User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof_et_al._reported_by_User:MicBenSte_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Civil Conduct

Hello there,

I thought I'd leave a message here in appreciation for your civil conduct over at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. I find that bias (even where it is justified) can often compromise encyclopedic standards in articles dealing with hoaxes/conspiracies et cetera. It is refreshing to encounter an editor who can view the matter impartially, despite disagreeing with the claims which are the article's subject.

IE ^{• Communicate} 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

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

• | 2003 || ''[[Manassinakkare]]'' || Gauri || [[Malayalam language|Malayalam]] ||[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi I am bollysitter, you deleted my entry at Mary Kom film page, BollySitter is focused on bringing awareness about Bollywood films to parents in order to help them make an informed decision if their child should watch a particular film. Our reviews are spoiler-free & objective in order to help you determine what you think is appropriate for your children. As an independent group, we provide fair & trustworthy information and tools, as well as a discussion forum, so that families can have a choice and a voice about the media they consume. We added recommended age and family go factor on the page of Mary Kom Film. Bollysitter (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• [Jean-Charles Gille]] in 1991 stated that Juan Huarte de San Juan's 1575 ''Examen de ingenios para las ciencias'' was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mary Kom (film) 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:

• publisher = ''[[The Times Of India]]'' | date = September 5, 2014 | accessdate = September 6, 2014]]''}}</ref> It's first day box office collection is the 11th highest of 2014<ref name="Ankita Mehta"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Majestic 12 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:

• the name was spelled out, not abbreviated. However, this document was later identified to be a hoax{<ref name="Donovan2011"/> In 1984, a set of documents was allegedly discovered in United States
• * [http://www.cufon.org/uhr/uhr3.htm UFO Historical Review] Program July 13, 2006]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten would like to hang out with Grumpy Cat and Lil Bub on your talk page for a while. (Careful he's not quite house trained.)

TaraInDC (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chiranjeevi

Thank you, yes the award is less prominent Bhishek (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards

SIIMA awards are a part of awards section, but you are removing them to intimidate editors by showing your dominance. SIIMA awards are included in awards section, you better check in other actors list Bhishek (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Halo

I have provided all sources for SIIMA award. Hope your eyesight is working properly. Bhishek (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards

I have included Times of India reference for SIIMA, again I dont have to include the same in Awards section, but since you appear to abuse fellow editors, I will repeat the same source Bhishek (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

eye sight

I am talking about Times of India reference, not wikipedia article as a reference, I did not include any wikipedia reference, sure you may have to check your eye sight Bhishek (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA awards reference

I have only included SIIMA award with Times of India reference as an Inline citation, this is the only edit I did in Chiranjeevi article. I cant understand your personal attack over me. Bhishek (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain I really cannot understand which reference and claims you are talking about Bhishek (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Quit trying to intimidate people

If someone is violating policy, then you should politely note it to them. If they do so repeatedly, the proper thing to do, once polite correction has failed, is not to threaten them, but to bring it up to a higher level. Repeatedly threatening to report people is a form of harassment or intimidation, and is not WP:CIVIL. Likewise, your clamping down on many things is an example of biting the newbies. Please clamp down on your aggression in the future. Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I like your use of Ping, I need to remember that, I like how it only requires 1 edit and doesn't clutter up talk pages or edit counts while still making that notifier come up. Ranze (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Response

Hi RedPen

Could you kindly respond to the points I have made regarding the inclusion of the Escapist DDoS on the Talk:Gamergate controversy talk page? In my edit comment I asked for a response to what I had written on the talk page in case of reversion. While you did give reasons for reversion in your edit comment, these did not address the points I had made on the talk page. According to WP:EW, reversions should be addressed on the talk page in case of dispute, so as someone who reverted the edit it would be highly useful to have a rebuttal from you. My apologies if I have come across as hostile or overzealous in any way. Bosstopher (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphology

Hi! I saw your comments on the talk page of graphology and I don't agree with you that "claims" regarding the ability of graphology to evaluate personality is "hogwash" and not verifiable. Though not experimented much, there are many peer-reviewed research studies in support of graphology (most in foreign languages) : http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology . Here is the link to a review of experimental research conducted in graphology: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 . It describes that graphology can reveal personality traits such as intelligence, vitality, neuroticism, anxiety level etc. The journal is "Perceptual and Motor Skills" published by Ammons Scientific. Please do look through ALL studies on a subject before dismissing it as a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to believe in it, I cannot stop you. I, however, will stick with the mainstream scientists and the lack of repeatable claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be repeatedly saying that scientific studies have failed to validate "claims" made by graphologists. So, I thought I should say this. Experimental studies in handwriting analysis have been able to conclude that handwriting analysis can predict intelligence, personal interests (especially aesthetic interests), neuroticism, anxiety levels, energy and vitality etc. (A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 -1960" (Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H: A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90) http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 Verify for yourself. A main reason why some experimental studies failed to validate graphology is the use of untrained professionals. Its like testing whether a medical diagnosis can be made by using judges who have read a book on anatomy and saying that medicine is not valid. Very often researchers did not understand what graphology can and cannot do, so they tended to focus on the wildest claims by marginal graphologists who are not genuine graphologists. Investimate (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

those studies are 60 years old and havent been duplicated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Research in graphology is not too old to be of value. The human graphic motor sequence has not altered; the anatomical system is the same and the neurological pathways for writing impulses are the same. However, this does not mean that graphologists don't have to replicate research done earlier. There have been studies after these in the 80's (eg: Baruch Nevo studies), 90's (eg: Graphology in Personality Assessment: Reliability and Validity Study A dissertation, Adelphi University 1993, Patricia Wellingham-Johnes studies etc), i the 2000's (eg: Ist an der Graphologie doch etwas dran? Jens F. Beckmann, Gabriele Schmidtand etc.) and studies are still being conducted, most in foreign languages. Astrology or palmistry do not have so many validating studies. According to Wikipedia, it does not involve changing the basic laws of nature and has nothing mystical to it and hence, it is not a pseudoscience but rather fits better under the questionable sciences division. Investimate (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. without any modern confirmations and many disconfirmations after the ancient publications, you have no case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For your information, modern confirmations are definitely there. Many are done as dissertations. I understand that facts and studies cannot convince some people who are highly biased. You really don't have any background in this subject do you? Investimate (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually gone through that list, you would have noticed that most studies are from the 90's and there are several from the 2000's. Have you noticed that in the Wikipedia article the "invalidating" studies you quoted are also from the same time, if not earlier. You wouldn't call those "ancient", would you? Only the validating studies... Investimate (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Marilou mcphedran

I see we have some editing disagreements. In general the piece is puffed up but the most egregious claim is that this person has a masters from Osgoode hall law school when in fact it is a degree from osgoode's professional development program- OPD-a terminal and course based masters. There is no such thing as a thesis based Osgoode masters in comparative constitutional law though there is that designation from the OPD. You rejected my hyperlink but I encourage you to contact that law school to confirm. A false credential is a serious offence in academic circles so I thought it important to correct. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopphippo (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

List of hoaxes

Could you please explain why you deleted my edit on List of hoaxes? I merely linked to a Wikipedia article about a hoax. Thanks. --ToniSant (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@ToniSant: You did not provide any reliably published sources - Wikipedia articles are not reliable. In addition there is nothing in the main article that gives anything other than a typical tabloid flash in the pan that merits an article. We are not here to facilitate someones desperate crawl for fame. WP:BLP/ WP:NOT / WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I see you're a deletionist. I'm an inclusionist. I won't get into an edit war with you, mainly because I see that you're quite forceful on such things. :-) I think that this and this are reliable sources by Wikipedia guidelines; however, media hoaxes are often just "tabloid flash in pan" things anyway. Please consider reverting your deletion. --ToniSant (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

yes the trivialists and I frequently disagree on what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Nayantara 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. Amortias (T)(C) 19:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bade Achhe Lagte Hain

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain#The section on shooting.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain#The section on shooting.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, let me start by saying I appreciate your work and you obviously are knowledgable about how to create the best articles. However I feel I need to comment on that you caused an editwar at Yoshukai Karate, violating te 3RR guideline. This was obviously not a matter of life and dead and could have waited untill discussion. Please dont do this again, you really demotivated your fellow editors who ran for help, for no reason at all. Thank you for your time and effort. All the best, Taketa (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seconded (in part, at least). You're absolutely right - the list of links doesn't belong there, and I've commented on the talkpage to that effect - but there's no need to to edit war to keep it out. It doesn't fall under the 3RR exceptions, so you're risking a block by warring over it; once consensus is established (well, it's already pretty clear that policy's on your side) then the list can be removed without any problems. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nayantara

Hi bauer, I know you are little very strange but I tell you, DON'T you undo my edits with one click!!! Never ever ever again!!! You removed all upcoming films, the whole awards section and a whole subsection that ALL had very very reliable sources!!! Such mass edits without any discussion, seriously? By a senior editor?? Any sensibility?? Last time you did this!! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

1) No, you removed everything including sourced content! 2) POV commentary? What exactly? How do you define POV commentary? All claims I added are objective, all of them are sourced! Check the sources first! 3) I was referring to this edit in particular. This is removal of sourced content! Not done! 4) The are a few nominations in the table that are not separately sourced (but they are wikilinked and in those articles you will find sources!), still not a reason to remove the ENTIRE awards section including the reliably sourced ones (and ALL of the sources I added in the section are reliable!) Regarding the upcoming films, she has signed up those films, sources are added, nothing more is required and it's irrelevant in which stage of production the films are! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality

You appear to be edit-warring on this article and further reverts may lead to a block. Please continue to discuss on the talk page. TFD (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Giving you fair warning. Do not make article suck by reverting relevant edits. As you are doing with Salman Khan filmography. You have also removed important points without proper reason. First you must read WP:CRYSTAL before reverting. Article has given Under construction tag so don't remove any sentence until you see that particular tag.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A article I found from 2010 that I'm not sure what to make of it

Rahim Mombeini found it on shortest bios. First off-born in 1334? And nobody has noticed that all these years??? He might be notable though, I think this needs clean up but not sure what tags to use. Wgolf (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wgolf: the 1334 is a non-julian calendar, roughly translating to 1955.

The newsbank preview is extremely unhelpful in providing details about the actual source it has archived- but it looks like it is from a BBC skim of official and semi official government websites.

Depending upon the country, the president's budget aide may be a role that automatically confers notability, but I am not sure and i didnt find any other coverage in google news or google books, but they are not great at collecting non-western stuff and would not have collected any hits in persian which i cannot read anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

-thanks, I was not sure how to tag it as to be honest, and I am surprised nobody changed the year all this time. Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wgolf: i have swapped tags - the BLP and notability seem to cover it now. several experienced editors had briefly worked on it in the past and knowing the quality of their work now, it is surprising that it got left in the state that it was in. Thanks for your attention! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome-it might need a AFD possibly. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A proposed compromise for the ACIM article

Hi Red-Pen, If I were to accept your two "negatively phrased" points in the last sentence of the lead for the A Course in Miracles article, could you allow me to add one more "positively phrased" point there, such that it would read something like:

"The book has been called everything from "New Age psychobabble"[5] and "a Satanic seduction"[1] to the "Third Testament",[7] and "The New Age Bible". [6]"

Would this be acceptable to you? Hoping we might be able to settle this thing directly between us. Scott P. (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: it would probably be better to beef up the reception section and once that is more fully reflective of the views that are out there, adjust the lead to match. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

The book is clearly a somewhat "controversial" book, with very strong opinions on both sides. "Christians" and athiests on the one side considering it as pure rubbish at best, or satanic at worst, while the millions who study it, obviously consider it to be of considerable value. You would appear to me to fall into the "anti-camp" while I admittedly fall into the "pro-camp". With controversial topics, it is my understanding that Wikipedia generally attempts to suitably represent both sides of any such "conversation", no? Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

nope Wikipedia presents the mainstream academic assessment which per Miller is "Christians think it is non-Christian at best and Satanic at worst, Academia considers it pure psychobabble, its promoters see it as a financial cash cow, and its adherents love it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are then saying that the reports of its adherents cannot be represented in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia policy?Scott P. (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

reports of its adherents are only appropriate when filtered through a third party expert who evaluates their representation and value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So then, all articles on Christianity cannot allow for any "Christian" authors to be directly represented? Is that what you are saying? Same would go for athiests, birthers, etc. etc. I have not heard that rule before. Scott P. (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

sure we do. we dont include "John Doe Christian believes/do/are considered X" we have "Theologian John Doe says Christians believe/do/are considered X" and when it is clear that Theologian John Doe's views represent a majority of the experts on the subject, we simply say "Christians believe/do/are considered X" but its based on the third party expert.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the readers of an article about a book that has sold into the millions deserve to hear directly from experts such as Dyer, Winfrey, and Tolle about what makes the book "tick", as well as hearing from expert Theologians and folks akin to yourself as to why it is nothing more than "Satanic psychobabble". Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1) please stop making assertions about who i am and what i believe. WP:NPA

2) we are an encyclopedia and we present the subject as an encyclopedia would. if people come here expecting something else, they will still find an encyclopedia. if they are disappointed because they wanted something other than an encyclopedia when they came to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, oh well, hopefully they know how to google. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have insisted on including the terms "psychbabble" and "Satanic" in the article's lead. That is a mere point of fact, and not meant to be an attack. Wikipedia, by its nature, is far more than Britannica ever was. Britannica only treated nearly all subjects very "sparsley", if for no other reason, simply due to lack of space. One definition of an encyclopedia is "a well-rounded view". Not only an "academic-mainstream view". It seems to me that Wikipedia has enough room to represent more views than Britannica ever did. So are you going to attempt to delete the views of the experts I listed then? Scott P. (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"psychbabble" and "Satanic" are sourced by third party Miller as significant views of the book by major populations. thats what we present.

wikipedia is NOT a promotional platform for adherents to spread their views or have their views presented as they wish to have them presented.

If your involvement in with the subject creates aw conflict of interest that prevents you from editing appropriately you should seek out other subjects where you do not have the conflict. Wikipedia is big and there are lots of articles that need help where you can edit all day long without worrying touching subjects that you cannot approach with the required perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you would prefer to only represent the "critical" view in the article and no other. That is apparently your take on what a "well rounded view" should be, one that is entirely critical in this case, no? You would censor out the experts who are not critical, is that correct? And you would attempt to drive away anyone who did not agree with you, no? On the one hand you say you want "experts" to be represented, but then you are apparently saying that only critical experts may be represented, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

if the mainstream sources only give out negative reviews, then yes that is what we present as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean "that is what we only present", not "what we present as well", no? Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so.

• Mainstream reliable sources present the topic as : AAA BB C D
• Our article presents the topic as: AAA BB C D

Given the paucity of third party coverage given and used in the article, we have to make some estimates, but roughly seems to me that the coverage is 1) popular with the New Age masses, 2) rejected by Christians as anti-biblical at best and satanic at worst 3) dismissed by academics as psychobabble, 4) New age speaker home industry cash cow (see 1) 5) long-running litigious copyright fight (see 4) 6) splintering into "just unique enough" derivatives or MyTakeOnACIM to keep 4 in business.

What am I missing?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, in your view, Wikipedia is supposed to be the "arbiter of the correct, supposedly mainstream academic view". A place where only the majority voice is heard, and all others censored. If for example, it were one century ago, when the mainstream view was that outer space is filled with a material called "ether", and anyone published a theory that outer space was pure vacuum, then a Wikipedia of that day would have refused to let the "vacuum scientist" be heard directly, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not my view, it is policy: WP:BALASPS. So yes we present the current mainstream academic views and as they change, if they do, the article content changes to reflect them. we are not here to present new and breaking views or a platform for the poor frontline warriors fighting for The TRUTH^TM-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you believe that it would have been "correct" Wikipedia policy to "censor out the vacuum scientist." What about WP:RS which states that, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.", and on the same page that you referred to: WP:NPOV? Would the views of the adherents of a New Religious Movement such as ACIM, not represent a significant minority view in an article about that movement's primary study book? Scott P. (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, until the vacuum scientist had published his papers and convinced a significant portion of the mainstream scientists that he was on the right track and not a looney, he would not be covered as anything other than a curiosity. We dont make any effort to predict what is going to turn out to be true and what is going to turn out pure crap, we just follow what the mainstream has agreed has actually been convincingly demonstrated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I can say with fair certainty, Britannica's tone was always "respectful" (read NPOV) towards all subject matters. You will never find a Britannica article with loaded words like "Psychobabble" in the leads of any of their articles. Scott P. (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

britanica had better things to do than cover anything that it might have called "psychobabble" in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that even in a Wikipedia article specifically about a given New Religious Movement (NRM), the Wikipedia readership ought to be "protected" (by editors such as yourself) from actually getting to read the uncensored views of that NRM's adherents, even if such adherents have published reliable sources on these views? 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If people want to find out what a new religious movement has to say about themselves, they should google the new religious movement's home page. If they come to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they should find encyclopedic coverage dont you think? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For the last 10 years (since the article was first created), this article has stood with both the critical and the adherent's views being presented, side by side, as many other such articles in Wikipedia are still written to this day. Apparently you are of the opinion that this was 10 years of "error". Since you arrived at the article last summer, you have apparently intended to rewrite the article so that it explained primarily your view (which you believe is the "mainstream-academic" view), that ACIM is essentially nothing but "psychobabble", and would be slanted heavily against, if even permitting, any other views. If these are the new policies in Wikipedia, then I stand humbly corrected. If not, then it is my aim to seek out a consultation from a mutually respected neutral third party on this question. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What third party sources haven't been included? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are quite sincere in your belief that such is Wikipedia policy. I too feel sincere in my understanding of Wikipedia policy. It would seem to me that one (or perhaps both) of us may need a little "tweaking" of our understanding of Wikipedia policy. As such, it is my aim to ask for a comment on these questions from a mutually respected third-party person from Wikipedia. (Good night from America) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite sincere that there are policies that we present what the reliable third parties say: WP:V / WP:PSTS / WP:OR / WP:NOTADVERT / WP:UNDUE / WP:RS. I am not sure where you got the idea that there are policies that say otherwise.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

relating conspiracies

how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:

   Alleged UFO-related entities
   Energy beings
   Grey aliens
   Insectoids
   Little green men
   Nordic aliens
   Reptilians

Projects has a list:

   Project Sign (1948)
   Estimate of the Situation
   Project Grudge (1949)
   Flying Saucer Working Party (1950)
   Project Magnet (1950–1962)
   Project Blue Book (1952–1970)
   Robertson Panel (1953)
   Condon Report (1966–1968)
   Institute 22 (1978–?)
   Project Condign (1997–2000)
   Identification studies of UFOs
   List of notable studies in ufology

Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere if these are as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:" uh none. ever. anywhere.

"Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere" you must have mistaken Wikipedia for a webhosting service. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"uh none. ever. anywhere." Tripod? They sell them in the Los Angeles Times in the Pasadena are near Jet Propulsion Labratories. Highlights of the advertisement include the cyrogenics for freezing. So you are not credible or the Los Angeles Times isnt. I personally choose them over you.

Heres webhosting that you say ive mistaben wikipedia for (anyone can create an incident : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

Maybe the CIA pays you to remove such documentation that maybe seen as "neutral" and for your to maintain an opinionated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil!" Cell phones don't need tinfoil. Get a new IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC) So you admit you're a spirit using a cellphone Haha Don't spend all your time editing wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paddington (film). 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.

Your recent editing history at Paddington (film) 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.
You may be in the right but don't go about it the wrong way. Oosh (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shahrukh Bola "Khoobsurat Hai Tu" 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:

• '''''Shahrukh Bola "Khoobsurat Hai Tu"''''' ({{English:'' Shahrukh said "You are Beautiful"'') is a 2010 [[Hindi]] film directed by [[Makrand

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverred changes in Pavitra Rishta

Hello, I am User:Noormohammed satya who recently expanded the page Pavitra Rishta by editing various contents and expanded the page through various sources.

I am unable to get as to why have you revered the entire edit as it contained all the sourced information in the edited in the page. So I would kindly request you to explain me the reason as to why have you revered the entire edit which contained the sourced facts in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noormohammed satya (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaint of edit warring at Nayantara

Do you want to reply to WP:AN3#User:Veera Dheera Sooran and User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Amortias (Result: )? It is a claim of edit warring at Nayantara. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that User:TheRedPenOfDoom is engaging in repeated editing wars across a variety of articles and must be stopped asap. See his actions on [[Marilou McPhedran}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey Deen (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

M. Frost

Why did you remove this reference? L'Express is a reliable source, is it not? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

meat puppet accusation

You accused me of being a meat puppet here. Please strike it. That is way over the top. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you start putting forth positions that show independent basis for thought and not just that we should succumb and acquiesce to the paid PR's desires, then I will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will ask you one more time. Then I will take you to ANI. This is offensive. I am nobody's fucking tool. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So here is the one more time - please strike your comment. It is very offensive to me and you have no evidence that i am a meatpuppet. If your accusation is in good faith then take me to WP:SPI. Otherwise, withdraw it. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

if you dont want to be accused of carrying on the same crusade as chopra's paid PR flacky then you shouldnt specifically identify your goal as promoting the same crusade as chopras PR flacky.[1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior is ugly but I decided not to bother the community with this. 11:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

addition to Osgoode Hall Law School

Hi, I re-added Jean-Gabriel Castel with more links to provide evidence for the claims. All the claims are available in the links. Alcoxnow (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow

October 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I'm Veera Dheera Sooran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Bobby Simha without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you should first of all read what trivia means. Nothing about the article is trivia. You however did remove sourced content, so it was not a false warning. And you should seriously stop this one-click reverting? You don't own any article here. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I do know trivia and blathering. But this discussion should continue in a centralized location: Talk:Bobby_Simha#Descriptions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arthur Richard Andrew Scace

It seems that this QC is notable, so I added added citations and removed your proposed deletion tag. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Kiril Tenekedjiev

I saw what happened at Kiril Tenekedjiev. While I agree the article should be deleted, Jackmcbarn technically is correct in noting that any source is enough to ward off WP:BLPPROD (whereas a reliable source is necessary for the tag to be removed; it's asymmetrical). I'd suggest using a regular PROD instead of BLPPROD, or AfD if necessary, to get rid of such articles. Huon (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Huon:: [[WP:BLPPROD| "Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains [[a reliable source]] that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article."]]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said removal requires a reliable source. Adding BLPPROD requires the article not to cite any source, which would include primary sources such as the subject's website (Quote: "Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject", and see explanation in WP:BLPPROD). I know this is inconsistent, I didn't invent the rule, and I personally think we should allow adding BLPPROD to all biographies that don't cite a reliable third-party source, but that's not what it currently says. Huon (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

india-forums's credibility

You are still sure that it is an unreliable citation? I just tagged at one place[2]. As you were supporting the blacklisting of this website, like 2 years ago. I wanted to ask again. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: i still see nothing at http://www.india-forums dot com/about_us.asp which indicates they place any value on fact checking and editorial oversight. and the site is still on the black list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

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

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

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmyLine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Humsafar. 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. Turgan ^Talk 15:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving Corona del Mar High

I agree that these pop culture references now would fit under heading "Campus Culture," but the fit seems odd juxtaposed with these controversies. Other ideas? --Dalton D. Hird 16:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert at

Can you please explain your revert at Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, or undo your revert? Tamravidhir explicitly requested my help, and that edit was to be the first of a set of copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tamravidhir: i completely misread the {{plainlist template and instead saw what appeared to be a random insertion of {{pianist my fault entirely.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sean Lien

Sorry not to respond more clearly! No non-Chi-wiki source says Sean Lien born in Taiwan. The article cited by other editor about accusation that Sean born in northern not southern Taiwan. Confusion all based on Chi-wiki. Lien doesn't deny birth in US. Dispute seems to be about where he "grew up." I guess he wants to seem more Taiwanese and emphasize connection to Taipei (north). But not like Obama. Current president not born in Taiwan; everyone knows. Not a law problem here. Just about how people feel. Concerns a fact. So easy to sort out. Relevant thing is that all published reports, except Chin-wiki, say born in US. His dad was a student at the time. So not a big issue. His campaign info talks about where he "grew up." Thanks!Taiwansov (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Shahid Kapoor

Reliable source or not? [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN If he had actually said that, it would've been followed by other reliable sources like Times, NDTV, etc. I don't think that he has actually said it, if you are going to find another secondary source for this information, there are a few blogspot blogs and that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision?

Hello! I had recently added to the page Derp. I understand that the article has been the home of much past vandalism, yet my contribution was not at all vandalism in any form. I cited my addition to the page, and the citation was reasonable. Was this a mistake or something? If I need to add another citation for more evidence, I can do so (the HCAM site also proves my addition as true). If the revert was automatic or something similar, I am not mad at all. I am just confused! Please respond to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your time! Squiddaddy (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Frankly, I don't think Derp Snootsly is notable enough, but I'd be interested to see what TRPOD thinks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found a legitimate blue-link landing page that I can link Derp Snootsly to (the section of the Hopkinton, Massachusetts page on "The Author Side" and "Derp and Merp"). I could not find a separate article dedicated to the character, but I was not surprised (not many television shows or book series do have separate articles for each character). I hope this will do, because I learned of the phrase "Derp" from reading "Derp and Merp." That is why I even added the character in the first place! If you have any questions, just respond on my talk page. Thanks so much, Squiddaddy (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Squiddaddy: you have to go four levels deep before there is anything close to "legitimate" - from the city, to its non notable cable channel to a blurb on channel to a character on the blurb- that is not a "legitimate" landing place. By that logic my runaway snot of a dog would be able to have a redirect because you can go from the city to the city services to the dog catcher who has become very familiar with my dog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Aagadu

Hi. There are many test edits being done on the article Aagadu. Many IPs and users are unable to accept the film's failure which may affect the article in terms of neutrality. For maintaining it, i want to remove these lines from the top. They are :

• IB Times stated that the film received "decent" reviews.

• The film became the highest weekend opening Indian film in the U.S. box office.

The first one would be placed in the Critical Reception while the second one would be retained in the Overseas Box office. Please suggest me what to do in this case whether i can do it or no with reasons. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 21:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

my bad on gg talk page revert

My bad on revert. Had thought I had clicked elsewhere in watchlist on small screen device, did not see that it took a click as a rollback option. Was purely unintentional. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That is my final argument

I just object to having what I wrote in a discussion shut down.

Incidentally, your pen name makes you seem sadistic, given that you will be in conflict with people. Because of that pen name, it is hard to discern whether you may be a person with some integrity or just someone who delights in destroying. But I will allow that you may be sadistic.--Reidme (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you dont ascribe to WP:AGF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PEAR Lab

Hi: When you get a chance, could you help follow up on the notes at Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab? I absolutely agree that this stuff ain't science, but is rather more of an academic/cultural curiosity. I'd like to get the background/funding into the same tone/style as many of the other parapsychology entries, like Perrott-Warrick Fund for example. Per yr comment, it doesn't have to be in the lede of course. We should also try to deal with the WP:BLP and WP:SCAREQUOTES item, in the absence of evidence of actual malicious intent. Tnx! jxm (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just checking back with you on this item. I was thinking of reinserting some of the background/funding material into the body instead of the lede. As you pointed out, it's not quite appropriate there. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A9

You tagged several songs with WP:CSD#A9. Unless the articles are untrue, in which case you need a different tag, they are not eligible for A9 because the artist or artists have articles on Wikipedia. Please be more careful using this tag. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Gekkos of Zimbabwe DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your invaluable Remarks on article. I have two questions 1. How you I retrieve the article Userfied by Alexf ? 2. If I were to title my article Endemic Geckos of Zimbabwe would it be more acceptable ? As vangenie says Geckos dont recognise human borders by they do recognise geography and exclusive habitats i.e. endemicity....the word endemic in embedded in the text several times DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Slice and dice

Hey TRPoD - do you have any interest in taking your finely honed machete to clean this up? I've certainly seen worse, but it checks all the boxes: unsourced personal info, crappy sources, and ridiculous puffery (DYK she has "previously expressed a desire to win the Palme d'Or"?) I double dog dare you. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

geckos

Gekkos of ZimbabweAfroedura transvaalica Dear RedPenofDoom Thank you for your comments. I have tried to improve these articles (above) as you suggest...like all of wikipedia its a work in progress....as is my ability to understand the wiki protocols and formatting language. I can see the points made about zimbabwe (that does not have a great deal of endemicity .....it does though have endemic geckos).....in my article the species are listed in red.....the articles about the gecko genera also have the same species listed in red i.e. they are stubs or starters.....i intend to develop these stubs....(two have turned blue as I added to them) ...not because I am interested in those huge genera but more because I am interested in Zimbabwe's herpetofauna....i feel sure that others will see this as a useful contribution ...the british library and wikipedia are full of 'snails of fiji' or 'birds of east anglia' types of research.... does they need editing, collating into larger topics or can they stand on their own censured. The original administrator who deleted this suggested contacting Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles which I have done ...... as yet they havent replied....for some guidance. Thank you for your contribution Clive DrC.Humphreys (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Shobana filmography

Hi there, I was trying to add the filmography details from the existing wiki pages, but I found you have reverted with comment, unsourced. The details are from the existing wiki pages.Vaidyasr (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

I would like to get your opinion on a BLP issue. The William Lane Craig article has been bannered since June for being too technical and containing excessive material based on sources too closely associated with the subject himself; most of the new text appears to have been added in May with edits like these (1, 2, 3, 4). Do you think the banner is correct, or do you think the article is better with the material? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

• Hi, you are busy for long time on the article Mahira Khan to spoil deliberately other editors works, you don't own the article. You edits fall under I don't like it, I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not gaming the system, I am not going to ignore your continually disruptive edits, if you have concerns, discuss on the talk page of the article and reach a consensus rather reverting good faith edits as you don't like it. Justice007 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy-pasted-formatted one of your comments, please check

Hi, I excerpted stuff from a long thread to start a poll. I included a comment by you in the new thread. I made some small formatting changes, including wording in the bolded !vote. I'll be glad to cut and paste precise text you posted before if you think the original will help a neutral closer understand your intent better than the tweaks I made. Could you please take a sec to check it out, and make sure its ok? Thanks, and apologies if I overstepped. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time

Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

oops, technically speaking, I guess you didn't respond the formatted poll question (see prior thread). I sent this boilerplate thank you to everyone who has !voted and your !vote was copy-pasted from an earlier thread. But thank you nonetheless. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you much for the kind welcome to WP. Even though I've been around a while, it made me feel appreciated. It's humorous that I finally registered an account to stop catching flak for being an IP editor, then immediately get burned for being a new account. C'est la vie, and your courtesy is an antidote. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

S. Truett Cathy

Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm Abhi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sana Khan 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! Please refrain from throwing wikipedia policies randomly to push your POV. You may discuss on article talk page content dispute, if any. Abhi (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Sana Khan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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. Abhi (talk) 13:54, 31 October 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. Abhi (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indicscript

I think WP:Indicsript is about lead section not about infobox, your edit on Telangana belongs to infoboxes about indic scripts.--Vin09 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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.. Edit warring violates Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, if continued, you risk general sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BLPcrime

So we cannot add anything about arrests, unless there was any conviction. Am I correct? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, I was wondering if you could check out an article for me. I was trying to cleanup the article Kwabena Duffuor, as the MOS was butchered there. After I made my edit, I was looking at the history, which I should have checked first. It looks like an editor, who has made no other edits to Wikipedia, replaced the entire article with one that looks like a likely copy and paste job.[4] This was obviously the reason the MOS was so bad. Had I seen it last week when it was made, I would have reverted but since those edits were made, there have been other editors adding content, so I really don't know what to do here, without stepping over other editors. If as I suspect it's a copy and paste job, than the added content is probably copyrighted and would have to be removed regardless. Any help would be appreciated. Cmr08 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The content added was copied word-for-word from the subjects bio on the Institute for Fiscal Studies website[5]. They even copied the spelling mistakes. Cmr08 (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

question about Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Gamergate controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah...I see, well I feel I should be able to report you for just removing my entry into the talk page. The talk page is there to discuss the actual article right? What I did was point out a flaw in it. I was making the claim that what was written in the article was a lie. I.E now that I was warned I was warned because I pointed out that the info was NOT sourced. I further mentioned that the only "source" for the claims made in the article was based on two youtube videos. Funny thing about Wikipedia though -- even though anyone can actually check these videos and see that I was telling the truth as the "person" in question really did say the things I claimed... since no "reliable source" (lol) has mentioned that said person did this, I am now warned for mentioning that the article wasn't based ion the truth. So, in other words -- discussing the article in the talk page is forbidden now? Well if that's the case, then I would like to nominate the whole article to be deleted and purged -- as it now clearly is only used as a propaganda piece.

Addendum; Also where do I report mods for abuse of power? Just deleting my claim on the talk page and not allowing anyone to even address it or giving me a chance to provide sources -- that reeks of power abuse.--Thronedrei (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to William Lane Craig, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexikon-Duff (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources

And you will come to the conclusion that this is in fact a reliable source, sry I don't want to hurt your hero.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at William Lane Craig shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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.
You can write your argument on the talk page.

I've protected the article, let me know if the contested BLP material is completely removed or not. Dreadstar ☥ 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you take a nano second to look at the article, you will notice that the content is already removed for like 50 hours or something.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on your math.you made your last edit at 22:05 and it was protected at 23:43 so your "50 hours" is only off by give or take 48 hours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Even in the article of Stephen Law himself there is reference in the link section to his blog.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Need help about a user

Edit waring with no reasonable claim. He is a fanboy who comes in different IP to promote his actor and de promote his opponent actors articles. In the article List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal he is reverting a reliably sourced award category (Vanitha film award-Best actor) and adding a manipulated information about the award which is also unsourced. Initially the original status of "Vanitha film award" (Best actor in Leading role - Twenty20, Madampi, Akasha Gopuram for Mohanlal) was unsourced. He removed it saying unsourced and made a cooked up award by rediting it as (Best actor in Supporting role - Twenty20) that also wasn't sourced. Seeing this i reliably sourced the award with the whole winners list of Vanitha film award 2008. But still that fanboy is reverting it. (Further info : Twenty20 is a film in which Superstars Mammootty- the fanboys actor and Mohanlal- fanboys rivalry actor, acted together with almost equally important roles. I think the Vanitha film award for best actor in leading role for Mohanlal made the fanboy think it will define him as the leading actor of the film and it frustrated him. And i believe thats the reason behind his edit war. There is already an edit war going on Twenty:20 (film).). I appreciate your involvement to solve the problem. Thanks 27.97.17.133 (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but You Fail To Understand The Consensus Policy

Read it for yourself. I'm afraid the fact that no concensus exists on the signature of BLPs isn't the same as concensus on BLPs were talk page discussion is recommended. The edits will return soon, but you are welcome to talk page discussion.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you speak nonsense. I put in the Huffington Post article because it was a reliable source which backed the Village Voice article. Your POV claim does not intimidate me at all.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I will follow Wikipedia policy and am informing you that I will report you for violating the three revert rule.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@JoetheMoe25: removing grossly inappropriate claims about a living person are exempt from the 3RR restriction (reinserting them multiple times however...) . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 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. Amortias (T)(C) 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GG

You missed 4 keystrokes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharad Pawar

Hi, Could you take a look at the article, Sharad Pawar. The criticism and criminal link sections seem WP:UNDUE to me. Some background [6]. There is currently a GOCE copy editing drive underway and there is no point in adding to their work load if the sections are going to be trimmed. Regards, - NQ (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are undue, Sharad_Pawar#Land_allotment is also very detailed. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but I am not sure how to go about it. All these seem to be just allegations but looks well sourced and well documented in the Indian media. - NQ (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curious

Why do others repeatedly delete your User page? Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

My response is on your user page : User_talk:71.239.87.100#Deleting_my_user_page.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dr. Fox effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monotone. 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) 17:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

How to proceed with the GA?

Thank you for participating in GA of article Fursuit. But what should be made to continue the discussion? Apparently, there are not many people interested in this issue. Keplerbr (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 November

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 Surbhi Jyoti page, your edit caused an unsupported 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) 00:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Vaishnavi Dhanraj

I request you to help me out in editing Vaishnavi Dhanraj page. It contains lot of unreliable sources and big part of content which is not confirm by any of reliable sources. Aryan.for.you (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Check this also Ankita Bhargava Aryan.for.you (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Everest (Indian TV series). 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. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bharat Ka Veer Putra – Maharana Pratap 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:

• {{unsourced}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of mathematical identities 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:

• * [[Hypergeometric function identities]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal from black list file

Hi,

this is regarding portal: powerstuffs dot com . Just seeing it in wiki's black list and shocked. whatever link i've pasted i believed am contributing to wiki by giving some additional information by giving external link. however understood with constant removal it should't be this way and instantly stopped placing the link. request you to kindly remove my link from your spammer list. My portal is actually on phase where it growing. I am constantly upgrading the data quality. I serve lyrics for personal use and learning. give my review about the movie and whatever information we share is correct according to reliable resource.

please consider removing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.85.94 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

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

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

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rangiora High School

What section(s) need secondary or tertiary references? Ollieinc (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ollieinc: the question is " which sections are NOT entirely or mostly sourced to the school, or other primary documents? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. It is difficult with school pages to include many secondary or tertiary sources. Ollieinc (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ollieinc: If you are trying to recreate the school's brochureware, it is probably and rightfully difficult. But since that is not what we are here to do, it doesn't matter. Find what the third parties have talked about and build the article from them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bobfoot

Thanks for your edit. Have you considered updating the Patterson–Gimlin film article? And perhaps cutting it back to a stub? I reckon it doesn't deserve all that "allegations" and "analysis" stuff now (if it ever did). Anyway, nice find! The instructions for hiding the zipper at the back made me laugh. :-) Bishonen | talk 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

that is a bigger project than I want to take on! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor that I had requested assistance with, has again made changes to the article Asian American without achieving consensus or responding on the talk page. Assistance is requested in returning the article to its previous state before the article was disrupted, and assistance is requested in talking to the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I might have created an edit conflict on the article page, please remove my edit.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please join us at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 6 November 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 115ash at Asian American. Thank you. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate talk page

Your comments are uncivil. Discussion would be more productive if you were polite. Cobbsaladin (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Please kind sirs, present reliably published sources to support your positions at your earliest convenience." - @Cobbsaladin: I just may try that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

William Lane Craig Article, critical sources

I just want to inform you that I will write some critical stuff in the article useing these sources:

• Why I Am Not a Christian (2000), Keith M. Parsons, Atlanta Freethought Society in 2000. [1]
• Two Ways to Prove Atheism (1996), Quentin Smith, Atheist Alliance convention in Minneapolis, MN on April 6, 1996[2]
• Review of Reasonable Faith (2007), Chris Hallquist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 350 pp[3]
• Reply To Professor Craig (1995), Graham Oppy, Sophia 34, 2, December 1995, pp.15-29[4]
• Quantum Cosmology's Implication of Atheism (1997), Quentin Smith, Analysis 57.4, October 1997, pp. 295-304[5]
• The Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Question of the Metaphysical Possibility of an Infinite Set of Real Entities (2002)

(Revised 2014), Arnold T. Guminski, Philo (Vol. 5, pp. 196-215)[6]

• Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1995), Graham Oppy, International Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 2, pp.219-221[7]
• Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story, A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder, Journal of Higher Criticism 8:2 (Fall 2001), pp. 251-93[8]
• God (1997), Jan Narveson, Reason Papers, #22 - Fall 97, pp. 109-118[9]
• The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism (1992), Quentin Smith, RELIGIOUS STUDIES in 1992 (Volume 28, pp. 347-350)[10]

These are all critical papers--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

HAHA and that's all you have to say? Interesting. Strange, I never read that any one of you guys wanted to help me and work with me in a collegial manner, no one ever said something about all the source I provided, I think that really shows how much you want to work with me to write some legitimate critisism. But I already think that by looking at all the warnings you get that this will not be a fruitful discussion.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Continual redirection of Assail page

You have continually redirected the Assail page to the relevant series page. I have added several citations and attempted to begin a discussion in Talk:Assail (novel) rather than continue this mindless revert war. One citation I added was from Clarkesworld Magazine which you seem to think is affiliated in some way to the work, but this is blatantly false. The other two citations are to blogs but not personal blogs as advised against in Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Neither are affiliated with the work and they are primarily supplemental to provide information on the number of novels in this series, the sequence, etc. I would appreciate it if you could either revert your redirect, or respond to my post on the article's talk page to discuss your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knmorgan08 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks so much for keeping the "Gamergate controversy" article in line with reality. You're doing great work! Charginghawk (talk) 02:43, 12 November 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: ). Thank you. UniGuard (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit waring

I think you may consider inserting a maintenance tag instead of removing large amount of contents. Or you may investigate for reliable sources and replace it, removing contents is more like an easy job. I am not interested to involve in an edit war. thanks UniGuard (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OPERATION COLLUSION

Lies, Bias, Corruption, Tyranny

and Disruption

https://8chan.co/gg/res/485407.html

WP ARBCOM GENERAL Unbearable Faggot 11/11/14 (Tue) 00:01:55 68f7b4 No.485407[Last 50 Posts][Watch Thread]

GET IN HERE WE HAVE GATHERED ENOUGH SOURCES

NOW WE HAVE TO FIND ANY AND ALL CASES OF COLLUSION BETWEEN THE 5 HORSEMEN OF WIKIBIAS AND ADMINS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NorthBySouthBaranof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ryulong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tarc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TaraInDC

Unbearable Faggot 11/11/14 (Tue) 14:26:41 d4ab81 No.490187

>>487009

>The Horseman of Lies

>The Horseman of Bias

>The Horseman of Corruption

>The Horseman of Disruption

>The Horseman of Tyranny

https://8chan.co/gg/res/500385.html#500385

@NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Ryulong:, @Tarc: , @TaraInDC:

I AM CLAIMING Horseman of Disruption, WHICH ARE YOU? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I be the Horseman of Sanity? These 8channers are beyond all degrees of absurdity previously imagined. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm perversely hurt that I haven't been sane and active enough on this topic to draw the ire of these idiots. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You really don't want to, trust me. I rarely use Twitter, logged in today to see hundreds upon hundreds of @pinged remarks. My god, these are ugly, ugly souls...and the saddest part is, it was about 1/1000th of what Quinn's been subjected to over the last few months. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You must be imagining things, because, you know, ETHICS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, Horseman of Civility here--TRPoD, you really need to tone it down. All-capsing "END OF STORY" is totally sophomoric, of course, but in general, whenever you feel the need to shout down the opposition, turn to Twitter and stay away from Wikipedia. I already commented on a note you left there, and then I saw a later one, "Your "personal annoyance" is COMPLETELY irrelevant"--come on man. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot be serious that the gamergate talk page is the appropriate place to vent personal annoyances? if it is, then it is perfectly appropriate for me to vent mine IN ALL CAPS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Now you're sounding like a car commercial with John McEnroe in it. Yes, I can be quite serious here. Your own frustration was clear enough as well. If that person's frustration is so inappropriate (mind you, I'm not defending their comment), why would you feed into it? Tarc makes a valid point below (though I won't click on the link; it's probably a video of Tarc playing Call of Duty). Especially if you're convinced you're right your behavior should be well above what's expected, and behavior is frequently a matter considered by Arbcom. As a matter of fact, I'm an admin and since general sanctions apply, I think you should indeed take me seriously, even more so since I have no desire to block anyone there. Chillax, as young people say. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is though, that's the sorta thing that gets tallied up for when/if this whole mess ever goes to Arbcom. I know it's hard, but remember what Jesus said; turn the other cheek. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought he said "but ethics"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, unlike the typical 18-35 gamer, I'm not a man-child who overcompensates for their shortcomings in life by alpha-maling in a digital warzone. I wouldn't be caught dead on a Call of Duty game. Instead, I swing magical swords at gargantuan enemies while tilling farms and catching pets. World of Warcraft, always and forever. Btw, the link is just to Robot Chicken, rthe best show in the universe. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal

You are removing contents from other awards and recognition section which are non reliable sources for "you". Removing the unsourced are reasonable. There will not be citations from TOI, The hindu, indianexpress or any other news daily's expecially for awards given from any trusts like "mg soman award", film chamber awards or from any council or associations, they only report awards with high importance and news value. So it will be difficult to find a highly reputed citations for "other" awards and recognitions. Don't remove contents saying non reliable unless it's evidently a highly non reliable source. If you still consider a cite unreliable you may ask wikipedia administrators for help verifying the reliability of the source respective to the claim before removing it.ThanksUniGuard (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if the award is important they only report award with high news values. UniGuard (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not what you care. This is an encyclopedia and you are one among the "self" proclaimed wikipedia senator, which you not really are. You are just a guy who is trying to implement your own rules behind the shades of wikipedia rules and policies. And you just said Kerala Handloom goodwill ambassador is a simple reward. So you no nothing about Kerala and it's heritage. It's a reputed "honour". And you no more had the eligibility to edit that article. UniGuard (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing all unsourced ? then what about these articles, let see what will you do about this if you are not targeting a single page at a corner of little known kerala. List of awards and nominations received by Johnny Depp, List of awards and nominations received by Christian Bale. Best wishes UniGuard (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason for cowardness. Your edits will not survive in those article and you know it. UniGuard (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rajput

Limited web access at the moment but re [7], many of those sources are not really reliable. And some of the phrasing is horrific. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

100k

Good going! – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

i get a book! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor is an Illustrious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge.

Erdogan and Cuba

I know that Erdogan is not a historian, scholar or anything, but I added that paragraph as the source stated scholarly consensus against that hypothesis. That such consensus has had to be taken would suggest that he was not the first person to ever make that hypothesis. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: If there is evidence that we can frame in the article that it was a notable fringe position/held by people that might make an influence, then sure. But we dont need to quote every self-promoter who says something quite obviously looney and discredited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Young_(singer)_(2nd_nomination) and related

Hi; you might want to reconsider adding the album and single to that AfD - it's pretty bad form to add them in the middle of the debate (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion). They're better off as separate discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been one comment total. If there is not sufficient evidence for the artist then there sure as hell is not going to be for the single or the album. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In which case case they can be speedied under A9. I'm not saying they'll survive, I'm saying it's bad form to bundle things in the middle of a discussion. If people have the AfD on their watchlist they're unlikely to notice the recordings got added, since your edit summary wasn't exactly precise either. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i dont see how ninja speedy-ing hours after an AfD would be "more fair" or "better form" than giving several days notice to improve along with the main article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why "more fair" is in quotes there but hey. I'll comment on the AfD to draw attention to the fact you've added them into the discussion (since you didn't). It's best to keep things as clear as possible, don't you think? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Grave Peril

With fifteen other books in the Dresden files each warranting an article on wikipedia, Grave Peril is notable. Ngebendi (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ngebendi: An editor making the claim that an subject is notable must actually , you know, provide sources that indicate that the subject has been noted. And pointing at other articles that ALSO fail to meet the requirements is not evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability issue has been dealt with some time ago for Cold Days, if I remember correctly. Ngebendi (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That sources may have been found for "cold days" does not in any way impact the fact that ZERO sources have been provided for Grave Peril in 6 months since the article was officially tagged as not having any sources and the SIX YEARS it sat without sources prior to that time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude you need to actually read the policies. "Being part of a series " is NOT given as a criteria in any of the pages discussing our notability policy see WP:N particularly WP:NOTINHERITED and the "notability for beginners" WP:42. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK... Agreed on the fact that the two of us counterediting each other and getting riled up won't work. You have issues with this page's notability, I have issues with the focus on only one page among however many there are, fifteen or sixteen, some people show.

Let us see if we can get something done on all the Dresden files pages so to keep everything consistent. The plot issue is probably moot, those sections were longer some time ago and shorten by a kind soul. The notability, and links, is the issue we have to deal with. Suggestions on how to go about it? Ngebendi (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of clean up that needs to be done with the series. WP:WAF / WP:N / WP:OR / WP:NOTFANSITE are violated up the kazoo up and down the articles related to the series. But to present the front that no clean up can be done unless all are cleaned up is a non-starter. Clean up has to start some where and Grave Peril is as good as any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Hi Red Pen! I had a question about one of your edits to the page Alex Jones that I did not understand. I saw that you did delete some information in the Charity section, which I didn't mind. However, I did not understand why you deleted what I had written about Tumble being canceled. What happened was I had read about the cancellation on Digital Spy and I and user SolomonMcKenzie added it to the end of the paragraph about Jones presenting Tumble with the Digital Spy source right after it. Then a few hours you reverted and said it was POV. I did not understand and reverted it but you reverted again saying " POV presentations are ONLY justified on your personal blog". I'm curious what that means and why writing "On 14 November 2014, the BBC decided to axe the show after just one series." with the source from DS which is still there at the end of the paragraph is POV? It's a sourced fact about Jones hosting Tumble but the programme being cancelled after one series. In fact there are many articles about the same subject. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a610036/tumble-axed-by-bbc-one-after-one-series-in-difficult-decision.html

I didn't want to revert it yet again but decided to ask you about your reasons for editing before doing anything to that paragraph on Alex Jones' page. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!74.15.186.97 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC) samusek2

I can understand that, but would it be all right to use alternative words to say it better, like "On 14 November, the BBC chose not to renew the programme for a second series.", if you don't like "axed". Just a suggestion, as not to make it sound too harsh. 74.15.186.97 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Neil Francis

Re this edit, shouldn't a citation link actually lead to a source of some kind? What's WP:V without verifiability? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

see my response at Talk:Neil_Francis_(broadcaster)#Suspension. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I did. So that cite provides verifiability for readers who (1) know what an article talk page is, and (2) read the article's talk page when they discover that the citation doesn't point to anything useful. Assuming that the talk page section hasn't been archived. Such a practice would seem to undermine reader trust in Wikipedia's principle of verifiability. And we already had sufficient sourcing anyway, we didn't need that source. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS a link in the footnote is merely a convenience. with the paper name, date, article name, and author, (now all in the citation) the cite is a valid one. we do not know when kentonline may change their archiving policy and make the old pages available again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept that the edit follows the letter of a bad policy. Finis. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go against 3O

Please don't go against the 3O on my talk page. As per the 3O by Michael you should not delete referenced info and the quotes aren't promotional and can be included, just that to avoid claims of having too many quotes you must instead convert them to text. Please refer to the 3O by Michael on my talk page and don't go against it. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Course Reference Number

I hate to hassle you, but can you reconsider your proposed deletion? This is a fairly commonly used phrase/concept in higher education. It is used in the vast majority of colleges and universities in the United States, and our readers will likely look it up here. Is there any way you can do some more research before you continue support its deletion? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bearian: Its a classic WP:DICDEF - the only possible thing we can say about it is what the definition is- nothing about it. I am not seeing anything different. Unless you can provide sources that talk about history and evolution, impact, schools of thought, cultural impact, "The Great Course Reference Number Controversy of '08". etc. Merely existing or being common is not sufficient. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in these SPIs

Given the problems you've recently had with UniGuard, et al., you may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If you bump into other accounts that you feel are possible sockpuppets of these two, please let me know. KatyCave, whom you reverted, has been reported. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Am I getting this outpouring of support because of an alleged dox? —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User page

Do you insist on living w/o a user page just so that you can be the "Red Pen Of Doom"? Because if you are, there are easier ways. Contact Basemetal here 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have existed quite well with no user page for 7 years. I see no reason to have one now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GS/GG/E

Statements at this page should be limited to 500 words. Please adhere to this rule. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Thanks, the process of gathering info and getting it into an appropriately readable form took a while and required several breaks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I lashed out at you, it was childish and impulsive. I ask your forgiveness, please. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sqrrl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRN. 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) 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

~~

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to I (film) Ustad hotel Action Jackson and PK. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.39.47.100.58 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted all the IP's unhelpful reversions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Indians image at stake

WHY FIGHTING. Wolrd will laugh on us. wo bcha hay to tu maan ja Salmankhan2014 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Salmankhan2014: Yes, "the world" will laugh at articles where grammar is thrown out the window and unsourced hyperbole reigns - so why are you restoring the article to that state? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears"

Although the content you removed is not sourced, that's no justification for your removal of it. That's largely all valid and useful content, and per MINREF, it doesn't even need citations. You're not helping the encyclopedia, and more people will continue to add these pop culture references and more, because they think they're notable or worth mentioning. Because this is such a borderline issue, I'm at least going to paste back the information as invisible text, just so it doesn't get lost and is only accessible by scavenging through the article history.--ɱ (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

It might be worthwhile keeping a local copy of the current article at social justice warrior if it is deleted. It is likely that another version will be created in a few weeks or so with a similar bias to the initial version, so it saves the tiresome process of restructuring whilst the inevitable third deletion attempt takes place. Also I have to say that you've been doing good work at GamerGate the past few months, I can only imagine how exhausting it is dealing with so many SPAs --5.81.52.82 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Primarily for keeping biographies of living persons free of crap, crud, cruft, and nonsense. Secondarily for trying to keep Gamergate controversy free of crap, crud, cruft, false balance, and other nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Marin Magazine

The would-be owner of Marin Magazine requested proposed deletion of the article because he can't keep it in the promotional form that he wants, with the statement that a banned editor (yourself) has removed information and he (the would-be owner) can't restore it now. (Never mind that any removed information is still in the page history.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think someone else proposed deletion before and the coi editor opposed. but then couldnt keep the article as an advert and is now willing to go with the deletion.

I did a little searching on google books and found a lot of times where people had padded their creds with writing for the mag, but didnt come up with anything about the mag in the first several pages of results. i didnt get to checking the news sources to see if there's anything there, but it seems a likely candidate for deletion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely to qualify for AFD as non-notable, but the arguments given by the COI editor are patent nonsense. An alternative approach that was formerly common at the Help Desk is to request that the article be permanently locked in the approved version. I haven't seen that charming request recently. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Hello. Why have you reverted a lot of my edits, which intended to give a pronunciation key more intuitive to most audiences? Wolfdog (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, you've reverted edits of mine that have nothing to do with pronunciation. Please don't just use the buckshot approach; actually read my edits carefully. Wolfdog (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK; no problem. Thanks for checking in. Wolfdog (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)