entirely convinced of Obverse's notability. I thought I'd ask if you wanted to run this through AfD. I'd suggest a PROD, but that would probably be removed by one of the users on the current AfD for the Ninnys. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

On the A Romance in Twelve Parts article, you have in a short period of time replaced the whole article with a redirect four times: [5] (17:57, 13 May); [6] (21:21, 13 May); [7] (21:03, 14 May); [8] (21:48, 14 May). You then deleted chunks of the article at 23:00 and 23:01 on 14 May [9], and another chunk at 11:44 on 15 May [10]. So, there are parts of this article that you have deleted five times in less than 44 hours, and reverted four times in less. This is against the spirit -- and probably against the letter -- of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, which is there to prevent edit-warring and to promote more harmonious relations between contributors.

I am not saying that your edits were wrong, but I think this suggests you need to consider stepping back and slowing down just a little. It is important to respect the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which means allowing time and space for other editors to understand your motives and express their views. There is no urgency in what happens to this article; no pressing matters of WP:BLP or anything. Taking things more slowly, and respecting WP:3RR, will achieve a better result in the long term. (I am not myself editing the article at present as I wish to respect 3RR.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There are now more sockpuppets of banned User:Gogdygody impersonating you. They are being blocked, either for impersonation or as sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting place you've got here. קהלת (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The listing of the book is clearly attributed to Foster, and mentioned immediately following descriptions of CPUSA by J Edgar Hoover and a number of other staunchly anti-communist "voices". The inclusion of a reference to a voice from within CPUSA at the time has the effect of giving access to a balanced set of viewpoints, while the clear attribution eliminates any undue weight considerations.

From the wiki neutrality policy: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

Including the viewpoints of the likes of J Edgar Hoover, without including the opposing viewpoint of CPUSA, which is clearly designated as such and sourced to a historically relevant work expressing the view as being that of CPUSA, is a clear violation of the policy of neutrality, and created and Undue Weight consideration for the POV of J Edgar Hoover.

Continuing from wiki neutrality policy: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

Your insistence on removing any representation of the voice of the CPUSA itself in an article about CPUSA is a flagrant push against neutrality and is pushing the article towards a biased POV piece.

Please feel free to add any reference to any further anti-communist or Trotskyist or any other perspectives as you please... but there is no call for a blanket blacklisting of the voice of the CPUSA itself in the piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxfarr (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick minor note. When tagging images for CSD as copyvios, use WP:CSD#F9 rather than WP:CSD#G12. INeverCry 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see you deleting an unsourced ref to it, but my ref was sourced, and you still deleted it. You know, if you keep up this Terminator routine, people will be too cowed to actually improve the article. Serendi^podous 14:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

[11] exactly where is the source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this. The reference clearly demonstrated its notability. Serendi^podous 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry, that is a reliable source, i missed the Entertainment Weekly connection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi.. Thanks for the warm welcome on Wikipedia. Well, I do have a quick question for you. I was editing Hemant Batra wiki and from my research, I believe him to be a notable personality. But our inputs would be valuable and maybe you can guide me to better edit the articles? Waiting for your reply Jasmine80 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I came across Hemant Batra on CNBC and Zee business. Does this count as secondary sources considering the news channels are widely popular?Jasmine80 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a significant coverage where the subject is a speakerJasmine80 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also came across a news article where the subject has received a notable award and from my findings I see that it was mentioned on his wiki page but you deleted it. I do not understand why you did not consider the ref as valid. Can you please explain?Jasmine80 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this how I reply to talk pages that were put on my talk page? O_O! Well if it is, I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me. I'm a new Wikipedian and a lot of people seem to think that just because I'm a High School student I can't function properly in any way, shape or form. I hope to remain a Wikipedian for a long time, too! Any help you can offer is ALWAYS welcomed. Thanks again. :D Ravenize (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this edit. The Savage Nation article also has the same text with the same reference. Feel free to update that as well if you want. I am working on other articles. --Javaweb (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Why are you deleting the awards section from Sapne Suhane Ladakpan Ke? You are not the one to decide which awards should be mentioned and ones should be not. All the the excuses you give are always based on your opinions, they are not wikipedia rules. You should first learn what you are supposed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.2.56 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If Zee Rishtey Awards shouldn't be included in Sapne Suhane Ladakpan Ke page, then why don't you go delete all the Star Parivaar Awards from the Star Plus shows? Do that, then I will believe you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.2.56 (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete My Contribution to RED WINE movie page. Its unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeertk (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fan POV - This is no mass addition, think before you write, I have added only one category (think before u abuse fellow editors, I will take this to admin attention, stop vandalising the page) and you are disrespecting the three revert rule, may be u have a personal problem, is he your relative??? Murrallli (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you should have made a greater effort to explain this excision, and I said so here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I have a new article that needs a rating; Great northern tilefish. If you have the time or whenever you are free, could you rate it? Thanks JackFrost2121(Frostbitten?/ My Work) 21:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Heya! I need your help with trimming down an article. The article in question is Amy's Baking Company (TV episode), specifically the online conflict and aftermath section. The entire thing has sort of become pretty overinflated and there are a lot of people who are using it as a soapbox for either side. I don't know how many times I've had to delete this Change.org petition someone created. In any case, I know you're pretty good at cutting through the garbage so I wanted to ask you to help step in here. I know you're up for stuff like this, but hopefully you'll have the time for this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Would you please let me know what lead you to the assumption that the external link I added to Geocoding was a spam? Please review the website http://www.hamstermap.com/geocoder.html. It is not a commercial website, it does not generate any profit and the only reasons for its existence is geocoding - hence it is relevant for the Wiki topic. I believe that many people who read about geocoding process would actually like to perform the geocoding themselves and unfortunately there are no other viable non-commercial alternatives out there that would use Google API 3 to convert multiple locations into decimal coordinates.

I believe the website is a relevant external link and hence I would like to ask you for permission to add the link. Thank you. Plazmic (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your email; obviously I went through the policy for inclusion of external links.

I disagree with your statement that "there are dozens of sites that provide the same content as the site yo...'" - that is simply a false statement. There are only two other working geocoders, where you can insert multiple addresses and indeed get those converted to coordinates. Both are programmed using google API version 2 which has several issues by now and will be officially deprecated. I believe you have taken a look at the site and have seen that there is no catch - the geocoder works as promised and there are no monetary or other benefit in any way from attracting visitors to the website.

In relation to the other links I have added - I was providing specific deeplinks for conversion of coordinates. Yes - again, you can say that "there are dozens of website providing the same content." Again, you would be wrong to say so - there is no other website that would allow conversion between multiple (this is the important word) DD, DM, DMS and UTM coordinates. Almost all the other websites offer conversion of a single pair of coordinates and most of the people I know have dozens or hundreds of coordinates to convert and only HamsterMap.com (I know, stupid name) provides conversion of batch coordinates to UTM format. No ads/no junk/pure function. This is not some stolen script kiddie site site with AdSense site that shows one location and translate a single coordinate.

Thanks, Plazmic (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In this edit I asked that, as a courtesy to other contributors you make the effort to explain controversial edits you make on articles' talk pages, not in their edit summaries?

I'm sorry, but your record of responding to those who disagree with your disappoints me. You seem to have a long practice of explaining complicated or controversial edits, solely in your edit summaries.

I explained, in that comment, how the practice of making controversial edits, where the sole explanation for the edit is in the edit summary is a terrible trigger to edit warring.

There is a grave temptation for the reverted party to do their own revert, so they could reply with their own edit summary. The result? Instant edit-war.

Not only are edit-wars to be avoided, but this deeply troubling edit tactic is a grave dis-service to later readers -- who should be able to count on finding the discussion of complicated issues with the article, on the talk page. Even if the later reader figures out that the real discussion is embedded in the edit summary, they will have to step through the diffs, one at a time, to really follow the discussion. Following a discussion where one has to pay attention to the edit summaries; and the actual diffs; and the talk page; imposes a heavy and unnecessary cognitive burden on respondents. I urge exciser, and everyone else, to never rely solely on edit summaries to explain complicated or controversial edits.

I see you have been granted reviewer and rollback privileges. As someone who has been entrusted with extra privileges, don't you think you have an extra obligation to make all your participation on the project comply fully with both the letter and the spirit of policy and convention to engage in civil and collegial discussion of issues?

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit is another instance of you explaining a controversial edit solely in your edit summary;

another instance;

another instance. Geo Swan (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here are more unexplained or poorly explained edits: [12] Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I don't pay much attention to TV and wasn't aware that TV.com is user-generated. It has always looked to me like much of the basic information about shows was contributed by professionals, while users could add reviews, comments, etc.

Notwithstanding my personal ignorance, when you removed the references but not the information they supported, you weren't contributing to verification of content. The official pages http://www.nick.com/shows/sam-and-cat/characters/dice.html and http://www.nick.com/shows/sam-and-cat/characters/nona.html name the characters in the show, but not the actors who play them (although they do have photos). If, as you say, TV.com is user-contributed and there are no other sources for the actors' names, then the names of the actors should be removed from the article. --Orlady (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of pundits 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/List of pundits (2nd nomination) 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. Robofish (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom thanks for the help on the Yeakley source on the ICOC page. We seem to have started to go in circles and its a bit messy to read but looks like all parties interested at present have said their bit. Any advice as to how we can take steps to further resolve the issue? user talk: JamesLappeman —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Aplologies, have just started on wiki and the interface looks confusing to me. How exactly can I talk to you without going against wiki etiquette?

Anyway, there is not a serious controversy here. Again, I read through the section on external links and do not see reason for removing my posts as these were closely linked to the topic and were providing user with value and solution they were searching for without repeating information stated in the article or other external links. thanks, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plazmic (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I consider my addition valid:

• This Horrid Practice: The Myth and the Reality of Traditional Maori Cannibalism by New Zealand historian Paul Moon

Your reasoning: we dont link to every author who has written about canibalism in the see also

fails to note that there are 2 wikilinked pages (1. a substantial page on the book & controversy over Maori Cannibalism & 2. a section in the author's page) where the practice & controversy surrounding Maori Cannibalism are treated, not simply an author's wikilink.DadaNeem (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw you have been taking care of Badalte Rishton Ki Dastaan, but an IP User:106.214.88.190 removed all the ref in an edit, which now have been restored. --Ekabhishek^talk 02:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing of this article. You claim non-notablity but did not even trouble yourself to find out what the subject of the article is (you claimed it to be a novel when it is in fact a cd). StuartDouglas (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for tagging rather than redirecting again. It may well be that the release is not notable (I have nothing to do with the audio or the company who released it) but it's better for Wikipedia as a whole if the opportunity to discover this is left open to editors for a reasonable period. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame - just when I thought you were being reasonable, you post some self-serving guff on my Talk page. Editing multiple linked articles which you have not checked at a very basic level and which you clearly have no knowledge about whatsoever - this is what makes people think you have an agenda. Nothing else. Like I say, what a shame. StuartDouglas (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

as someone who writes and publishes content from the Dr Who franchise of course you have no conflict of interest in promoting the Dr Who franchise, how absolutely silly of me to think there is anything remotely sketchy about you promoting such content. Why i would have to have to make the completely irrational assumption that you are not a completely neutral party in this discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I don't write or publish anything to do with the Dr Who franchise, nor is Iris an ongoing part of the Dr Who franchise, even if I did. There is literally not a single reference to Dr Who in any book my company have ever published. And the idea that the presence on Wikipedia of this article and any others like it in any 'promotes' the biggest tv sf brand in the world today approches genius in its silliness. You really have done no reaearch on this at all have you? Your activities on this subject are actually starting to be funny, so thanks for that at least :) Have a lovely day and stick in at school. StuartDouglas (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding alicorn, another reference useful for the mistaken usage would also be the Incarnations of Immortality series.

Regarding the stuff removed from the page as unsourced, rather than outright deleting it, I think it would be better to tag it, so that the information would be there and people could find proper sources for it. Or perhaps just host it on the talk page. Could you list the stuff that got deleted on the talk? I really think sources could be found for them.

Here the character Pegasus/Helios from Sailor Moon was removed, but he is described extensively at List_of_Sailor_Moon_characters#Helios.2FPegasus so what is wrong with simply directing people to read that?

If the stuff at LOSMC isn't properly sourced that's something we can take up with that article. Ranze (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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 find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic International Churches of Christ. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful edit and try and make my Wikipedia page for Keaton Henson (User:Violetcries/Keaton Henson) better so it can be reviewed positively and made an actual article, Keaton Henson needs one by now.Violetcries 21:09 28 march 2013

make that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keaton Henson Violetcries 21:45 29 March 2013

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

your message

?~~☮~~

oh I get it, don't put on random pages for singles and stuff, don't take away the whole history thing for Esben and the Witch because that's perfectly fine being there~~☮~~

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Heliotropes

of course~~☮~~

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply

how the hell do you manage to follow me everywhere, no mention of what I've edited and your there and you go and delete or redirect the thing I've maybe even just corrected the title like I did with pink girl with the blues I don't get it~~☮~~

HA, from your last message it seems you thought I was the one who did the Pink Girl With the Blues page, it's obvious now that when I edit something you delete just 'cause it's me editing it, and like I said before all I did was correct the title 'cause it said it was superblaster~~☮~~

WOW, afraid of confrontation or what~~☮~~

how do you actually manage to follow me though~~☮~~

WOH~~☮~~

what does being blocked mean~~☮~~

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry...

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen your edit to the article Surya. likewise in the pages of Vijay and Ajith Kumar it contain personal opinion or analysis. kindly check. Thanks Ajith real7 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2013‎ (UTC)

• so the bot can archive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TitoↂDutta 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Folken de Fanel isn't the only user who is currently subject to an RFC/U that appears to be a vehicle for what would, in gridiron football, be known as "piling on". The RFC/U against User: Xenophrenic is, in my view, even worse. One of its primary contributors continues to provide more diffs of tendentious editing. At the same time, he insists that his objective is persuade Xenophrenic to become a more flexible and less tendentious editor in article space, and is himself being an inflexible editor in RFC space. There are only two explanations. First, the antagonist is living in an alternate reality, in which he thinks that "piling on" will help change an editor's mindset to be less tendentious. Second, and this violates the rule to assume good faith, he isn't seeking to change an editor's behavior, but to build a case for arbitration. I agree that RFC/U's can be abused. In the past they were often used against editors who really needed to be banned, not annoying editors like Folken de Fanel and Xenophrenic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up WSHE-FM. It was a real mess. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Phase_2. Please take part in that.

In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there. The article is under discretionary sanctions.

Here is a new section with a working draft proposal, any input would be welcome, we are in need of NPOV editors on that page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have broken WP:3RR at List of unusual deaths. Perhaps this was inadvertent so please be more restrained. Warden (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of 3:RRR is even more unusual than your definition of "substantial". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're still reverting and, as I count it, you're up to 8 reverts now. It may be that I misunderstand this bright-line rule so I shall log the matter so that we can get it clarified. Warden (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Put the brakes on, TRPoD. I know that what you are doing is just going through a massive cleanup run, but the way it looks is that you are edit warring. Most of your edits are technically reverts, and when they all come in a series, they count as one revert. Someone else puts a couple of edits in the middle, and others are going to try to claim that your one series of edits is now three reversions. That's how CW is counting, and, even though it's the wrong answer, people might go for it. Save yourself a nightmare, and just stop for the day.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay in the past year, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey TheRedPenOfDoom. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've created a redirect from your name-with-spaces, so that your talk page will be slightly easier to find sometimes. It looks like you've had some trouble with impersonation in the past, so you might consider registering it as a doppelganger. I don't think that the Mediawiki software would prevent someone else from starting that account (but I'm not an expert, so I might be wrong). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why u delete Shruti Bisht.jpeg file? As far as I know i was tagged "PD-self" license on this pic.... if u think my tagged license was wrong? then plz.. tell me, which license i use on non-free pics?

Chanderforyou (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.244.244.67 (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to knw why dis file "File:WWE_Championship.jpg" work on "PD-self" license... without any Copyright violations, widout any source, author, & permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.117 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor has made a frivolous report regarding you at WP:AN#Vandalism. Even though the report frivolous, your entitled to a notification. Monty₈₄₅ 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You've made some controversial deletions from this article. If you wish others to consider these deletions, please bring them up on the article's talk page along with sources that back your claims. Rklawton (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

When the dead person isnt notable (no article) the fact that their death is reported verifies the unusual nature of the death or the death would have gone unreported. Please join the talk page discussion already open on this issue♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And dont forget WP:3RR♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Just wondering how you're determining whether a source is reliable? I checked the guidelines and the references from Forum32.com seem to fit especially the fact checking? I don't know if you clicked on the articles or not but forum32 is just the name of the website but it publishes articles about the show. The website is run by the production house, 4Lions, and is as reliable as you can get for an Indian tv show. Each article even has photos of the show to verify their authenticity. They even post interview videos of the cast from the set of the show. Specifically referring to revision at 18:00, 3 September 2013‎. Let me know if the articles can get added back. Thanks (Raasta123 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Hey thanks for the response. I had read though those articles already. Does it not matter what you are citing? I had used information in the articles to provide a citation for the location of the show or the name of the PH, not a particular viewpoint or analysis. Just wondering. (Raasta123 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Hi there. I'm not quite sure why you keep removing the cast table from this article page. It's not there to propagate or expand any "trivia" details, it's merely there to keep a neat listing of characters and actors, as well as their durations (and any possible change of actor). I've been trying to help turn this article into something slightly more readable than it has been in the past, and your edits don't seem to have any purpose other than to rewrite everyone else's edits into your own personal style. This isn't very constructive or fair, and what's more, you're removing some vital information such as actor's names and durations. Please help to build this article rather than remove the efforts of other users such as myself. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 04:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Some fair points made - but I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "trivia". The names of certain actors and actresses are, for reasons unknown to me, not accessible. But the characters they portray are on-screen often enough to warrant credits. The fact that they are "unknown" should tell you that their names should be researched and added to the article. I disagree [b]completely[/b] with the notion that the cast table is "full of trivia", but I have readded it and omitted the details that offend you so much. Let me know. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 20:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And while they are indeed supporting actors, they are seen very frequently on-screen, enough for the names of the actors to be credited. The fact that we don't know their names surely points to possible incompetence or ineptness on the part of the production company? LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 20:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As the concept of a Pixar Universe preceded the Negroni thesis by a decade, I seek your opinion about THIS. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I can fold my little sourced article into the main topic Pixar and we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I understand your willingness to help clean-up the (perhaps) poorly maintained articles of Indian television shows. I myself have contributed towards helping make the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya article somewhat more readable, although I haven't yet begun the momentous task of cleaning up the "Plot" section, which would involve either watching several episodes or collating sources for episode descriptions. It is something that I will try to help clean-up shortly.

However, I have rearranged the cast table once more. My reasoning for this is that the actors names have never been promoted by the channel. They have always been referred to as their characters. Visit the Star Plus website (only the characters are mentioned)... look at the opening credits (only the production team is referred to)... and look at the promotional programming such as the Star Parivaar Awards (the actors names are never mentioned, and they accept awards dressed as their characters). This does imply that the name of the character looms larger in the public consciousness than the name of the actor, no matter how frustrating it may be from an encyclopedic point-of-view. Therefore, the character name is the most relevant to readers/visitors of Wikipedia, and it is these names that should be credited first, not the actors.

We only know the names of some actors thanks to sources such as The Times of India or other websites referenced on the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya page. Let me know.

(By the way - what did you mean in your edit description, "third grade book report"? I don't take kindly to being insulted. I'm merely trying to make the page functional and relevant, like you, and petty insults don't help matters.)

LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 17:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has now closed and my suggestions are on the Saath Nibhaana Saathiya talk page. Please offer advice and thoughts as per the administrators' comments. LBM | ^{TALK TO ME} 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the hard work you've been doing cleaning all the crud from Indian TV articles. I've been doing a lot of this myself over the past year or two and find that it's been a constant battle. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we've hit a brick wall. The only option is to call aWP:RFC, I think. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a jolly good idea. I'm getting so bored waiting for it. Deb (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A brick wall that follows you around. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_White_Queen_.28TV_series.29.23Historicity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely the WQ RFC should be in "Media", much more than then "History and geography" or "Society, sports, and culture"? I think to add it you can delete the current template and add it, if you want to. Actually I think a major source of the problem is people treating this as if it were a "History" article. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no source cited for the scores, so your adding up of content from the Wikipedia article is not valid.
Reply: Well, since the link to Jhalak Dikhla Jaa's official website has already been given in the Wikipedia page, I didn't think it was required to mention it again. But since you want a "reliable source", here goes the link. It has all the videos of every performance which Clearly mentions their scores. Link: http://colors.in.com/in/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa/videos/episodes/#nav
2) Content in the lead section should cover the primary content that people need to know about the subject of the article. The fact that a scoring oddity happened is not among the primary things people should know about the show.
Reply: Just the way it's important for people to know who the winner is, it's also important for people to know who the top scorer is. It's not about whether the top scorer won or not, but people should be given full information and not partial information based on the author's wishes.
3) without a reliably published third party source making note of the scoring, a Wikipedia editor calling it out is giving it too much prominence. Just because it is a "fact" does not mean it belongs in the encyclopedia article.
Reply: Mentioned the source in point no.1. The official website of the event is certainly a reliable source and the link mentioned in point no. 1 has the videos of all the performances and thus also all the scores. And of course..if the winner is given prominence, why shouldn't the top scorer of the event be given prominence too? Just because somebody has been declared the winner, doesn't mean that the top scorer doesn't need any mention! Otherwise don't mention either the winner or the top scorer..just the was it's given in the Jhalak Dikhla Jaa Season 5 wikipedia page. No problems with that. But if the winner is mentioned, people should know the top scorer too, also because this year Lauren and Punit broke all records and scored an unprecedented number of perfect 30s. So, just the way the name of the winner is impotant, Lauren and Punit have created a record for themselves and that Certainly deserves a mention.

And yes, people Do care about who "scores" what in Jhalak besides who the winner is. Some of the links:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Television/Jhalak-Dikhhla-Jaa-6-sets-off-Lauren-Gottlieb-scores-highest/Article1-1070686.aspx
http://newsportalindex.com/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa-6-celebrity-points-table-in-jdj-6-23-a
http://topnews.in/light/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa-6-sets-lauren-gottlieb-scores-highest-262211
http://www.metromasti.com/tv/gossip/Jhalak-Dikhhla-Jaa-6-winner-JDJ-6-2013-final-title-winners-lists/32168
Also, as per what you said : "you have shown me that you care; and you have shown me what the score on the primary source of the TV say, but you still havent shown me any reliably published third party sources care and until you do, putting your opinion and interpretations into the article is not appropriate." , going by the same logic, you shouldn't have put up the scoring chart, marked the highest and lowest scored, put the average table, marked the highest and lowest scored dance forms and corresponding songs and lastly put the highest and lowest scoring performances table. On one hand you say that no reliable third party sources care about the scores and who got the highest and on the other hand 90% of the details in the page is related to the scores..don't you think your words and actions are contradictory? I've mentioned the link of a very reliable source which mentions all the marks scored by each contestant and also since the table of averages has been put up, you too agree to the fact that Lauren and Punit are the top scorers and that is not just my interpretation (though I fail to see where 'interpretation' comes into play here) and since the table is still put up there, I'm sure you have some "reliable third party sources" to back that up. Then what exactly is the problem to write that one tiny little sentence? That still doesn't answer my question as to if the other parts of the article can be there on the wikipedia page without any reliable third party source to second it (as don't most of the other articles in wikipedia), what problem does my one tiny fragment of a sentence cause, which factually has no error in it. In No way whatsoever can that tiny little phrase be proved wrong by Anybody. Yet, that tiny phrase is the only bit that becomes the target and removed. Anyway, forget it. I guess you have some issues with Lauren and Punit and so you don't want the world to be given the truth directly that Drashti and Salman had way less a total than the former two. So anyway, bunk it. Lauren and Punit have gained popularity in their own right and the entire country knows anyway that they were the top scorers this season. They don't need a mention in wikipedia to inform the world that. Unlike certain other participants, they didn't have to depend on previous popularity to gain people's love and respect. They have real talent. So yeah, let it be.
If calling the highest scorer of a contest (and that too with proper reference. Not just a figment of imagination or any personal interpretation) the 'top scorer' is "bad stuff", Lord save you!

date stamping to get this archived since the user insists on not only not signing, but removing the bot added signatures. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mensxp.com/entertainment/bollywood/8831-10-actors-who-changed-indian-filmmaking-forever.html says Rajesh khanna holds record for doing maximum solo hero films in hindi as of 2013 and that means the record is yet to be broken by anyone. Other sites also say he got award in 1991 for not only completing 25 years in hindi film industry but also for his unique feat of doing 101 solo hero films till 1991. Many sites online say rajesh khanna did 106 solo hero films and that he did least number of multi start films. So why are you changing the article???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.60.105 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC) There are so many sources in Wikipedia article which do mention that rajesh khanna has done most number of solo hero films in hindi. You can Google and see find more websites which say the same thing. Event there are books available on the actor which say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.60.105 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I think removing almost all the content from the article Heartstone (artifact) is not the right course of action for how to handle that article. While the statements in the article aren't backed up by sources, they aren't statements that are problematic and need to be immediately removed (as opposed to negative claims in BLPs for example, which do need to be immediately removed when uncited). I do understand that in general sources should be found for all statements in an article. However, I also think that it is inappropriate to reduce an article to the point that it provides almost no information. The statements in the article provide a general summary of the topic that would be useful for anyone trying to understand what the article is about or looking for sources for the article. While a stub with no sources is a problem that needs to be dealt with, I think changing it to a sub-stub with neither sources nor information is not a right way to address such an article. Either the article should be taken to AFD, or it should be left with basic information on the topic and citation needed tags, to assist anyone trying to source the article in knowing what related subjects might mention the article. Again, I would in no way object to you taking the article to AFD. Calathan (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have now nominated the article for AFD. I believe that is the correct course of action for this article. However, I also believe that it is almost always inappropriate to remove most content from an article when nominating it for deletion. Removing almost all content from an article when nominating it for deletion makes it harder for people considering the article at AFD to understand the subject (not everyone is going to look at the article history). In this particular case, you are also leaving in a trivial refernce to one use of heartstones in fiction while removing a more general description of the subject, which might give people an incorrect impression that the subject only relates to that work of fiction (which isn't the case). Any unsourced content in the article is going to go away anyway if the article is deleted, so it seems completely unnecessary to remove it now anyway. Again, please leave that general description for now so that people at the AFD can tell what the article is about. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not the way WP:SPEEDY#A1 works (nor A3). The A1 criteria doesn't care whether the information is sourced, but instead whether or not the information identifies the subject. You simply can't remove all the content or context from an article, then nominate it for speedy deletion. AFD is indeed the right place for this article. Also, in reply to your previous comment, "immediately" was probably a poor choice of words on my part . . . I really just meant the description of the subject should remain until it can be considered at AFD. Calathan (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain more of what I am thinking. Basically, I am aware of heartstones being used in a few works of modern fiction, but the article suggests that it is something that people in the Middle Ages actually believed existed, which I wouldn't have expected before reading the article. The claims in the article, if true, raise the possibility that the subject could be covered in scholarly sources on medieval beliefs. While it is possible that the claims in the article are entirely false, and that no sources will be found, leaving the article as it is gives the AFD participants a different path to search for sources than your edited version (i.e., people should be looking at scholarly works on the middle ages, alchemy, beliefs in wizards, etc., as opposed to looking at works on tropes of modern fantasy). Your edited version basically presented the article as a concept used in one modern TV series, and perhaps a few other works of modern fiction, which seems far less likely to have been written about in reliable sources than the actual subject - a medieval belief that has since been used as a trope in fiction. Basically, I feel that your actions were kind of like a straw man argument - you were presenting the subject as something non-notable, but were simultaneously changing the subject into something far less likely to be notable than what it was originally presented as. I feel that making changes like that is dishonest and inappropriate (though I think it is more likely you were not reading the article carefully, rather than being intentionally dishonest in your AFD nomination). While articles certainly can be edited while at AFD, and unsourced material shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, presenting an honest version of the subject to AFD participants seems like a necessity to have a worthwhile discussion at AFD. The guidelines for nominating an article for AFD don't need to state that you shouldn't edit it into a different, less likely to be notable subject before nominating it . . . it is just common sense and common courtesy that, when nominating an article at AFD, the subject of an article shouldn't be changed in such a way to make it less likely to be notable and to hide where the actual sources might be found. And no, I don't know of any source, and I'm not personally planning to look for them. I'm just saying you need to give an honest version of the subject to anyone who does wants to look for sources. Leaving unsourced claims in place for seven more days seems far less odious than trying to have an AFD discussion where the participants are deprived of knowledge of what the subject actually is. Also, I'm sorry if my comments are getting a little unfriendly, but your comments on my talk page seem to be entirely ignoring what I'm saying (again, I'm not suggesting that I have sources for the information in the article, but that the AFD participants need that information in order for a legitimate discussion to take place). Calathan (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Mumbai Mirror review, when a film or actor's review states that something was "completely intentional", it means it was deliberate, it was an act.--Shivamevolution (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread / misremembered that phrase as "completely unintentional". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding reviews, there were initially 8-10 reviews present. It has been reduced to 5, which are all leading newspapers and reviewers of the Bollywood film industry. Please do not unnecessarily curtail well-referenced information, and do not arbitrarily decide how many reviews are 'too many'. Else a separate Critical Response section ought to be made detailing all of them, since the page is about a public performer. Thank you. --Shivamevolution (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

please check this Articles, because I've seen unnecessary commentary, notes and table in these articles.

• Gurmeet Choudhary (complex table)
• Jai Kalra (unnecessary commentary)
• Hansika Motwani (complex table)
• Ram Kapoor (complex table)
• Niveda Thomas (complex table and unnecessary commentary)
• Kshitee Jog (empty table notes section)
• Shafi Inamdar (television)
• Karan Singh Grover (unnecessary television notes)
• Mohit Malhotra (television advertisement table)
• Amit Dolawat (unnecessary table) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.251 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Basket _Feudalist 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel no inclination to participate in your legalistic maneuverings. You're fighting tooth and nail over a list of historical trivia that very few people will want to read. You use rules not as a means of resolving disputes, but as a way of bullying other users. I don't care which trivia goes into a "List of Historical Inaccuracies", but I do care that you're making Wikipedia an unfriendly place that fewer and fewer people want to participate in. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

i smile at your comment, Isaac Rabinovitch. RPoD also acts like this on List of unusual deaths and made me wonder why i bother putting time into servicing this encyclopedia. with smug pride and with the aid of this one friend, red pen renders others' contributions a waste of time Cramyourspam (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is preventing you or anyone else from starting a blog and putting whatever you want on there. Wikipedia, however, is a project to construct an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia is a community-edited encyclopedia. That means you work with other editors, not constantly pick fights with them. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to work with people who are trying to build an encyclopedia, I am not willing to work with people who are trying to abscond with a freely hosted fansite on Wikipedia's servers.

and saying that people who take disputes to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board which exists to help resolve disputes as one of the primary steps in the dispute resolution process are participating in " legalistic maneuvering" is hardly "working with" the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• RedPen has far less interest in constructing an encyclopedia than he does in intellectual masturbation and self-absorbed posturing. I agree with Isaac and Cram here, his behaviour is significantly damaging to the working environment for others. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

well Andy, its so nice to see you again. how have you been?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't thank TRPoD for destroying the encyclopaedia: he hasn't finished yet. Basket _Feudalist 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly isn't for lack of effort! TRPoD appears more interested in the argument than the betterment of the project as a whole. His behaviour borders on WikiBullying, throwing bits of half-understood policies and guidelines at fellow editors in the hopes of marginalizing them in a given discussion and giving the perception of power in order to intimidate. I would advise this editor to take his own advice and be cognizant of the fact that Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, and as such he is obligated as an editor to obey the civility principles of Wikipedia. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 00:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For any users who are concerned about another user's behavior and feel that community input would be beneficial, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Slaad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• evil ranger Belkar is said to have a similar slaad in '' The Order of the Stick #435]''.<ref>[[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html]</ref>{{primary source-inline}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Godzilla 2000 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class="wikitable"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Juiblex may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{primary}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sir , we have found that you have been removing well referenced , relevant information from pages related to Indian Film and Television Industry . This is a poor act and you should be ashamed of having done this. We in Wikipedia are giving our best to improve the articles but you don't seem to have the same motive. You are not here to make unnecessary issues out of things. I am strictly advising you not to get into any kind of EDIT WARS. You will be punished and banned if found involved in any kind of unnecessary deletion act . If you can't make positive contributions to the world's largest encyclopedia , you are free to leave . Keep that in mind . If you continue doing the same , we can also report the case to Cyber Crime Cell in New Delhi , India . They will hunt you down . Keep this warning in mind .

-Wikipedia Editor . (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

hilarious. i am waiting for the Indian Cyberpolice right now. I am sure they have nothing better to do than track down someone who is editing articles about films. rofl. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! I can't stop laughing. Cyber Crime Cell in New Delhi! Are you kidding me, "Wikipedia Editor"? JK (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I've been an editor for coming on 10 years in December but I still appreciate the welcome.Jcmiller1215-"tomorrow we will run faster..." (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons)‎‎. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Your removal of sourced content is unhelpful and has been reverted. Your removal of sources that you deem inapplicable to the subject is particularly troublesome in that you argue that those sources don't support notability: If they weren't relevant, there would be no cause for their removal. Your participation in multiple other D&D creature AfDs demonstrates that your removal of "other publisher" material in this article serves as a tactical edit to achieve a personal goal, rather than the collaborative, good faith improvement of content. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel sad that I need to explain this to you, but there is no requirement to have consensus before removing unsourced and improperly sourced content from articles. The Pathfinder and Necromancer game source books are about the Pathfinder and Necromancer game critters, the sourcebooks do not talk about the D&D critter and to make such a claim is WP:OR, therefore it is entirely appropriate to remove them from the article about the D&D critter without discussion or consensus first. If the article is about the general fictive critter in games, then the Pathfinder and Necromancer sources as sources showing only that the fictive critter is one of the critters in that respective game, then they are not independent of the subject and do not add any weight to assessment of WP:GNG in establishing notability. In addition, the removal of crap "sourcing" such as geocity links is not subject to discussion or consensus on the talk page either. and removal of discussion about the appearance of a critter named Basilisk in Harry Potter from the article about the D&D critter is also a perfectly valid edit that does not require prior discussion or consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Aboleth. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Essentially the same warning and reason as the above (Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons))‎‎, except that you don't even have the excuse of "dungeons & dragons" in the title name to use as a pretext for your removal of sourced content. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• What is happening in this page? Why so many warnings? That Delhi Ceyber Crime post is a legal threat and should be reported. Tito☸Dutta 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

there are several things happening here 1) there are D&D cruft people who are mad that their primary sourced articles are being challenged for failing to meet WP:GNG / WP:SYN 2) there is someone who is upset that their "Historical Inaccuracies" trivia trivia section is being challenged in White Queen (TV series) and then there are 3) one or more newbie fanboys from Indian TV related articles who are posting improperly formatted unsigned stuff and messing everything else up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Report the legal threat at ANI, 3) see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64#Indian_Hindi_television_serial_paid_editing.2C_COI_investigation_request (here you too participated) Tito☸Dutta 13:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Kunchacko Boban is under rampant attack by sockpuppets. Requesting your help in rescuing and cleaning it up.JK (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Im sorry for editing the article so many times but the lack of generic information in it made me add the information that everyone seems to know. Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Ministerial candidate of the Aam Aadmi Party. But for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the fact which makes the article superflous. You asked me for a reference, I gave a reference. Im sorry for the excessive bias on my part, but not acknowledging a valid edit displays bias towards a certain political party on your part. I request you to exhibit the neutrality which is the essence of wikipedia and give whatever references of opinion polls, you feel represent an unbiased view of the upcoming elections. Again, very sorry for inserting my weird propoganda in the article but omitting Kejriwal's name irked me.Dondraper1993 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For your work at Shivam Patil and for dealing with the socks of Shivamevolution. LGA talkedits 00:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why you removed biography sources http://www.filmyfolks.com/celebrity/tellywood/srishty-rode.shtml, http://www.ebharat.in/profile/srishty-rode/biography in Srishty Rode Article?

And I have read WP:MOSTABLE, but have you? Completely? Also section WP:WHENTABLE, which shows that tables may very well be used for filmographies And Television?

Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kunchacko Boban shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Indian film 100yrs of mkht (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the greetingsBowsarrown (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it but can you make any sense of this edit? - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It turns out that they are extremely confused, as per the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On What grounds do you say that Cesca is not political writer? You have no credibility with me as mod on Alex Jones bio, Red Pen. I am requesting neutral mod. You are biased in favour of Alex Jones and suppressing negative material. You have no credibility.219.75.50.93 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Wellens had a UK #68 hit under the name "Chip Chocolate" and thus is notable under that name under WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. It is the name he is most commonly associated with; it is co-incidence he is also notable for one event for being one half of BFvsGF.--Launchballer 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As you may have guessed by now, I am not a fan of your confrontational style of editing which promotes the development of hostility; based upon what I've read and seen of your personal interactions, I am very much not alone in that belief. In my personal opinion you are guilty of Wikilawyering and POV railroading at the very least, and really should stop and take a look at the unproductive way in which you interact with your peers in what is intended to be a collaborative environment. Your style is marked by the baiting and goading of your peers in the apparent hopes of inciting improper behavior, and here is a perfect example in which you abide by the letter of a policy or guideline while clearly violating its spirit and underlying principles. This is damaging to the building of this encyclopedia. Should an WP:RFC/U ever be filed against you, you can rest assured that I will be among the long list of editors who gladly take part. Enjoy your day. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw you post at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laduguer is offensive to the contributors and general editing atmosphere. Namely the comment about "The proposed merge target... is merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another to let it stink there."[13] Please try to curb such comments in the future. I've gone ahead and merged the important parts to another page ahead of the redirecting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, It seems that you're removing gathered information for Hindi voice actor, Rahul Sharma (actor) and I suggest you don't keep on removing the information, since there's important notes and remarks regarding the page, such as the release of the Hindi dubbed version and such.

I know this sounds short, but I would recommend to let the page be kept the way it is. I don't wanna have to revert it repeatedly. --BlueMario1016 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine you weren't aware of what I was referring to. In case you actually are unaware, "fanboy" in the way you use it (over and over) would certainly appear to be name calling. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppose I should have read the material above here first. Yeah, I see that others have issues with your lack of civility too. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

i never called anyone a fanboy. i said that the materials should be moved to a fanboy site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"I never called anyone a fag, I said it should be moved to a fag site". That too would be acceptable in your mind? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Formatting tables does not follow the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline for how these tables are to be formatted. HRM (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2013‎ (UTC)

According to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles for actors and other filmmakers. Working to provide a greater focus on people in the film industry. To maintain standards for articles about people in world cinema, as well as for categories, templates, and other Wikipedia items that may support those articles. so tables are needed here for easy and better way to understand. HRM (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the link? "Some filmographies are presented in a tabled format; however, you should make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography." ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMOGRAPHY the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. It will be an obvious benefit to this article. HRM (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Creating a reason? information on every article must be clearly conveyed. So here for clearly conveying tables can be used.HRM (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Ok i removed unnecessary broken and unwanted tables from the article. I think this new version of tables are appropriate. THanks HRM (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mammootty filmography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You've started the discussion. Wait for an answer, or report them for edit warring. Don't edit war yourself. GedUK  11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Red

Some confusion exists regarding the removal of previous edits that were an attempt to clarify basic engineering facts regarding this section. Factual errors remain (the TAB was NOT developed to satisfy the Josephine County building department, a measurement("10,000 pounds") is not based upon any scientific criteria, it is NOT a Hex Head Cap Screw, as examples) and it reads more like a cult-of-personality post rather than something that desperately needs engineering clarification.

It should be either removed or allowed to grow into a true fact-based technical section. If non-technical editors are free to gut the information at any time there seems to be little value in making the effort to achieve a higher standard.

Charles S. Greenwood, P.E., LLC

Gnwdeng8895 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I am new to Wiki. I was told that I can edit on Wikipedia and help disseminate knowledge. I have nothing against PrankVsPrank. I just Googled to see if their Pranks were fake and I found this site as a source and put the information based on that source. I read the WP:RS and I believe there has to be a bunch of other editors that decide whether a source is reliable or not. I felt bullied as I am new. Thats all. Thanks for the welcome Marcelrios (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't expect to meet such resistance. I'm staying out of the debate but I've made my feelings clear on the talk page. My final point is important - merger is merger, not a substitute for AfD. I hope that whatever your feelings are on this issue you will see that. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to merge and handle the content appropriately, I did a massive amount of work in the past few days. Purging the categories and not carrying in the content only reduces the coverage and limits what I actually have to work with. Can you hold off on redirecting a contentious redirect for the time being? Surely the 80+ pages merged show that I am more than capable and willing to do the task, but I've got a backlog to go through and I want to at least finish up the demon page before I go back into a monster creature page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record I see no contentious redirect, but a merge that was fully supported by consensus at AfD and talk page. I think we're equally capable of performing the task and I do not appreciate the suspicion of "not carrying the content" and other nonsense. ChrisG, while I appreciate your efforts on D&D, I would not like you to reproduce the same mindset you exhibited at WP:ANIME where you saw yourself as the only one with the "right" idea on how to improve WP. Cut us some slack, do your work on your own and leave us do ours. We've done an AfD and a merge discussion on this one, we're carrying it, fair and simple, I don't see any problem nor interference with what you're doing. I think that you initially acted without taking the time to understand this particular situation, so rather than trying to tell us now not to "interfere", just admit you messed up on this one and drop the stick.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A sign of a disruptive editor is one who repeatedly refuses to assume good faith and allow work to be carried out. This is a community encyclopedia, not Folken's encyclopedia. I've made a simple and reasonable request; it is wrong to refuse it. I do not even need a week, and I am short on time. Sparing only 10 mins here and there for the time being. What is the pressing issue for it to be removed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And why would Folken de Fanel's merging per the AfD NOT be considered a good faith effort? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would moving the cats to the talk page when redirecting allow you to continue your merging process? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It'd still redirect me for each one and even as part of a larger category will still take a lot of time before I hit them alphabetically. It'd be easier just to give me a list of the redirects as a compromise. Also, the issue with Folken's repeated accusations of bad faith is my issue with him. It is not the act of merging, it is his tendentious behavior in the "my way or the highway"-style of interactions that is neither productive or civil. Reinsertion of a BLP issue via edit warring, redirecting content which is agreed to meet N/GNG yet won't delete. That sort of thing is disruptive. I know that D&D needs hundreds of mergers and a massive reorganization, but I've shown that major work is being done and I think it is fair to do that work without an editor taking pot shots on someone else's page when you are working together with a slightly different time scale. I cannot do everything with a flick of a switch and I've put over 30 hours into doing it this week, should be more than enough to demonstrate a "hold please". If he has a pressing issue, why not propose a deadline of 3 days? I don't see why it needs to be edit warred to redirect, when I've asked for a little extension after all I've done to merge them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

admittedly, your "Hold please I am working on this" is of an entirely different plateau than the "Hold please I am working on this" that has come many times from other editors in the D&D project space.

But that doesnt change the fact that the AfD regarding the hag was settled many weeks ago as Merge and that the immediate characterization of FdF's work to carry out that merge (AFTER giving another 2 weeks to someone who stated "Hold please I am working on this" ) as anything but working in good faith to carry out the community's consensus to merge is really unacceptable.

it not like the D&D project hasn't been aware for YEARS that there is a HUGE sourcing and notability issue within the articles of the D&D space. (the project leaders admitting so in the fall of 2009 and stating that they had been aware of poor results of clean up attempts in the year before ) And yet, when someone conducts a merger per AfD results, what is the first thing that happens? they attack the motives and methods of the merger. That 5 articles were merged per an AfD consensus before you got to them is really not something to go on and on about attacking the intentions of the merger. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your and Folken de Fanel's history speaks for itself, actually, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the requesting editor isn't aware of any of the issues that have happened since before his arrival. Chris Gualtieri has been doing merges in a rapid way that hasn't been reverted. If your interest is really in cleaning up the topic area, then you both should be encouraging his efforts and facilitating them in any way you can. If, on the other hand, you're interested in something besides the actual clean-up (and the possible reasons are several, but I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader), then by all means it would be in your best interest (if not the encyclopedia's) for you to obstruct and hinder Chris Gualtieri. You response will undoubtedly become a lens through which others view your participation in the topic area. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean "wouldn't be" right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it as a good sign that there are now multiple clean up efforts to address the longstanding issues, and I applaud ChrisGualtieri's Herculean efforts. However, the fact there are some hick-ups in implementing a multi-pronged cleanup drive is not a sign that any one or all should be eliminated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD has perfectly summed up the issue in his earlier comment, ChrisG's work on D&D is greatly appreciated, but he has also made his underlying motives for his initial revert very clear, while there were far more constructive ways to handle this. ChrisG is now aware of these redirects and can access article history at will when he has time to actually take care of it, so as far as I'm concerned (with no prejudice to further compromise as long as it is clear that these merges are not negociable), case closed. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I find Folken's lack of good faith a permanent barrier to working together. Thanks for the compliment and understanding TRPoD, I have some more 15 hour work days ahead of me, but I should be able to carry out plenty more merges and work in my down time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

well, the fact is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project an so you do have to "work together" while you are here, but you can be the bigger man and show more respect and good faith than you feel he is showing you. and Wikipedia is a huge space (heck even the poorly sourced D&D articles are a big space!) and so there is probably a way that you can both continue to contribute where you dont have to interact in a manner where either of you would even have to assume anything about the other. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I will try to do that. I'm here to improve its function and operation, Jclemens did a bit more explaining for Folken to hopefully resolve the underlying issue of my request; not to keep the content, but to allow it to be found and worked on. Without seeing it via someone else I would never have found them! Hope his explanation helps; considering the three of us all have the same goal in mind. D&D's big space can be shrunk with proper table and list management. I hope to extend cross-functionality between the merged pages and their contents without needing some 600+ odd pages comprised of two paragraphs. Even bouncing between that many pages, with or without navigational templates would be bothersome! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Wikipedia:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Wikipedia. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

oh, wait, i get it now!

what you are saying is how the fuck could such trivial shit as videos of a girl eating cinnamon and hitting her boyfriend over the head with a cookie sheet be considered worthy of an article when there are so many more important subjects from areas of Asia, Africa and Latin America that are not covered. this must surely be a sign that the article only exists because of a bias in favor of white westerners in internet related items. I certainly agree! In your honor, when I get elected czar of Wikipedia, PrankvPrank will be the first on the chopping block. but until then, it meets the existing criteria of WP:GNG and so is likely to stay. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Gauging by your previous actions I do not think you have the wisdom or the intellect to be the Czar or even the administrator of Wikipedia. Best of luck with your real life. Marcelrios (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I won't be asking you to be my TRPoD for czar campaign manager then.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As you are very well aware, I have not made any defamatory posts to any page. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you could point out what you believe, in your personal opinion, as a biased observant, is defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.227.132 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

uhh, no you are making unsourced and potentially defamatory comments about a living person. , repeatedly [14] [15] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman (talk · contribs), I will refrain from editing your talk page- if you either 1) remove the personal attacks stating that I (and other editors) have been " harassing" or " WP Gaming " the system or 2) unless you provide actual evidence of such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Had you simply made the request not to edit on your page without including the unsubstantiated personal attacks or removed the attacks, I would not have had any reason to add the template warning you about not making personal attacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Better to ignore him and not waste your time. The goal of a troll is to eat your time, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you didn't checked this page Hinduism and other religions again? I tried to make this page better, but 2 users won't even let me, they keeps inserting the same Fringed version every time. Justicejayant (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Had it in DRN, this same user "saddhiyama" would make laughable claims like "i forgot but you copied article from somewhere", "[16] is not working", and so on. That's why i see no credibility in these editors for such page, as they haven't ever edited it before either, but now causing trouble. Justicejayant (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW.. I just given all explanations for the sources i presented, in fact i found a lot more similarities than i had knew before, this time. Have a look at those sources/links. And Thanks a lot for contributing. Justicejayant (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[17], scroll down to section Number 16. If you haven't. Justicejayant (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone's whining about you on ANI, FYI. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to get a new pen. "The Lilac pen of doom?" --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think many of the colors were taken by trolls a couple of years ago. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

So much so that even still they come up before your user page on my list! You know they love you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scandrett_Regional_Park&curid=40424238&diff=577420262&oldid=577420083 that just looks off, it looks like you copy/pasted the template source instead of just the parameters. Werieth (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

yeah, that was a mistake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I accept your point about the chilling effect of seeing that someone was banned for supporting a viewpoint, but you have a habit of unilaterally closing topics. Please discuss before you close a topic in the future. Tom Butler (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

at 66,192K in length, there have been MANY ADDITIONAL "discussions" that should have been hatted and closed earlier. WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. You might consider archiving the earlier 2/3rds of the page. Tom Butler (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit on the show time of Saraswatichandra. I think this is important. It is important to mention the exact hour when the show is shown. Please explain. Lyanaz (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Lyanaz

You have made more than 3 reverts on SynapseIndia page today and also have been posting abusive comments. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Esparami (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is regarding your comment on my talk page.

Hi, Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I noticed the mistake in my comment and have updated it. Also, I'm NOT currently associated with the business in anyway, but yes, my reference as "our own page" in my comment was actually a mistake and goes way back when I had been their employee, but quit the job several years ago after having a baby. Since I'm well aware of the business and their notability, last year while reading a few wiki pages, I found that they do have mentions but do not have a page, hence created one. I'm not completely aware of all wiki policies so as the editors are suggesting I'm editing the article to make it inline to the wiki policies. Any comment from your end would be appreciated.Mridu 08:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)

Hi, This is rgearding the Afd discussion of SynapseIndia page -- Indeed the business had only 200 people when this reference was published in economictimes, but have grown since then. Thanks for your comments, I'm working on to make the page more authentic. As agreed by Kimbrubeck, it is a notable company, but probably have not created the reference link properly and I'm working towards making it more inline to WP policies.

Mridu 06:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

datestamping for archiving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello TRPoD! I might feel it is best to remove the view count section on the table. I find all of the edits are just updating the view count and not actually building up a BLP article. It's like having a Wiki-article on some wealthy person and just updating his or her revenue counter and not actually improving the article. ///EuroCarGT 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I recommend that you revert this edit or else start working immediately to find reliable third party sources that discuss the subject of the article.Marcelrios (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop edit-warring over article content, and let the AfD run its course - you are over WP:3RR already by my count. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

removal of copyright material is exempt from 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience... [18] ;) The argumentative one has been blocked as a sock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

they were obviously not a new editor, but i had suspected a different serial socker. i am glad i kept my suspicions to myself.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the Vitamin C nut that caused the 1-month semi-protection on the Sheldrake article. A few weeks ago I filed a previous ANI complaint that was ignored, and there's still no action on Wikipedia:Ae#198.189.184.243. Sigh. vzaak (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I posted at the Help Desk indicating that I planned to move User:Anisa moghaddam to article space and list at AfD. I think there might be enough source material for an article on her and AfD would be a good place to get confirmation one way or another on that. I have the AfD request all ready and the saw your post at User talk:Anisa moghaddam. If you've no objections, I'll move the user article to article space and list at AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe not. I thought it was Anisa Moghaddam who wrote the article. However, it appears to not be her, so it probably would not be a good idea to move the article to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on Hippogriff in which I had added a mention of the use of the hippogriff as a plot element within the Harry Potter series. My edit summary indicated that this deserved mention because it may well be the singularly most popular reason anyone today would seek to look up the concept of a hippogriff. I used the primary sources (the novels themselves) to cite my edits. Your edit summary indicated you reverted because

our purpose is not to increase page hit count but to write an encyclopedia, primary source content would need third party sourcing.

Firstly, it was not my intention to increase the page hit count, but rather the acknowledge the reason the page hit count may well be high in the first place. Many readers probably come to the hippogriff page due to their mention in the Harry Potter novels. The page should make some mention of the concept as it relates to the novels. The policy on primary sources indicates that they may be used "to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". Expanding on this, the Manual of Style for writing about fiction indicates that the primary source itself (i.e. the novel) may be used to verify background information on fictional creatures. So, where's the problem? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the fact that it has been three hours since I first communicated my concerns above, and that you have continued making other edits since my last post, I am going to go on the assumption that you do not intend to address my concerns, so I will restore my edits. Bold, revert, discuss requires actual discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be helpful? Rather than making snarky comments in edit summaries, why not actually engage in a discussion? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you appear unwilling to enter into discussion. Color me confused. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

My edit of List of zombie films is part of clean up huge that list. All films deleted entry is not simply porno - it's indie ones. For why reverting? Thanks. --Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

THE episode are based on colors website and daily episode list. so why are you trying to edit it. and tellychakkar is a valid resource all the other shows in wiki has been quoted telly chakkar. if you have any questions feel free to check colors website or watch a episode of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

More conspiracy drama doesn't belong on that talk page. vzaak (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am trying to fix up Avika wiki profile with reference and you are trying to edit it. its really hard to find reference still i am putting reference and but you are still editing it. if you have better reference you can post the reference. and what i had was before is proper language. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC) sorry her parents info go under biography i am trying to fix up. but this takes time. if you have better reference you can post i already mentioned that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I dont want to fight with you, to be frank, i think you only have problem with sasural simar ka and avika gor, because all the other actors and shows page is set up the same way i did in wiki. i dont see you editing it. so i am done editing. it was a lot of work finding all those articles. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.82.131 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a mixup at the talk page which I have corrected. I shall arrange for further correction to avoid further confusion. Warden (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, one wouldnt want ones tirades to be confused as being made by someone else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you reverted my removal of your refimprove template. Referring to WP:SELFSOURCE I read the following: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;...4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;". I think both apply in this case, as the information cited is purely factual, there's no analysis, acclamation or opinion or reason to doubt the sources. I think refimprove is unjustified, but I haven't reverted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom! I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits on Shruti Bisht article, because you removed the some refs and television table without any big reason. And if you think that the www.filmitown.com website is not reliable source? Okay, Go and remove this website on Shruti Bisht article, but first you remove this website from the all Articles. Thank You:- Chander ForYou 07:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Chander ForYou 14:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Editing was posted 14:47, 26 October 2013 in case it's hard to find later due to archival. Ranze (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to email me for some sage (FSVO) counsel. Your instincts are sound. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits at Bevan Morris! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been asked on more than one occasion to cease harassing me. You are more than welcome to keep your "pretend warnings" to yourself. If you were a Wikipedia administrator, and was there in fact a legal issue with my postings, I wouldn't be sitting here shaking my head at your ignorance. I notice that you INSIST on trying to have an edit war on a subject, may I know why? May I also know your qualifications to tout your opinion as fact?

The next time that you contact me without my express approval I am going to report you to the legal authorities for harassment. You may delete this posting if you wish, but Wikipedia will keep a record of it, and that will be admissible evidence should I press legal charges against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.227.132 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You have repeatedly removed maintanance tags without actually addressing the concerns noted. Please revert yourself or address the concerns that have been flagged. Feelingunwell? (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Feelingunwell, those are the warnings I placed on your page because you have been removing clean up tags that indicate context is needed for the content in the article as has been determined by the consensus on the talk page.

Now that we know you have gotten them, When can we expect that you stop editwarring against the consensus? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Don't revert any more, Red Pen. Have you filed at ANEW yet? Please do so and let the regular process take its course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not yet filed at ANEW. I have left him a message [19] noting my assumption that he is not simply removing the tags, but that he is working on providing the context that the flag note as missing. I am awating to see his response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, they don't seem to be doing that at all. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

whats your problem? if you dont like the show dont edit it. you are not the boss of wiki. we fans try to make page look better you edit everything out. even other fans have complained to me about you. we will report you if you keep on editing the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.66.73 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia editors who think that Wikipedia is more important than it actually is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You've been named in a complaint here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am confused, I was told by a wiki representative that in order to get the Lorena Garcia page reinstated I needed to:

1. Go to the Wikipedia Help Desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk) and ask them to re-instate the page. It should be made clear that they work for Lorena Garcia but also provide 3-4 reliable sources (news articles, etc.) to support what the page says about her.

2. When a Wikipedia page is removed, there is still a Talk page, which is what I believe Greg forwarded you below. Instead of emailing the two people on the page, Greg can create an account on Wikipedia himself and send a message directly on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorena_Garcia&action=edit&redlink=1

So I made a post on the help page with a link to her deleted page, stating that I work for Lorena, and also included two recent press articles regarding Lorena. Confused on what I am supposed to do. thanks

Gbaroth (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please not again. I'm just writing up a talkpage message myself, saying how the three cites there are wrong because they specifically say 'parapsychologist' and definitely not scientist. We *have* plenty of cites that say biologist/biochemist/scientist, however, and if you go and change that keyword in the article before you get talkpage consensus, we're gonna be here forever. Please self-revert, and then discuss your suggested change to the fragile consensus on the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where there is a consensus to not discuss in the lead the area of study for which he is most known. Can you point me to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with you *adding* that phrase, like this... "scientist, who does research in parapsychology" ... but you are not appending, you are *deleting* the word 'scientist' from the first sentence. Which, if you do not remember the horrid talkpage discussions over getting that word back in .... :-)   I'm not complaining about the addition of material, I'm specifically complaining about the deletion. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be doing much research in parapsychology though. The question is do we call him a "scientist" and "researcher" even if he isn't doing any scientific research - basically lie to the reader to satisfy his fans supposedly on the basis of sources that also call him a scientist despite no evidence he's doing science? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, whowever to TRPoD, who modified the article to say scientist-and-researcher-in-the-following-areas. Much better. Barney raises two specific questions, which are distinct: #1, do we call him a scientist/biologist/similar? Yes, we have to, the sources do, we cannot pick winners-n-losers. Second, is the *research* that Sheldrake does (Jaytee in 1995 and whatever he did with the bequest-grant-monies from 2005-2010 and other stuff) *really* why he's Notable? Arguably not... the real reason Sheldrake is notable is the half-dozen-to-a-dozen books he's published (crucially: backed up by his highly respectable scientist-credentials! otherwise books would have been way less Notable), which describe past research, funds future research, and so on. But the *focus* is on the notions/concepts/hypotheses/theories/whatnot, which are mostly Notable because of the books, not so much because of the related research. Suggest we take this to the talkpage. But please, don't take out scientist, unless you're replacing it with biologist. That was they whole reason VeryScaryMary arrived, and getting that word in, she said hooray and considered her job completed. The quote in "TRPoD v1" seemed fine with that word, and Vzaak personally put it in, changing at the last second from biologist to the more generic scientist. Fragile fragile consensus!  :-)    Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Was going to do a Wikilove template but they all seemed too garish for this. I saw some issues in the page that I did not have time to address, and I'm glad you've managed to address a great number of them. Thanks! - Purplewowies (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ranee (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faroese (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) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not trivia! Trivia is if I added cast, crew, shooting place, duration etc. This is how it it done in Wikipedia (as far as I have seen it) Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen your past discussions with other editors on the same topic. And I totally agree with them and disagree with you (once a film starts you can start an article, so you can add it in the table too, as simple as that. The guideline doesn't state anything like what you said!), but I'm not going to argue with you and not going to undo it again. Tomorrow someone else will come and change it again, because that's how it is done in almost all actors' pages. It is you only who breaks ranks. If it makes you happy, whatever.. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk)

Seen this WP:FILMOGRAPHY? Going to deny this too? That's the example of the style of filmography explicitly given by Wikipedia, so it's definitely NOT wrong, and you definitely canNOT change it (whether you agree or not). Thank you! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And nowhere, it is said that Notes should not be used for upcoming not completed projects. It is up to you to find a guideline that prohibits it, but you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Hence problem solved, there is absolutely no way you can deny this. I request you to not undo this again. Take care. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution on Shraddha Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor had already gone to GA Nomination and had already been nominated, if you disagree anything about the information existed on the main page, you can reassess it. Join the talk page, see the GA template. Start your actions ---- Smauritius 123 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, for prying, but I can't help but notice that you pick some rather strange positions of late in you deletion discussions. The female novelist vs Pokemon is one that I simply find astounding. More so because I am planning on working on both these areas. Would you agree that BLP is a preventative measure that articles on culture like Pokemon do not need to address? And that if Pokemon wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry and decades long success that none of the characters would be notable in the first place? Why advocate to remove content by arguing that other included content is worthless? And if you are sticking to your guns on this, why not make a big push in the area? Afterall, Wikipedia lost tens of thousands of articles on novelists and important novels - so much so that even FW's covered ones do not have any coverage - including their writers. I just think you are pushing a position that isn't backed by sound reasoning when you make such claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

are you referring to this edit where I am quoting content from the article linked by the previous poster?] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered the same type of argument by another user for composers and asking for deletion because an article deemed less worthy, but heavily sourced exists. Are you taking the quote as part of your argument or just echoing it or... doing what with it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just emphasizing what the article actually said rather than what the original poster implied it said in support of their position. And that I do agree that Wikipedia has a glut of essentially useless stand alone articles about ultra trivial content that require us to spend inordinate amounts of time maintaining at even awful quality levels that exist purely because of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. At 4M+ articles we do NOT need content just because it is content -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, I misunderstood. Nevermind... its really late for me and my eyes go on me at this hour. And I find that those terrible quality articles are often grown throughout the years, but I have a plan for 10 of them in the coming year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom: I read your comment on the above page, but I can't find the copied text to which you are referring. I went back to the earliest version of the page and I still don't see any copying. The only information that is common to both articles are (1) who the town was named after, (2) the fact that the town and the highway were partially flooded by the Seaway project (3) Upper Canada Village, which I added myself, with a reference. Everything else is different, and the two facts in common are pretty necessary parts of the article. If you are seeing something that I have missed, can you please point it out? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just told XrieJetInfo time to stop, you are both past 3RR/ Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for changing the link to reference, I was trying to figure out how to do that. I appreciate your welcome and the info you left on my talk page! Nonnyme (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Red,

This is regarding the Kolhapur artcle, you said the edits made by me are unsourced, and i know that but not all the edits made by me are not without a reference, plaese, i need more time to get reference at least give me a day to get the reference while please undo your edit so i can update my edit and can get references as possible as i can for my edits to be reliable.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.68.6 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your respounce

Thanks for inviting me, But on other hand No Thanks, as been a veteran member of Wikipedia i am familiar with Wikipedia Policy and rules. It has been more than One year that i have taken active part but i no more wish no again log in in to my account User:Akshay b patil. Because of the Recent edits on Kolhapur article i made a few edit. I would give you a advice to look previous version of Kolhapur article so, that it will help you in maintaing the article according to the various Wikipedia policy. There are some reference in the edits form last one to two years of the article previous version. Any how thanks for help on your edits on Kolhapur.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with Wikipedia policy of sock puppetry But i really don't care even if i am Banned from any further edit and but jut look after the Kolhapur Article and even if possible try to adopt the article if you have sufficient knowledge about Kolhapur this would be my last edit on Wikipedia.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pen. Thanks for the edit in Holy Trinity Diocesan High School. Do we have a policy or a guideline to how long, bulleted, unreferenced embedded lists we accept? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for your time. I just need to ask you how to finish an article that is in my sandbox. I finished it and want to save it as a regular edit. Do I need to start it on my user page?

Thanks again,

Aida delgado (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't remove the parent category of Category:American films from film articles, even when there is a sub-cat on the article. Per the parent category instructions "For convenience, all American films are included in this category. This includes all American films that can also be found in the subcategories." This is standard for any top-level country category (French, German, etc). If you have any concerns, please visit the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then you need to remove the source for Thuppakki too, because it says: "Eros International announced the release of financial results for the quarter ending 31st December, 2012. As per the announcement made by Eros, Thuppakki made a total box office collection of Rs. 180 crore (domestic) to become the fourth film to join the 100 crore club in Tamil films". It's clear that Times of India itself took this number from Eros International's press release too. I can find other sources for Enthiran too that quote the gross of 179 crore (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/-enthiran-clocked-rs-179-cr-111053000078_1.html or http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-sun-pictures-future-on-shaky-ground-146820) all of them have taken it from Sun's press release too. Thuppakki's gross in indeed nowhere near to 180 crores, so let's remove them all I say. As I suggested before the article should be deleted, there are no official figures at all. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that we've now seen an approach that seems out-of-bounds to FRINGE=fighter and BLP-junkie alike? Thanks for cleaning up my clean up. David in DC (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Sheldrake's morphic fields would mean they [psychic dogs] are not only easy to find, but getting easier to find and getting better at knowing when their owners are coming home to be giving more and more conclusive results!" -- TRPoD @ 21:51

  Well, I'm no phytomorphologist, but I think this is backwards to what Sheldrake would say. He's a big advocate in favor of evolution, and in fact believes that morphic fields are subject to evolutionary pressures (a key separation between him and the new age crowd who believe mystic psychic resonance is forever), and thinks evolving-morphic-fields could potentially help explain super-quick 'punctuated evolution' periods like the Cambrian explosion. Sheldrake's most likely position -- whether authentic or self-serving you be the judge -- is that psychic dogs are *exceedingly* rare nowadays. Dogs were domesticated not-that-many-thousands-of-years-ago, and were primarily then presumably used as they still often are today, as guard-dogs.

  Telepathically detecting the location of humans, and of invaders, would be mildly useful in a modern home... but not necessarily evolutionarily selected for. It ain't like Jaytee or their owner would *die* if the psychic connection failed, right? Whereas, five or ten thousand years ago, having a psychic connection to your guard-dog really *might* conceivably save your life, and would be highly advantageous evolutionarily.

  Nowadays, in the modern world, the main sort of psychic is the jealous spouse: they don't *suspect* when their significant other has been cheating on them, they *know* it. As a countermeasure, the cheating spouse *also* needs to develop a psychic premonition that their angry spouse has decided to come home. If you've ever seen Jerry Springer, or studied the homicide-and-manslaughter statistics, that is where Sheldrake ought to be doing experiments, if he wants to find psychics.

  But it's hard to experimentally pin down such noisy environments rigorously.  :-)   Also, just like the dog thing, over time adultery has lost some of the evolutionary sting, since the Old Testament is no longer enforced, in most jurisdictions. Hope this helps. p.s. For the staring-experiments, Sheldrake ought to use nervous college kids (or maybe nervous grammas) as the stare-ee, and convicted mass murderers as the stare-ers, if he wants to maximize the chances of triggering some buried instinctive psychic behavior. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

thats not telepathy, thats just a recognition that you have married a sleazy horndog. :-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay *that* was funny, I don't care who you are. Better be careful about insulting canines around Roxy, though!  :-)   p.s. You are morphically receiving an irresistible urge to click this. User_talk:Barney_the_barney_barney#split_BLP_from_FRINGE.2C_without_causing_POV_fork. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify WHY you deleted what you deleted on this article. because I can't seem to find a GOOD reason for deleting FACTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Display Yoonchip (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. You deleted this sentence "The company provides display panels in a wide range of sizes and specifications for use in TVs, monitors, notebook PCs, mobile products and other various applicatoins." and "currenty operates". Im sorry but its a FACT, how is this inappropriate?

and PLEASE examplain why deleted the product chart under key technolody and products. May I remind you that LG Display is NOT a B2C company but a B2B company. We do not SELL to endusers. last but not least, please, please explain why "www.lgdnewsroom.com" is inappropriate under External links. please. Yoonchip (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response to my question was extremely rude. I was confused why you deleted my edits, and thats how you reply back to me? i'm just providing information, NOT advertising. appreciate your damn help! Yoonchip (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, im going to undo most of your edits, because you lacked an explanation. please, have a GREAT day. Yoonchip (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The comment by the DRV closing administrator is not relevant to the warning on that talk page, as it's no more than an empirical observation that the endorsed final statement was an admonition. It was directed at those who couldn't seem to wrap their head around this concept. It was not an approval of future superfluous nominations, nor did it remove/change any of the validity of the statement. Furthermore, the only point of the admonition/notice/warning on the talk page (and the wording in it) is to attempt to discourage the creation of further superfluous deletion discussions, (especially by editors not familiar with the last 7 AFDs or the standing community consensus) - Note: it does not actually prevent someone from doing so, as it's not moratoria. In other words it's only there to try to stop more of the community's time from being wasted. At any rate, the only possible effect of your change I can see is the further enablement of superfluous/useless nominations by those not familiar with the AFD/DRV/consensus process. I hope this was not your intention. If you still are unclear as to why I've changed the notice, please discuss it with me here before changing it on the talk page again. I'll gladly take the time to further discuss this with you, if you so choose. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  Over at the BLP noticeboard, that is the key hang-up. You and I both know that Sheldrake has very little academic aka scientific support. What 'support' he does have is people like Sokal, who make fun of him, but don't outright call him a terrible man, and people like Bohm and Durr, that don't *disrespect* Sheldrake but have hardly brought him any respect.

However...

amongst non-academic sources...

and most academic sources with four known exceptions...

  Sheldrake is always called a biologist. Wikipedia must reflect the sources. You cannot delete the fact that newspapers call him a biologist, from the wikipedia article, just because Nature once called him a pseudoscientist. You know, and I know, that logic dictates he can only be one or the other: 1960 thru 1980, biologist. 1981 thru 2013+ pseudoscientist.

  But wikipedia does not work that way. WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE do not permit you to pick and choose *which* Reliable Sources you want to reflect. They do permit giving more *weight* to academic sources, when in comes to SPECIFIC CLAIMS where their academic field-of-inquiry matters, especially when saying what mainstream-biology means, what mainstream-physics means, what mainstream-christian-theology means, and what mainstream-philosophyOfScience means.

  But you cannot synthesize, and use logic to delete otherwise perfectly valid sources, like the BBC, or like the Wiseman quote where he says "the patterns match". You can give plenty of *weight* to the Nature quote, and in fact get something like my the phrase of choice "biologist-and-now-parapsychologist" right into the very first sentence! You can give plenty of *weight* to Wiseman's indisputable final position that no evidence for psychic phenomena exists. But you cannot delete 'biologist' and ignore sources that say it, just because it conflicts with Aristotelian logic. You cannot delete 'the patterns match' based on some tortured argument about undue weight, and wp fringe, and so on.

  In other words: you cannot save the readers, by writing the truth. You can only save them, by writing the truth, in a way that they can decide for themselves.

  Yes, that means some readers will get suckered. Sheldrake is a master at it. Wikipedia is not gonna be able to stop him. Only death with stop him.

  Oh crap... unless his morphic resonance travels through time, and infects future biolo...... dammit, now Sheldrake's got ME spouting nonsense.  :-/

  The sources are spouting nonsense. Wikipedia has to reflect what they say. Sorry, I really am. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Red, I was wondering if I came across any non-notable articles that I could consult with you on them. Thanks for your time. Momo Massaquoi (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Momo, you can call me 74, I was just here to leave TRPoD a message, but figured I would swoop in to take a shot at answering your question while I was in the area. There are all sorts of articles that need assistance of various types. I'm currently working on AV-8B, which needs a little fine-tuning, but is already a super-great article. There is a company in Malaysia called Duromac that does maintenance work for the military there, and needs help getting their article started -- we have some reliable sources, but not much else (yet).

  In fact there are a ton[20] of articles in the Wikipedia:AfC queue that are waiting to become new articles -- they usually need help, and in particular, some of them are notable, but some are non-notable. You can try your hand there, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and learning about how to create good articles from Anne and Julie and Davidwr and the other AfC regulars, if that interests you.

  What sort of topics do you like? Arts, sciences, humanities, television, music, games... wikipedia has it all. Give us some hints about what you want to try first, and what skills you are trying to learn. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. If you have any quick questions, the best place to get fast answers is WP:TEAHOUSE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't the past results of the school house competition notable? Ollieinc (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep reverting my edit at Srishty Rode. What do you mean by the Persondata is used in other processes? What process are your talking about? That Persondata does not appear in the article page. In case that persondata is not used anywhere than it is useless clutter and it should be removed immediately. You must explain what "other process" it is being used or it will be removed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Still I'll like to request you to keep an eye on that Mahabharata TV series article since I'm sure that IP adress will try to again insert unsourced edits. If you can then it will be a big help. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elli Avram may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
(born '''Elisabet Avramidou Granlund'''; July 29, 1990<ref>{{cite web|title=You are hereBiggboss 7 > Housemates > Elli Avram|url=http://colors.in.com/in/biggboss/housemates/elli-avram-358.html|publisher=In.com She has acted in an Iranian]music video, ''Hala chi shod'', by Emad featuring SB Shaggy.<ref>{{cite web|title=Emad Ft Shaggy {| class="wikitable sortable"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thiagarajan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 1990 || ''[[Salem Vishnu]]'' ||[[Cinema of Tamil Nadu|Tamil]]||Thiagarajan]], [[Rupini (actress)|Rupini]], [[R. Sarathkumar]], [[Geetha (actress)|Geetha]], [[Ratheesh]]||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saif Ali Khan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | spouse = {{Unbulleted list|[[Amrita Singh]] <br><small>(m.1991–2004; divorced (2 children)</small> <br>[[Kareena Kapoor Khan]] <br><small>(m.2012–present)</
• Saif Ali Khan''' ({{IPA-hns|ˈsɛːf əˈli ˈxaːn|pron}}; born '''Sajid Ali Khan''' in 16 August<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/saif-ali-khan/specialcoverage/6318120.cms</ref> 1970<ref>{{cite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milan Zeleny may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | birth_place = [[Czech Republic]], [[Klucké Chvalovice]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I add

making it among the five largest schools in the South Island.<ref>Only larger schools are Burnside High School (at 2,439), Hagley Community College (at 1,044), James Hargest School (at 1,943) and Cashmere High School (at 2,347) (all as of February 2024).</ref>

to Rangiora High School introduction? Ollieinc (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would this be a reliable source?

http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/excel_doc/0004/62572/Directory-School-Current.xls Ollieinc (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a work in progress in so far as school's data (i.e. rolls, prinicipals, etc.) is constantly changing, so could it be used? Ollieinc (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For Commons:File:Lucas radebe cropped.JPG and Commons:File:Lucas radebe.jpg, there actually was a bit more you should have done. I've followed through, but for future reference you might want to take a look in the file histories for what I did. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider this ill-considered revert. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem intent to violate 3RR, please desist. The Dawkins material is well sourced, is notable, and fits snugly under either the Interactions with Scientist or Popular Culture bit. I'm going to put in under Interactions with Scientists instead since you seem to not want it under Popular Culture. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I wish we could include comments by Dawkins on Sheldrake, but we can't rely on an WP:ANECDOTE, clearly, so we'll have to rely on Rose and Wolpert instead. The complaint is clearly spurious, although it's worth noting that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) has raised a similar WP:BOOMERANG on WP:3RR/N even though, oddly enough, I haven't broken 3RR. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I am wondering if it made sense to start a discussion, if the link to Dungeons and Dragons Wiki at List of Dungeons & Dragons deities might be within the limits of WP:ELNO after all. What would constitute a "substantial history of stability" in your opinion? For my personal interest it would also be nice to know in which way you think the article has benefited from the removal of the link. Thanks for your thoughts. Daranios (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I disagree: Looking through the first 4 pages of a Google search for "Dungeons and Dragons deities", the only one that has as much and more information (but from a different perspective, e. g. mixing published and homebrew information partly without delineating), is Planewalker.com. So maybe we should add those two links, because they provide information that has been banished from Wikipedia for notability reasons, but will be interesting to some readers? Or did I overlook many pages? Daranios (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahm, so would you object if I (re)introduced these two external links at List of Dungeons & Dragons deities? Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

Hi~ TheRedPenOfDoom, I have seen your editing on the page of Milan Zeleny and also your comment on this page. Thanks for your attention. I created this page about one month ago but then User talk:Palu posted the copyright violation issue on my page and all the related contents on that page have been blanked.

My question for you is that as for the biographies of living persons, how could I create a biographical page introducing the certain person which is not to be similar with the source book or materials you identified?? I mean the things the person did, his academic research and publications are all fixed and can't be changed.

The FACT right now is first I really get the permission from the copyright holder, Milan Zeleny. He Allows me to post this text and photographs describing the biographical information, professional information and professional publications on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Actually the point of That Wikipedia page I created is to introduce the biography for this Czech-American economist.

Second, Milan Zeleny has already written the Permission Request Letter and sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org two weeks ago. But there is no reply from OTRS until now. Milan Zeleny wrote this letter in reference to the template on Wikipedia: Declaration of Consent for all inquiries. As for the problem of the modification of the text from source http://ebooks.iospress.nl/Download/Pdf/29019 , Milan Zeleny is copyright holder of the source book. In his Permission Request letter, he said he agree to publish That Contribute and work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.

Basically, I do not think there is still the copyright issue on the Wikipedia page of "Milan Zeleny." The reason is that i did research on the Wiki Donating policy of the copyrighted material and Milan Zeleny's permission letter meets the requirements Wiki.

You say it is based on unreliable third party source and not independent. BUT What I can do toward my original page of Milan Zeleny is that I can re-edit and delete the irrelevant contents, keep the basic facts and make it more concise and neutral~

Thanks for your time. (Zhuyuxiang (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC))

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

please do not change the native name as it is correct ! the marathi and the gujrati speaking communities are the inhabitants of the place regardless of the other migrants comming to the hub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsheed96 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

i had given references from the original tourism site of India. I think that much is sufficient for knowledgeable reading and references are references.... u cannot discriminate on the grounds of what matter is it ! Finally its all on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsheed96 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the economy section of andheri deleted? It is the most prime financial hub and is designated to have a economy column and however it was there previously.^{[2] [3]}