Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great work on Indian cinema related articles. Keep it up! Tolly4bolly 15:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Phani M. I've recently undid your merge of List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films. As of now, I'm thinking that I can mantain the article properly with reliable sources, so I undid it. If I failed to reach it, I'll surely merge it. Someone tried to support me in the discussion but lack of proper guidelines, he failed to post his opinion. I'm considering his decline voice. Hence discussion is not yer over... Thank you. -Phani M ^talk 16:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is going through AFD. Please leave article as is until AfD is over. Thanks Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've filed a report at ANI about the user Anjaan333, and wanted to invite you to comment if you felt so inclined. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:42, 5 May 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.

Earl Durand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fort Warren

Leaf Theater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Multiplex

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire India under the country of Kingdom of Portugal pre 1910. Full name of the gentleman: Indalencio Pascoal Froilano de Mello). Died at Sao Paulo. Please avoid deleting information added to knowledge. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am really surprised about your edit at this page as I know you to be a reasonably knowledgeable and accomplished editor. Press releases are reliably sourced information though granted they're not really 3rd party. I accept that I should have added other references to improve notability but it certainly wasn't called for to simply remove that information. If you search Google News, you can see all sorts of coverage from various news sources regarding the cover. Considerable enough coverage for its own section within the article. I will now go through and add some of these references so that it doesn't solely rely on the press release. I'd appreciate if you could wait (and assume good faith) for me to make the changes before claiming that someone is pushing promotion. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 10:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Press releases from a record label, which this was one such press release, contains factual information about the release of the song, it was only used in the article to reference release dates and the music video. In general, yes press releases can make unsubstantiated claims about sales etc but none such were used in this particular press release. I would appreciate if you actually read the press release and looked at what you removed before using a blunt reponse and automatic rebuttal of someone's edits in the future. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I am both surprised and disappointed because I have seen press releases used at WP:GA articles. I would expect someone as knowledgeable as yourself to have showed better judgement. Anyway, regardless the reference is not being used in that way no more and others have been found instead. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can the 2 article titles List_of_books_featuring_transgender_persons and List_of_transgender_characters_in_literature be merged into 1 article or can the title of article be redirected? Because there is no need for 2 separate articles with the same content. Venustar84 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry I do not have the expertise education or time to understand reemerging....... Perhaps you could fix the template Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender fiction and merge the transgendered literature section together? I'm not computer savvy so I'm not sure........

On many other wikipedia pages about Colleges and Universities, a statement of the number of student organizations, and indeed a listing of the more notable ones is included and IMO, is entirely appropriate.Naraht (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cerritos College Entry

If you could be more specific as to what content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, it'd be much appreciated. Contributors had just posted first drafts and were going revise and add links to secondary sources later this week. Everything was taken down in less than 4 hours. The student services info was being added based on content found on other college Wikipedia entries such as Long Beach City College. Grrlibrarian (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Grrlibrarian

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions on the India-related TV articles! Congrats! Shane Cyrus (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you revert last edits of User:Balikafan on Roop Durgapal?, actually this user repeatedly adding poorly sourced content. ChanderForYou 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an improper use of the WP:BLP classification, which specifically relates to contentious material reflecting on a living person. Such improper use is considered BLP zealotry. The appearance of edit warring is created by TRPoD's reversion of multiple attempts to satisfy TRPoD's objections. Checking entries relating to TRPoD at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Anonymous_POV_edits item 28 reveals that TRPoD has been found in a similar situation of having an agenda other than good Wikipedia editing. Further, in that same item TRPoD presents a case for why a spouse should be mentioned by name and cited, although TRPoD does not want to allow the spouse in this case to be mentioned by name or cited, even though such mentions are standard in biographical articles of all kinds. (I cited several in hopes of resolving this, such as Cesar Chavez.) Further, TRPoD refers to Wikipedia policy regarding incidents and allegations, which is irrelevant to mentioning the profession of a significant family member of the subject of a BLP. Further, the New York Times considered the subject of the article and his spouse sufficiently noteworthy for a detailed article on the couple, which cites her equestrian status, and that NYT article is cited in the Jonathan Self article. TRPoD has also made a case in the item mentioned above (item 28) for including a mention of a BLP subject's spouse in a separate dispute. TRPoD has rejected getting a third opinion, so that the only recourse appears to be to submit this as a disputed matter for adjudication by Wikipedia admins. JCvP 18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

can you please recheck the edits done this user User_talk:Chanderforyou on Roop Durgapal? He is just being nasty by constantly either removing the genuine information about the actress & now he has deleted her picture also? Please inform how to complete her page without this nasty person editing it again & again. if Tellychakkar is not a reliable source than what could be the reliable source? All Indian celeb wiki pages are made using tellychakkar info. Why doesnt this User_talk:Chanderforyou edit their pages also ? Please look into it & complete the page of the actress with her pic. The User_talk:Chanderforyou is involving his personal dislike for the actress to ruin her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balikafan (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi—sorry to cause any inconvenience. I've reverted the Gary Null article to status quo ante: the version from May 8 or so, immediately before Ian McGrady started slashing, cutting, and pasting. I saw that you've since put in some effort trying to undo some of the damage, but given McGrady's acknowledged personal involvement with the article subject and the amount of material that he cut out (and added, for that matter), it seemed better to go back to the beginning and ask him to propose and discuss changes on the article talk page first, instead of trying to re-edit his major changes to bring them back into line with Wikipedia standards. (See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive199#Gary Null Article, Talk:Gary Null/Archive 2#Invitation for further participation in editing this page by the entire community.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your removal is unjustified and irrational. You need to look at the every airline's schedule first before removal. As such removing the entire table is not justified! — Abhishek  ^Talk 03:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think so, go and remove the same from all the airport articles in wikipedia. Read WP:AIRPORT. You better stop or I will report you! — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of threads you should see: [1][2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see the next Daily Mail headlines now, "Nobel Prizewinner Banned" -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I posted that before his media threats. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your excellent precognition skills would make you a wonderful subject for the experiments! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for going through the article. I usually stay away from BLPs, except for reverting obvious attempts at whitewashing or padding, because I don't feel I have the experience needed for it. Just like I do with roses, I just remove the dead bits and pieces and leave the more advanced pruning to someone else. Thomas.W ^talk 15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathan Pritikin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bendix (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) 08:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not like it at all when you reverted my edits to Sushant Singh, are you even aware of Sushant Singh's shows on Indian television? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The dust settled on your useless filmography battle, and now you are onto another useless crusade to remove section titles? The only problem here is of your own making. Check out a few other random film related biography FA articles: Katharine Hepburn, Hattie Jacques, Angelina Jolie. The headers are okay!!!!! BollyJeff | talk 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I will say it one more time. Priyanka Chopra, and those other articles that I mentioned above were scrutinized (for months in some cases) by the best and most experienced editors on Wikipedia before being promoted to FA, and it is not right for you to change them. If there was anything wrong, believe me they would have caught it. I have been through this process a couple times, and they catch everything. Why don't you try improving an article to this level and taking it through the process yourself. It might even be more fulfilling than using your red pen on other people's work. Anyway, the point is that it angers me and others that you always put your interpretation of policy above all else, and erase good work. Please just live and let live. BollyJeff | talk 12:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bravo @Bollyjeff:! Very well said. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you guys got the correct Talk page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think so. This user puts petty policy above reason and consensus. For some examples, see the following discussions that wasted good editing time: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Request_for_Comment_-_Include_unreleased_films_in_Filmography_sections.3F and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#User_TRPoD.27s_edits_against_consensus. BollyJeff | talk 12:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure when "one of three core content policies" became "petty policy". Or when local consensus became a reason to override it. Can point that out?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make us have to go through another time-wasting discussion over these headers. It's not original research. It is a summary of the content of those paragraphs. That is not against policy. What is against policy is putting a citation in the header so a specific source could be used. All of the following content and sources back up the header title. BollyJeff | talk 12:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

there is no source that explicitly identifies "years X-Y as setbacks" is original research making an analysis and commentary that is not in any source you can identify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Source 60, "Exploring the box office journey of Priyanka Chopra: Part 2" does so. It doesn't have to be, and in fact should not be, a direct quote from a source. BollyJeff | talk 02:14, 16 May 2014 (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 "Suzannah Lipscomb". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know why you are deleting the article about the Wilbraham Friendly's location? The headquarters is indeed located in Wilbraham and there is a website. As a Wilbraham resident I would be happy to assist you if needed. thank you, tom991

Additionally, my issue was the original deletion. I understand now the WP:BURDEN says I can't restore it by just saying citation needed (I thought that would be sufficient). But, I see citation-needed tags all the time. From this essay, it seems you shouldn't have deleted it, but should have tagged it instead, or at minimum moved it to the talk page for discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material goodeye (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was getting scattered, so I moved my question to the article talk page at Talk:Wilbraham,_Massachusetts. goodeye (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the permission from the makers, as well as neutral bodies to add the status to Gunday. Don't fuss about source... most of the film articles here have improper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varad27 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Only facts and figures can have a source.

Tiger is the son of jackie shroff. Now, where to find its source?  but wiki page need to have this vital thing mentioned in tiger shroff' page. it creates reader' interests manifold.....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varad27 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 

Why the fuck you have removed the Table from B.R Ambedkar page? and why have you removed the Image of Ambedkar on Caste system in India? Bloody Rascal Stay inside your ass and don't come out. Revert the change you Rascal. 141.105.63.12 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you need a break from Suzannah Lipscomb? Bearian (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Victoria Nuland 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.
Sorry for templating you. I felt that, because you weren't giving warnings or accusing bad faith edits, that 3RR applied and was heavily breached. If that is a misinterpretation of policy, please tell me here, then leave a TB on my talk. Thanks! Lixxx235 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Striking my warning after reviewing edits of the anon user --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

the IP at the Nuland article is the latest appearance of a series of very dynamic IPs the sock has been using to follow me around, swearing and making comments about my mother, etc. at least 3 have been blocked in the past couple of hours . Reverting the edits of socks is exempt from the 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you reported them anywhere? --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

it seems rather pointless when they are back on another IP within a few minutes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting can accomplish several things, such as a rangeblock and preventing editors like me from giving you warnings. --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Victoria Nuland. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins should watch this user > Thepedofdoom , He/She is cntinously vandalyzing the articles of Wikipedia. The same can be checked on his contribution page. This user should be blocked definitely. 197.202.238.150 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For remaining so calm after being harassed very much by IP editors. Congrats, by my own standards, I wouldn't be able to earn this. Lixxx235 (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible bullying^[1] incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 06:12, 20 May 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 Suzannah Lipscomb. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing my edits on this page. It is ridiculous to question whether Suzannah Lipscomb is the same person as Suzie Lipscomb. You are just being pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I think you will also find that you wrote the following text in a conversation with MdeBohun

as an encyclopedia, we do not focus on presenting the current promotional face that the subject may wish to display for their fans. We provide a coverage that includes current and past aspects of the subject, whether the subject likes them or approves of them or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

My info was relating to the subject'a earlier life, so I don't see how you can claim it is not valid when it is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you are aware that Suzie has appealed for "wikihelp" to her twitter followers? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to the article I put on the page tonight? The article was written by Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu and David Krieger?

• We Must End the Madness of Nuclear Weapons

Susan Macafee (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James T. Butts, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Forum (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) 08:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that part of the section contains promotional content (although I do not understand why it got removed when it is being directly quoted from the director) but there were valuable information such as "the film is not a total heist film, neither does it quite follow the conventions and cliches of a crime caper." Also Aaquote from the diretor that the "film is a curious mix. It is part grey, part action, part thriller and part musical." And information such as "the director is attempting for the first time this genre" and that "the film is more of an emotional thriller". All these are valuable information and are neither promotional nor unimportant. Why cannot you selectively remove content that you felt promotional instead of removing the whole section? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And why was the review from nowrunning.com removed? Nowrunning.com is not included as a Blacklisted websites in Wikipedia. Moreover this website was the pioneer in publishing online reviews for Malayalam films and they have a team of professional film critics including Veeyen (who has published a few books on cinema), Unni R (who previously wrote for Indian Express and Screen India) etc. It is ironic that pathetically written reviews from Oneindia, Sify etc gets included while excellent reviews from websites such as Nowrunning.com, Yentha.com etc get removed because they are termed "non-professional". Malayala Sahityam (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a rather funny reason you gave for removing that content. The director himself explaining about the film is not an irrelevant information and when it is regarding the genre or type of the film, it is more credible than any third party source. I am restoring the genre section as I believe there is nothing "unencyclopedic" in it. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the exact content. "According to B. Unnikrishnan, Mr. Fraud is not a total heist film, neither does it quite follow the conventions of a typical crime caper. "Mr. Fraud is a curious mix. It is part grey, part action, part thriller and part musical," says the director. It is the first time the director is attempting this genre and he says the film is more of an emotional thriller." Can you tell me where did you find anything promotional in this content? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please check the edits done by this user:chanderforyou on Mohit Malhotra, He is again & again removing genuine information about the actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.227.157 (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

his was an excellent edit. @Mazare12: is again and again adding improperly sourced and overly promotional material to the article, this despite such things as the notice that is quite clearly in the article " DOB should be supported with a citation from a reliable source". one wonders if he cannot read or if he is just purposefully attempting to be disruptive? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SIGNATURES advises Your signature must not ... cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors; be sparing with color: as well as warning that inappropriate signature elements may '[distract] from the actual content'. On these grounds an intense red signature is to be depreciated; among other things it may lead to eyestrain through its distracting effect. If you insist on using a red signature, might I suggest the use of a more restrained red such as the second one in this sentence, generated with hex code #FF7070? --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And here are some more guidelines from that section that apply:

• In the subsection 'Customizing how you see your signature', it says 'As you are the only person who will see your custom signature, you can use a bright color to help you scan long pages more quickly.' The guideline is in effect suggesting that bright colours are just for your own use, not for others to see.
• And distracting signatures are explicitly mentioned here: 'When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

if the above was intended to prohibit the use of red signatures, it would state, "do not use red for your signature". you may go to the page and suggest such a change, but until there is such a consensus, i dont intend to not be a red pen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I hereby complain -- unofficially. But I see you did exercise restraint on Shinyobject's talk page. Curious! --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson: TRPoD's signature is bolded here on his talk page because his signature is a link to his talk page. "[[User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom]]" shows up as "User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom", a bolded non-link, on this page. Elsewhere it is a non-bolded link.

Users with uncustomized signatures have "#top" inserted into their user-talk link when signing on their own page, which defeats the special treatment for self-reference (bolded non-link). On your user page, your talk page link looks like this: [[User talk:Brian Josephson#top|talk]]. If you wrote a custom signature that included "[[User talk:Brian Josephson|my talk page]]", then on your talk page (only) there would be a bolded non-link "my talk page" in your signature. vzaak 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the somewhat complex explanation, Vzaak. The bolding that you have explained makes the problem worse, but my basic criticisms still apply. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What's a "kiloWatt"? --John (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No such word -- I've corrected the typo. --Brian Josephson (talk)

I am trying to provide more information in Ranveer singh page by adding in the media section like here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidharth_Malhotra But my changes are being repeatedly reverted!

In the media

In 2014, Ranveer Singh set a precedent by becoming the first ever mainstream bollywood actor to endorse a condom brand Durex.^[1] Recently, online fashion portal Myntra owned by the biggest Indian e-commerce company Flipkart; roped him as brand ambassador for its jeans brand Roadster^[2] Singh also ranked 5th at Times' 50 Most Desirable men of 2013^[3]

Loviraldna (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh review

However, just because something is factual or even sourced does not mean that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia.----- Could you please tell me how does the info in the media section in this page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidharth_Malhotra is appropriate for an encyclopedia and my info is not? My information on Ranveer Singh is no different from that page of another actor. Loviraldna (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and Destructive editing under the name of compliance of Wiki policies is a general practice observed by you in many articles and that is not a good thing. Removing reliable info from articles is also something which you do as you feel the sources are not reliable and that is acceptable. Well, i know very well that you will never change and are an adamant person doing whatever you feel right here. So, i would wait for the news from your said so "reliable sources" which are much worse than a gossip sites. The Times of India, a reliable source indeed, published a gossip about the film here : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news-interviews/Ram-Charans-Govindudu-Andarivadele-on-hold/articleshow/35385524.cms

If i include the matter from that article in the Wiki article of the film, you will not remove it because it's a "The Times of India" publication albeit the matter is a clear gossip. Thus, a Hearty congratulations to you for promoting few selected websites and destructing each and every article like the way you want by the way of Disruptive and Meaningless editing. A very long way to go indeed! Cheers! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected for a week. I'm not convinced that if this was taken to 3RR that it would be seen as a BLP exempt issue. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the guidelines, but still unclear why you let some links through and blocked others. Could you elaborate? Shinyobject (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made your comment a subsection rather than a new section, which I think is clearer. I'm having difficulty figuring out what you are referring to when you say 'blocking others': perhaps you can elaborate? But anyway I've added a link to the relevant section of the guideline, which I had omitted to include originally.
I see there are more pieces of advice in the guideline section that are relevant, which I'll list here:

Sorry - we have multiple threads going on. Would you mind carrying the discussion over on my talk page? Shinyobject (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)shinyobject.

• In the subsection 'Customizing how you see your signature', it says 'As you are the only person who will see your custom signature, you can use a bright color to help you scan long pages more quickly.' The guideline is in effect suggesting that bright colours are just for your own use, not for others to see.
• And distracting signatures are explicitly mentioned here: 'When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

please dont edit others comments. User:Shinyobject was not talking to you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies -- as 'thanks for the link to the guidelines' followed immediately after my pointing out some guidelines I assumed he was writing to me. You must admit that the comment would have been baffling to a reader who had just dropped in as there is no indication as to what he was referring to (though I've now figured out it was probably something you wrote on his talk page. I see the guidelines recommend, as you have suggested, using a single thread for conversations to avoid such confusion.
PS: I see that you used a more restrained signature when writing on his talk page. Might that same change be implemented everywhere? (comment struck through as it has been explained that the difference I alluded to was not by design, but purely an artifact of how the system works. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films. Man of company (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Someome convince me that this warning was given in good faith, because I'm not yet. --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not in good faith, but given in retaliation for a revert TRPoD made. I have cautioned the user who issued the warning to TRPoD for abuse of warning templates, but decided to leave it to TRPoD to remove it himself. Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarification. --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap. I love reading your talk page – it's always so full of pathos and drama. There's a reality TV series just waiting to be made if you pitch the contents of this talk page to the right producer.

Anyway, the reason I'm bothering you is because I suddenly remembered Science fiction Western (and Tommy Tutone, but that's not really relevant). The merge discussion seems to be stillborn, and I doubt that a redirect will last long without being reverted. Think we should try to bring it to AfD? Or just leave it alone? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You were quick to flit in—will you add any quality to that article? Just wondering if you create content, or just jump, in passing fashion, into arguments. mdr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashish Kapoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saraswatichandra (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) 09:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored my addition to Plants vs. Zombies that you reverted. This is not a promotional edit—I have no financial ties to Spielo International. Plants vs. Zombies was adapted as a slot machine theme by a major slot machine manufacturer, which is worth at least a one-sentence mention in the article, in my opinion. If you can find a better source that isn't from Spielo, feel free to replace it; I simply didn't want to leave the sentence unsourced. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am quite aware of that. It is not "unduly self-serving" to use a company's product page to note the mere existence of a product. It would be "unduly self-serving" to use that to reference something like "Plants vs. Zombies is considered the best slot machine released in 2013." Case in point—New Super Mario Bros., which is an FA, contains several references published by Nintendo. You need to stop and re-evaluate the intent of the policy before simply attempting to apply the letter of it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". The mention of the mere existence of a product is not self-serving, nor is it exceptional. This minor mention in a larger article does not impact on any of the other exceptions under ABOUTSELF, so it is an appropriate usage of a self-published source. Yes, we would prefer another source, but is entirely appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup, but in the FA M-28 (Michigan highway), you'll find the sentence "The replacement bridge was bypassed and demolished in 1995.[59]" FN59 is the webpage of A.A. Lindberg & Sons, a local construction company that performed the work. If that FA can site the contractor that performed the work to say the work was done, surely a single sentence mentioning that a company themed one of its products after the video game is just as acceptable. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion opened on talk page: Talk:Plants_vs._Zombies#Slot_machine --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Erm, you may want to look at the edit history and self-revert before someone decides to do a report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Doc McStuffins. 65.95.41.229 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this warning was not WP:AGF, but not positive. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my edits on Shanker Singham's page? Please communicate with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkowitz1 (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkowitz1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you're back at ANI again! Enjoy. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I see the complainant already notified you severl threads further up. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop destroying the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AninditaAdhikary (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with your edit. Whats the use of removing the table. The article looks so bad. AninditaAdhikary (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please block this user. He/She is a horrible editor and can vandalize a whole article AninditaAdhikary (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

So Tables are trivial and more bloated. So why does Wikipidea have that even. I dare you to remove all the tables from Wikipedia with your lists. Here are the pages. Gautam Rode Smriti Irani AninditaAdhikary (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you systematically destroyed wikipedia page of JDJ season 6 and now you have done the redirect. Please focus your energy on focusing good editing rather than destroying the well-written pages. 122.167.170.95 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 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 User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted the section of the Ben Levin article about his arrest. This was widely publicized. What is the BLP issue? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Your edit sum at Ben Levin says, “yah, theres LOTS of blp worries”. What are the particular WP:BLP worries here? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Or the particular WP:NPOV worries? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your points. I’ve modified the material accordingly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See Caste system of India and Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart for proof. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me a Sock unnecessarily. I checked the history of that page and I swear that I come to Wikipedia very rarely. It seems Bladesmulti I ask you last time to not to revert any change on that page. Thankyou. Siddheart (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well now of course, I am going to have to look into it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello TRPoD. Please go through this article on Y.S.Chowdary and make the necesary edits, if possible. Are all the cited sources reliable? Kindly have a look. Thank You. ArunaKR (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your deletion of the section in the article Skin Game and created a new section on the article's talk page explaining myself. If you do not accept my explanation, and wish to discuss it further, I would propose a possible compromise of moving the plot points section of each book to the main article on the series as a way of summarizing the novels on that page. It would be a major edit to the page, and might make the article too long (while considerably shortening many of the articles on the books), so I would prefer to leave the sections on each book's article. However, I wanted to be sure to offer it in the spirit of cooperation.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed your points on Talk:Skin Game (novel). We should discuss it there. I posted to your talk page only to ensure that you became aware of the new section, and to offer a possible compromise if we cannot agree otherwise.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At some point, something has to be done about SAS81's disruption of the article talk page. In the meantime, let's not give anyone reason to think that SAS81 isn't a huge problem.

I'm not sure what the general consensus there is about such coi-editors. From my experience, either the coi-editor is careful to follow WP:COI (making non-controversial edits to the article, if any at all; and making concrete suggestions on the talk page), or the editor gets blocked fairly quickly. SAS81 is trying to be involved in discussions on the application of policy/guidelines, while at the same time showing little or no understanding of them and putting his coi ahead of them. As such, what he's doing isn't collaboration to improve the encyclopedia, but rather disruption to put Chopra in the best possible light regardless of policies/guidelines. Still, I don't recall seeing any wide consensus to take action in such cases. It's a pity.

While we may not be able to do much about him at this point, we can watch how we react to him. I think it would be helpful to refactor your comments, but I realize you've already considered doing so. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Your heroic efforts to defend certain articles against COI assaults has not gone unnoticed! Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:26, 6 June 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 Gail Dines page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (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) 00:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi--

I have just spent some 8+ hours verifying, correcting and editing what was then the HMV/Victor subsection of recordings, only to find that when I was finally ready to Save, I had a conflict due to your two intervening edits. From what I can see, my only problem is that the three subsections can no longer be separately edited, which makes editing the entire Recordings section extremely difficult; so I'd like to change this back to a "====" format, thus preserving your smaller font. (I hope this will work.)

A lot more work still needs to be done in verifying and correcting the next two subsections of the recordings. And I will eventually need to get rid of all the individual multiple references to Youngrok Lee for dates, using a simple note in the first paragraph referring to this source instead. But then I will still need to reference any dates or other information from other sources, which I'm not yet ready to do.

Right now (I'm strictly an amateur at editing Wikipedia) I'm trying to figure out how to capture my conflicted edits without disturbing yours; so may I request that you please leave the page alone long enough for me to try to rescue my various edits. I'm afraid it will take me a while, but I'd very much appreciate it. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I got all my edits rescued. I have to quit now - it's the middle of the night for me, and I was already exhausted well before I first tried to save. I still need to completely rewrite the two paragraphs immediately under Recordings, and redo all the refs, since I'll be using Lee's better dates for every entry in all three subsections. (Note on the talk page my request for permission, and his granting it.) If there are other things that you want to fix or change, would you very much mind first putting a note on my talkpage, so I won't run into this same kind of edit conflict again.

I ought to say that I agree with the criticisms of the way the text of the article is written - I didn't write it, and I also didn't originally set up the HMV/Victor recordings as opposed to the Columbias; if I had started from scratch I probably would have organized the recordings differently (and might still do so). But as far as the Brandt Con Brio as a sole source is concerned, while I didn't write (or edit) any of that part of the article, I'm not aware of any other discussion of the BSQ's history. I do have access to a fairly large collection of their recordings, and this was the only part I had thought to edit.

I removed the pre-1932 HMVs, since for the most part these were done with different personnel, which I thought made it confusing. These probably ought to be reinstated, but the personnel will have to be listed differently. (In any event, what had been listed there was very incomplete, with some inaccuracies.)Milkunderwood (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, it would be much more helpful for you to put criticisms or suggestions for correcting formatting on my user talk page instead of simply deleting important text that may be poorly placed. As I've said, I'm no expert at editing Wikipedia, and I'm very much feeling my way around trying to figure out both the rules and the techniques for applying those rules. I'm attempting to improve the Recordings section of the BSQ article, because I'm interested in them and have access to a fairly large collection of their recordings, and this section as I originally found it was in want of a great deal of help. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you did on Cody Lundin!

Zell Faze (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Abhilashkrishn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bangalore_Days because it did not appear constructive. 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! -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 02:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation clearly indicates the overwhelming response. Please discuss in talk page before editing. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Sure. I have cleaned up the claimed statement that is more suitable according to the review. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 02:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Systematically deleting all the information from SSN college. Way to go, TRDOP. Why don't you delete the whole wikipedia itself because it doesn't meet your expectations. 122.171.114.220 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken Wikipedia for the college's recruiting brochure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On the RfC Survey on the Chopra Talk you declared my and Littleolive oil's votes to be the opposite of what we had posted. You later redacted Littleolive oil's name, but left mine despite a post in the Threaded Discussion requesting you retract your statement. Please retract your statement. It is not acceptable to reverse the posted votes of other editors from Oppose to Support. I'm asking politely, one more time, for you to correct this. The Cap'n (talk) 22:40, 10 June 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 Kanal Kannan 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) 00:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bangalore_Days. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 19:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ignore (as usual). OP warned for misusing warning templates. Discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okaaayyy... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mackinac College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MRA (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) 08:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop fighting me on this, its fine don't worry. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please correct the article on Raja. Thanks. ArunaKR (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Some "editor" has been vandalising Tamil film articles by writing "The satellite rights of the film were bagged by [x]. The film was given a [CBFC certificate] by the Indian Censor Board" in every article he touches, and via multiple IP addresses that always begin with "61.245". In Indian English, "bagged" is a slang term for "buying" or "taking possession of", which is why I hate his edits, as he even ruins formally written sentences with his jargons. Also, he violates WP:FILMRATINGS by mentioning the certificate that any film received (a "U" certificate is equal to the "G" rating). I have checked some of the contributions pages of the IP's he uses, and they includes at least one edit on a Sri Lanka-related article, suggesting where he operates from. Is it possible to block all IP addresses beginning with "61.245" because he never stops at anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The article on Teja has multiple issues. ArunaKR (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TheRedPenOfDoom,

On the article Race Differences in Intelligence, I really mean that I'm not sure that article would survive AfD. There is one way to find out. That is a very obscure book, first mentioned on Wikipedia in the article created right after the book was published by a Wikipedian whose single purpose here appeared to be to push the point of view expressed in that book. I agree with you that there is also an undue weight problem of having the encyclopedia report the book's fringe point of view in the voice of the encyclopedia when most reviews of the book by expert reviewers are either tepid or negative, so both problems with the article ought to be vigorously pursued. How would a Wikipedian make an affirmative case today that Wikipedia should even have an article devoted to a book like that? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

ref: [3]. The link itself is not unreliable, because it's the official website of Mohanlal. It can be taken as a case of WP:SELFSOURCE, but I don't think that applies here since the article did not use the link to reference a controversial claim. Ryoga (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, but what about it did you find "promotional"? Just curious.This one too. The first sentence could've been retained. Ryoga (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is this user named TheBluePenOfWisdom (talk)? Is he any editor who you recently got blocked, and is operating as a sockpuppet to counter you? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't recognize the style? It's TekkenJinKazama. Atama just blocked a sock FreshiaBomanberham (talk · contribs) that it took me a bit before I was convinced it was Jin. I suspect we'll see new Jin socks for a while. I've already filed the SPI report but this could also be reviewed either as a deliberate parody or impersonation account. Ravensfire (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

[4] You revert warred to put a pejorative, misrepresented statement into an article on a living person. Please don't do it again. Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115600/deepak-chopra-responds-pseudoscience-allegations Dickie birdie (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Skin Game (novel) 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• * [https://www.facebook.com/sonali.raut.180 Official Sonali Raut Facebook ]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Aditi Rao Hydari, Randeep Hooda and Sara Loren promote MURDER 3.jpg|left|thumb|Sara with [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• Ilangovan aka Ilango ([[Parthiban]]), a middle-class youth, who dreams to get his sister Kavitha ([[Mallika (actress)|Mallika]] married to a millionaire. He is very keen on becoming rich and falls

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of programs broadcast by Zee TV 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:

• {div col end}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Salaam Bombay! 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:

• '''''Salaam Bombay!''''' ( is a 1988 [[Bollywood|Hindi film]] directed by [[Mira Nair]], and screenwritten by her longtime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• | Wú Sānguì (

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. After seeing the madness at Race Differences in Intelligence (book), I went ahead and reported DavidJac at ANEW. I believe they are at 7 reverts, or something equally ridiculous. You might be interested in the discussion, which is here. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mhh, looks like they've been blocked already. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai, [5] and [6], while claiming they are removing "excessive unsourced trivia, bad formatting etc" and "unsourced, malformatted, poorly sourced, trivial etc" are actually vandalism because you are replacing information and cast lists from Baal Veer into the article for Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai. Do you have any particular reason for doing this? Aspects (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

[[[User:TheRedPenOfDoom]] You must tell me the reasons as to why you are removing the sourced content. Although I undid my own revision. The source is also being cited from a verifiable content. I know that User Bladesmulti has asked to watch the page. I ask you peacefully to tell me as why you are removing it. What do you do in real life? I hope we can be good friends. Mosesben (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tusshar Kapoor 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Abhi (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am just notifying you as the IP who reported this failed to do so. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.

Relevant section :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you weren't following it, the case now resolved, no action against you, as it was erroneous. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

the indian soaps are usually refereed as "Mega serial " (colloquial). I dont know if u re from India. If u arei think u know it already . then why did u revert it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satkatbnd (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If possible, see the recent edits made in the page. A lot of content has been removed by two users, saying that they are unsourced and promotional content. By the nature of the edits made by one of these users in other pages the changes do not appear constructive to me. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi RPOD, Please take a closer look at the "fine print" in Miller's book. When calculated, actually only 95% of the FIP edition of ACIM had the copyrights removed. Also, I would very much appreciate it if you would please try to balance any criticism you place in the lead with complements of roughly equal weight, as is normally the practice in Wikipedia. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey RPOD, I just replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find another comment of mine regarding your recent ACIM related edits also here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And another comment here. Scott P. (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And another comment here. Scott P. (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mentioned at Talk:Kendrick Johnson. Please join the discussion with your views. Gulbenk (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• where he encouraged participants to upload photos of their heads in freezers to social media sites.]<ref>[http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/898465/emerging-david-horvitzs-multiversed-multimedia-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''''Anthony Kaun Hai?''''' ({{English: ''Who is Anthony?'') is a [[Bollywood]] [[mystery film]] directed by [[Raj Kaushal]] and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not blank sourced articles by redirecting them. If you wish to delete an article follow recognized procedure with use of relevant tags or AfD. I believe you have already been involved at discussions on at least 1 occasion in relation to similar blanking sourced articles by redirecting. It may be better if you retrace your history and revert any other such blankings by redirect of sourced articles you have done. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When you've been reverted please do not keep making the same edit.

(cur | prev) 12:34, 5 July 2014‎ TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-3,229)‎ . . (still single primary source fails WP:GNG) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 11:51, 5 July 2014‎ FeanorStar7 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,253 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (→‎References: update persondata; add cat) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:23, 5 July 2014‎ In ictu oculi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,200 bytes) (+3,176)‎ . . (Undid revision 615605617 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:35, 4 July 2014‎ TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24 bytes) (-3,176)‎ . . (non notable BLP, redirect to show) (undo | thank)

If you want to delete this article please follow normal procedure. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think this removal is correct? — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi could you have a look if this article should exist on wiki? Doga (film). Thanks Daan0001 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I know you're good at this sort of thing. Would you have a moment to look at 2014 Spring, Texas shooting. It's a new article and I don't feel comfortable with a lot of it. There's much detail about the shooter, listing his name, gender, home town and so forth. My beef it that the shooter is still an "alleged" shooter, and hasn't even gone to trial yet. The article is completely lacking any presumption of innocence. Thanks for having a look. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you TheRedpenOfDoom for editing Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. But I see that you have deleted some information. Before deleting them please give a reason or discuss on the article's talk page and please don't add inappropriate tags. you say that the sources are primary but articles published by national newspapers cannot be considered as primary. If you disagree please consider a third opinion. The article has been edited by Wikipedia's guild of editors, and they have given their approval. Thank you for removing links to blogs or forums. But references to newspaper articles are primary? I strongly disagree. And please let us not argue and avoid edit war. Please let us solve it calmly and get a third opinion. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take it nicely. I think that what the user has said in the Supriya Pathak section in your talk page is correct. Please...don't get so frustrated.--Tamravidhir (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: there is no requirement to get approval before removing inappropriate, improperly sourced or unsourced content. There is however a policy that states that you MUST provide a reliably published source before reinserting challenged content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But please do not change maintenance tag dates and delete info. That is considered to be vandalism. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have given enough reasons. If this time you be irrational and take it on your ego I may will be forced to take this case up to the Wikiproject boards or get a third opinion.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw what you did at Supriya Pathak. I asked you nicely but you took it on your ego and vented your frustration by blanking more sections of the page. If you really want to remove unsourced or poorly sourced info then why don't you give some time to other editors so that they can properly add sources.

You are clearly discouraging other editors who are still learning like me. You just want to be superior to others. First you want sources and when you are provided with them, you call them bad and unreliable. You should be encouraging people but it seems like you are on a mission to prove something.

Sorry for my this behavior but you kind of disappointed and demoralized me today. Sorry for bad English. LOL!

date stamp -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Sourcepen (talk · contribs), HofKal (talk · contribs) and one or more IP's seem to after you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) User:Baseball Bugs

I am the only user. Check the edits of this Theredpenofdoom. He is abnormally deleting the sourced content.Sourcepen (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who's in the right as regards the article content. But you're bouncing from account to account, and that's not the right way to do things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I had already reported him to AIV, but your evidence is more direct. Note that this began with a post-closing comment at the ANI section with your user ID name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The admins seem to be asleep at the switch currently. However, the AIV bot program was smart enough to merge our entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(wakes up) I've blocked Sourcepen. (stumbles off to bed) PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

With relation to sourcepen I found he was right about Himmatwala but wrong about Kick 2009 as his edit didn't have a valid link. You have good knowledge about lots of technical issues but , you need to improve your choice of words while editing--Enterths300000 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Theredpenofdoom, I reverted one of your changes on Dr.Ambedkar's page. If you think I did something wrong then please discuss it with me. Thanks. Lamazerf (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello User: TheRedPenOfDoom How are you? Thanks , I welcome your decision on Dr.Ambedkar's page that there should be significant coverage of what is in the lead. But If I add both i.e 1. The lead content 2. The body content. Will it be okay then? There are various sources from which one can edit. Waiting for your early reply. Thanks. Lamazerf (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Check the trailer of creature here and Lizard--Enterths300000 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You have removed this , but when the year is over and when we will be in mid 2015 then this needs to be added with an updated version--Enterths300000 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly have your opinion here.--Vin09 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A merge can be done at any time within 30 days stated here, if consensus is reached, so can we go ahead with that, or needs to wait for sometime.--Vin09 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A new user recently made a contribution to Fort Funston which you reverted without an edit summary and without any explanation. I don't think that's a good way to grow this site, attract new editors, and encourage contributions, so you might want to think long and hard about your own editing behavior and its impact on this site. Further, the information you removed did not seem to be incorrect. Finally, you added a stub template to a non-stub article, which makes me think you don't know how to properly evaluate or assess an article. Beyond this strange editing behavior, I've noticed that you aren't using edit summaries properly on a general basis. Do I need to bring these concerns to another forum, or will you directly address them? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pawan Kalyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black belt. 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) 08:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As you are aware Rupert Sheldrake is subject to 1RR, the reason I haven't blocked you is that the other party wasn't officially aware of the restriction. Please be more careful, I really don't want to block you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone is constantly damaging this page . See [7] [8] [9]

The picture of the actor is removed , I don't know for what reason --Enterths300000 (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please help in defining the correct meaning for Settlement type option in Infobox. Some write it as Municipality, Corporation and some mention it as City, Town or Metro. Which is correct? What is the exact definition?--Vin09 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

the page Karan Singh Grover was edited and approved by the moderators itself, I don't see what is your problem with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikki2177 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nikki2177: There are no 'moderators' on Wikipedia, articles are written and edited collaboratively. No particular editor has any more 'authority' to make edits, or decisions about article content than any other, instead, such decisions are made by a consensus of the community through the edits, reversions, and talk page discussion. If an edit that you make is reverted, the appropriate action to take is to then discuss the issue on the article's talk page, not to keep trying to make the same change. Doing so is considereded to be edit warring, is disruptive, and can result in the blocking of your account.

I can't speak for TRPoD, but you have a history of making inappropriate changes to that article, as is shown by the fact that they have been reverted by multiple editors over time. It seems apparent that you probably have a COI regarding the subject, and thus should not be editing that article at all, but instead suggesting proposed changes on the article's talk page. Revent^talk 20:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspect that Lindauer herself is editing this article, and I kind of feel bad for her if it is the case. Having this article could be an embarrassment for her and possibly be a hindrance as well. As far as notability, or even notoriety, its not really an important article. Would you be opposed to having it deleted?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads-up about this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheRedPenOfDoom. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any SPI, ANI, etc discussions related to the ip's reverting your edits? (87.112.71.198 (talk · contribs) and 31.185.197.136 (talk · contribs)) --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 15 August 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.7 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This user is a new account created by a previously IP editor who is /not/ using the 120.23.88.178 IP, and made edits from that IP ( I can see their IP in IRC, as I am talking to the person and advised them to create an account instead of editing from their IP) during the time period that the blocked editor was editing Karan Singh Grover. I don't think I-am-unwritten is actually a sock of 120.23.88.178, I do know that they are editing from different IPs at the same university, and it seems obvious that they know each other. I can't actually 'point' at the evidence that makes me believe they are not actually the same person without outing I-am-unwritten's IP, but I'd ask that you AGF about them actually being a sock, and bear with us as we try to educate this person about not making 'acceptable changes' (his ethnicity) and 'controversial changes' in the same time. I'm not saying that you shouldn't revert anything that is unacceptable, just that you not revert any changes by this editor as sock edits. Thanks. Revent^talk 04:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to check through the evidence that we have, and on the balance of probabilities, it appears that they are not a sock of the people previously editing the page. --Mdann52talk to me! 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Issues relating Vivian & Drashti pages............ I have entered their correct birthdates, how can you possibly ask for a reliable source? You want me to attach their school certificates now......... If you think what i have posted is wrong, get it checked somewhere or ask Vivian & Drashti personally, they will tell you. Why was the need to tamper with their pages? On Vivian's page, even the information about the shows he has worked in is incomplete, if you people cannot fill it, let us do it & kindly, revert your attention to the pages of actors you like not the ones you hate...... & I am being extremely polite.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.75.148 (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Sanskaar Valley School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

hi, you were right in removing unsourced material from Harshita Gaur but the information with a source should not be removed immediately like this.WP:PROVEIT also says that you should first add a citation needed tag to inform the editors that a citation with reliable source is needed for the information.If no response comes after that then you are free to blank all the information.I am not challenging you or proving you wrong, i cannot do so as all the editors work for the benefit of wikipedia but due to your removal of information afd discussion is also not possible as there is no information to look after at.Please consider that.I will not revert your edit again.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, greetings. Please give some time so that I could add some sources. Maine Pyar Kiya this particular article is in developing condition. Do not simply revert edit like this. Give me time. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: You have all the time in the world to find sources AND THEN add the content as per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure in due time. But please do not remove it further. Since there are references which satisfies more than one sentence. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: then fix it to have appropriate inline citations - you cannot just wildly assert "one of the sources in the reference list verifies that claim." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always use citation tag instead of reverting edits of users. Some reader will find sources and will add. If sources not provided within few weeks, you can remove contents. You should revert in case it is clear vandalism or BLP violation. Why do you waste time of users and draw them in edit wars? Abhi (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have chosen to tag instead of remove, but I didnt. I removed. That leaves as the option for anyone who wishes to include the content to 1) restore with a source or 2) leave it out. if someone chooses instead to violate policy and restore without sources, that is in all means and measures fully beyond my ability to control. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page is looking gloomy, so I wanted to say thanks on Chromophobia. The article looks much nicer than it did a few days ago because of work from you. Good job. π♂101 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you decide which source is reliable and which is not and how you can keep content removing sources from it which was added a month back with same sources. - (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You recently struck out a post that you made on the RSN noticeboard. When you said, "things that lined up with WP:SPS," did you mean that you do think that the source in question is suitable per WP:SPS or were you just trying to say that you hadn't meant to make the initial post?

This is a real hornet's nest, and I understand if you don't want to involve yourself further. Thanks either way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there TRPOD, sorry to bother you about such an old edit but editor Collect is challenging an edit you made more than a year ago claiming that he doesn't find the quote in Google books. The edit is this one.

After I removed an inexistent link and quoted a source from the book [10] Collect saw it fit to revert me thus not only removing the quote but also re-incorporating the inexistent link. I've pointed out that not finding it in Google books is not a particularly valid reason for removing it but he has nonetheless removed it twice now [11][12] and twice has he brought back the inexistent Youtube link being used as a source.

I'll remove the YT link in a separate edit now but I'd really appreciate your input with this since it was you who added the statement back then. Here's the talk page discussion [13]. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting form of shopping -- the quote which was only a footnote in your edit became a major claim in Gaba's edit - so I tried to verify it via Google books and failed. Meanwhile Gaba seems to be searching for anything he can find to make Jones appear loonier than he already does - which I find an interesting means of following WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:NPOV to say the least, and he has repeatedly commanded me to accept his edits <g> which is not a recommended course of action, and he seems to think WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to his edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears Amazon UK has a searchable version of the paperback from 2011 - and quotes appear there, but the nature of the book appears to be a tiny bit polemic in nature, and so I used one of Will Bunch's opinions properly as his opinion in that BLP now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shopping? I leave a message asking the editor who made the original contribution to an article to please give their input, and you accuse me of shopping? I took the time to go through the article's history to track down the editor who made the original edit after you challenged the veracity of the source because you couldn't find it via a Google search (!), and even so you believe it is appropriate to accuse me of shopping? Collect: you should be more grateful that your incompetence and overall laziness is tolerated at all in the project (not to mention your constant whitewashing of conservative BLPs) and try not to randomly and baselessly accuse those who are forced to trail behind you cleaning up your mess. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Abhi (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• | 2010|| ''[[Jhansi Ki Rani (TV series)|Jhansi Ki Rani]] '' || [[Bhagirathi Tembe )]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• by increasing international pressure on Mugabe.<ref> Joe Trippi and Roy Bennett interview on MSNBC]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• 4230288.html|accessdate=June 1, 2013|newspaper=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|date=May 23, 1994}}</ref><ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please head over to User talk:JohnGHartnett and respond to the user's helpme request concerning your revert of his edit since an explanation was not provided in the edit summary. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: your removal of the sections tag, you said this in the edit summary: "the strange fetish for single paragraph sections". There was no call for "single paragraph sections", ergo no "fetish". But the Biography section is long, and the tag was a suggestion to break it down somehow. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that this user another user, whose IP address geolocates to a different location, so perhaps a meatpuppet, reported you on AN3. Since that user didn't use {{subst:AN3-notice}}, consider this your required notification. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

C.E. Poverman‎ needed some help. Thank you for diving in. Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Need your help on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasamh_Se Sanjayrealman (talk • contribs) 5 September 2014 (UTC) Unsourced articles and spam links on page Sanjayrealman (talk — Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey TRPOD - since you're so skilled at cleaning up the seemingly endless supply of unsourced crud and promotional puffery in Indian and Pakistani celebrity articles, do you think you could take a crack at Fahad Mustafa? It's not nearly as bad as some, however it could use a good BLP scrub. It's still early today, but I'm already burnt-out. I'll throw in a wikikitten or wikipint for your efforts! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good faith cleanup coup. . Justice007 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ed Ayres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westfield. 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) 09:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nkapoor21 Revent^talk 13:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those few.. One of them was obviously nonsensical, other one was restoration of some unreliable source and copyright violation. I have filed report again. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw Come on Down: The Game Show Story as sourced in Anne Hegerty. It saw her talking about her diagnosis as a reason for her quizzing knowledge, and was commissioned by Bradley Walsh who deals with her at least once a week for The Chase (United Kingdom). So while the documentary is a disputable source (I consider it a reliable source and am disgusted by the number of editors who don't), she is a very reliable source about herself.--Launchballer 19:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. K moved material which is clearly negative and duplicative of other material already in the lead back to the section where it belongs. We do not need to use a sledgehammer in the lead, and no one removed the cites as your edit summary might imply. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for responding to my Teahouse inquiry! Looks like you are willing to help clean up this page and instill a more balanced point of view. Much appreciation!

Here are a few articles about Gail's work that might help: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/07/27/the_shaping_of_things/ http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

Gail also write OpEds here [14] which supports her widespread activism in a legitimate context, and has made this documentary [15]

Here are news updates and reviews of her book: http://gaildines.com/category/news-reviews/

Here's Gail as an expert on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/07/28/am.intv.dines.pornland.cnn.html

Here's Gail on NECN: http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/_NECN__Broadside__Living_in__Pornland__NECN-251914281.html

Let me know what other info you need! Thanks for your help. I have messaged Demiurge1000 as well, who also answered on the Talk page.

Julia Juliabarry (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Look here. As far as I can tell, they went through many of the articles you've recently hit and effectively reverted all of them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

its the same troll been blocked multiple times

• 87.113.58.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.113.181.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 87.114.34.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 146.90.62.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.185.156.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.132.244.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 46.36.38.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.62.21.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.118.134.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks for the heads up!

• • 46.208.86.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked on 9/27
  • 87.115.109.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 31.119.18.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 46.208.156.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked on 9/29
  • 146.90.136.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked on 9/30 31 hours
  • 146.90.107.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked on 10/1 31 hours
  • 46.208.100.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked on 10/10 31 hours
  • 87.112.14.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--46.71.77.168 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the disruptive edits are not coming from this editor, but from the IP making the allegations. Removing unsourced information does not make a person a vandal, but re-adding the unsourced content, calling the editor who made the constructive edits a valdal, and targeting that editors edits over multiple articles for no reason is not just disruptive, it's starting to look like blatant harassment. Cmr08 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the person behind the IPs listed above. I was just alarmed about his deletion of content in the article Krampus and noticed he is responsible for more deletions throughout Wikipedia. He's been deleting not only unsourced content, but also content that is easily verifiable, but improperly sourced with internet encyclopedias and even properly sourced content, calling it "irrelevant". Many of his edits are like this, where he deletes sourced content and lies about it being unsourced.--46.71.143.155 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

the only "source" in the removed material is dearcinema.com which is soooooooooo far from being an appropriate reliably published source and "unsourced" while not entirely technically accurate, the actual difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am [[user:plagiarismwatcher316:plagiarismwatcer316] and you need to see this information to work with and I will give you my http://www.about.me/napacione if you need the original to compare this to. This is a Stephen Glass situation and I am trying to keep this place honest. https://www.dropbox.com/s/va2vyibdt73qxwr/Robert%20Bapader%20Plagiarized%20Me.pdf?dl=0 The original story is 13,000 plus words and it's a .doc attachment if you want to compare them. Plagiarismwatcher316 (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Earthing Therapy page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Diya Aur Baati Hum page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You have deleted and redirected the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kellermensch_(album_re-release)&redirect=no It is a re-release, with the debut and EP merged together, and under a completely new label. I agree there may not be that much of a difference, but for the sake chronological releases from the band it should be its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakathor (talk • contribs)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page and we decided to keep the material, so.... Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 172.56.36.143 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page Talk:Eliezer_Yudkowsky#SAT_Score_Request_for_Comment speaks for itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry because I did not see the other discussion on the talk page. 69.124.52.215 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Would the film qualify if the directors raised their target? --Xoviat (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be significant reliable secondary-source coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I work in Mukta Arts Ltd and have edited the career section of Subhash Ghai. The details added are correctly updated and have been provided by him only. Mr Ghai needs his recent profile to be displayed on Wiki. Please do not again revert this to the old version. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Seemant

Hi, First of all I am sorry for again editing the page this morning without checking the talk section. Now I have gone through the policies page and fully understand the rules and limitations in editing a page. The source link I used / referred is : http://muktaarts.com/subhash-ghai/. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on clarifying facts and removing promotional material from the Qnet article. It doesn't get enough attention from good editors, and there's a constant flood of users trying to whitewash it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)