Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Songs of Praise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Patrick's Cathedral (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) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sylvia Browne's website has reported her death, as has the New York Daily News...is that not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.58.177 (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You still managed to make me laugh with that revert! Thanks RedPenOfDoom ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is in reference to the deletions you made to the article.

There is a vast difference between the words "Dub" and "Remake". You should have known that before proceeding with the deletion.

I request you to please be careful next time while making such additions/deletions.

Thanking you. Souwrit Ray (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey just saw that you are removing links to Twit, FB and BH articles citing WP:ELNO but they are WP:ELOFFICIAL even if BH is left alone. Such mass removals should reflect recent WP:CONSENSUS otherwise its pretty disruptive, discuss. Sohambanerjee1998 13:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

hello, I'm new to editing seriously on wikipedia, so forgive me if I don't do certain things correctly. I updated the official site link, I actually bought a domain name, instead of the free hosting, BECAUSE of the wikipedia rules that don't consider free hosting as a worthy reference for an official website. Although the free hosting has worked perfectly for the past 13 years, I have changed today to a paying website with the domain name chrisjoss.net. So please don't revert, I'd actually specified that it was an update about the official website adress, and yet you undid it, twice so far. Thanks for watching for spam though! ;) best, Roberto Rouflakess (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I won't contribute to this page anymore, although I've been careful not to use it as a promotion tool, careful to just state facts. Which is not the case of the paragraph you've added yesterday. "In the soundtrack, he attempted to give homage to works of the 60s and 70s [6]"

This is obviously your own biaised opinion, which goes against the philosophy of wikipidia and makes me wonder about your motivations as you're refering strictly to the wikipedia's guidelines without applying them to yourself. It was an homage, not an attempt to an homage, you're quoting a book while adding some personal opinion, so please change or remove. Roberto Rouflakess (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

redpen, the source is reliable, again the problem is your biaised interpretation of it, where do you see that Joss said he attempted to give homage ? just quote the phrase or be unbiaised, instead of blaming the reliability of the source. It's not the source's fault if you can't quote a phrase exactly and feel the need to add a derogatory tone to it. Quote or be unbiaised. Roberto Rouflakess (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide valid reasons for your removals in the talk page. I hope you are educated in WP:LEAD because you are violating it grossly with the removal. Let's not edit war on this and come to a consensus which part is really bothering you. I do apologize if I came across harshly before. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say that as the early life section is about 1/3 of the overall article body length (since he is a relatively new actor), it would seem that about 1/3 of the lead should be dedicated to that section. Instead of removing it all because you are unhappy with the wording, could you please add some early life content back into the lead in a more acceptable manner? BollyJeff | talk 04:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your quick and very helpful response to my question! GaucheGoose (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This is regarding removal of some edits in Nach Baliye 6 article. Many dance pages like Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 6, Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 5 and Dancing with the Stars had the same format as i edited. Just asking whether it should not be added like that? Thank You! Shaphiu (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Hi~ TheRedPenOfDoom

I am rewriting the wiki page of Milan Zeleny I created about one month ago. Right now I want to add the title and degree to this person, the American economist of Czech origin, currently a Professor of Management Systems at Fordham University.

I leave the current page as " Ing. Milan Zeleny, M.S., Ph.D ". I think it's OK because the title and degree are both objective based on the materials I get on-hand.

What I am not quite sure is that I have researched some famous economists on Wikipedia and I find it is not so normal for us to add these academic titles before their names for these economists. Even though the fact is they are PHD or they are professor.

Anyway Ing. stands for European Engineer and it is an international professional qualification for engineers used in over 30 European countries.

Thanks for your reply.

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Joss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Avengers (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) 09:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

Hi~ Right now, I am rewriting the wiki page Milan Zeleny and rearrange the contents.

But I have meet one problem about how to add this economist's previous publications? This economist has a great amount of publications and these publications has been already displayed on a book written in honor of him. This book can be found through Google Scholar.

Could I just select a few of publications from different research areas and then refer this headline topic "Publishing activities" to that book (specify the pages on that book)?

Is there a copyright issue for people's publication list when we are introducing an economist or professor. I am not quite sure~ Thanks so much for your advice.

(Zhuyuxiang (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

Dave Benson Phillips's date of birth is the 3rd of February 1967. I know I don't know how to provide sources to Wikipedia, but other websites say that that's his date of birth.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll disagree, but you should consider responding to this Arb's request anyway.
Best,
David in DC (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

On reading this point again, I see that you are correct. My apologies. See my comment on the Sheldrake talk page. --Iantresman (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see, when I put in that he was born in Lincoln (or Lincolnshire) seems wrong, as it was written on websites by people who intentionally want to get his details wrong (though you can't not appreciate where I included that he's Black British, which he is).Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

Hello, you reverted my edit on the The White Queen because the image has nothing to do with the show. Since the whole series is based on the historical figure of Elizabeth Woodville would it not be of some relevance to the show an image of the woman who the show is about? The image has been used on the The White Queen novels article without objection. I'll respect your judgement if you decide it still does not belong on the article but I think you should reconsider.Tomh903 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the energetically modified cement page. I politely asked for your assistance in resolving an issue to do with nuances of OR which have nothing to do with anything on the page as yet. Instead, you have taken this as excuse to assault the page. For example

• I have just spent an hour writing a section -uncontroversial I might add - about the chemistry. All of the items were sourced. Within 2 minutes of my posting it, you removed it. Can you please justify why you would remove a perfectly properly discussion about the chemistry, which is well sourced? Especially when, I am trying to meet concerns that the article should explain more about why the benefits are what they are?

• You have said in you edit "not reliable sources" - in TWO minutes. How did you make that decision IN TWO MINUTES?

• Secondly you have removed external links as "spam". Can you justify why links which have been reviewed many times over should suddenly be removed by you? For example, if there is an external link so that the viewer can read more, why is this "spam". Can you show me the guideline that allows you to do this. For example, BMW car entries contain links to BMW and so on and so forth.

I look forward to hearing from you.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In a period of a little more than three minutes from 00:15 to 00:19, you went across four different pages and deleted circa 9000 words

• 9000 words in barely more than 3 minutes across four different articles? Including 3,500 words from the energetically modified cement page which were well sourced and (in part) mirroring information elsewhere already well established on Wikipedia.

• On top of that, in the space of one minute (the SAME minute): you deleted a further 151 letters from the page AND THEN you placed a "re-write" tag DESPITE the admonishment about the caution in using such a tag. Incredible! There is no way in god's earth you followed the instructions there. No way at all.

• Then, in the space of two minutes, you deleted a further 2,500 characters from the page, which have remained undisturbed since the page's formation over 6 months ago.

Can you please offer an explanation - or are you someone who is disruptive for no reason?

213.66.81.80 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment posted on my talk page

Removing massive amounts content that is non encyclopedic and/or advertorial crap IS improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your principal but dont think the time-record of your conduct bears out any correlation to someone making careful decisions. I do not want to argue with you but engage with you, and if you think you can assist me with the central issue I am looking for assistance on - then please help me. But I do need someone who has extensive history of writing actual scientific articles. If you think you can help then let's discuss this.

And, BTW, I would have thought you would be much better taking a look at the Geopolymer cement article, which really does need you! Let alone that I have zero COI, whereas Geopolymer cement is largely written by a professor heavily embedded in its promotion (and I think the son - or at least a relative of - Joseph_Davidovits).

As it is I am trying very hard to balance my additions with as much precision as I can. Swedish is my first language. I may occasionally fall foul of English requirements but if so it is in good faith and despite my trying my best.

Would you be open to discussing the central issue I do need guidance on? If you have requisite experience in balancing heuristics with "OR" in the context of writing a scientific article, then it would be deeply appreciated!

213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello ! Thanks for the message. How I can change a picture ? I was having problems doing this because File:Barton-Zard mechanism.png is incorrect so I made a new one at File:Barton-Zard mechanism corrected.png. Can someone to rename it so it appears in the page (Barton-Zard reaction) ? --Smjerś (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You can actually find page at Barton–Zard synthesis. --Smjerś (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page move is  Done. Unless, of course, that is not what you want. Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm krishnadahal12. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Baal Veer without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! :---Krishna (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You recently removed two external links on Fort Funston, pointing to WP:EL in your edit summary. While I am usually very much against external links, and would generally agree with removing as many possible, those two links are currently relevant. The official site at NPS is one part of the park, with the GGNP site a partnered official site. The California State Military Museum site is also very important, as it documents the military history of the fort written by an NPS historian. All three sites have unique information found only those sites. I can see no reason for their removal. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You remember the old Chess.com article for which you participated in an AFD about a year ago. Would you mind taking a look at this recreated one, Chess.com which was posted a few days ago? The article on Chess.com has been deleted four times previously as non-notable. While the article in its current state may seem properly referenced, upon scrutiny you can see that it is not.

The main reference that covers Chess.com is “TechCrunch.” TechCrunch is not a reliable source, however. You can see from this NY Times article [1] that the TechCrunch site had misled its readers into thinking it was a peer-reviewed reliable source when in fact it was nothing more than the personal blog of its founder, who disguised his own personal financial interests as unbiased peer-reviewed coverage. The founder and three of his associates were forced to resign from TechCrunch. Keep in mind that the Chess.com coverage in TechCrunch was from the period that TechCrunch was operating unethically and not a reliable source.

Besides the TechCrunch references, the rest of the references for the Chess.com article are obviously non-reliable sources such as blogs, the site itself, or fleeting mentions in articles concerning other things. If you take a few minutes to look into this, it is obvious that while the new article appears to meet “Reliable Sources” and “Notability” it in fact does not. I cannot nominate this article for deletion, as I am a new account, but I was wondering if you would be interested in doing so, or if you knew anyone that could take a look at this situation. Thank you. Fzldheim (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir: Thank you for taking a look at the article. What do you think about this "TechCrunch" as a reliable source in light of the NY Times article on its lack of editorial oversight and deceptive practices? Did you see that? Fzldheim (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for the sage advice. I just checked over at WP:RSN and searched for previous discussions of "TechCrunch." There are over 20 (twenty) discussions that say TechCrunch is not a reliable source. The consensus is that it is a blog. Thanks. Now what to do? Fzldheim (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you want? What do know about this show? The article was incomplete and its complete useless before I made the changes. Why can't you update it before itself in your version? What matters you with the translation and the plot section? And also you told the reception is a promotional hype. It is from india-forums. But it was blocked from wikipedia. And about the external links, There can be any link related to the show. Do you know the meaning of EXTERNAL? And after all this, if you change it again, I won't leave unless and until you leave. Goodbye, broker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragavendaragul (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, tried to ping you but it seems that your user page has been deleted. Anyway, if you have a minute I'd like your opinion on an issue I've raised on the talk page. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

posted in talk per your objection and BRD(Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)).

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Michael Carter-Williams page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Re these comments, the IP is a sockpuppet of Tumbleman. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

sorry, i just realized that and reverted myself-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I probably should have said that in the edit summary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Transportation: Some sub-sub sections got more than one sentence there. I don't want to indulge in an edit war. And, you're not an authority to decide or limit a subsection to number of sentences. I would suggest you to undo the last revision that you did on the page. Thank you.

Please read the second paragraph of MOS:PARAGRAPHS, in particular "the number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text..... single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." Green Giant (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How is the below table irrelevant?

Name	Colour	Mascot	Namesake
Hillary	Red	Husky Dog	Mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary
Lydiard	Orange	Tiger	Athlete Arthur Lydiard
Mansfield	Yellow	Bee	Author Katherine Mansfield
Ngata	Green	Kea	Politician and lawyer Sir Apirana Ngata
Rutherford	Blue	Knight	Scientist Ernest Rutherford
Sheppard	White	Shark	Suffragette Kate Sheppard

uhh, how could it be relevant? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It briefly describes the houses of the school Ollieinc (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The table format doesnt "briefly" do anything. it SHOUTS VERY LOUDLY ORANGE RED BLUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi I did find an article about Michael Carter Williams younger siblings but I do not know how to cite it. Here is the article of it http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/03/26/mother-syracuse-basketball-player-thanks-community-for-support-after-home-burns-down/bvMTnxJ1m9VAhU9Zdoy6GN/story.html. Thank you contribs) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again do you mind if I put their names. Hi again do you mind if I put their names and I put his sister name first because she is older if that is okay. I hope you don't mind. Lilk846

Do you think the people you've been reverting on Baal Veer would be worth opening an SPI over? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments such as these don't help establish consensus or a collaborative and collegial editing atmosphere. The big problem which is facing talk page discussion is that people aren't supporting their view point with reliable secondary sources. if you have reliable secondary sources which back up this statement then please provide them on the talk page, otherwise I ask you to please try and avoid statements such as this without sources to back them up. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you have not read the article with the dozens of sources there or the talk page where the dozens of sources have been previously presented ad nauseum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems which is facing the discussions is the lack of sources being used, then someone asking for them (as has happened in this instance). Hence the way to resolve or make discussion easier is for each side to present their evidence every time they ask for or suggest a change. Hope that make more sense of my message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman the editor "requesting" sources is fully aware of the sources and in fact has a history of ignoring or completely misrepresenting them on the talk page

[2] until the misrepresentation is brought up in front of the arbcom [3] when considering perhaps reapplying sanctions for his tendentious editing on psuedoscience articles, then seems to quickly understand them. [4]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But if you and everyone else use the source on the talk page when you make a suggestion like that (exactly as I have and will ask everyone else to) then the question/delaying tactic/whatever you want to call it can't be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc, have you seen this comment from the Sheldrake talk page?

What I dont fucking like and will not stand for is a misrepresentation in the article that presents Sheldrakes nonsense as having any measurable level of support in the mainstream academic community. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that mainstream academia supports his magic theories and requires extraordinary sources to be present to support such content.. And I dont fucking like is you making assumptions about what I fucking like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We do in fact have secondary sources that demonstrate limited academic support for Sheldrake's work. It seems that bringing those sources to light has pushed TRPoD over the edge. It's clear that he's too emotionally involved in the ongoing disputes to contribute to the editing process. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it surprising that editors who want to contribute to the whole project get frustrated by the unwillingness to take appropriate action against anti-Wikipedia editors by the bureaucracy that runs this place. I'm fucking pissed off with this shit too. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) is correct. No journal articles = no support. this is WP:REDFLAG for WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi i dont know why you hate shahrukh khan so much but thats your own problem but please stop removing valid information,happy new year is an upcoming film of mr.khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthj2012 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi RPoD! I see you already took a look at the biographies of living persons violation report I started on the basis that the bio is not compliant with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Scarano.2C_Jr._.E2.80.93_Biography_does_not_adhere_to_NPOV_policy._Content_out_of_date. (thanks for shortening that list and sorry for no signature, just getting the hang of it all). I look forward to any advice you can offer. Can I begin updating this, including reverting back cited information that was deleted by anon users and adding cited statements in place of those without sites, as well as updating the article as most information dates back to 2010?

Thanks again!

ErikaErikabogner (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To me the edits you complained about looked like the removal of unsourced promotional content and the addition of well-sourced critical content. That's actually a step towards a more neutral article. You will be hard-pressed to find sources as good as the New York Times to discuss, say, Scarano's "American Institute of Architects, Brooklyn Chapter Certificate of Appreciation". If you have reliable sources that provide additional information on Scarano, feel free to add it. Huon (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Red, I can see that you are person who enjoys conflict, and so, I have told you to back off. I have kindly asked for you to allow me to make more neutral edits rather than you and EricEnfermero (as I have also asked him) to allow me to do so. More "experienced" editors should practice more professionalism; more is expected of you, and you have reflected less. When I attempted to make my edits, you were already again deleting 2,000 characters and 4 references worth of work. I have not told you what to do; you have not even provided any courtesy in allowing me to make edits for neutrality, nor to provide a learning experience for me. And so, I say again, back off, be patient, and give me a chance. Do not judge, because you have also judged incorrectly. It appears that you enjoy making a bad experience for others, and that is not what I appreciate. Perhaps a lesson in cooperation would be beneficial here. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahabharat (2013 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TVT (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) 09:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi RPoD - I just saw that you removed all the content I added to the CDI Corp entry. I noticed that the original article had been flagged with the Conflict of Interest (COI) and outdated tags, and thought I'd take a shot at helping to improve the article for the community.

I revised the business and division descriptions in a neutral way, added a history, put in the updated names of the company's current officers, and to further substantiate notability, I put in an awards section with two of the awards I found online. I used readily available info that I cited from the company's SEC filings, an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer and a link to a web site listing winners of an award, to substantiate that the company had indeed won the award. This is the most reliable source one can get, way better than a company press release. I also used press releases, only when absolutely necessary, and for the company history section I had to rely a large part on a third party investors' site which I also cited. The company has very little of its history on its own web site, so my options were limited.

The name of the current CEO was also removed, and the outdated tag was put back. Those two actions seem contradictory. Even the COI tag was put back. You can look at my edit history and see that I'm just trying to help make Wikipedia better.

I'm sure you didn't do this hastily, so I'd like to discuss why you felt the sourcing wasn't sufficient, and what publicly available info I included makes you think I have a connection with the company. Cheers! Timtempleton (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The quote you put in the lede of the Sheldrake article from Midgley does not say what you claim it does. Grateful if you could remove it or find a source for this claim. Also, could you reinsert my edit about the intellectual history of habits of nature as this was well-sourced and relevant. Not least, because by removing it you breached the 1RR that is in force on the article. Here are two of your reverts today. [5], [6] Thanks Barleybannocks (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

At your request, you Midgley comments have been returned to the article in the section about the book she is reviewing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please put them back where I had them, that's what they're about and that's where they made sense. Putting them where you have now is off topic there, and means you still reverted my original edit. Barleybannocks (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

May I know the reason for you reverting my change to Elli Avram's page? She has herself stated on her Twitter that her date of birth is 29th of July and not 28th. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodostillawake (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Added the tweet in reference. I think the user who added 28th made a typo or worse, made it to a false profile altogether. I hope it's OK now. Dodostillawake (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TRPod, can you please explain this? Soham 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks can you solve the problem for me please? Soham 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing filmography tables for heaven's sake? Even after showing you this WP:Filmography? Why? Sridevi's list of films is incredibly long and that page needs a table more than anything. If you don't like it, don't come to the page. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm on currently working on it, so I request you not to simply undo every edit I do. We are here to improve pages and not do the opposite. If you can't do that, at least let other do it! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, WP:MOS/TABLES is a redlink. Hahaha, I really pity you. WP:Filmography. Nothing more to add. Thank you. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes i mistyped the shortcut to the overall MOS guidelines the first time, its fixed now. But you obviously didnt even read the WP:Filmography. "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 17:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There IS an obvious benefit, you can SORT it. Hello?? Are you kidding dude? Seriously? Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No there is. And now stop it! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

STOP IT! What are you doing there? I don't expect an experienced editor to have so childish? I said I'm currently working on this article, and you simply undo it JUST because you don't agree with someone though I have shown, proven that it definitely IS allowed. At least take it to the talk page. Undoing all my edits with one click is just disgusting and that too unjustified. You don't own any article! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What is your sudden provocation to totally revamp Sofia hayat article? How is a article written by Sofia not a good enough source? Why did you remove the link to amazon page to the book. Why did you remove the mention of her Appearance in Bollywood Star by Channel 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmax (talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for getting involved with SORCER while being very careful not to influence your opinion of the article, the notability or the sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree the following changes you had exercised in the talk page of Shraddha Kapoor, i suggest you to dispute about the issue on my talk page, till then the article will be an unassessed article in Wikipedia. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC) You're not the major contributor of Shraddha Kapoor, oppose on the talk page(s) of both mine and Kapoor, before exercising acts, including clean up, Fixing style/layout errors, Copy editing etc etc many more.. --- Smauritius ^{diR mWa!!} 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom, Please be careful when warning users as the user was already warned, we would not want to scare off users. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Smauritius_disruption. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello there TheRedPenOfDoom, I am new to wikipedia and the first ever edit I made was on Sonakshi Sinha page, with the tables and you edited it back to old one, you see, the number of movies Sonakshi is being signed for, I think this table suits her with filmography and without a reason , you reverted my decisions, if you scare off new people like this, how will they be able to get bigger and help others in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desirockerz (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: this revert - in the case that the disambiguation page, like Rani, contains a definition, but no useful page more appropriate to link to, is it better for terms to sit as bear disambigs rather than linking explicitly to the "...(disambiguation)" page, so users can see it links to a disambig page when they mouseover? Doing so also removes it from lists of links that need to be disambiguated, like this. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooooh, I see...Rani, a disambiguation page, is different than Rani (disambiguation). I think this is non-standard, I'll fix it. Thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sridevi filmography. 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. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Sridevi filmography. 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. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Sridevi filmography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:51, 17 December 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: ). Thank you. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Have u never seen any article that deals exclusively with the controversies surrounding any subject? Have u never seen Controversy of the MDNA Tour, Controversies related to Vishwaroopam and Controversial issues surrounding Slumdog Millionaire? What makes Controversial issues surrounding Thuppakki so different from them? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

you are highly unlikely to convince me by WP:OTHERCRAP. Where is the policy basis? Where are the sources? Where is the subject no able to be properly covered due to length in the original article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Every statement in the article is sourced. Ok? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vysakh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masala (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, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Barleybannocks will be topic banned. If you continue to react as vigorously as you have to date, you will be next. I suggest a more moderate and cautious approach. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In regards to this comment by Sandstein, I suggest that, if you can do so without violating any of your principles, you offer to milden your language. Cardamon (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know that a sanction has been proposed against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[7] does not help. The Sheldrake business has gone on for too long already, if you do that again you'll be going the way of barleybannocks. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's not helpful. This is why I tell you to get a throwaway gmail account and email me. You can swear all you like and call all the trolls that are pissing you off names in an email to Uncle Barney, and he'll understand your need to vent. It also prevents you taking rash actions. Please do this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here's the warning per the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, per the discussion at WP:AE:

In particular, please refrain from using coarse or impolite language on talk pages (such as the word "fucking" used for emphasis), because this is bad manners and can have the effect of intimidating your fellow editors, and do not insult the subjects of the articles you edit, per WP:BLP.  Sandstein  12:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

. Soham (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The image used in Ajaz Khan was a non free image but consisted of screenshot or picture of a bollywood film. This is fair use as it indicates only to its main page and nowhere else.--Param Mudgal (talk) 19:25, 20 December 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 thread is "Chess.com". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

why are you redirecting Rayo Bakhirta to a wrong page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia1pedia2014 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kolhapur 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:

• †<small>Includes [[Sikh]]s (0.2%), Others (<0.1%).</small>
• {{prose}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vaibhavi Merchant 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:

• [Shared with:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arjun (TV series) 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:

• *[[Mrunal Thakur]] as Sakshi Anand (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kapoor 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:

• or Mehrotras), [[Khanna (name)|Khanna]] and in some regions also Tandon, [[Seth]] and [[Kakkar]]) marry their children with each other. Traditionally A Kapoor can not marry a Kapoor and can only
• the first of a large number of movie stars and film-makers among [Kapoor family|his descendants]]. In 1944, he started the [[Prithvi Theatre]], a travelling theatre troupe.<ref>Raj Kapoor,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kapoor 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:

• 'Kapoor''' or '''Kapur''' ([[Punjabi language|Punjabi]]: ਕਪੂਰ‌, [[Hindi language|Hindi]]: कपूर‌), ) is a [[Khatri]] clan found mainly in [[Punjab region|Punjab]].
• or Mehrotras), [[Khanna (name)|Khanna]] and in some regions also Tandon, [[Seth]] and [[Kakkar]]) marry their children with each other. Traditionally A Kapoor can not marry a Kapoor and can only

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rani 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:

• *[[Rani (Tamil actress]] the stage name of an actress in Indian cinema

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salman Khan filmography 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:

• | Scheduled for release on 24 January, 2014)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vikram Prabhu 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:

• He is the son of [[Prabhu (actor)|Prabhu]] and grandson of [[Sivaji Ganesan] . His family has a production house , [[Sivaji Productions]]. His uncle [[Ramkumar

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just about to request semi of the Kejriwal article again. We can't keep going on sifting through 50-100 crap contributions each day because those of us with clue don't have enough reverts between us. It needs a month, probably, to let the chief minister palaver become old news. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: agree, please do.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert my changes done on the page Ajaz Khan all the time. If you have any problem with the content then we can sort it out through our talk pages.This will be helpful for both of us and for Wikipedia.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I noted your comment about the NY Post and it's questionable reliability as a source of contentious BLP information. I don't think it's cited for anything contentious in that article - just the facts of the episode - but that aside, I'm happy to turn to another source if it would be better. I'm not really up on the comparative (de)merits of the NY papers (other than the Times, which with I'm reasonably familiar) and so I don't know whether the Daily News is equally suspect. They covered the same thing as well but their coverage did not seem any more restrained to me. So I guess there are two questions: Can the Post be cited, reliably, for factual information such as details of a plea agreement, length and terms of probation, charges in a criminal case? And if not then is the Daily News preferable?

I have no interest in this subject, and no external knowledge other than what I'm reading; I came onto it only via WP:EAR, and am trying to make sure that the article - which has been extensively edited by a near-SPA and seems a bit of a whitewash - accurately reflects both the good and the bad about the subject. Your thoughts and comments are welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello I am Kavi.90, The article [8] has been created by me since the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paridhi_Sharma shows the same information. I wish to create an article for Paridhi Sharma and due to this clash I am not able to. Kindly Refer and Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavi.90 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Kushal Tandon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Skoda and Airtel

Derek Acorah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Mirror

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, I was just wondering if you get a chance, could you take a look at the article Athiyur? I have been trying to clean it up, but with no real luck as the changes seem to be added again. I just read the article and it now looks like a complete mess, with images and boxes randomly placed throughout among other problems clearly visible, and I don't know where to start. An editor there has already tried to get the article protected to stop me from editing his changes which included adding capital letters at the beginning of all words. Obviously another editor figured out the reason and denied the protection. There is also a matter of the editor insisting his blog is the official website and keeps re-adding it the infobox. You do great work cleaning up manual of style problems and such, so any help or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to say thanks, looks better already. From one of your edit summaries, "wow just wow", I'm guessing that was when you spotted the blinking welcome banner? That's the last think I expected to see in a Wikipedia article. Cmr08 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

yep, that was something! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed that's a classic show. Do you have a problem with that? (redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinyToddler (talk • contribs) 15:08, December 21, 2013‎

Hi, I still think that Popularity section has to be there in Mahabharat 88 TV series. I got the exact statistics from a blog. And you very well know its high popularity. TinyToddler (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We both agree on deletion and hence i thought it better to write here rather than there. But where does WP:NOT say that "daily aired" shows should not have their episode lists, but non-dailys can have them? The WP:NOTTVGUIDE part of the policy doesn't distinguish shows in such manner. It is completely based on the notability of the show and its episodes when considered singly. Or else we wouldn't have had anything in Category:Lists of television episodes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Treehouse attachment bolt. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You're already at 3RR. Don't blank or disrupt articles that are already at AfD. Especially not an AfD that you have no involvement in or respect for, you're merely going ahead with your usual deletion by increments already, despite any other consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking through your edits to get a sense for the work you do. I agreed with you every time. You posted on my user talk page and gave me pointers, and wanted more advise. I can see the necessary aggressiveness that is needed to keep the tone of Wikipedia correct, but I wanted help understanding why my perspective should be abandoned before I continued it or solicited help across the community. Since you do a lot of reverting, you might be in a position to either wave me off, or give me guidance. I would really rather be dissuaded or to persuade rather than get into the types of mini-wars that seem to follow good editors like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.135.152 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your feedback that ILADS was a fringe group. I tried to put the argument for why it is to be considered a significant minority opinion per WP:DUE. I know you are pretty good at monitoring fringe, so I really appreciate you being involved. By my standards I am right, by WP standards I don't have enough context, so await an informed consensus.

Thanks. Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm 100% that you are a srk hater,because you only remove films from shahrukh khan and not from other actors,wikipedia is an encyclepedia and not a hate page.you are the only user to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthj2012 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you For Editing wikipedia,i hope You Continue Your fine work,and stay away from problems with other Users. GearsOfWar65 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

Hi! Woow! Your work in editing Bollywood 100 Crore Club really appreciated me, so I can't stop myself to give this award to you, actually currently there is an extent upto only 200 crores but not above that, but the article became very confused after there are 300 and 400 crore sections, but not from today, thanks for your help :) Himanis Das (Talk, Facebook me, Tweet me) 16:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Looks like we're the perfect vandal-fighting duo. User:Jthj2012, a fanboy of SRK. GearsofWar, is a sock of Jthj, I'll file an SPI later. Ignore him as he's trying to troll you with barnstars. Soham 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you Soham for compering me with that wierd user that allways remove my edits.Isn`t it like if i say that you and Theredpenofdhoom is the same guy? GearsOfWar65 22:32, 30 December (UTC)

I request you to look into credible published sources on the internet before deleting the entry. The person is doing good work and you can verify it online.

I request you to revert the entry. Thanks. Dr. Angel DeCegama (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying this is ready to go, I just don't want to spend a month getting a lot of research and getting this perfectly balanced if this group is fringe. All I need is for the talk-group to decide it is fringe, and then I can move on. It does not have enough of the IDSA criticism of ILADS in it, nor does it have references to the fringe elements that need to be debunked, and I need to get the non-primary references perfect, and I am avoiding the medicine except where it is central to the story of the organization. But this is the flavor I am trying for. Please save me the time if they are to classified fringe, if you aren't sure I will keep working on it and see if it stands on its own later. I am slowly improving.

Sandbox International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Saw your feedback, and the reason I pinged you is because I knew you were strict and wanted to get it right. My response to you is here, and I do not need a reply:Bob the goodwin (talk)

On a very quick glance User:Bob the goodwin/sandbox appears to not actually focus on the purported subject, the Organization, and instead is a WP:COATRACK upon which promotion of the "controversy" is hung. @Jytdog: is probably a better sounding board for specific feedback. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will talk to jytdog about that. I was trying not to coat rack, and understand the concept of coatrack which is why I stayed off RSMED. If an organization was created because of a controversy, I should try to find examples in Wikipedia on how those organizations were handled. Still just trying to get honest information onto Wikipedia, and not doing well yet.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also WP:COATRACK says the coats have to be biased. I was trying super hard to tell the story unbiased, and I need to put stronger language in the beginning on why IDSA was going after doctors licenses. Even if it were neutral is it still coat rack? If the reason an organization exists is because of a controversy, where is the coat-rack line.

Also, if the group is fringe I should not even be talking about the controversy. I really can't tell where the line is drawn in Wikipedia MED, it seems possible in medicine that all minority opinion should be considered fringe.Bob the goodwin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Roopal Tyagi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  :-ChanderForYou 10:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Chanderforyou: I do not see any discussion on the talk page, and the edits all looked like reasonable feedback to keep the page quality high. Please comment on the talk page what you are trying to accomplish. Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You read Kapu (caste)? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Awards section that was reverted by you did have sources added with reference links. Was there any other issue with that and that's why it was reverted even with references added? Also do you just not like the Table setup and just prefer bullet points is that why everything was changed back to that? And for the career section about the list of shows if the info tab and explanation is removed and its just a list of shows, channel and year then is it okay to post? Just trying to get a clear idea of what exactly you are looking for in the page so i can change it that way. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nks9242 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You reverted one of my edits in the article telangana. The page contains lot of biased views and I am trying to make it more nuetral. This exact report of tehelka cannot be taken as a source. Plz don't revert again and plz help me to make this page more nuetral and to prevent vandalism.Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My wife says, "Lucky you!" I wonder whether Cartman respects your authoritayy? --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You cannot go on removing content from articles on your own whim! This is enough. Either take it to the talk page else stop edit warring. You are being a completely disruptive user. You have already crossd WP:3RR. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your IP-hopping friend has been expounding his opinion of you at WP:RFPP this morning - I've protected that page to prevent further disruption there, but if you notice him cropping up anywhere else, please ping me and let me know. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since he's been attacking you here as well, I've taken the slightly unusual step of temporarily semi-protecting your user talkpage - if you want the protection lifted, just ask. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fast coming to the conclusion that it is time for a second AfD. It seems to be to be all bluff and bluster. I am considering using the rationale of my opening shot in the current last section on the talk page. Can't quite raise the enthusiasm to do it tonight, though. I am simply informing you. Your opinion will be whatever it will be. Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As you've seen, I came to my conclusion. Thanks for titivating the layout. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I edited pages like Salman Khan and Aamir Khan adding them side bars because this is how people can see easily all the pages about their awards and filmography. U reverted them. Can i know why? Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Still have a question if its not that so why created on Priyanka Chopra page??? Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought these side bars look beautiful and may be helpful for users. Just now i read the topic Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_55#Sidebars_and_User:NextSaagar when @TheRedPenOfDoom: kept it on my talk page and came to know what i did was wrong. So sorry for that and will not be repeated. Thanks Dr. Shahid Alam(Talk to Me) 20:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have removed some external links that were on the Lisa Xu article. I have read the wiki article you quoted but I am confused and wonder if you could clarify something. I (maybe wrongly) thought the external links section was for linking to sites directly connected to the subject? e.g. their web site, facebook page, twitter account etc. I know not to use those for referencing sentences in the main article, but understood it was fine to have them in the External links section to give the reader the option to obtain further information about the subject of the article. I see such references in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Could you clarify please?. Thanks. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Liberalufp (Result: ). Thank you. Liberalufp (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was mildly horked off that you reverted my addition to the Krampus article (and when I say mildly I mean barely), but I had to say that I LOVE your screen name. PurpleChez (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message!! After all this time I don't know how to/if I can message someone the way you messaged me... if you'd get some sorta notification if I posted under you message to me, etc. Anyhow... I'm actually ambivalent at best about pop culture references in Wikipedia. In fact, with some of the articles that I've created or heavily edited I've been tempted to add a "popular culture" section, but with text saying that the thing in question "has never been referenced on The Simpsons, South Park, or Family Guy." It's just that I've been on a Krampus kick this year, and when I was getting caught up with some recent American Dad episodes I was psyched not only to see Krampus, but a fairly accurate portrayal. PurpleChez (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

By principle, I object to emotional justification of any issue citing examples of people committing suicide for a cause. Unfortunately, politics of Telangana has degraded from a cause that started with justification based on economic backwardness and exploitation to emotional justification based on cultural uniqueness and number of suicides. Having been brought up in Adilabad, the most backward district of Telangana, I have seen first hand the reasons for backwardness where people are left behind due to lack of will and development policies by the new generation of elected representatives who have vested economic interests.

Andhra Pradesh in particular has seen a increased number of suicides since 2000 even before Telangana agitation got revived. Regarding farmer suicides, respected journalist Sainath has written well researched articles that confirm this trend http://www.indiatogether.org/2011/dec/psa-suidata.htm. The same has been confirmed by NCRB http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-09/news/44989050_1_rehabilitation-package-dowry-dispute-andhra-pradesh. Youth unemployment has been exacerbated by institutions incentivized by government's social welfare programs through Fee_Reimbursement_Scheme_(Andhra_Pradesh) producing large number of graduates without proper skills. These socio economic factors have been exploited by politicians to further the cause of Telangana. It is a fact that some of these lives could have been saved without the suicide worship culture that has been pushed by these politicians. Movies released on telangana theme have repeated these disturbing images http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_vLxHcihTE influencing our youth. Even the mother of the first recorded student suicide has put a case stating that a local TRS politician instigated her son http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ttoTsqrak to resort to suicide.

Regarding the wiki article, I am fine for the entire paragraph on suicides to be removed. However if the article were to retain the number of suicides to justify the movement, I want the alternative view on why the suicides occurred to be present as well.

Your recent editing history at Talk:Zwarte Piet 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Look, I dont know if you realise or not that other wiki filmography also has list of movies that are releasing on future and looking at that case, I do not know why you are constently removing happy new year (movie) from SRK's filmography, if you are going to take effect on 1 page, that is not a great idea, if you are going to make changes on rest of the filmography pages, than do it. Desirockerz (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please can you explain why you blanked/redirected this article?. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, when someone is asked a question about blanking an article on their talk page the solution is not to ignore the talk and blank the article again. Please see WP:BRD. I have noted that you appear to be edit warring with User:CWH on the page you redirected it too as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As there is no discussion, I will restore the article a second time. If you wish to delete an article then there is WP:AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable to give an editor some time to respond. Round here it's after midnight on a Sunday, in the USA it's still Sunday.

I've restored the article – although I would expect it to be blanked for a fourth time. One can only assume that both editors involved in blanking it haven't actually read the article and don't realise that there are more languages used in China than Chinese. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You caused a significant amount of disruption by your blanking of that article, wasting several hours of editor time. You were asked the question "(1) Please, for context, have you before blanked sourced articles with a substantial edit history and then blanked again when challenged? If so can you please give diffs to a couple of examples." You didn't address the questions, but the issue is there permanently now on the Talk page. Please do not blank sourced articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (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.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saarang 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:

• | location=Chennai, India | work=The Hindu | title=Campus confluence | date=8 January 2004}}</ref>], Orange Street and [[Moksha]] (in 2005),<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/24/
• [[Sulekha|Sulekha.com]],<ref>http://www.sulekha.com/saarang/</ref> 160by2, Amadeus global studios], miglebox.com.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vishal–Shekhar 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:

• '''''Vishal–Shekhar''''' are a music directing duo (Vishal Dadlan] and Shekhar Ravjiani) working in Hindi, Telugu and [[Marathi cinema|Marathi]] films. Their works

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kolam 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:

• '''Kolam''' {{transl|ta|ISO|kõlaṁ}}) is a form of painting that is drawn using [[rice]] powder/chalk/chalk powder/white rock powder

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mohanlal filmography 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:

• | 2005 || [[Reflections (Silent Short film)]] || [[[Bejoy Nambiar]] ||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why you believe the source needs to specifically state that the death was unusual. I looked at other sources for different stories, such as the Segway death, and could not find a single mention of the word unusual, bizarre, or strange. Can you point me to somewhere where it states that this must be included in the reliable source? The addition has since been restored, but I would like to clarify with you about this so we can avoid any edit warring. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was not aware of that stipulation. Well, here are two reliable sources that state that the death was unusual or strange. Take your pick.

• http://www.thebright.com/Police/former-marine-kills-stepfather-atomic-wedgie/
• http://www.11alive.com/news/article/318272/40/Oklahoma-man-killed-by-atomic-wedgie

This should satisfy the criteria for inclusion, correct? --Tarage (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

hey, how dare you keep changing my edits? just look at all the bollywood stars and their filmography pages and tell me whats wrong? if you do this again I will report to senior mods!

Desirockerz (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Desirockerz You can't say that to anybody to stop editing unless you have given warnings Herald talk with me 12:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

All I did on the Reed Alexander‎ page was to revert an anon-IP who had changed his year of birth from 1994 to 1995. I spent a lot of time trying to find a reliable source and failed, all I had was the tweet which confirmed the year. Now you come along and say "The source says 22". I am curious to know where this source is. The tweet is ambiguous because of time zones (it says 5am 23rd for me in the UK), and he did not necessarily send it on his actual birthday. Periglio (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Surreal Barnstar
	You're certainly a Wild Card, thats fo' sure and add "special flavour" to the Wikipedia for me, can't talk about others. Soham 18:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No evidence? What a joke you another joker you dont watch mlp wow really im just adding existing facts and they are true go watch the show and stop accusing me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Existing facts are just readded. I will report you for accusations and insults — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

dailypost.com and sunnewsonline.com are reliable or not? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what about sunnewsonline.com? http://www.africanspotlight.com/ ? http://www.theheraldng.com/ ? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember, i am not arguing at all. Only having your own view about each of the sources, so if i use next time i am aware of multiple opinion already. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple? So Theheraldng and Africanspotlight? Remember, nigeria is pretty remote for much of popular media, otherwise we surely had more RS. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, so you agree that information is needful, yet complicated? I should post at WP:RSN right? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailytimes.com.ng/ and http://www.punchng.com/ have covered them as well, They are reliable? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Tribune.com(.ng) has also covered. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, have a opinion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Tamil Brahmins. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

ok

Itssan (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shahrukh Khan 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. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm IndianBio. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ranveer Singh without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Join here again. And please stop edit warring over this. What is wrong with you? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I tried to make a change to an article, Treehouse attachment bolt, but you undid the edit because I didn't provide a reliable source. My source is my boss Scott Baker, who wants to be included in this article because he was involved in it. He has meet with Michael Garnier many times over the years (1997-2013) about tree biology and bio-mechanics and this detail where used in the designing of the attachment bolt. To cite him what would I do? Baker,Scott (1997-2013)?

Treesolutions (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)treesolutions

I'm sure you have noticed this by now, but do you find it the least bit strange that a new editor[9] has popped up who seems to be targeting your edits in several articles? Even the very first edit that was made was to revert you. Cmr08 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that first edit is just the IP editor from that page starting an account and then going on a jihad because they had not been allowed to create a fanpage undisturbed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the DR/N. Soham 13:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, sorry mate if you think so of my actions. I want the petty dispute to end, nothing else. Soham 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mr Whoppit. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2014 (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.

Jasmine Waltz Someone's dob is hardly controversial.--The Totter 02:16, 15 January 2014 (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. Andy Dingley (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello TheRedPen. You made seven reverts at Hotel California (2013 film) starting at 02:26 on 13 January. Since an admin might consider this to be long-term edit warring, I recommend that you respond in the complaint and agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for seven days. These reverts do not seem to be justified under any of the exceptions to 3RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since no one appears to have notified you beyond Echo, I think you should explain your grievances with the Telegraph here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mr Whoppit. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yet another instantaneous undiscussed revert? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_tendentious_editing_and_a_free-pass_to_edit-war.. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because in my travels around Wikiland, I see your username very, very frequently attached to good contributions!

Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Those images are free to use and appropriately licensed. Why did you remove them? Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And six minutes after you erroneously removed them they were deleted on Commons, which is a world record of some kind. I'm curious, are you coordinating edits with other users on IRC? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

as you are fully aware there is a grand cabal whose entire purpose is to keep Martin from Wikpedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How did the file get deleted on Commons six minutes after you removed it on Wikipedia? Are you aware that the license was valid, and that RT licenses images for use on Wikipedia? Did you ask someone off-wiki to delete the file? Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are only four options: 1) a Commons admin saw that you removed the images from sandbox pages that few people watch and deleted it six minutes later. Highly unlikely and very unusual. 2) you said you wanted an image deleted on IRC, and a random admin obliged. Somewhat likely. 3) you personally contacted an admin and they deleted it by request in a record six minutes. Possible. 4) you have an admin account on Commons. Unknown. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

you forgot 5) the secrit Anti Abby Martin Cabal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So you won't answer a single question? Again, did you look at the licensing? I can't even point you to it or review it because you were able to get it deleted from Commons in six minutes, which is apparently a new world record considering how difficult it is to remove images from there. I think it took almost a week to delete images I nominated recently, not six minutes. Which brings up the issue of gaming the system to support your POV. I wonder if I need to escalate this to another noticeboard. Is your behavior still under discussion on AN or ANI or do I need to start a fresh report? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Secrit Anti Anti Abby Martin Cabal commandment #4.62 paragraph 3(a) Section B8. Do not answer questions about how the cabal is able to keep all references of Abby Martin from Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You do realize, that all attempts to discuss the reason you removed a licensed image have failed due to your refusal to discuss it? Is there any reason this should not go to ANI? Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Anti Abby Martin Cabal obviously already controls ANI, you would obviously be wasting your time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You were asked multiple questions about why you removed this file. You were also asked if you requested deletion off-wiki. In all cases, you refused to discuss it here. Therefore, I am filing an ANI against you. Please look for the link to report on this page in my next message. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the bold text just now. Other than that, there are sources required for some. But it's necessary to explain on the lead that Caste system is observed in other parts. If you go by archive, there was huge consensus about it as well. President of India is the first citizen, and a dalit being president is also a notable point. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleared all unref(all were unref for like 1 year or more) now. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed the lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	TheRedPenOfDoom, thank you for your welcome message - I am new to Wikipedia, so appreciate the help navigating around & getting my feet wet Healthcare.technologist (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the last speech Adly Mansour. He said constitutional amendment in 2012 not a new constitution. This is an amendment in 1980 as the constiution 1971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But it's just a change in the constitution of 2012 is not a new one. This is a modification as it happened to the constitution of 1971, which was amended in 1980, but there is no article. Egyptian President Mansour spoke amendment in 2014 while Morsi spoke of a new constitution in 2012 --Panam2014 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are simply ruining a great source of information on the snowtown murders. I have gone through all your edits and made pdf saves of all of them, so I can retain all the information you're deleting. You are not helping this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousWriter1 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll go save all my favorite wiki pages before you delete the crap out of them. Have fun policing wikipedia and making it less helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousWriter1 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

agreed- you Snowtown edits are unhelpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.32.98 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American feminist literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herland (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) 13:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

From your edit summary when you undid my edit, I get the distinct impression that you did not even look at the hatnote I added to Egyptian Constitution of 2014. "Doing a hatnote for 12 subjects" is not really an accurate description of what I did. But of course, it is very difficult to explain one's reasons for an edit fully in the limited space available in an edit summary. My concern is that a disambiguation page, by design, is just a bare list of article titles that does not provide much, if any, context for the reader. In this case, a reader looking for information about prior constitutions of Egypt would be helped more by the article History of the Egyptian Constitution, which provides that context, than by the bare list of a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red Pen, I noticed that you nixed the WP:PROD on Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. While I agree that there are third party sources which could be used to rewrite the article I think that PEAR may have a bigger problem: notability. When the article was first written (in 2004) PEAR was possibly the most significant parapsychological laboratory in America. However, now that PEAR has been closed for close to seven years I see little indication that PEAR has had any enduring impact on parapsychology. While I don’t doubt that it seemed notable in 2004, it doesn’t seem that PEAR has really left a mark on history. I think it might be useful to let the article undergo a deletion discussion to establish what place (if any) PEAR has in Wikipedia.

That’s my suggestion anyway. Please think it over. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don’t wish to question that presumption. My concern is chiefly that others will question that presumption and that the article will end up on the chopping block sooner or later. It would be a shame if you took the time to flesh it out only for the article to be deleted for lack of notability.

That said, if you’re determined that it should stay then I guess I trust your judgment. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you erasing his weight? according to NFL.com he weights 233 pounds. 96.59.136.148 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)How is that encyclopaedic? Soham 18:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? 96.59.136.148 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You have broken a few refs with your edits.

What i am suggesting is that.. Should i revert back to my version? And remove the "caste system is also observed in Japan, yemen, China", we can see for it's consensus later on.. Ok? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!

The pages I'd like to reference for requesting edits to the HubPages entry are the site FAQ:

{domain}/faq/

And the site's Learning Center:

{domain}/learningcenter/contents

38.111.148.243 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ha ha ha! Tehelka is NOT a reliable source to you? My advise is to go through the links and leave something on the Talk page,before undoing. 7Sidz (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at talk page once again, you would know, that caste system in india, the page still got many issues. You must insert some new tags instead. Because the issues remain unsolved I had yesterday posted it on Indian-noticeboard too. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this edit removed some talk page posts by you, I thought it a courtesy to let you know. If you want to, please feel free to revert, but in my opinion it is better to remove the content, which at best is ban-evasion, and is also close to outright trolling. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So how long are we gonna keep reverting fans from Indian TV related article? I was doing this job that you now do in 2012. But then i gave it up as it was endless. Can't something sort of permanent be done about it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still involved in it, but it seems TheRedPenOfDoom always gets around to it before I do! I think the situation has improved a lot since a few long-term editors have started watchlisting and regularly patrolling the articles. Long-term semi-protection seems to have helped with the worst cases (like Uttaran); the policy-violating fans seem to lose interest after not being able to edit for several months, and after the protection expires they don't show up as often (or at all). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Give me the most controversial ones, on-wiki content creation has been pretty boring, vandal-fighting has lost its charm. I think its high time that I break few fan's hearts. Soham 15:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than breaking their hearts it would be good if you could help educate them into becoming good Wikipedians. (That is, explain why we can't accept non-free content or overly long plot summaries, and encourage them to improve the articles in a manner befitting our project's scope.) For the vast majority of dynamic IP editors this won't be possible, but I have seen it happen with regular account holders. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Has the process been successful in the recent past? Seems to be useful. Soham 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's happened once or twice in the past year that a new registered account adding unsourced material, overly long plot summaries, and/or copyright-infringing material to Indian TV and movie articles reformed after repeated reverts and explanations. Can't remember the names off the top of my head—I've been helping clean the articles since 2012 and there have been so many usernames that they all blend together for me. :) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been assured that AE cannot be canvassed, so here is an AE that might interest you. vzaak 02:14, 25 January 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: ). Thank you. STATic message me! 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has posted on that talk page since 2006. I told you it's a very obscure page, please present another option to request a name page change. Kaynow5 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My take is that the page should be moved to Annette Stroyberg since Vadim is less commonly used and Strøyberg is not used in English language sources. (see Talk:Annette Vadim. Red Pen, if you agree, I'll move the page to Annette Stroyberg. -- Jreferee (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Collin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Allen (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) 09:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've mentioned you in this edit warring discussion, so was unsure if I had to inform you or not.
Don't worry, you're not the subject.

[[10]]

Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that about blogs. I'm new at this, and appreciate any direction. Onel5969 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jimmy Henchman. 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. STATic message me! 03:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jimmy Henchman 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. STATic message me! 03:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:STATicVapor. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. STATic message me! 03:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Talk: Jimmy Henchman 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. STATic message me! 02:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A full professor at Brunel University with at least 10 published books and an obituary in The Guardian (which is cited as a source). What exactly are you looking for, here? J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Helloooooo? You're welcome to talk to me, rather than splattering as many templates as you can think of on the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do I take it you're now satisfied, or are you just terrified of human interaction? Y'know, this is meant to be a collaborative project... J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanjay Leela Bhansali you will have to go to each and every director delete their unsourced awards then u can do the same for this page. Daan0001 (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Varun Dhawan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop removing information based on personal opinion. No such rule exists in WP:CRYSTAL.

Main Tera Hero Trailer been released and do some basic research before blanking, your doubts of this movies release doesnt mean you can blank pages as you did on Varun Dhawan without any web research or knowledge. Daan0001 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time Blank any content on Wikipedia, as you did at Sanjay_Leela_Bhansali, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Further to your edit on [11] You can click on awards mentioned and do some research and brush your knowledge if your unsure of any content WP:BURDEN does not apply here. Daan0001 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

again all i have to say is click on awards link and refer if he has won it or not. thanks Daan0001 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont see any reason for adding reference to the material as its 100% information. ^[1] this i found from one simple google search. if u want do the same and add there. You are just trying to misleas wiki readers blanking contents from wiki pages and further blanking will cause blocked from editingand User been blocked. Daan0001 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

added links pointing to Spaulding and Gypsy Queen

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

added a link pointing to Landfall

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

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

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

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

I've opened a thread here [[12]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Hi Red Pen - Why such a long edit summary?[13] -- Jreferee (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • to show that I considered many factors that may have impacted its relevance to the article and did not find any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It also featured on RTE [14]. Unimportant? Ireland has only 12 MEPs. Paul Murphy is a household name in Ireland. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will look at the very first source used in that section [15]. How you can say there is no in depth analysis there, I don't know. The kind of analysis you are looking for are opinion pieces, not factual articles. Opinion pieces wouldn't generally be reliable for inclusion except as opinion. They also exist, but I intentionally stay away from them. They are synthesising the primary sources, and that makes them a secondary source by definition. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a note to watch you don't go over WP:3RR. I have opened a discussion here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See, WP:PROVEIT cannot be used in this case to check their reliability. If they are indeed non reliable sources, give/provide a list of websites publishing the reliable news/reviews. Even then many users still use those sites since they found them reliable. Please help in these matters. If there is indeed such a list or restriction, we may avoid using them. But stating all of them non reliable would result in one thing only - Removal of substantial part of content in many pages. Even websites like IBTimes India, The Times of India gets the news info from source like 123telugu, gulte, idlebrain etc. which you considered to be non reliable. This matter definitely needs your help. Please do respond soon at my talk page. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Jeffrd10 (Result: ). Thank you. Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check the source on the "lobbyist" claim that you restored to Bernard Carvalho. Yes there was an inline cite, but unless I missed something, there was no slightest mention of lobbying in the page so cited. NeilN seems to have felt the same, he and I edit-conflicted on undoing your edit. This is a BLP, care is needed. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this page has been vetted, litigated and adjudicated by the Wikipedia community. I think the RfD would be instructive. I tried to restore the version closes to the entire discussion while keeping the new info on projected date of murder trial and new sentencing. As it stood it was wildly inaccurate. Please help keep this page from being vandalized. I don't think anyone wants to endure an entirely new RfD on this page again. Thanks for you anticipated cooperation. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The intro is slightly incorrect, and previously worked as a bureaucrat in various government agencies. He worked only as an IRS in one federal agency over his entire tenure. Adding that he's a former bureaucrat would be better, isn't it. Also, I think under the AAP banner isn't good for the intro. Tell me what you think. Harsh (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, was a time delay. --JanRobin (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this article. It's been a constant pain in the ass due to a steady stream of CBS employees coming over to edit the page. They tend to be very focused on adding inappropriate amounts of detail about the school, often from primary sources, although they seem to have gotten the message now that they can't just copy/paste text from the school's web site. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Lloyd's List (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Lloyd

Madha Gaja Raja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Masala

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For being a highly active editor for all these years and for your 74000+ edits. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What is your issue with this particular article? Why do you continue to revert this article back to your preferred version, which is rife with typos, poorly-written promotional material, and leaves out a large chunk of ACCURATE, FACTUAL, and SOURCED INFORMATION??

Your reasoning for your continued revertions is bogus. Especially after your recent activity, when the station's impending sale to Emmis Communications was included **with a citation**. Yet you ignored it completely and reverted to the version you approve. This is not working with consensus or cooperating with other editors.

I would seriously advise you to take whatever issues you have with the format and material in the article to the talk page in the future before you think about reverting again. Many editors have worked hard on this article and it would be a shame if one bad apple uses it as a pawn in their effort to make a point. 71.167.98.104 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"At Wikipedia, we write encyclopedia articles, not promotional personal commentary. If typos irk you, fix them, but you cannot continue to revert to a version rife with promotional terminology "basketball legend", unsourced claims and inappropriate typefacing and other issues prohibited by our policies and guidelines."

Where is the "personal commentary"? How much do you know about the history of New York radio? (Are you even from New York?) There are a ton of resources which clearly back up the stories of WBLS' role in changing the radio landscape in the 1970s. In a bigger scale, it was a large part of FM eclipsing AM as the band of choice for music listeners. THAT IS A FACT.

And the last time I checked, Magic Johnson IS a basketball legend. He's a member of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, class of 2002. THAT IS A FACT.

Sorry Charlie, but your arguments hold no weight. In fact, the version of the article you selfishly continue to shove down our throats is filled with all this garbage you claim is prohibited. Try practicing what you preach. 71.167.98.104 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I put the original citation for the Lisanti book on the entry for this film. This is an excellent book but the financial figures are taken from Variety, and it is a secondary source. I then came across figures based on the Eddie Mannix Ledger, at the Margaret Herrick Library in Los Angeles, which are figures from MGM itself and thus more accurate. They should be preferred to the Lisanti book - I'm sure if Lisanti had had the Eddie Mannix figures he would have used them himself. Dutchy85 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as "sourced" is concerned, things that are 100% true are sourced, as they can easily be verified anywhere. Is it Sidharth Malhotra's second film? Yes. Is it Parineeti Chopra's fourth? Yes. Does his name appear first in the credits? Yes. All facts are verifiable, and therefore valid.

As far as "relevance" is concerned, if your objection is merely to the fact that that piece of information does not belong in the opening section, I am perfectly willing to put it in another section at the bottom, even though I do not agree with you. Bollywood is notorious for extremely sexist billing, and that is very relevant from my point of view. However, I do understand that Wikipedia is not necessarily a platform to bring such things to attention, and am therefore willing to make the adjustment I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.154.60 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It does not run as per your wishes, so you can delete stuff as per your wishes. Please be careful in future. 122.172.160.62 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you removed the references at this article. If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see I have been trying to add references. I've taken out your tags. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

THe thing is RedPen, I actually PRODded this for exactly the reason you have on your edit summary, because it was a push of a product (or rather asserted it was). But having done some research, the quench-polish-quench process is not exclusively used by one company, although many companys kinda assert trademarks on it; I removed the trademark assertions but left them in the reference which to me seemed fine because one should quote literally from a source (in main text I would have removed it). I have tried to balance it in that way. Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How is Liapina, T.; Leineweber, A.; Mittemeijer, E. J. (June 2003). "Nitrogen redistribution in ε/γ′-iron nitride compound layers upon annealing". Scripta Materialia. 48 (12). Elsevier: 1643–1648. Retrieved 16 February 2014.(subscription required) a "company pimping its products"? That reference was not there four days ago, now it is because I checked it and looked it up. I should like to have the graphs out of that article but they are probably copyright. Si Trew (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

is my edit of the fosters okay talk),13:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

so it's okay  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilk846 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC) 

Yes there is they were is the house about the fire how come other NBA players have their siblings name but he can't i'll do whatver i want don't tell me what to do!!! User talk:Kara538620:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.105.14 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Despite your tireless contribution to Wikipedia, I notice you apparently have been intentionally or unintentionally a target of many other editors registered as well as IPs (Talk page messages). I guess, a little appreciation would be the boost. Keep the good works up! Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I did it because u can't hear me clearly so I put the words bigger for you to see pls caps doesn't mean shouting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Now this is shouting to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, i don't understand why you keep deleting the awards and information about Karan Singh Grover because of unreliable source, according to you!! Why are other pages like that one from Gurmeet Choudhary not deleted all the time? Gurmeet Choudhary's page doesn't contain any souces considering the awards he has won and still no one cares but as soon as i write the awards of karan down, it is instantly deleted!! so why does Karan Singh Grover's page need reliable sources and Gurmeet Choudhary's page doesn't need any sources at all?

But why do you see the resources as unreliable?I watched for example the award shows and if you want i can post them here, so it is reliable.. further every indian news page posts about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiaksgian1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey friend! With all due respect, he is a professional reviewer and has reviewed numerous Tamil films as can be seen here. Also, the other reference hasn't been named as a critic. It is used to support how the audience responded to the film and I believe it qualifies as an audience response. And, no contents have been added from it, therefore doesn't violate any policies. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sriram Vikram: That he has posted a lot of reviews on the web that have been inappropriately used on wikipedia articles is not proof of anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you gotto check this. Would you still maintain your stand? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

how is that any different? lots of inappropriate sites have been used multiple times on wikipedia articles. that does not mean they are anywhere near meeting WP:RS criteria, -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

When a website has been providing film reviews consistently without bias, doesn't it make it RS? Or, does it always have to be print sources which would disqualify even sify and rediff. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

May I know what you are trying to do? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing.

With this edits [16] and the others you have made on the page, you are deliberately misrepresenting the source. No format carries in such words you have used and provide any criteria then it can be on the grid.

Edit warring to misrepresent the sources is unacceptable Daan0001 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

But just because it says something like that i don't think its not presentable to add a note on year, rather u can add it on notes section where a sensible person would do. Daan0001 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, then why these rules only applies to certain pages ???? whats this ? i can bring up many more if u want ! What's this? Daan0001 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sonakshi Sinha, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

YOU MAY STOP REVERTING AND YOUR ACTIONS OF VANDALISM FOR PAGE Sonakshi Sinha, as you did with [17] -- . Sources are provided on Main page and feel free to check them. Daan0001 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up this mess. No idea how that happened; it certainly was not what I intended. Huon (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have had the same thing happen - with multiple tabs open, viewing past history versions looking for something that disappeared, edit conflicts, and suddenly the wrong version of content gets saved. LOL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Holy hell. That's all I'm going to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice piece of fiction, no? [18] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gemini (2002 Tamil film) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read this. Do you think a RfC/U would be a good idea and if so, would you be willing to certify? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: the complete lack of understanding or willingness to follow BLP is troubling (i have just given her a final warning) as is the SPA campaign and the conspiracy mindset, all of which are troublesome enough in themselves, but then bundled together... if she ignores the final warning then something will need to be done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You have spammed my sandbox three times with 2 hours. My sandbox is there so I can add references as I go. The reason for your spam is that I said that person issued violent threats from jail. This is not a BLP violation if it is documented. You've worked on this 2 years, surely you know this has been documented. 3RR is a reason that you may be blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scholarlyarticles&action=edit&section=3

Please stop edit warring with me, STATicVapor and othersScholarlyarticles (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at WBLS. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WBLS. 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. If you continue to engage in this behavior, I shall do as others have done and request administrator assistance in regards to your actions.

71.167.98.104 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to take the whole sentence out as you have done, but it is NOT necessary to provide a source for a well-known fact ---Ehrenkater (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 19:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)