User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Dual Survival

I agree. Let's do that. Widr (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That person did it again.

That IP user vandalized the Dual Survival article again. What's the next step? Lighthead ^þ 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that. ☺ Lighthead ^þ 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP opening sentences

Hi. I don't know why an editor who's racked up over 39,000 edits on Wikipedia since 2007 is not aware of this, but it is standard practice across biographical articles on Wikipedia to mention in the opening sentence what the subject is known for, and by using the words "known" or even "best known." For actors, directors and other entertainment professionals, it is commonplace to simply list the most prominent works that they have been a part of, which is assumed by things like box office gross, awards won, ratings, etc. In addition, narrative or creative works such as films, TV shows, books, etc., function as their own primary sources for their content (cast and credits; plot), per WP:FILMPLOT/WP:TVPLOT. We do not need an inline citation for this, any more than we need one for the date on which Christmas falls, since a subject's notability is implicitly understood or assumed by virtue of the prominence of the works they've been a part of. The only aspect of this practice where they may sometimes come conflict is over which works should be listed, or in which order or prominence. Do you intend to go across the 600,000 or so biographical articles on Wikipedia to remove the words "known" from all of their Lead sentences? Nightscream (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If an actor appeared in a movie, and the movie function as a primary source for that fact, then that's the same thing as saying he's known to have appeared in that movie. There's no difference between the two. That an actor's appearance in a film is what he/she is known of is obvious. (See Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue).

Btw, I neglected to properly link format the phrase "date on which Christmas falls" in my message above. I've now linked it as originally intended. I don't know if the discussion linked therein will change you mind, but Jimbo's comments therein about what needs to be cited and what doesn't bears upon my position here, similar to the "sky is blue" link above.

If you still disagree, we can start a consensus discussion on this matter with other editors well-versed in WP:V and WP:NOR. If they agree with your position, then I'll alter my writing convention accordingly. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference between those statements. The notion that McKellen is known for his performance in that production would indeed by verifiable by his appearance in it, so long as that production is among the most prominent in his career by way of box office grosses, reviews, awards won, caliber of his costars, etc. Similarly, what Hutchison is best known for is easily assumed by virtue of which his roles. The aforementioned roles he was in are easily his most prominent, so he is obviously best known for those, since those are the roles which would have garnered the highest number of patrons/viewers.

If you don't mind my asking, did you read the "blue sky" and "Christmas" links I linked to above?

Since we seem to be at the Agree to Disagree threshold, let me know if you want me to start a consensus discussion. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there is a semantic difference the two phrasings. I merely hold that for Wikipedia's purposes, it is technical one that does violate WP:V or WP:NOR.

I did not say that McKellen is known for Lady Grey. If you read my post above carefully, you'll see that the statement I made was in the hypothetical: McKellen would be known for that performance, if that production were among the most prominent in his career. I would appreciate if it you made some attempt to understand my point of view before disagreeing with it, rather than engaging in Straw Man distortions of them, and for that matter, if you made an attempt to tone down the hostile tone of your messages, since talking things out during a dispute is both required, and makes it easier to reach a resolution.

Again, out of curiosity, did you read the linked pages I included above? Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

leonard oprea: yes, with all my due respect, you committed ATTACK ON THE/my/ PAGE - just because all my links are reliable sources; please, make the effort to check them out. Thank you.

From: theophil magus <>

To: Sue Gardner <donate@wikimedia.org>; ""info-en@wikimedia.org"" <info-en@wikimedia.org> 

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 7:06 PM

Subject: Re: leonard oprea: Please, I need help: ATTACK ON THE PAGE! Again were erased all the reliable sources provided by Leonard Oprea. Why?!! 

(cur | prev) 01:27, 17 December 2012‎ TheRedPenOfDoom(talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,448 bytes) (-2,994)‎ . .(the WP:REDFLAG extraordinary claim that Thomas is wrong brings all claims from this editor under question) (undo)(

cur | prev) 01:10, 17 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,442 bytes) (+59)‎ . .(leonard oprea: "life and career" , added "under the communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu" /on first line) (undo)(cur | prev) 01:01, 17 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,383 bytes) (+653)‎ . .(leonard oprea: new reliable sources concering "anti-communist dissident" and "offcially forbade writings"; please - do not cut off arbitrary; thank you) (undo)(cur | prev) 03:14, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,730 bytes) (+12)‎ . .(layout minor corrections) (undo)(cur | prev) 03:06, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,718 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (undo)(cur | prev) 03:04, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,706 bytes) (+69)‎ . .(Leonard Oprea: minor layout corrections) (undo)(cur | prev) 02:30, 16 December 2012‎ Theophilmagus(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,637 bytes) (+2,189)‎ . .(Leonard Oprea: having copies of Congressional Record, July 26, 1990 / "Thomas" is wrong!/ and all the other proven links and corrections - I did the mandatory corrections. Please, with all due respect, stop to cut arbitrary the proven links.Thank you.) (undo) ... --Theophilmagus (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Red Pen, if I can figure what all this means I'll be a monkey's uncle. Was that an email to Sue Gardner? I'm sorry for all she has to deal with--but then, she never took me up on a dinner invite at Wikipedia, so that's her loss. Anyway, that article is awful. I could go through, but my axe is, as is well-known, on the blunt side. Consider dropping a line to User:Biruitorul, who is of the Romanian persuasion and also a fantastic and helpful editor. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

the sue gardiner thing is, as I recall, an attempt at a reminder that the user made a contribution to Wikipedia and let Sue know and she sent a "thank you" back. the rest are a series of my edit summaries on the page, I think. with the person being specifically upset with my last edit - when I reverted a bunch of their edits when they made the claim that they had a personal copy of the congressional record that says something that the Thomas published version does not support. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced

Per your invitation,

TRPoD, From your comment at Talk:Sync Mot, it seems that you wouldn't object if editors went from article to article deleting everything that wasn't sourced. Am I understanding you correctly? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The behavior as you describe is WP:POINTy disruption and should be addressed in the appropriate forum for editor behavior such as RfC/User. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of wp:point,

"When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently."

The deleting editor wouldn't be frustrated by policy but rather embrace it and think that Wikipedia would be better if there was no unsourced material in it. So it wouldn't be a case of WP:POINT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess you would be out of luck then until someone else brought the disruptive editor under control. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why would you consider the editor disruptive? The deleting editor would be acting in good faith, trying to improve Wikipedia by deleting unsourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

if an editors behavior creates a disruption, even if they are acting in good faith, it is disruptive behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the question, "Why would you consider the editors behavior disruptive?" --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Like everything else context matters. If they went around removing every piece of unsourced material and no one was bothered, then it would not be disruptive. However, as the reaction at the particular article page pointed out, such action is not likely to occur for long without a large number of editors being bothered - at which point it is disruptive to continue to remove every piece of unsourced information. But again, it is at the edtiors actions level that such disruption occurs and needs to be addressed, not at the article / content level. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like your position is that, the editor is correct to try to delete all the unsourced material in Wikipedia, but he shouldn't do any deletions where he is causing a disruption to do so. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RedPenOfDoom , We Love you all

My dear RedPenOfDoom thanks for the foto of Dr Proff Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi addition.But please remove the deletion tag my dear.Prof Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is a loyal and hardworking Pakistani senior most teacher and lecturer.Please further improve his article but do not delete Sir ! God Bless you RedPenOfDoom My love Bro ! JohnSmith --115.42.78.72 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Walken Dead

I don't understand why I received a message that you deleted my contribution to the article "Zombie (fictional)" as needing an adequate source. I included the YouTube URL as reference since it is the only place I know where this video, "The Walken Dead," is found. At that link under the "More" dropdown, the video attributions provide the creators of the video plus additional relevant URL links for the creators. Why is this inadequate since it is the primary URL for the video information on the Internet, and a direct link to the video itself? How would you source this? Thanks for your help on this. --Sdouglas7 (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You responded:

If the only source for the information you wish to include is the youtube video itself, then it is probably not a significant example which provides any encyclopedic information or context. In general, news papers and books are acceptable sources, you can find them at books.google.com and news.google.com -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It seems the rationale for my contribution is what is being questioned more than the matter of sourcing since primary sources are allowed. I included the brief note since it combined two pop culture phenomenons - the TV series "The Walking Dead" and actor Christopher Walken - in an artistic, creative, and comedic fashion which adds to the body of pop culture popularity and information about zombies/zombie apocalypse. I have seen other such notes and links in Wikipedia for art, literature, music, and film, and, thus, considered this a worthwhile brief note adding to the cultural use of and references for "Zombies (fictional)". The video has received attention on the Internet (as a Google search shows), which has become a reference source in its own right since people are using is as a point of information and publication, but nothing like "news papers and books." Not every YouTube zombie video is worth such attention - and most should be happily ignored - but I still think this is a valid contribution to the article. I would be happy for your thoughts as I am a new contributor. Thank you. --Sdouglas7 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

current tag at 2012 phenoneom

FYI: That's why we have WP:TERMINAL. :) SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for beating that vandal on my talk page. You were faster than me. Boo hoo. Widr (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Jones merger

I saw that you placed a proposed merge tag on Phoenix Jones but did not start any discussion about why it should be merged into Rain City Superhero Movement. You should either start the discussion or remove the proposed merger tag. GB fan 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcoming messages and helpful advice. TR Tina Redhead (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of National Convention Information for TGOA

You recently removed a table of information about national conventions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gardeners_of_America/Men%27s_Garden_Clubs_of_America. One reason that table was placed on the page is because past editors have complained that the page lacks sufficient independent citations and primary sources. The table was added because the list of conventions organized by clubs affiliated with the national organization adds such independent citations and sources. Indeed, now that the table is gone, a Wikipedia bot has flagged the page as lacking such citations and sources! So would you please explain your thinking here? Thanks! Lou (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Breno

Excuse me, what are you doing there? Please leave it lik I made it, it is not a personal analysis. It is how the world goes around. If s.o. is in prison, he only can start his contract if he is back in liberty. Thats it. If you dont understand this, sorry.Cruks (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the infobox. Or you get reported.Cruks (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

reliable sources

Hey redpen. Hope you're having a great holiday. Finally found a minute to clean-up some of the unreliable material at Conan chronologies. (The table took a while.) Would appreciate your help keeping an eye on it, since that page has been a magnet for fan theories and self-published websites. I'll continue to monitor the situation. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Breno

Stop undo my edits. Enough is enough. Cruks (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing information from List of Hispanic Republicans

You need to stop vandalising this article as the version you are trying to add is both messy and misses out alot of Latino people. The version that I am trying to keep not only shows the rise of Hispanic Republicans through the years, but also shows what positions they have held, when they were elected/appointed, images of prominent Hispanics, if they are not a politician then I have placed them under a specific category e.g Law or Science. The article now features a section that one could describe as a graph showing hispanic's in federal government. Why then are you trying to remove all that and put in its place a article that only shows names?? Ilford North Scott MP (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Miami cannibal

The point of mentioning Stuyvesant High School in the first place is because it is prestigious. There would be little point in mentioning it at all if he just went to Joe Schmo High School. But our readers may not know what the school is, so it is perfectly reasonable for us to describe it as a prestigious highschool. The fact that he went there was mentioned in all the sources, which I suggest you read, as well as reading the article on the school itself.

I am restoring this material, and giving you an edit warring warning, because if you continue to remove it without consensus on the talk page I will take this right to the edit warring bulletin board. I do understand your concern in general, but believe it is misplaced here. Please seek consensus on the talk page if you think this is problematic. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

LEAD on Tara Strong

Okay, I might have overlooked that. --69.113.52.93 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you nominate?

• Hi Redpen, can you nominate this for second time deletion?.Please first take a look at its talk page.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Stienstra

You may wish to redact your mention of charges on the talk page. He was never charged. Feel free to remove the whole section including my statement.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Obviously notable, and very disliked. I can stop editing if you wish and post links on the talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC) He is not a Rabbi and also was thrown out of Neturei Karta. Make changes on draft page and include why on talk page. He is one of a group of wackos and doesn't need own page.Tellyuer1 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Moshe Friedman".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 01:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Dear Please do not remove or delete the best article Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi Darling!Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi Sahib could suffer from,according to my poor opinion, a scholar in one region or country or continent but in every area of ​​the world is, in every era, in every region of the world is mostly dry and a a scholar whose scholarship boom around the world, including Pakistan, but I and millions of readers on the English Wikipedia Template for a removing at most heartfelt sadness life, suffering, anxiety, confusion and sorrow and heartfelt pain is felt. So what should be the appropriate editor Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi thesis further back because it is a 'provider' article in this wiki article past the boss' Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi ads were placed, There are (as far as my information, the IP Karachi, Korangi is a region, or around that) but we wonder the English Wikipedia are all damaged by a qualified, registered Editor's against the law does not litigation. Dr. Prof. Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is my request sir ! senior government employee, teacher are great. therefore best if the article could be improved but not called to delete expertise can., you will have to wait for feedback that will please a guy by destroying a 'scholar' a scholar and be saved from being slaughtered. many thanks to you all. Allah (God) We all others grant to help easing. Your brother and old friend! Thank You !!! --Hasbi syed (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Hasbi Syed Hasbi; If the article is removed, put it back, but perhaps make it better, more readable. Opinions are a problem for Wikipedia. Wikipedia relies upon facts. If you tell me of a person's greatness, I will dismiss it. If you tell me a person worked for 10 years to become a scholar, I will accept it. Mark Bestland (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Reliability-laundering Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#A little reading is also a dangerous thing. There has to be a better phrase for it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Your new sig Been seeing you around for years... but I liked the old sig better. You new one makes me want to call you "tripod". That's the word I hear in my head when I see it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I realized that I am the first poster on a lot of new editor's pages and didn't think that "Welcome" messages from DOOM would actually be perceived as very "welcoming". I will answer to Tripod! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Re:Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi Dear User:TheRedPenOfDoom, this link from The Dawn is an example of such a source. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Museo del Prado We are both wasting our time here, as most of the collections section appears to be a straight copyvio from the museum website, eg this, & will need a full rewrite. This used not to be the case & I will try to find an old version that is ok. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC) FYI This name is okay per WP:ISU. Have a good one. NTox · talk 01:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Cal Poly Pomona Vandal These informations need to be restored 1. List of NYU School of Medicine people(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NYU_School_of_Medicine_people) Alumnus Frederick Cook's name was removed even after three sources were provided. Source= Already in ref format 2. Yann LeCun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yann_LeCun) Information about the fact that he is also a professor at Polytechnic Institute of New York University was removed even after two sources were provided. Source= Already in ref format 3. Paul Horn (computer scientist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Horn_(computer_scientist)) Sourced information about the fact that he is also a professor at Polytechnic Institute of New York University was removed. Source= Already in ref format 4.Robert G. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Brown) Sourced information about the fact that he is an alumnus of Polytechnic Institute of New York University was removed. Source= Already in ref format Undo the current revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elmer_L._Gaden&diff=531034837&oldid=519038771 because of this (http://www.bths.edu/apps/news/show_news.jsp?REC_ID=237613&id=35) massive amount of vandalism occurred at Wireless Internet Center for Advanced Technology (WICAT)... Save this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wireless_Internet_Center_for_Advanced_Technology_(WICAT)&oldid=531008679 Thanks--Njboc (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for some of this long-term vandal's history. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) refs Emma Degerstedt "best known" Yes, there aren't any sources confirming she is best known for 13 but given the several news articles about this play, it would seem this was the most significant theatre production she did. As for television, she is obviously best known for Unfabulous as that was the only show in which she was featured in more than one episode. Additionally, she won two Young Artist Awards nominations for Unfabulous, suggesting this was indeed her best known television work. As for the "most recent work", that was only this past December and, if she is attending UCLA, it's unlikely she would have much time for many productions. But of course, I wouldn't know what she is spending her time with. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Not all of my statements above are assumptions though including the Young Artist Awards nominations for Unfabulous, which as I said, has been the best and most significant role of her career. I'm not going to argue with you but, although I agree there could be better information for her, it's better than before and enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 7 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynette Nusbacher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Message Hi mentor you have message. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'd like to inquire as to which article edit of mine you removed? I just wanted to know so I can see for myself why it may have been removed. Also I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for me to ask. I wasn't quite sure but "messages" seemed like a safe bet. Thanks, Presidentsomeday0000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presidentsomeday0000 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Alright thanks, you are the first person to make this known to me and I read through the guidelines you linked for me too and understand. Thanks, and no need to stress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presidentsomeday0000 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Belated welcome Thanks for the welcome. NetNus (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) AFD aritcle I am nominate this article for deletion for non-notable person under blp. He or she has only one source and even that can be considered non-reliable. If anyone can add anything else, go for it, but right now it is unacceptable on Wikipedia.--Hinata talk 22:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC) WP:AFD/Lynette Nusbacher (2nd nomination) Already fixed, thanks! -- KTC (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Beef Products Inc You are failing to cite reasons for your alternations - I offer multiple examples as to why you should offer a fair and balanced approach, and it's apparent you are choosing to ignore them. You don't want advocacy. I don't want my sources arbitrarily ignored. --66.172.199.26 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Sad, so sad... Have you ever been laid? Ever even seen a woman naked? You poor bastard. 69.158.137.205 (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ewww- girl germs - BUMPERS! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Agricultural Extension - removal of external links Hi, can you let me know why you removed the external links at Agricultural extension? I'm not contesting this, just wondering what the rules are so that I can avoid mistakes in the future. Thanks. APB-CMX (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the guidance. I will add a couple of new links that meet these criteria. There are international/professional networks that are recognised as leading authorities on this subject, but I agree that most of the previous links were inappropriate. APB-CMX (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC) ANI and Zombies Oh Noes Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You've been brought up and denounced as a zombie by Dciurchea (talk · contribs) Drmies (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Pretty sure you're not a zombie, but if you are can you tell me, is Walking Dead accurate? Inquiring Minds, etc. KillerChihuahua 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) OK, zombie or not, you did make a sock accusation, and I think it would be helpful if you followed up on that, with an SPI. FWIW, I don't see that Sensei and Dciurchea are the same, if that's who you were thinking of (the level of English seems very different). Maybe you're thinking of Judetadeus, but that account hasn't been active in years. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Copyeditor's Barnstar Good work here, my friend. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Oprea Leonard Oprea: Discrimination, Racism, Ignorance & Censorship, or ..what against me? I protest firmly against the slandering of my article in your English Wikipedia. Your “creation” of my “Biography” and “Works” are OUT of the reliable sources, OUT of the truth concerning who I am as writer worldwide. I never wrote a novella “X-Ray of an Instant”, for example; this is the title of a short stories and novellas volume. My first book – well-know – is “Domenii Interzise” / Forbidden Areas/ 1984 published – but premeditatedly you made my article a FALSE image of my biography and works. Premeditatedly you “adjusted” my image as looking … stupid… Probably I have to sue you. I want to be civilized and I like to have a common sense dialog with you… Alas! sorry, you do not have any excuse for your American ignorance and more for your OBVIOULSY CENSORSHIP. I do not agree to have such an article in your racist American space, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO MY FORMER ANTI-COMMUNIST DISSIDENCE WIDELY RECOGNIZED. I did not do anything to deserve this discrimination. Therefore, I think I will have to make public your discrimination. This is NOT a threat – yet what can I do against this evil ignorance? Leonardoprea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardoprea (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardoprea (talk • contribs) oversight and feedback The oversight team has been trying to get the message out that the same standards for suppression apply to article feedback as to actual content. Most vandalism, even BLP violations, does not rise to the level of warranting the harsh action of suppression, although it can be hidden or revdeleted. The policy outlining the circumstances in which it is appropriate to suppress material is at WP:OS. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Repeated creations and deletions of user page I noticed you keep having to request deletion of your user page, presumably because you want it redlinked in accordance with your username. If you want, I can protect it so other users can't vandalize it. Unfortunately full protection would prevent you from editing it too. Please let me know. In any case I could semi-protect it, which would have prevented some of those edits (and personally I believe semi-protection should be the default state for user pages). ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC) KillerChihuaha beat me to it. Your userpage is protected so only admins can create it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Andrew Brenner Saw your edits regarding the Andrew Brenner article. Agree fully that that editor has a significant COI, however, I did delete some of the content you had restored. Do not disagree with your restoration due to his COI, but after reading the sources, the article is about his reelection, and the "criticism" entry in the source was a one line "in-passing" mention, with no sourcing, no attribution etc in the WP:RS, so I deleted it as I believe we would need more than that to avoid a BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I could have sworn that from when I was working the article earlier, the sources had made such a connection, but it does not appear so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I saw two sources touching on the issue. 1 source was about the issue in its entirely, but did not criticize Brenner directly, or accuse of any wrongdoing, just statement of simple fact of the business relationship and being behind on taxes. The other source was all about the election, with a one line "brenner was criticized", with no details, attribution, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Leonard Oprea RedPen, I'm a bit surprised you reverted Biruitorul. This is just fine, and it's the standard way of doing things. In fact, we owe him a thank you for turning this article into something legible. Biruitorul is one of the good guys. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) If you look closer the verbiage contains many point of analysis/commentary/interpretation/opinions that are presented in Wikipedia's voice as well as numerous WP:PEACOCK descriptions. I will stand by the removal of that content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I've looked at the verbiage: it is nothing uncommon, and not peacocky at all. You might quibble over "influential", but the rest is neutral. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I have to concur with Drmies, and add that I recollect someone removing a word from an article about a Nobel prize winner, citing PEACOCK;, the word came from the 1911 Enc Brit. Sometimes people really are brilliant or influential, and it isn't P to say so straight up. KillerChihuahua 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC) if they really are, then there will be oodles of reliable sources to support such gushing, and sources of any kind, are sorely lacking in the article under discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC) "Influential" is hardly gushing; the edit did not, for example, state that he "transformed dissident literature for all time and is the most influential Romanian ever" or any such nonsense. Influential merely indicates others have been influenced by his work, and is a very modest claim. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC) but again, if he was so influential, there would be multiple sources noting his influence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC) There probably are, in a language neither you nor I master. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) The language barrier is certainly hampering my ability to edit the article in a manner that allows me to fully assess the sources proffered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC) KLTA controversy the section of Kanna Laddu Thinna Aasaiya, which says K. Bhagyaraj filed a case against the film because of its storyline rip-off, why don't u let it be named as controversies? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3RR warning on Kevin Clash Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.31.191 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC) can we discuss please This is in reference with Rahul easwar page and I have give reference. Can we discuss please. We had a elaborate deliberation on the same with James b Watson and administrators. Could we pls discuss sir, (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)) Sir, have left the questions raised by you regarding improvement of the article. But. Would like to humbly submit that the detailed debate regarding the notability was in hair splitting detail discussed. Could we discuss this here please. (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)) Sir, I have been raising some points on talk page of Rahul easwar. Pls see that. Is writing in detail before editing, so pls give attention. (Alex.mathews (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) if you are not interested in discussion so be it. I was giving precise points of national news channels. AND ONE MORE THING, You can use more civil language, That might not reduce your seniority or stature as a senior wikipedian. Was a learning experience from interacting with you, hopefully your are broad enough to take feedback (Alex.mathews (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) repeatedly posting the same links of someone babbling is not discussing. it is completely ignoring the numerous times that you have been told that content by the subject is irrel and you need to provide content about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for reply. PLEASE NOTE : I didn't tell about Notability, I was mentioning that he participates in all debates, not only about Sabarimala & Hinduism. I know you are busy editing, BUT please do read. Understands your schedules & work, appreciate that, thanks & regards (Alex.mathews (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) without meeting notability then we have no article at all, so you better start with establishing notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC) thank u again for answering, Do you understand Malayalam?? I can give you interviews OF him & a program ON him in Malayalam (Asianet & KCN News) (Alex.mathews (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)) BLP issue you reverted. Without going into detail, you might want to get that rev-del'd. Its unsourceable to any reputable source (When the best info that you can find comes from the David Icke forum - you know its bad) and is such a bad BLP violation it needs to be gone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) oooo- i hadnt even paid any attention to the "source". I am already late and not going to be able to make that request for a while so if someone else can make that report i'd appreciate it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Its given a thin veneer of legitimacy in that the Daily Mail ran a story on the questioning, however they explicitly did not name who, its only the internet thats speculating on the name wildly. (Via Twitter, davidickeforum etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC) You need to answer this. Do answer here Talk:Srinivasan (actor). Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Quit removing sourced material just because you find it personally objective We've been over your edits at Neturei Karta, yet you're at it again: There is no violation of WP:COPYVIO, the policy itself is irrelevant. You can find everything under WP:QUOTE. You really have no clue what WP:COATRACK refers to. A reliably-sourced money transfer, followed by a reliably sourced public denial of the person involved, equals a legitimate story. Since the person involved is a leading member of the organization, about which the article is written, the story is directly pertinent to the article. Same with the testimony. We only use the {{who}} tag when footnotes do not specify "who". In this case, however, you simply failed to read the supplied sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Hearfourmewesique's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Manish Sharma (Panasonic) should not be mentioned as Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat I made this page Manish Sharma (businessman) on Manish Sharma who is the current Managing Director, Panasonic India. There are certain issues with the page, the biggest one being that Manish Sharma is being termed as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat. In my opinion this is not correct. I understand that we need to provide proper facts/references to support it and here they are: I would start with a statement from The Economic Times (Category-A Business newspaper in India) here, "Japan's largest consumer electronics company, Panasonic has for the first time ever appointed an Indian to head its flagship consumer durables business in the country. Manish Sharma (41), erstwhile head for sales and marketing of Panasonic India, has been promoted as its managing director from April." Here is the link of the same: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market His name has appeared in other major newspapers and magazines in India. Here are the links: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/brandline/article3707404.ece http://www.4psbusinessandmarketing.com/07102010/storyd.asp?sid=4042&pageno=1 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/marketing/article3516096.ece?homepage=true&ref=wl_home Apart from these, he has received various awards, one of the most recent one being, the National Conservation Energy Awards 2012 held in December on behalf of Panasonic. Therefore, Manish Sharma by no means necessary can be categorized as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat.I request you to please help me correct this issue.Gadgetsgigs (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Andrew Brenner I have requested page protection for the article due to the frequent BLP issues by anon IPs. You may want to comment. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Revision Why did you revert my addition of a family tree to the Disappearance of Susan Powell article? - Nbpolitico (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment Hey TheRedPenOfDoom - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Rahul Easwar user:Alex.mathews is involved in an edit war violating 3RR in the page Rahul Easwar. He is removing citation and notability templates without establishing the same. Inviting your attention to the page.58.68.91.114 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Please have a look at the article Rahul Easwar. Few users are reverting removal of unsourced material repeatedly. They also removed the notability template. 180.215.60.111 (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ayu Why did you remove my edit on Ayu? They never actually said it was astral projection. BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry I meant the Ayu section on List of Kanon characters BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) But the edit saying it was astral projection doesn't have a source on it, either. They never explain in the game or anime how she existed outside her coma, astral projection was a fan theory which is why I added that BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 31 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Pearl (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Wagner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Actress cats I held off until the AFD was closed. I happen to agree with it, though I did not vote at the time; that being said, the category a.) exists and b.) is being populated. All I'm doing is helping it along. If there is consensus to undo it all, show me and I'll happily stop. That being said (and I know I'm hewing dangerously close to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory here), we have Category:Women classical composers, Category:Women writers by nationality, Category:Women scientists, Category:Female film directors, etc., etc., etc.; why actors should be exempted from that is beyond me. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Bootstrap paradox in fiction Before now, there hadn't been an addition in months. Thanks to you, there will be thousands. Do not assume I will be cleaning this mess for you. You dug this hole, you live in it. I am sick and tired of deletionists rushing in and blanking pages, then expecting everyone else to deal with the consequences. So yeah, I hope you have a lot of time on your hands, because I am taking that page off my watchlist. Serendipodous 09:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Re your recent "work" on colostomy Destruction is easy, replacing unsourced content or content based on 2o sources takes more time, but it is better for the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC) How can the content be reinserted? It is lost to the history. Don't pretend you are doing some important task, this is just aimless, destructive vandalism. Lesion (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC) issue is not about how long unsourced statements were present. Better to find sources and edit article responsibly than what you have done. Remember the template is "citation needed" not "blanket delete without looking for supporting citation". Lesion (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC) you are choosing to ignore parts of policy and then claiming that your own interpretation of policy "trumps" any other argument. Stop destructive vandalism, you create more work for serious editors. Also, I am pretty certain that warnings are given in order (if indeed a warning was justified at all here), instead of skipping straight to a final warning. Another example of your selective interpretation of policy. I think you may be a troll, seeking out conflict as an expression of dissatisfaction with your own unhappy life. Leave wikipedia alone please. Lesion (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC) TheRedPenOfDoom has a habit of removing section he/she disagrees with using selective/personal interpretations of 'policies' as an excuse, to the point of disregarding verifiable sources provided. Zzsignup (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC) claims of "controversial" must be attributed Per your policy link "(labels) are best avoided UNLESS WIDELY USED by reliable sources to describe the subject" (emphasis mine). As Niemti have pointed out, there are MULTIPLE reliable sources describing the video as controversial, and it is rather self-evident (see Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue) to anyone who followed the video (have you?). As I have pointed out, the Wiki Kony video article even called the video 'controversial' multiple times without challenge. Why is it so hard for you to accept that factually, it is a controversial video? If you have a problem with how the edit is sourced, then correct the edit or add 'Citation needed' as others have suggested. Simply removing them even when they can easily be verified smacks of unilateral censorship/ownership/disruptive editing. Regarding the source, did you even read the article or look at the title? The title is "Invisible Children's 'Kony 2012' viral video stirs emotion and controversy". A direct quote from the article "In less than a week, the video has garnered over 26.6 million views, but it's also sparked controversy." How can you claim the article is about Invisible Children the organization and not the video? Nice straw-man argument. However you clearly knew that the source was about the Kony 2012 video, which IS a section on the Joseph Kony page. If you feel that the video is not relevant to Joseph Kony (I disagree) then the whole section should be removed. If you feel the video is relevant, then the controversies need to be mentioned as they are part of why the video gained notoriety, and balance the section out. As it was, only the positive effects of the video are mentioned and unchallenged, which I don't doubt is intentional. Zzsignup (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Uh, hey What exactly was wrong with the edit I made on the Orly Taitz page? You didn't give a reason. Does it need a source? I could only find HuffPost news and Taitz own webpage (which I don't think is a reliable source). Maedar (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Maedar Do not undo actress cat adding If you do not like actress categories, you are free to nominate them for deletion at categories for deletion. As long as the categories exist, actresses should be added to them. Removing such categories is disruptive and should not be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I'll second that. Please do not remove articles from categories in which they belong, just because you would prefer that the categories do not exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Film ratings I'm sure you are aware that Template:film ratings was deleted, which was basically {{video game ratings}} but for films. Adding a substituted version of this template to Lokpal (film) is basically going against the TfD outcome. I trust you won't add it again without starting a discussion at WT:FILM. thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I am actually quite sure that I was absolutely UNaware of such a discussion, but that you for sharing the link. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Rape culture I am correct in that opinion pieces can be used when attributed right? I ask due to this revert of content you had restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC) In the context involved I would think it best not to use op-ed pieces. Op-ed pieces tend to want to get people to act, an article like this one needs to have restraint and focus on the facts. Horrific indicents get momentary overeactions that should not be incorporated into an encyclopedia. If the claims are valid they will find publication in more reliable sources than op-ed pieces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) exactly what "facts" ? the horrific incident is, according to all of the commentators that I have heard, not is not bringing "momentary overeactions" - it is opening a space where people are finally talking about things that have long existed and been ignored. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your kind words on my Username. Are you an Administrator? Do you check if things have sources etc. Much respect - Aucklandisgood (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC) -- Thanks for your response. Its good that people are doing that. Appreciate your help, thanks --Aucklandisgood (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Path to deletion Hi RedPen, I opted for prodding rather than speedy on Alex Gilbert under the assumption that the article is not substantially similar to the entry of 2006, before he was working as a cameraman. Either way, this is deletion-bound. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) My editing of Mike Milken page I do not believe Wiki guidelines prohibit me from editing a BLP, even if I am a representative of that individual. In fact, I believe I have followed Wiki guidelines by being completely transparent in noting my bias. I then have posted on the Milken talk page the evidence supporting my suggestions. That said, please address my concern - the fact that there is documented proof that Mike Milken has funded medical research since 1982. This documentation exists not only at www.mff.org, but has been reported by Fortune magazine (^ a b c Daniels, Cora (2004-11-29). "The Man Who Changed Medicine". Fortune. Retrieved 2009-07-28.) Also, please be so good as to review Wiki editing guidelines so that you understand that I do indeed have the right to edit this article. Quoting from Wiki policy: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects [or their representatives] who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.. Indeed, as in this case, Wiki policy states that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." LarryWeisenberg (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry to butt in here, but I just followed this conversation regarding this article. While your statements are well thought out, the problem is that the recent edit you made today here removed a factual, properly source material, and that your removal of that information shows particular bias. As something that would certainly be considered a contentious statement "Since his release from prison", you should avoid editing it directly it. Your rights to remove "unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable" but that is not the case here, it is factual and properly sourced. I understand you would like to avoid negative statements about your client, however wikipedia is not the platform for sanitizing an article or whitewashing history. With regards to what you want to edit, please see WP:NPOV, in addition to WP:COI which you have previously been presented with. Tiggerjay (talk) Deletion of Alex Gilbert Hey there. I do not think the page 'Alex Gilbert' should be deleted. It needs a chance. I mean Alex Gilbert even has an award win on his IMDB page. Sources for this is online for the film events that won his group this award. Please try and fix and save this Article. Needs a little more information that is all. Thanks --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) -- I agree with that. We have enough sources here, but not worth to deleting at all. Thanks - --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) uhh, of course you agree with that. you said it 4 minutes earlier. but it doesnt change the fact that while there may be skads of links, there are not actually links to third party reliable sources that covers the subject in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for fixing up the page for Alex Gilbert. Is it still not a notable enough article yet? for the Proposed Deletion template to be removed? Thanks --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC) February 2013 This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sam & Cat, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop removing the intimation. Geraldo has stated that it's ok and I agree. Please do not swear. Astros4477 (Talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Sam & Cat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You should know better. Take it to the article talk page and make your case there Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (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. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the speedy help Thank you for the message you left me, "your feedback. . .the template is {unsourced|section}. . .". Perfect! And so fast. Gratefully, Wordreader (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Why did you remove IMDB links? Why did you remove all of the IMDB links for all of the films on Sheetal Sheth's page? The fact that Wikipedia has a macro to enable IMDB links would imply that such links are perfectly acceptable. Please do not remove these links. JBChristy (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Happy New Year (2013 film) for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Happy New Year (2013 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy New Year (2013 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Notability of Rahul Easwar Notability of Rahul Easwar is established. References from reliable sources present. The recent sources cited does not have any relation with the subject. --atnair (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Edmund White Please explain why you deleted: As a young boy, "the sweetest thang" according to his grandmother, he had sex with his own grandfather. 1) it deals with the topic 2) it is fully referenced 3) the "ungrammatical" word "thang " is a QUOTE from the author himself, in italics, to underscore it is a Southern pronunciation Please re-instate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.60.68 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Nicolas Poussin Could you please explain why you deleted the external link *A website dedicated to Nicolas Poussin? By the way, the thing that should be deleted on this page about Nicolas Poussin is the category "French Baroque painters": Poussin was definitely not a Baroque painter! Thank you and at your disposal for further information if necessary. User:Guillaumeh75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your welcome and your explanation, but I honestly think that the website linked meets WP criteria, notably the 3 points of "What to link" and the 3rd point of "What can normally be linked" of the WP:EL. Available in French since 2006, the whole site (except the news section - to come) has just been translated in English and now offers an important amount of information about Poussin for English speaking people: his life (and his biographers), his works (notably at The Louvre Museum with many pictures of the paintings and engravings), his bibliography (almost 30 books), his circle... I don't understand your deletion, even if I agree with the principle that Wikipedia is not a farm of links. Do I really need to ask for consensus on the talk page? Thank you Guillaumeh75 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I QUITE AGREE: in French Art History terms he is the paragon of Classicism. It is a German Art History expression to call him "Baroque". May be that need to be explained to wiki English readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.60.68 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Edmund White I deleted the incidental elliptical clause that seem to be a challenge and made the sentence as plain as it can be. I believe it is important for readers to know that White, from an early stage, wrote about his first sex experience with his grand father, with his grand mother's approval hence the "sweetest 'thang' remark now deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.226.60.68 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) A kitten for you! nice patrol work Aunva6 (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Doomed (novel) Why do you keep on removing "Doomed(novel)" from the Doomed page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stergiosss (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) did your recent edit[1] stem from The Oregonian being somewhere declared as now failing WP:RS? I can agree that Geek Magazine has not yet have their reliabilty determined, and understand THAT source being removed... but where and when was it decided that authored articles (even if brief) in The Oregonian were not reliable sources? Sure, the author is reporting the novelist's announcement,[2] but do we now have an assumption that that newspaper no longer has editorial oversite or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The typically reliable source is putting none of their reliability behind the claim, they are simply repeating a claim made by someone with a conflict of interest -and so in this case, no it is not a reliably sourced claim to be made in wikipedia's voice without specific textual context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The COI would be if the newspaper article itself were authored by the novelist rather than by an independent journalist choosing to report upon his announcement... OR if were shown that the novelist specifically paid The Oregonian to simply post "an announcement". As The Oregonian does not specialize in unsubstantiated gossip, I do not think we can assert or assume without evidence that a typically reliable source is somehow not putting their own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and editorial oversight behind something they publish. I have acted on our suggestion that the names need "contxt".[3] However, you are welcome to state at WP:RSN that The Oregonian does not check what they publish. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC) unwanted deletion of reviews hai are you from india ?. if yes its a real pity that you dont know reviewers like nowrunning.com who have been reviewing movies for years and you are deleting all the reviews from these sites and you are depriving readers from the right for information . this is cruel that you are using wikipedia for writing and maintaining only what you like . please stop this procedure. Vinayachandranlovedr (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) when most of the reviewers are considering it as readable review you are trying to put in your personal thoughts. this is truely depriving people for the right for information. Vinayachandranlovedr (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Barnstar! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For your recent dealings with (and advice to) a certain user. Well done. Stalwart111 02:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC) IP addresses indulging in Vandalism Two IP addresses, Special:Contributions/92.105.23.94 and Special:Contributions/142.165.134.126, are persistently indulging in vandalism of South Indian film based pages. Please check out their edit history. Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Edit of Rader Page Anything medical is commercial. Just look at the medical system in the United States. Should we call all those medical treatment commercial. Clinical is the correct word. Please look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammaring (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Please state the source for commercial you are talking about. (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Please keep article neutral and based on sources. (talk • contribs) 23:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The correct grammar is clincal. Please look it up in a dictionary. (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The treatment is not in the US for it to be breaking the law. As you can see from the sources it is in the Dominican Republic. Stop putting libelous information about a living person. (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The recent change is correct. Thank you. I am going to fix the grammar and add additional information from the current sources of the article. Do you have any issues with that? (talk • contribs) 0:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I don't get it. You ask the community to correct the grammar on Rader's page and yet when I correct it, you change it back. When you say "he published", it means he self published. Stating that he self published is grammatically incorrect. Self should not be in the sentence. • contribs) 0:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammaring (talk • contribs) Wow, I have looked at your past edits. You are ruining what wikipedia stands for. Please stop with the editing wars. State your concerns in the talk pages. Grammaring (talk • contribs) 4:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC) TheRedPenOfDoom do not remove my comments in the talk section of Rader's page. I will report it to the admin if you do it again. Medstudent213 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Rediff and Bollywood Hungama are not spam links Check my edits. Rediff and Bollywood Hungama links provided are not spam links Snigdhasinghsweet (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at William C. Rader shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page. Message added 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page. Message added 04:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Gomolo is a leading source for Indian movies It seems you're not fully aware of the site gomolo.com which is a leading authority site on Indian movies. Leading publications like Times of India, IBNLive etc refer gomolo for various information on Indian movies. It also has a valid Wikipedia page outling the details. Please don't delete the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vuttaa (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC) A mess of an article Have a look at this. A mess of an article. JK (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Potential conflict of interest You seem to know a lot about Rader and his background and his publishing. Hello, Grammaring. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems: Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with. Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam). Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies. Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- User talk:Grammaring 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I am quite willing to say publicly that I have no connection to Rader and know absolutely nothing about him other than what I have found in the reliable and not so reliable sources that that have been included to create both hatchet job and beatification of the man and what my google-fu has found in trying to get the article to approach something that does not make a mockery of our polices of WP:BLP / WP:V / WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page. Message added 04:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Thanks for your message regarding the verification of accuracy in articles that I review. I have responded and would really like to hear back from you, as I would like to determine what the typical policy is regarding this, as I am a bit confused as to what the "de facto" expectation is versus the "de jure" rule at WP:REVIEWER. Thanks again! Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Stem cell educator Hallo, I see you have removed materials from Stem cell educator. This passed detailed and very proper scrutiny at AfD. I note you are concerned to apply the policy on medical references, which is good and right. However, there is no reason why a 'Reception' section - whose job is, after all, to describe the reaction or reception by the world's media to the subject of an article - should be written to the standard required of medical claims. The standard for 'Reception' of something is what it is everywhere on Wikipedia, namely that it is true that the press said something of relevance, and that what they said is reasonably substantial, and that the claims are properly cited - which they are. We cannot insist that the journalists conduct medical research; they have neither the time nor the training, and that is not their job. Similarly, you have removed some truthful description of what the 'stem cell educator' does, viz the material flows through in a certain way. This is not controversial and should not have been removed. Therefore, I'd be grateful if we could find a way to restore the article. I do not believe that it is correctly tagged, for the reasons given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 25 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alex Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) the wander of the goths Hi, I am a bit surprised that you have deleted the link. I thought it may be interresting for someone reading this topic. Best regards Olofsholm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olofsholm (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC) there is so many unsourced content on article mohanlal. please check and remove it. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightocean (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hello,I really appreciate the work you are doing especially on Bollywood Articles.Cheers ---zeeyanketu discutez 18:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC) ANEW I've reviewed the report at WP:ANEW filed against you, and you clearly violated WP:3RR at Aligarh Muslim University. In exchange for not being blocked, you must promise to stay away from the article completely for 7 days. Please respond here whether you accept that condition before you contribute elsewhere at Wikipedia. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC) I agree.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Asian American article For reverting non-helpful changes to content of the article Asian American, I present to you this brownie. May it fuel you in your continuing overwatch of the article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Sock puppeting Check the editing patterns and timing of user:nighttoocean and user:Flowers_of_the_world. Both of these users seems to be controlled by the same person. Also they have an apparent similarly to blocked user:materialthunder. I think we should take this upto to sock puppet investigation. JK (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Response needed, Concentrate on the Talk! Well, as the discussion is being held between you and me at Talk:Aligarh Muslim University, So instead of making new discussion, focus on your previously created discussions! I have replied, but your response is still needed. You did not understand the University examples that I gave. All of them have Alumni section in the main article, and also have a separate article, have a look at them! Faizan (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Wider Community can be invited, but those invited already should be replied too. Faizan (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Answer me at the Talk Page of University First! You are beating around the bush! Faizan (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Kunchacko Boban Mr. kunchacko boban has acted in more than 50 films,in malayalam cinema as lead actor and is cosidered as one of the leading actors of malayalam cinema. this is long standing sourced material you can check it. thanks. (talk) User:Flowers of the world —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the kind, welcoming words. I appreciate your notes and helpful suggestions for the new guy. I hope that I've approached my suggestions appropriately, and will read up on the articles you sent me. Thanks! Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reelpolitik (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Singam II edit Hi RedPenOfDoom, With respect to the edit I made on the Singam II page about the producer of the movie, I am trying to find an online source, that said the producers name is listed on the movie poster from the same page on the left bottom. I know the producer personally and is why I am making these changes for him. If you still need any other reference, please let me know. Thanks, Siva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva sg (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Re: External links I totally agree with the external link policy. In this case the articles about magicians (e.g. [4], [5]) contain information about their birthplace, where they lived, theaters where they performed, death place, burial place, dedicated museums etc.. A link to an online map of magic containing all those mentioned places should be considered appropriate. --Utcumque (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC) user Karthik Selvanayagam Hello, Kindly note the page Vishal. user Karthik Selvanayagam is repeatedly changing wikitables. please make sure the page is clear and fine. thank you. Intellectual savior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC) professonal reviews User : Filmyfreak . Pages : mirchi, julayi movies. That person has been writing for a reputed website and has written more than 50 reviews. cant you consider his reviews as professional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmyfreak (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Sock puppetry Hello, I think User:Intellectual savior and User:Flowers of the world are maintained by same person. I don't know how to report this, can you please help me with this? Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Oh yes, I forgot about it. Sorry will do now. thanks Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you Firstly, thank you for removing the insulting message posted at my talk page. I have a feeling that the user is connected to IP 87.232.1.48 who has sent similar messages in tone at my talk page concerning our discussions at Killing of Travis Alexander. And as I discussed him with user jamesbwatson yesterday that might have triggered him. That IP is probably using IPs 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 also and user page MaxxFordham, all I can say is that the pattern is very similar. [6], [7], [8],[9] [10]. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Photomarathon A new editor has found his way to my talkpage, at User talk:John of Reading#Editing Photomarathon, to ask for advice. I've done my best, but since you were involved in deleting most of the content from the Photomarathon article, you may wish to comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Eega Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Eega. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Raghusri 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) You did the right thing today (edits) but yesterday you removed Teluguone, but it is also a reliable telugu cinema site. Raghusri (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I don't want to argue with you, rather than ask any other user or open up a discussion. Raghusri (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Raghusri warned for misuse of template. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Excuse me Dougweller, Teluguone is a reliable source. That's why i warned him.Raghusri (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Civility and young contributors Please be careful when you make comments such as this one. Avoiding profanity when contacting an editor you do not know is a basic tenet of the civility policy. In that particular case, the editor in question is quite young (as you can probably discern from my previous comments on his talk page), so it is especially suboptimal to be instructing them not to use "fucked up code". Your message would have been just as effective had you toned down your language. Thank you, AGK [•] 16:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Article Feedback deployment Hey TheRedPenOfDoom; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Continued Question on Reliable Source w/r Bend Not Break Hi, thank you for being patient with me when explaining what is reliable source on Bend Not Break talk page. The talk page there seems very emotionally charged. So I am asking my newbie question here so not to trigger more tension there. I am trying to understand what can be called reliable sources. I read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Does Daily Beast meet that criteria? Even Huffington Post? where the "magazine" hires bloggers to write blogs there. But essentially they are blogs, right? And Wiki in general doesn't accept personal blog WP:SPS as reliable sources. What am I missing? Thank you in advance! Pimpilala (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Manjari (Singer) Please have a look at the article Manjari (Singer). An SPA keeps adding promotional stuff even after warning. He has not even provided an edit summary. JK (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Scott Atran FYI... the subject is editing his own article again as an IP (64.131.188.170). He unwittingly admitted to being Atran by his autosigned comment at BLP/N. Just wanted you to be aware in case any of his edits were improper. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Eega This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Eega, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Raghusri 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Eega Please tech User Raghushri some wikipedia knowledge, he is unable to understand what is a published source, he has re added the unreliable source, saying only URL's are accepted, such a fool, I have added a publish source in pdf, please explain to that fool some wikipedia basicsMurrallli (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Phani Don't Delete the Critical reception, marketing, reception of MIRCHI film. Jalapathy Gudelli is a Film Critic with http://www.telugucinema.com & Film Journo for TV9 Hyd, He is a professional reviewer of telugu film critic ([11]).Idlebrain.com is one of the oldest professional website of telugu fil industry operated by idlebrain jeevi.idlebrain.com is also the MEDIA PARTNER for the films like GABBAR SINGH, CAMERAMAN GANGA THO RAMBABU, NAAYAK etc..........He is operating website from 11 years ([12]).Mahesh s koneru of 123Telugu.com is also a professional reviewer of TFI. ([www.123telugu.com]) was owned by TFI producer SHYAM PRASAD REDDY(MALLEMALA ENTERTAINMENTS-ARUNDHATHI,ANJI producer) ([13]0. 123telugu.com is also the media partner for the films like REBEL, SVSC, RACHA, BAADSHAH etc..So brother this three websites are the perfect professional websites of TFI.TIMES OF INDIA, NDTV, SIFY are depended upon this three websites news,reviews etc... and TOI,NDTV,SIFY are not the media partner for any telugu film upto date.So, plz dont delete the reviews of MIRCHI and critical appreciation...........................Phani 18:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phani999sai (talk • contribs) swim deep Hey, guys, I took a look at the Swim Deep article, and I declined the A7. The band has a release and a label, even if the release is just a single, and given that I see some coverage in sources, I don't think this meets the low bar set by A7. I'm not sure how an AfD would end, but if you still think it should be deleted, that's probably the way to go. Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC) User:Violetcries and a potential conflict of interest Since you have heavily edited Violet Cries and appear to focus on other content related to Matador records, I need to ask you User:Violetcries if you have a conflict of interest in your editing. If you do not respond here, since you have asked me not to contact you on your talk page, I will bring this up at the conflict of interest notice board. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC) what, what are you on about first of all I did not ask you to not message me on my talk page I prefer you do that and second what does that mean, I can't be bothered to read the massive page about it just say it simply ≈ I quote your first comment on my talk page, still visible at the top of this section, " just leave me alone" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) That doesn't mean anything, I meant stop coming up every where I go deleting everything but you still haven't answered my question ≈ the only thing "just leave me alone" can mean is "dont post on my user talk page" as any content you contribute to article space is free to be edited by anyone according to policy. and since most of your edits in article space fail one or more of the policies of WP:V / WP:RS / WP:OR etc. the editing of them will generally consist of deletion. And you havent answered my question about your potential involvement with the articles that you have been editing. do you have a conflict of interest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I was asking what does conflict of interest mean did you click the link? conflict of interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) yeah but i'm not reading all of that explain it to me simply If you are too lazy to read the policy, then you shouldnt be editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC) how can I risk causing public embarrassment when newspapers or other forums find the people have been attempting to use Wikipedia as promotional vehicle and the actions of those involved come under scrutiny, it is generally not a favorable impact on the image of all of those involved. "caught with the hand in the cookie jar" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC) well i'm not it as a promotional vehicle, I just love this band and I like to make their pages on Wikipedia good, what's so bad about that spamming articles that dont meet the basic criteria for stand alone articles and removing clean up tags without addressing the clean up tags does not actually make their pages better - it makes the band look worse by indicating that their fans want to try to highjack wikipedia into a fanpage instead of presenting actual encyclopedic content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC) but I'm not editing it all the time any ways. and I thought it was 'encyclopedic', it would make sense to have someone who know's al lot about them rather than someone who doesn't no, it doesnt take someone who knows about them, it takes someone who can find published content and present it in a neutral manner. Fans depending upon their own personal knowledge are generally very bad at making good encyclopedic articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC) um... 3 Dots Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding or editing commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. This is your last warning. Match summary (User talk: Match summary removal of copyright infringement is not disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Legendary creature I replied to one of your Legendary creature article edit on the article talk page here. If, after reading what I wrote, you still do not want to add back in "and are handed down by tradition from earlier times" to the lead, I'm find with that. No need to respond. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Red Wine (film) Please watch out for the red line. You've reached 3RR now. De728631 (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Ranbir Kapoor Hi! I wanted to ask why you keep reverting my edits on Kapoor's page. I mean, if you look at other Bollywood actors' Wiki pages, the "Special appearance" note is located in the Notes section. This includes articles such as Kareena Kapoor and Vidya Balan, which are featured articles now, so saying that the "Special appearances" should be located in the Role section is like refuting reputable articles like those above. Also, even Hollywood stars like Jennifer Anniston have it this way. I don't think you can just edit articles based on your own personal views... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulbul pandey ab (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Come on!! You're refuting featured articles!!! They've been edited by experienced people! How can you argue with them? PLUS, this is the first time somebody's been editing articles like this..you just can't edit an article because YOU personally don't like it that way!!! How stupid is that! Yes, the Role column should contain info on his role. In Luck By Chance and Chillar Party, his role was HIMSELF!! You can't add "Special appearance" there!! By that logic, that would mean that you'd have to add "Lead role" for every other film role (eg. Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani- Lead role as Bunny). You don't do that, do you?? If you think that the Notes section should only contain info about awards, then why isn't it called the "Awards" column???? And, you're not "plopping" information anywhere..it is the standard for editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulbul pandey ab (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, so that argument was irrelevant, but what about the other points? I'm guessing that since you didn't respond to that, you think I'm right? So, why don't we just go by accepted Wikipedia conventions, and put the "Special appearance" note in the Notes section?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulbul pandey ab (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) These "kids" that you are referring to are experienced Wikipedia editors who've made articles into featured articles. So, yes, if I'm trying to emulate how they edit, then there's nothing wrong with that! And you seem to have forgotten about this- "If you think that the Notes section should only contain info about awards, then why isn't it called the "Awards" column????" Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, well I'm still not agreeing with you on this one. It just sounds like you're the only one that wants this. I mean, if you apply this here, then that would mean you'd have to apply it to EVERY other article too! Imma ask around, and see what other people say.. Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) March 2013 Hello, I'm Karthik Selvanayagam. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Please please please do read more good and featured articles in Wikipedia and try to learn before you make your edits. Not every edit of yours is justified and even reviewers and admins would undo some of your edits. Forget me, more experienced editors will object your edits as well. Thanks to you, I totally lost interest in editing and I may quit. Have a good life! Karthik Selvanayagam (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC) if your complaint was about my previous edits at Andrea Jeremiah (which you undid without providing any rational), if you look at the edit history you will in fact see that every edit DOES have an explanation, one based in policy and Manual of style guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) About The Gangster (film) Hi Red Pen O'Doom! Yup, I've reverted your WP:REDIRECT to the director's name. Feel free to revert if you are so minded to do, but I think WP:AfD would be the better forum for this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I've removed your "discussion closed" and archive tag - do not disrupt the talk page on The Beatles I've removed your "discussion closed" and archive tag - do not disrupt the talk page on The Beatles. You can see the date with the signatures. You archived the thread for reasons other than stated. It is not your decision to decide when to archive other editors comments on talk pages. I will report you to admin for disruptive editing since you chose to archive a thread only a few hours after the last post while the discussion is still ongoing through user talk pages (check my edit history) and may return to the original article once we have finished discussing some finer points of article editing and its relationship to The Beatles article. Sluffs (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC) no, you are wrong. I archived it because it was not and had not been about your proposed edit to the article for some time nor any other points directly related to the Beatles article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Red Pen of Doom - hmmm - interesting name. Go on then have it your way - you obviously should consider a career in teaching then you can cross out with a red pen all the mistakes your pupils make. It would also give everyone here a rest from the impending swipe of doom from your phallic red pen. lol Sluffs (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Regarding your edits in Andrea Jeremiah page I see that you are just removing parts from this page. Please note that the information added aren't from any gossip sites. It's plain facts. Having seen all your edits, it seems you are doing PR agency work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeemugs (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Esben and the Witch unsourced are you serious, nobody put's sources for the genre of music they have, I'm going to give you a list of successful band's that don't have sources and the Wikipedia pages are fine. Hole (band) Babes in Toyland (band) Nirvana (band) Pixies (band) The Breeders The Dead Weather The Kills I could go on for ages and I know it's not that much but you know, these bands are highly successful (although babes in toyland aren't MASSIVE)if sources where necessary there would be some, the only one I could fine was The White Stripes. Yes we all know there are lots of content in Wikipedia which doesnt yet meet our standards. When there is a conflict or disagreement about what should or shouldn't be in an article, directly applying the policies and guidelines solves the issue. If none of the people involved in the discussion can provide a valid source for their position, then none of their personal opinions belongs in the article - and the disagreement is over. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Just ignore Red Pen of Doom. His user name tells you everything you need to know about what role he has decided to give himself on Wikipedia. Blame it on the parents - usually a domineering father. Someone in his childhood gave him this perception of himself as judge beyond all others. What Red Pen of Doom doesn't realise is that sometimes the ink well runs dry and then we just have a scratchy pen. lol Sluffs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC) your so petty the red pen of doom and thank you sluffs for talking sense and you are correct I am so hurt. I am going to tell my mommy that you said I play by the rules! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Glad to see you have a mum - is she the one to blame for your blind and overbearing adherence to the rules? You could try relaxing on the red pen strike-throughs - at least then it will give new editors a chance to judge their own work rather than have you judge them. I also wouldn't want to make you feel uncomfortable here but you obviously don't understand the nasty impact that your over-zealous approach has on making others feel uncomfortable. All editors have mums and dads but only one editor here received a red pen from his. Someone should take that pen and shove it where it really belongs. lol. Back in the pen case I'll add just so you don't strike me with your metaphorical pen of doom. Oh no! there's a big red pen standing outside my door - blimey you are quick on the "draw". lol Sluffs (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) mommy mommy he says i have a pen!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Well they do say "the pen is mightier than the sword" but I think in this instance its safer for the world if we make sure you never become "The Red Sword of Doom". lol Sluffs (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I see Godwin's law has been proved correct again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC) this is getting interesting violetcries oh my god your still going and this time with a threat, get a life. not at all a threat. a simple statement of fact. policies require that challenged material must be supported by reliably published sources before it is returned to the article. repeated violations of policy after being advised of policy is actively disruptive behavior. disruptive behavior will be ended by a block. simple facts of the way things work around here. you can follow policies and be a productive contributor enhancing the quality and status of the articles of the bands you are a fan of; or you can be actively disruptive and end up being blocked while bringing the articles of the bands you are a fan of into a bin of turmoil and ill repute. it's your choice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC) ssstttiiiiillllllllll gggggooooiiiiinnnnnngggggg can't you just leave me alone I don't mean don't post on my talk page cause there is more meanings for that like... STOP PRACTICCLY STALKING ME ALWAYS POPPING UP AND CHANGING EVERYTHING I DO SAYING THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT AND LET ME GUESS YOUR GONNA RESPOND IN SOME STUPID WAY LIKE OH YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE POLICIES, JUST GO AWAY YOU PETTY, UM, UN-FISH When you have made it your position and habit to make edits that are not within policy and guidelines after you have been told about them, it is entirely proper to "follow you" to see if your edits other places are within policy. See the notice in every edit box " Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone— (emph added). You do not have a right to expect that your work will not be altered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I'm fine letting people edit my stuff but with you it's constant please sign your posts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC) for you, no THANK U Hi RED, Thank you for keeping the page List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide perfectly.This is the correct order but I have done it so but resulted in vain. Box Office India website is far far better than NDTV,CNN IBN ,TV9,Indian Express and India Today. Enthiran is the highest grossing Indian film of all time as said by India Today ,The Indian Express ,[[NDTV],TV9 and CNN-IBN with minimum grossing of 400 crores. India Today [[14]] Indianexpress[[15]] TV9[[16]] NDTV[[17]] CNN-IBN[[18]] [[19]] [[20]] I also want u to add Dasavatharam film which has grossed 2.5 billion as said by Hindu and other souces. [[21]] Protect dis page frequently sir.Thank u sir for being a best wikipedian.Hatts of to u sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajafree (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Suspected socking Suspected socking going on in Kunchacko Boban‎ and Dulquer Salmaan‎. The user User_talk:Mollywood1 seems to be the sock of blocked user materialthunder JK (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC) help pls help pls Why you removing my edits in references in wikipedia. The only user is you who deletes my edits. Mastermanu2012 (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Editing reliable sources Ref-List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide Don't edit on you whim. It is agreed that boxoffice india is the most credible box office source.If you have any, doubt check BOI references given on the page. Article also says that rankings are based on Boxoffice india. You should consider at least that.Different papers can give different data.On all the articles,boxoffice information is given by boxofficeindia. If it is not available then only,other source is taken into account. Please consider that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.33.195 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Why are you behaving as if You are new to such articles on wikipedia. Box office india specializes in box office information. While other articles are generally unverified aricles on net,which are not even published in news paper.On every wikipedia article in Indian movies, references from Box Office India is given. So, we should do that here also. If any other mistake is there,you should correct that,not main source. Actually the numbers you are mentioning, were claimed by Enthiran producers.other news sites simply repeated their claim.Read the article on Enthiran. User 101.212.33.195 is right. We should give data on basis of Box Office India.If the data is not available in Box office India then only, we should take help of other sources. Otherwise everyone will start claiming that a given data given by Box Office India is wrong.Kumarila 03:01 30 march 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC) You can not edit on your personal opinion. News paper articles that you are giving, don't specialise in boxoffice data.They gave the data reported by Enthiran producers. Box office india is an independent source,whose sole work is to track boxoffice data. If you do like this,I can give articles giving different box office figures for different films. We should follow a common parameter for ranking.I think your bias is reflecting in you edits. Please refrain from this..Kumarila 17:43 02 april 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC) !!!!! Why do you keep reverting my edits?? Yesterday, on Ranbir Kapoor's page, I added information about his reviews for Bachna Ae Haseeno and Anjaana Anjaani; fixed up all the punctuation errors, added references for his future projects and removed the unnecessary info; and you reverted all of this because of one sentence that had an NPOV concern. Why are you doing this? Did you even read my edits? You know, people work hard here to improve articles, but from what I know, you seem to be doing the complete opposite!! Please, next time, read my (and other peoples') edits, and then revert anything that seems incorrect. Don't just carelessly revert huge chunks of information that's important! Chulbul pandey ab (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC) "Hatchet job" I'm not sure which content you think is unreferenced or poorly referenced at William C. Rader. Edits like this are pretty clearly not constructive, as they don't identify which sources are unreliable. (For instance, a citation to the journal Science is not reliable? Really?) I'd like to invite you to participate constructively in discussion. Also, I will remind you at all times please to avoid engaging in personal attacks. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Sockpuppets of flowers of the world I've added some new accounts whom I strongly suspect to the sockpuppets of Flowers of the world.Check. Is this enough or should I reopen the case? I also suspect User:Pen.cil.80. JK (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Formal mediation has been requested The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". 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 10 April 2013. 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. 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Komsky AFD 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. Please refrain from deleting the citation about the patriots game viewership. Your subjectivity on doing so swayed the vote of a later editor who specifically stated that because the performance was not broadcast to live TV, like a playoff game, it was irrelevant. But it was as on a live broadcast and the editor missed that because of YOU. I have brought this to the attention of an admin. Please do not remove he citation to unduly sway any more editors. Selmaflora294 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC) No really cares about bets you are willing to make, and your assumptions are just assumptions. I will consider what to do. But you are a rude editor (I have read the history) and should exclude yourself from further edits. I will certainly bring it to the attention of an admin because I think you are both biased and ill informed. Editors like you give wikipedia a bad name. Selmaflora294 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC) You have not done your homework. The source from diablo magazine is reputable and mentions the performance. Because they are in the Bay Area they could not have known about the performance unless they saw it National TV. Also, see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lOUubkE8Sk If you still don't believe that it's true, then you are purposefully doing all this to sabotage the article. And I will gladly report that to an admin. Selmaflora294 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Sir, whoever you are, you are way out on a limb here. You don't realize what you're saying.... The magazine chooses what to write about and in this case had to have had visual confirmation of the subject performing. They could not have posted such a thing unless it was true, and on TV. Your being so obstinate about this matter points to your personally trying to keep and significant aspect of notability off the subject's page, clearly because you know it would sway other people voting on deletion. I could make the assumption that you are acting as a saboteur. But I don't know for sure, therefore I ask only that you use your eyes as well as common sense. Please reconsider your position. Selmaflora294 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC) I apologize if I've offended you, I was simply sayin that assumptions are pretty worthless. I understand that you probably did not do anything purposefully, but you are also, despite knowing wiki terms, guilty of not doing your homework. I can see why you are against the 23 million number. I have done further research and discovered that the real ratings for when the subject sang (the start of the game at 8pm eastern time) was 17.7 million people. So I will make the chane immediately to reflect the facts. But do agree that your ignoring this matter might have influenced unduly one of the 'Delete' votes? If not others? Selmaflora294 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC) One of the voters specifically said that he didn't think singing the anthem is significant because it wasn't televised. You knew FULL well that it was and removed the source based on a technicality. Now that I have done th research and ascertained that an exact amount of 17.7 million were watching the moment that subject sang at 8pm sharp, I hope that the numbers and the Nielsen ratings are proof enough to make it a notable and appropriate part of the subject's article. Again, I apologize if I've offended you, I just don't see why you didn't do the research. Why you didn't watch the video where you can see with your own eyes that it was on national TV. Why you would make the specious argument that a PR agency manipulated an entire editorial staff at a major publication for ONE client. More importantly, if he was SO important as to be able to manipulate an entire editing staff at Diablo Magazine to write about a performance that no one according to you saw, he would definitely be worthy of a wikipedia article (joke). Seriously sir, consider what you are arguing... It's highly dubious. Selmaflora294 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 3rd party sources did cover the matter, and despite what you may think its a big deal to sing at a major NFL football game. You have to be selected and go through a rigorous audition process. Obviously it's not written about in newspapers! But it's a huge deal, you simply probably work in a differ field and don't respect it. Selmaflora294 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2013 (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. Kony Thanks for the move to the U.S. I should have put there. Kennvido (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC) George Komsky my reply here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC) OK, thanks for sockpuppetry link, my AGF may have been misplaced. I understand your point about synthesis, but as I said, I've no intention of arbitrating on the content of an article which has given me nothing but grief. I still have scars from Australian Cattle Dog where only threats of blocking everyone insight got the battles off my talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at 16912 Rhiannon's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. April 2013 BLP should be removed immediately. Then you change all the other actors why are you removing only mollywood actors. you are saying BLP should be removed immediately both the finest and method actor's source are not BLP. you and JK put my name on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowers of the world. I know that i am not Sockpuppet of Flowers of the world. wikipedia is not for fight. so you remove my name from there. I think you understand what i am telling. Thanks.. ---London at night talk to me 16:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Ed Salamon HELP! Are you rediting my page. The prevoius content was virtually accurate and vetted for ten years. Now a comprehensive article has been reduced to trivial with many inaccuracies and incomplete. In the 1970s WHN became the most listened country rasdio station of all time for which I was inducted in the Country Rasdio Hall of Fame; now wikipedia calls me someone whio changed country music in bthe 90s! If you truly an accurate entry, I will be glad to help you verify everthing in the orginal article from the references listed. You will find incorrect and incomplte information if you limit your serach to what comes up in a Google search. Ed Salamon Edsalamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) A comprehensive article that was vetted for over ten years and largely accurate has been replaced by a few lines, some of which is inaccurate ( I was not a "national dircetor", I was president/programming), confusing ("networking" being used for both radio networks and social networking) and incomplete (I was inducted into the Country radio Hall of Fame because of WHN which became the most listened to country radio station of all time in the 70s - verifable in my Hall of Fame entry http://countryradioseminar.com/ed-salamon, and other sources). Wikipedia now has me conrtibuting to country music in the 90s, which is not the bpoint. I'm not a wiki user, I was only trying to change my picture. Doesn't anyonme care about trying to get my entry back to correct? Edsalamon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Hello, Red Pen of Doom, it is entirely appropriate for the subject of a BLP to provide an appropriately licensed image through Wikimedia Commons. This is not autobiographical editing. Can you please restore the article to its previous state, with the newer image? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC) I apologize, Red Pen of Doom. I went through the recent history, edit by edit, and your editing seems fine to me. Things are not always as they seem at first glance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Milagrow halo theRedPenOfDoom, #PinkAmpersand has approved Milagrow, dont edit it! i have no conflict of interest, i told pink to edit it, he was busy with something else, hence i did it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.datta (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Ok, I don't no how create an account Please tell me. Suriya! You already have an account! Faizan (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Yes i know. i told how to develop my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suriya180 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC) George Komsky 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. Excuse me, you are rude and mean. I reverted your edits because you deleted so much that it was confusing to clean up the page. Please stop contributing for a day and allow me to revert to how it was before, that way I will make all the changes to suit your tastes and complaint. You are being mean and spiteful, you should be ashamed of yourself. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC) All I'm asking for is for you to give me a moment to clean up the page, Can you just be reasonable? Please? Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Very well, I shall do so. I would appreciate it you would be more courteous minus your 'crap' comments in the changes section and let the process take shape from here. And please don't write me anymore as I would rather not correspond with you. Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Please stop writing me, the appearance of your username inspires a gag reflex that I want to avoid before bed. Seriously, don't write me anymore, and don't offer anymore advice. Listen, it is relevant because 23 million people saw him sing the national anthem on live TV. For a performer/artist like him that is a BIG deal and is an accomplishment. Are you so thick as to no understand that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoesseringer (talk • contribs) 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC) "for a performer like him" requires a reliable source to make any connection between the size of the audience and the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Hi -- since I've reported this editor at AN3 for a 3RR violation, you'll need to be careful now as well. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Hey doom pen, just wanted to let you know that I wrote the following to an admin: Also, have you noticed how belligerent the editors have been? Is this normal and acceptable behavior? Please take a look at their comments: 'sources are crap' 'person is a nobody' 'charities are biased and lying'... Etc. it's really offensive and I thought wikipedia was supposed to be above that. All those lovely comments are yours. Maybe you can recommend how I can report your belligerent and nasty comments officially? Being such a knowledgable user I'm sure can point me to the right direction? Ngoesseringer (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC) You know nothing about PR and even less about charity work. I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm sure its not anything to do with these subjects. Stop being so assumptive, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ngoesseringer (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Just do me a favor and watch this: (this was recorded from NBC and uploaded) I know that you're right, that its not applicable based on wiki rules, but please watch it. Just tell me that you can see its a live broadcast with no commercials. I know I represent this person, and you hate me for it, but this truly happened and I'm not exaggerating anything it truly did: https://vimeo.com/56063290 Ngoesseringer (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2013 (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. a question for User:Ngoesseringer about your relation to User:BlackstonB Since you have asked me not to post on your page, I will ask here and hope that you see it and respond before I take the next appropriate step. Can you explain this series of edits? [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and how you are related to User:BlackstonB that you think its appropriate to edit xir comments?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC) still waiting for a response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Howdy! T-5 hr. 25 min. and counting until this nonsense ends... and possibly begins again only to reach a new level of insanity which will possibly result in salting the page. Just thought I should share. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) adding sources I wish I could provide the George Komsky article with more, or have access to more but I don't. Where do I find out which articles need to be explored more thoroughly? Mikeclark22 (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Mikeclark22 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Twinkless TB Replied at Talk:Andy Reid --Go Phightins! 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 05:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC) RC or OR? Hello, Firstly great to see a response on this forum from you. I am humbled by your pointers as a heads-up for me. It has given quite some clarity to ask a few questions. Lets take an example of a movie review citation. Lets take 'MillionLuck' or 'MovieCrow' How are these sources deemed as reliable sources? When it comes to the Indian space who are deemed to be critics? How are they elevated to that level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charan2987 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC) A few other questions. Have you checked the credibility of all the references that are generally seen on a movie page? How do you arrive at the authorial credibility? A review is a viewpoint, it does not need to undergo a credibility check. All it needs to have the relevance (meaning a movie review citation should not point to something totally different). Who are these community folks who arrive at consensus? What's their background & knowledge with respect to the topics under discussion? Kindly answer to all the questions raised, to the point and then continue preaching reliability and credibility sermons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charan2987 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Purappadu film This is a very old film and its hard to find any coverage on the internet. But the people involved in the film, including the director and major actors are notable enough and hence I thought the film meets the notability guidelines. Rest is up to you. Thank you. JK (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) http://www.biography.com/people/demi-lovato-481444 Why don't you think the Biography Channel is a reliable source? http://www.biography.com/people/demi-lovato-481444 —Kww(talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC) That wasnt the source being used for the birth place [27] and someones pirated clip from a vlog post. [28] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Question Hello TheRedPenOfDoom, I have a question regarding the reviews by reviewbol, there's a user who has repeatedly adding reviews from that site to upcoming Bollywood movies. I am quite not sure where that site is a reliable source since I have never seen that used in other articles before today and also that there are summary of reviews from other sites (like toi, zeenews, bollywoodhungama etc). I hope you can help me. Tolly4bolly 11:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Offshore company - You have removed external link Hello, You have sent me a message that you have removed an external link which I have placed to the site Tax Havens Guide. I don't see any reason why this link shouldn't meet the guidelines, since it is totally on topic (the site is about tax havens with specific sections for offshore companies), is of non commercial nature and I guess it adds a lot of complementary information about the topic. Since you have removed the link immediately after I have posted it, I doubt that you really had the time to review the linked site to get a full picture about the content. Thus, I would like to ask you to review it again an reconsider your position. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offshoreguru (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Tolly4bolly's talk page. Message added 11:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tolly4bolly 11:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Drugstore Band - new edit - further sources Hello there, Thank you for your message. I have updated the page and reverted your last edit, as believe the inclusion of external links (2 interviews + 1 live review) adds context, if readers want to pursue further information regarding the artist in question. I have based this addition upon following other similar artists pages on Wikipedia, and I think the 2 or 3 extra links are not exessive, as most bands/artists usually add a much greater number of linked reviews and interviews. As for further citations and references, could you please be a bit more specific? and I'll be more than happy to follow your advice, and add as many referenced sources, as necesary. But probably good to keep in mind, that we don't need to add hundreds of references, that would be in disproportion to the size and weight of the article itself. Once again, thank you for your help, and please let me know what further references you think should be added to improve the article. Regards,Lovelyshopper (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Also noticed you have deleted links to album pages and created a re-direct to band page. I believe this should be re-included, as all 4 albums merit reference. The 1st album, (Drugstore), I believe sold over 120.000 copies and was, at the time of its release, named 'top 50 album of the year' in both Q Magazine and Melody Maker. The 2nd album 'White Magic for Lovers', which also charted - features a top 20 hit single (El President). The other 2 albums, also need also to be included, for historical continuity. Again, I am following other bands' Wikipedia pages of similar stature, for guidance. The indicvidual album pages provide accurate information and reference, and is a reliable resource and good alternative to Discogs for many record collectors. I will re-intrduce the pages, but try to keep'em with just the minimal information (tracklists, credits etc) Once again, thanks for your input.Lovelyshopper (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Curve Would you mind if you stop messing the pages of Curve & Pink Girl With the Blues? I put a lot of effort on them and I don't like to see them vandalized by you. You don't have anything good to do on Wikipedia than erase things? Thanks. Deepblue1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) You came with big words and all kind of Wikipedia shortcuts. Those shortcuts were edited also by some people, they're not the 10 laws of Moses. The point is: with what right you try to remove the content written by me? How you would feel if I would delete the pages edited by you? You're the police of Wikipedia or something? Mind your business and leave my edits as they are. I will not allow you to erase my edits. Be sure of that. Deepblue1 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC) "Every editor has the right to edit any article - if their edits follow the policies and guidelines." Then it's my right to revert your reverts because I don't agree with them. "...applying the standard content policies of WP:N and WP:RS and WP:EL is NOT WP:VANDALism". By who? You're just an ordinary user. I don't trust that your judgement is fair in applying these policies. These policies aren't set in stone and they could be interpreted in many ways. You obviously interpreted in a destructive way to remove content. What's the reason for that? I will ask an admin to solve this problem. You're clearly biased. Deepblue1 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) One more reason that you're 100% biased: you tracked the edit history of the user User:Violetcries. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#Reply He/she edited the page Pink Girl With the Blues (fixed a mistake) and then you made your appearance, ready to mess his/her edits. Tell me I'm not right... Deepblue1 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC) yes i followed the inappropriate edits of User:Violetcries and got to an article where another user was also making inappropriate edits. the "who" is making the inappropriate edits on an article is of no real concern to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Inappropriate? This article has already few months since it was created. No one complained about its existence, except you. Deepblue1 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) youtub as a source f you look at the video at 8.08 you can hear Dhanush himself confirm the information (DOB) edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.51.159 (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The actor himself state's it, either way you are getting it wrong information from your "reliable" source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.51.159 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC) About that blanking you just did due to personal info being there... If an admin deletes it for that speedy deletion criterion, I will learn something. However, it wasn't an attack page, so I wonder how they will see it. I'm actually a bit surprised there's no criteria that has personal information on it like that. (And, of course, there's a reason I'm not posting the link to the page... obviously.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Imran Khan Hey TheRedPenOfDoom! I was wondering, would you be willing to copy-edit the Imran Khan article. It recently passed GA but a veteran editor is concerned about the number of 'direct quotes' in the article. Some of them need to paraphrased. I would've done it myself, but I'm not good at it. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. GleekVampire | talk! 06:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Just saw your work. Thanks!!! :) GleekVampire | talk! 08:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Your message what? Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Chashme Baddoor (2013 film) has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. You warned me aggressively while i engaged with socks already.I revert them because they were deleting important info again and again.I doubt your experience here.Make sure to watch first before taking such an action. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 20:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Moreover,show me the single non-reliable source added by me in the article.It is much easier to press warning template button rather than discussing.Is this the case?---zeeyanwiki discutez 20:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Modification and expansion are always welcome but they were socks not doing constructive editing.So,please.You are welcome to correct grammatical error and expand it but why are you deleting it.We have been doing it in all bollywood articles with the same manner.I really appreciate your tireless contribution.---zeeyanwiki discutez 06:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Re: User page No problem mate! I contributed to the discussion (kicked it off in fact) and I have no problem with the result. Thanks for the note! Stalwart111 22:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Re: Asian Heart Institute and Asian Hospitals I am mystified as to why over 80% of the page of AHI has been removed. I edited it last night, and toned down what had been toned down repeatedly. Even descriptions of hospital services have been removed! I spent a lot of time looking at other hospital's pages and took language, style, editing content cues from there. Please provide some guidance, or at least give us an example of what you believe is the epitome of a really neutral page and we will follow it. We welcome any amount of work to meet Wikipedia standards. In this case, this hospital really is an extraordinary organisation and a mere listing of its features could seem like advertising. Every single fact was linked to an external source. I request you to temporarily restore the page while we correct it to meet your requirements. Alvin J Saldanha 04:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Alvin Saldanha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs) May I request you to restore the page and I will completely redo it to your satisfaction? The hospital is a very important part of the Indian healthcare landscape and is very highly regarded globally also. This article will be corrected to Wikipedia standards and to Wikipedia's satisfaction. Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) How do I find the page as it stood before you changed it? This allows me to show the hospital what was the last set of changes effected. This 'last' page also has the links to outside sources. Since 'external' links are vital to the credibility of an article, I had taken pains to link each and every claim made. I also want to submit that if an organisation like JCI recognises AHI to be 'The Safest Hospital in the World' and it a link to JCI and the article reporting it is provided, how does it fall short? If the hospital is chosen by the PM of India to do his redo bypass and links are provided, (and they can be found by the dozens on a simple Google search) what else is required? I would honestly appreciate a little advice. Thank You for your time, and your help. God Bless.--Alvin J Saldanha 07:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs) Thank You very much. You have been very patient with us, and I really appreciate it. Disclosure: I am the Creative Director of AHI's advertising agency, but this is NOT what we are signed on to do and we are NOT compensated for it. The info, in my personal opinion is vital to millions of people in the region, who we know are looking for inexpensive top-quality cardiac care. Having had a quintuple bypass I know how desperately people are searching and what a relief it is to find corroboration of information on Wikipedia. I put all these entries out of my own personal effort. I can completely see the points you are making, and in respect to your intention but also for the sake of people looking for a reliable information on AHI, I will work at it. I am also very happy to submit the redone page to any Wikipedia 'independent editor' to correct. God Bless. --Alvin J Saldanha 07:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinsaldanhaecd (talk • contribs) Rob Paulsen's Talkin Toons Podcast Why isn't it a reliable source? Feel like an idiot arguing this case, but aren't these people not just colleagues, but friends of hers. And shouldn't they know things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Colleagues, not just friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Chashme Baddoor (2013 film) Film to hit ho gaee hay ab jitni jal rhi hay jalti rhay ap ki. So please dont reveal the full story Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) per WP:SPOILERS we DO summarize the whole story. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) edit war warning Your recent editing history at Chashme Baddoor (2013 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. you have now fully crossed into the territory where you will be blocked] unless you revert yourself. I urge you to take that chance. Otherwise, I hope that while you are blocked you actually read up on copyright and its application at Wikipedia. Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC) you have now fully crossed into the territory where you will be blocked] unless you revert yourself. I urge you to take that chance. Otherwise, I hope that while you are blocked you actually read up on copyright and its application at Wikipedia Saman Zara Zaidi (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. You do not listen ,still doing whatever you want. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Wendy Williams Talk Page Your continuing corresponding regarding edits on the Whitney Houston 2003 Interview and [Kim on Wendy Williams & Rapper Biggie Smalls] is requested so some kind of WP:CON can be reached regarding the information. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Re:please be careful at what you call "vandalism" Hello. I just wanted to inform you that I was a former editor who started back in 2006 and had even worked on couple of good articles, so I think I pretty much know what's right and what not. Removing films, including ones that are in production, does definitely not violate any guideline. A film that has started principal photography and/or been official announced can be listed in a filmography, if it is reliably sourced, that surely is NOT crystal balling. Crystal balling means speculating, but these films ARE in making, that is a fact and a difference. That too couple of those films do even have separate articles or are listed in IMDb already. You may or may not like that, but adding upcoming films in a filmography does not violate any rule, so I request you to refrain from making this change again. With regard to the awards section, you may be right be that it was not properly sourced, but that's by far not a reason to remove the entire section. When I was promoting articles to good articles, I was told to include only the most notable awards in the filmography and the others in a separate section. So which guidelines prevents me from having an awards section please? Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) A film in making is a film too. Anyways, as I stated above there is no such guideline in Wikipedia that explicitly stated that it is not allowed to add upcoming films in a filmography. You may remove unsourced or unneded trivia from filmographies (I would do that as well!) but not reliably sourced claims. Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC) In fact, the correct method would be adding it in prose AND to include it in the filmography. As you said lazyness is one reason, why a text is not written, but again it shall be included in the filmography too. That is valid, my friend! Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) First of all, I don't agree that it is "something that hasnt even happened", how is a film that IS being made at the moment something that "hasnt happened"? The third world war is something that "hasnt happened". And second point, what do you actually think is the purpose of filmographies? Did you ever notice that a filmography will always have "duplicate content"? It is a short, handy form of the article's prose, it, more or less, summarizes an actor's career. Not all people (not even I) are going to read through the entire prose of every actor's article to find out which films he/she was/will be part of. Do you do that? That's why there is thing called filmography. Much easier, much faster. In fact, the lead section of every article also comprises "duplicate content" only, it's a summary of the entire article, so shall we remove the lead sections from all articles? I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Haha, oh dear, you are really adamant. In any case, there is absolutely nothing "unencyclopedic" about this. The rice might burn, the author may die, you know, THAT is speculation. Let them be "works in progress" but the decisive factor is that there IS some progress, that there is something happening, so it can't be crystal balling. So I repeat, it is not a crime to add them in a filmography, it does not violate any guideline, period. So please don't remove them just because you think that a cast or crew member might die (even then the person will be replaced and the project will be continued). Also many films (and other projects as well) that are in production and not finished yet, do even have separate articles, did you know? Everything wrong, is it? I have explained my view in great detail now, I don't see any violations and I'm sorry, I really cannot spend my precious time on fighting over such petty issues, so please don't bother me again regarding this matter. Thank you. Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Wait, so a whole article about a yet to be completed film is ok, but a single remark in a filmography table is not? Ah, alright sir. No seriously, I have had enough. I have made my points clear, your arguments are not convincing, definitely not complete crystalballing for me. Let it be, "not a film yet", but a "notable work in progress", no rule says it shall not be added, so I will continue to add. No rule says it shall be removed, so it will not removed. If you still want to carry this through, don't argue with me hereafter, take this matter to the Film project page and try to convince other editors. Discussion closed! Seriously dude, why are you trying so hard? Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Because in filmography there is the word film? That's your argument? Seriously? Oh yeah! Anyways, as I told you, please conside WikiProject Film from now on, they are waiting for you, good luck! Until then, I will keep adding "upcoming films" (look, this terms also contains the word film, oops!) to a filmography! Cheers! Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC) list of films. That is released films and to be released films. They are also films. Yes, they are! And your second argument... what the heck? That's not even remotely the same dude. Eggs, milk and flour ARE NOT cakes, why should they be added in a list of cakes. You're trying too hard and it's becoming sillier and sillier. I have given more than one reason, you only pick up the last one always. You still have not proven that a guideline tells us not to include upcoming films too. And I have told you where to continue this discussion. Bye brother! Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC) that is your opinion only, and opinions differ. What shall do with this page for instance? A page full of upcoming films only, oh no! You can't win this. And you don't do this again, before you have proven me that it is not allowed. I have given the strongest argument so far, not you. You still have no rights to remove it. This was very ugly of you to revert back, though we have not come to an conclusion yet. Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Haha, I have countered all your arguments and now you are trying to turn the tables, very very poor. "You have yet to provide any evidence that such works in progress belong in a filmography". Absolutely not, it's exactly the other way. If there is no rule, it is allowed. You have to prove me that it does not belong there. You were trying to prove that and since nothing worked out, you are turning the table. Brilliant! Please dear, let's close this discussion. You are running out of arguments and no use in discussing with stubborn people who refuse to accept that they were wrong. I told you to at least get the "permission" from the WikiProject page. You didn't do that either. Alright, then you continue removing them, I (and loads of other editors too) will continue adding them until we both get blocked. I'm fine with that. Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC) You have not proved anything, you only assumed so and I have stultified your arguments. And come on, isn't that obvious that if something isn't prohibited it is generally allowed? And before pointing at me, I would suggest you to look at your edits first. Anyways, this leads nowhere, so no more replies from me. Happy editing! Wilhelm Chandrahaasan (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Mediation note Hello, TRPoD. You were recently involved in a discussion on the RS noticeboard. I've been mediating this dispute, and I thought I'd let you know that one of the editors has put forward a proposed resolution. I'd just like to notify you of this opportunity to build consensus. The proposition in question is here. Regards, m.o.p 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Kony Ngunalik (talk) Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, what I am trying to bring out is that the 2million displacement was not because of Kony or LRA. Forceful displacements of civilians started before there were LRAs. I know that the outside world has been misled to believe that every thing in that region is done by or because of LRA but that is false informationNgunalik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Ngunalik (talk) What do you mean that I am adding my personal comments? Have you checked my citations? I have not finished working on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngunalik (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Campaign for "santorum" neologism Just in case I wasn't clear enough in my edit summary, read my comments at WP:ANEW. The contents at issue are being discussed on the article talk page and at WP:BLPN. As far as I can tell, you have not participated in either of those discussions. Regardless, in my role as administrator, this is a warning. Leave the article alone, or you risk being blocked. I am going to revert you again to put the article back to the status quo before I made my intentions clear at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Comments on User talk:DanTD Hey, I was linked to this situation on his talk page, I might suggest you might want to let go for the night, because while his very incivil behavior is a problem, I might suggest you bring this to the attention of a third party in the related WikiProject. It's not worth getting insulted and into drama over this. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Dhanush I don't understand the logic behind removing this alleged POV/OR in Dhanush article. There are thousands of actor articles in exact the same style. Maybe you should take your complaint to a better place where we could discuss this centrally instead of edit warring on a single article. Where would be an appropriate place for such a discussion? -- Dravidian  Hero  19:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Common bro. The first section has "a hattrick of successful films" cited and the second one has National Award and Why this Kolaveri di popularity cited. It's not OR if you sum this up as "carreer height". Give me a proposal, if you know it better!-- Dravidian  Hero  13:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Box Frenzy, by Pop Will Eat Itself Where exactly do you see the alleged "lack of reliable third party sources" in the article on the Pop Will Eat Itself album Box Frenzy? Honestly, I'd like to know what your deal is. -------User:DanTD (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC) If you only see the star rating, you're clearly ignoring the article itself. -------User:DanTD (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I didn't put the alternate name there. If you want to get rid of that, fine. Or at least put a "cn" tag on it. But that doesn't mean the whole article should be trashed because of it. -------User:DanTD (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC) This incessant blanket deletion across articles has gone on long enough. Is it time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheRedPenOfDoom? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC) In this case it's merely a redirect, but what TheRedPenOfDoom is doing would be like redirecting Rubber Soul, just because some fool posted some fraudulent info claiming The Beatles advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism in one of their songs. -------User:DanTD (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC) If you want to see the damage he's capable of, [29] Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I didn't add any unsourced content, you arrogant deletion fanatic. --------User:DanTD (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Try looking at the damn history of the article before you make any of your false accusations!! While your at it, remember what Frank Zappa said about solving dandruff with decapitation, and apply it to your activities!!-------User:DanTD (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC) How old are you? Maybe that would explain why you don't know who Frank Zappa is, or why he condemned the government's proposal to add warning labels to albums and cassettes. -------User:DanTD (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC) So you don't find Trouser Press to be a reliable source? Too bad, because the music industry seems to. -------User:DanTD (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Here's one of those TV soundbytes you think are my personal interpretation(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Wm4qXC_j4). Even if you can't use this as a source, you can't deny that the band used them. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC) And the other one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdfNh6P_A3g). You can't call this OR. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Step in with the AfD? Can you help talk with the editor at the Arch Enemy Entertainment AfD? The big issue is that I'm trying to explain some of the principles of sources and such, but it's not really going over well. I didn't think I was being overly nasty or rude, but we're really not getting anywhere. Could you help step in? I'm going to ask a few other people that I know are good with sources and the like. There's just no depth of coverage for the company, I'm afraid. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Request for mediation rejected The request for formal mediation concerning Jose Antonio Vargas, 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, User:PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.) Ping Fu draft Hi there, I wanted to reach to you after your note on my Talk page to ask if you would like to review the draft for Ping Fu that I've prepared, and possibly move over the remaining sections that haven't been added in to the live article yet? A few editors have reviewed now and one has moved two of the sections (the more controversial ones: Early life and family and Memoir) into the live article. The introduction, infobox, Career and Awards and recognition haven't been moved but are much less controversial and generally just involved tidying up the information and making sure everything is sourced correctly. I made some changes based on feedback from editors on the Talk page, see discussion here and FreeRangeFrog recommended at WP:BLPN that I move the sections myself, however I would prefer not to since I follow the "bright line" rule for COI editors. If you're able to take a look and move the sections if you think they're ready, that would be great. Thanks. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Warning Will you please stop removing the contents from Sanjeev Nanda page? You are trying to modify the page to focus only on the accident. This page is not about the accident. It is about Sanjeev Nanda. It is a very crucial information that this fellow is a grand son Indian Naval chief and how he was able to influence the outcome and his time in jail due to his lineage. This is my last warning to you. It almost looks like as if you have been paid by Nanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankspanks (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Could you check ... Talk:Eugene Plotkin, again (from about 6 months ago). Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Asian Heart Institute If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Asian Heart Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Uberaccount (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 25 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alphonse Putharen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Sridevi FF "awards" These people don't give up easily, huh? BollyJeff | talk 15:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC) If only such dedication and effort could be harnessed to actually improving the article content! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC) LOL - so true! BollyJeff | talk 15:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC) They were adding that to every conceivably related article: Sridevi, FFA, FFA Best Actress, Mr. India, Nagina?, etc. I don't know the present condition of all those. Sridevi's article is in pretty bad shape. Unfortunately, it seems that the only editors willing to work on it are the fanatics. BollyJeff | talk 16:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Feedback? Can you help me understand why you deleted the external link I added? I thought it was very relevant. I'd like to get more involved as a wiki editor again (I tried to get involved in 2007 but gave up as a didn't have enough time) I do now but I'm scared that anything I add or edit will be deleted because I'm new. I hope I have followed the instructions right here Redtango88 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Re: Wendy Williams Talk Page Please... don't try to speculate as to the thoughts I have regarding Wikipedia's purpose. It's clearly written right here. If memory serves me correctly, you tried serving the same explanation to omit an incredibly notable event in the subject's career, only to be disagreed with by another user. In your attempt to come off as politely condescending, your correspondence comes off as uncivil and overbearing. I cannot speculate as to whether or not that is who you are beyond the reach of the internet, but that's certainly how your thoughts are represented in the section. I'm not sure if you're clear on what the purpose of talk pages are for, so here's a refresher. "A talk page (also known as a discussion page) is page which editors can use to discuss improvements to an article or other Wikipedia page," per WP:TP. Just in case you're rusty, I'd like to acquaint you with some of the guidelines presented here How to use article talk pages. The Discuss edits is one of the principles I abide by, and according to the Make proposals portion, I'm well within reason to suggest material I think is pertinent to the subject's BLP. I'm not in the business of trying to take possession of a particular article per WP:OWNER, but am more interested in reaching WP:CON through discussion with other contributors to the page. By the way, WP:CIV might also be of some assistance. Silver Buizel (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Milagrow Why did the Honour and Recognitions under Rajeev Karwal get truncated? Those were reputed honours received from prestigious bodies..definitely not "unsupported hype". Why was the subsection on "Milagrow" get deleted? It was merely informing..no advertising or promotional feature for sure. I have discussed this issue with PinkAmpersand extensively he gave me approval too "as currently written, I think this has enough sources and doesn't appear to be an advert". We merely want it to be more informative, it is not hype/advertising.marketing in any way Ayush.datta Want an urgent reply from you, since I intend on adding the honours.Ayush.datta (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)(talk) 08:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.datta (talk • contribs) 08:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)