User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

RE: User:Scholarlyarticles

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Scholarlyarticles's talk page.
Message added -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warnings

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Shraddha Kapoor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT remove sourced info based on your personal preference. This is your last warning! krimuk ⁹⁰ 18:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have already lost a discussion here. So please stop wasting my time! --krimuk ⁹⁰ 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

YES. Then start a discussion for "ALL" filmography tables, including the FA ones. Why target a handful of articles alone? If you establish consensus for all articles, I will happily revert my edits. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 18:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. And please show me a policy that has those exact words written for FILMOGRAPHIES. And don't say CRYSTAL again even though I know it's your favourite word! --krimuk ⁹⁰ 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, when it is likely to be challenged. In this case, a simple Google search will tell you that she is filming for those movies. And sources ARE ALREADY PRESENT in the main body. And you still have an issue! --krimuk ⁹⁰ 19:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you are stuck up on inline citations, I can provide them! What worries me is that you are not interested in establishing consensus, but just pushing your agenda. That's not a good attitude to have. Please maintain good faith especially when the other editor is interested in the betterment of the article. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 19:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Now should I spend the rest of my evening providing inline citations for all her films in the filmography? I never know when you might be in the mood to challenge those appearances. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 19:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric DySart page

I just added citations to Eric DySart's page, and your edits indicate that citations are needed. I don't understand. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmandel (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: ). Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

HNY

Pls stop revering HNY on shahrukh khan filmography. Take to talk page if u got a problem and do some research rather reverting other peoples work! Daan0001 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with HNY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Joke Edit?

Kinemortophobia is a serious phobia and nothing to overlook. Calling it a joke makes me, and many others, feel very offended. Why would you make everyone feel this way?

Curiouscrab0 | talk | contribs

01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiouscrab0, find a proper source describing this phobia and then we can discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

[1]

Curiouscrab0 | talk | contribs

23:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiouscrab0, please actually click on and read WP:MEDRS. "about.com" doesn't even come close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted it, you nominate it

It's not my job to clear up after you. Serendi^podous 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Frivolous ANI discussion

You're at WP:ANI, section "TheRedPenOfDoom". Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

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

Your recent editing history at Shannon Bohle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war while the article is under debate in another page. 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. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately deleting large portions of articles, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bides time (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Goa 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''''Veeram''''' {{lang-en|''Valour''}}) is a 2014 Tamil [[action film|action]] [[masala film]] directed by [[Siva (director)|Siva]] and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yevadu

Please Discuss it in Talk page by opening a Disc., Raghusri (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you say that they are non Professional sources. They are indeed Famous Sites and are Famous Reviewers. Raghusri (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

it is up to you to establish that they are not simply "famous" but reliable. see the article talk page and the policies regarding acceptable reviews/reviewers/review sites linked there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidently

you use bad "grammar." And here I was getting cranky about people not knowing the difference between syntax and semantics. The world's problems are always more basic than we think, I suppose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

Final warning ! Do not revert filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.233.112 (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves

Since you have shown familiarity with article naming issues and the MOS guidelines for WP:COMMONNAME, you might want to look into the discussion at Talk:Joseph Schereschewsky#Move back to SIJ Schereschewksy?. The question is whether to move the article back to a name of reasonably long standing. Toward the end of the discussion there is a Summary ch (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Bipasha Basu 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. 82.13.107.176 (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption of talk page by DHeyward. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You made me laugh out loud

While researching a dispute, I just came across this edit which caused me to guffaw. I'm both amazed and pleased that it has stuck. Just in case you've not seen it, let me flog my new humorous essay atcha in return. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

James Rosemond edit warring

You and have made repeated defamatory edits to the Jimmy Henchman page that violate the biography of other living persons this [[2]]. You have had at least one ANI discussion based on 3Rs, continually wiped out the page since the day he was convicted. There was already a discussion of this precise material. you are reverting when you repeated deleted the article for deletion. You have engaged in harassing and hounding behavior with such as trying to pre-certify blocks with other editors. Please stop editing the page or you will be blocked. Thank you Scholarlyarticles (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, please specifically explain how that sourced edit violates WP:BLP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You know where the article has been previously discussed. There is now a current discussion going on regarding Canvassing and hounding. You appear to be going through my diffs and trying to find administrators who would be supportive to your position and there is currently a discussion of that. Do not try to follow what I'm writing and do not work on anything I'm doing until it is resolvedScholarlyarticles (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave up trying to follow what you were writing weeks ago...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good Please stop editing the James Rosemond page or assuming ownership. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, please specifically explain how that sourced edit you specifically mention violates WP:BLP. A link mentioning that edit would be fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I'd love to have a political discussion with you because we seem to share the same politics, but attacking the work I've done, just because I did it, and tag-teaming with Red, trying to find some reason to block me it not a good way to look at the James Rosemond page. I've already pointed this out to you in the discussion on the Trevj page and it will take him time to go through the diffs. The discussion ongoing. Please avoid anything I'm working on for the time being. It might be perceived as houndingScholarlyarticles (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarlyarticles, it's hilarious you complain about "trying to find some reason to block me" when you opened this thread with "Please stop editing the page or you will be blocked." and giving a false warning. I'm not interested in discussing politics with you; I'm interested in minimizing your disruptive behavior. As I have many Rosemond-related articles on my watchlist, I see no reason to stop watching them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Scholarlyarticles: When someone is as completely oblivious to understanding BLP as you are and is obsessed with writing about controversial living people as you are, following their edits anywhere and everywhere to ensure they are not violating BLP is NOT hounding. Its protecting the encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Red, since you NeilN and Al and another user are already involved in a content discussion of this material,l and of ways of trying to block me, I would ask that you three refrain from working on the content of the page until it this and the content discussion is resolved. Since NeilN has asked administrators to remove it from archives, I've archived it my word file. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You can ask, but its not gonna happen. The folks who created the BLP atrocity in the first place will not be allowed to control the article and fail to abide by BLP again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sonakshi Sinha, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT remove sourced information from the article. If you have any issue with the sources, discuss first. Do not push your agenda through blind reverts. krimuk ⁹⁰ 05:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

== February 2014 ==

This is your last warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sonakshi Sinha by [3], you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT remove sourced information from the article. If you have any issue with the sources, discuss first. Do not push your agenda through blind reverts. Events are sourced on the page and refer talk page for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.87.87 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U created

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles is awaiting certification by another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing] if you keep on doing the same. This warning is for what you did at Bipasha Basu filmography section. Future movie which ok production can be added on filmography. If you are unaware with that fact I would suggest you please educated yourself, rather reverting. As having a look at your contribution on Wikipedia I can only see you are here to revert rather adding any educative contribution to Wikipedia. Which is rather pathetic. Do some work read some papers and try to contribute to educate anothe reader on Wikipedia. Simple advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.107.96 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Raghusri 15:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

One simple message in your own words would have been a lot better. —Soham 15:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Consensus not Reached in those Article's talk pages. Raghusri 13:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Yevadu, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Consensus not Reached. Raghusri 13:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

artist page has been wrongly deleted and is now redirected

Hi, my username is not related to what you claim it is in the recent message i received from you. Who owns the content in wikipedia? and who is to say it is accurate or not? Digital2social (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for enlightening me please, Regards. Digital2social (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

I am sure you have been around long enough to know "don't edit war even if you are right". You may well be blocked if you continue in the way you have been doing at Yevadu. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

chiranjeevi - thank you

-736 reversion is okay, kindly do not revert -557, you dont have to mention other actors from kannada and malayalam in biographical article, is subjective Gnyan1 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ram Charan

Hi. I recently came across your edit in the article Ram Charan. Your edit removed the articles Yevadu and Krishna Vamsi's Untitled project from them. Though a source is provided, you removed Krishna Vamsi's Untitled project and since it is in Filming stage and neither the title nor the film's first look have been released, its removal can be partially accepted. But Yevadu released this January and its trade has almost come to an end recently and is nearing 50 Days. Why you removed Yevadu from his filmography ? Please Explain. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

back to an accepted older version until further Wiki Help is received to deal with privacy issues.

Hi REdPenofDoom, I've contacted wiki help and would appreciate you stop harassing this page. The content in the page needs to be updated for valid reason, not for promotion reason (as per what you have judged it to be, and wrongly so) Freedom of expression is important, and accuracy of content is equally important especially when under someone's name. The older version was obviously meeting wiki requirements as it has been live for years - telling us now it wasn't would be rather strange. We shall seek further assistance from more experience wiki volunteers at their help centre so that the content of that page can soon respect the privacy of this individual. kind regards. Digital2social (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia admin board. I would like your input. Thanks Goblin Face (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ryan Monro

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ryan Monro, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Butler

Tom Butler is being discussed at WP:AE. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Close request

[4] Thanks --Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Hi mate. You know I respect you and we've worked together on stuff before but I have to question the string of edits to Gareth Ward, especially given the extensive discussion at Talk:Gareth Ward. Was the edit in reference to the discussion or had you not previously seen the discussion? Seems like a strange edit for you given the sourcing. Anyway, happy to discuss it and I wasn't just going to blindly revert it (though I have reverted similar edits from the edit-warriors who have tried to whitewash stuff previously) but I'd be happy to chat about it. Cheers, Stalwart111 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

chiranjeevi

Bro, Iam correcting ur bad sentence construction, I am not removing any sources, please check, in fact more sources r needed. Gnyan1 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

sentence construction

of course baba, ur welcome to retain sources, if I edited any by mistake, but why ru spoiling sentence construction, which film made him highest paid actor ?? Gnyan1 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request restoration of Space Fro and other pages destroyed by TheRedPenOfDoom. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Re: Suzannah Lipscomb's page, please explain why you deleted the marriage information for Suzannah. I'm not using Amazon as a reference source, I'm linking to an Amazon page that is a scanned page of her book where she dedicates her book to her husband. That is a proper reference, it's a book published by her, and dedicated to her husband. It is just as good as a newspaper article published online. And since you cannot physically attach books to Wikipedia, a scanned image of the book is as good as you can get. Please reverse your undo and add in the marriage information.

Your recent editing history at Shaadi Ke Side Effects‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.Hrfunmola (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Kindly refrain from removing references without proper discussion. The references you removed from space frontier needed to be looked at and discussed on the talk pages. Can you bring them up on the talk page. Your recent edits to Science Fiction on television were regrettable but I don't contest them since I partially agree.

I think I'd like you to discuss Space Fro on the sci-fi talk page since the talk page of Space Frontier is more or less deserted. I also think Space western is questionable but that is no reason to delete it without proper discussion. I think that page needs verification (as was tagged), not blatant removing.

Please bring up all sci-fi themes on the talk:science fiction page for proper discussion. If we go about it on the individual pages we'll be scattered all over the place. I also have a discussion with one other editor about the inclusion of smallville as sci-fi. I think it belongs in superheros fiction instead.

I'll start them and notify thou. So please join the discussions before editing these. And please have the courage to inform others before making major changes.

Do we have an understanding? 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Unless the sources have been carefully evaluated to be understood as verifiable or not and compared with wp policy on wp:rs, I'm afraid they cannot be simply termed or judged to be simply removed. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:this[5] and how do you expect me to do that unless I can see the sources myself?

Anyways for now I think we can discuss it on the talk page. You already have the link to it. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

sci-fi issues raised

You transferred an external link into a reference? Don't think that's allowed man. Anyways please see the discussion.

Now any complaining you have, please take to discussion. Don't keep removing without informing otherwise it leads to edit wars. I wanted to check out the links for myself so weather I can formulate an opinion. How do I contest deletion for the article anyway? Anyways check the discussion and post there before making controversial changes.69.165.246.181 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• It has been saved. It can be discussed on the sci-fi talkpage perhaps tomorrow. Also note please that other sci-fi subgenre pages have multiple issues, but I'd prefer them to be brought to the discussion I started instead of being speedy deleted. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I checked out some of the sources (I'm not finished yet) and it does indeed identify a sci-fi subgenre called 'Frontier' so I think we should go for a renaming. At least for now. Feel free to redirect the article to the new title. Preferred would be 'Frontier (science fiction)' as a title. Regards 69.165.246.181 (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The line of "bad faith" is now a dot to you

Please STOP writing "upcoming" under the year column for filmography tables. Do you really think that upcoming is a year? If you do by citing policy then it's very difficult to take you seriously. But honestly, I am tired of your bad faith edits and lack of co-operation with most other editors. I am not surprised to see your entire talk page filled with complaints by other users. Maybe you need to re-consider your approach to editing here. This is not a battlefield, as you often make it seem. Be kind to editors for a change, and then you won't have to visit ANI so often! Just a friendly advice, don't start barking at me again. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 18:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

None of those are reliable sources. Smauritius found one article that falsely stated her age and she believed it was a reliable source. Since then people are looking at Wikipedia as the real source for her true age and are falsely stating her age in other articles. The Femina Magazine IS a reliable source. Don't you think they sat down, interviewed her, asked for her age? What proof is there that these sources are real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgrl (talk • contribs) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Hindu and The Times of India did not personally interview her. The articles you posted or someone else posted are just casually mentioning her fake age. Maybe the journalist looked on Wikipedia, saw the fake age that Smauritius posted, and then they wrote 21 in their articles. Like I said, the people at Femina actually sat down and at a one on one interview with her. Speaking of Times of India, did you read this? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/I-was-most-upset-with-the-way-people-were-talking-about-my-dad-Shraddha/articleshow/19649087.cms?referral=PM. The interviewer commented saying "you are 24" if she really is 21 or 22, why didn't she correct the interviewer? Before Teen Patti released, she was listed as 22 then! Then when Luv Ka The End released she subtracted her age. Then post Aashiqui 2, she reduced her age even more. Please put two and two together and see how she is lying about her age. She clearly said she was around and little when the first Aashiqui released. She and her brother are also close in age. There is no way there is an eight year age gap between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgrl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Times of India cannot be considered reliable seeing that they stated her age 24 last year and 21 this year. That itself is enough for the people at Wikipedia to use their common sense to not even count that as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgrl (talk • contribs) 02:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your final warning for reverting content that clearly been discussed at [6]. Contest if you like on Varun Dhawan talk page before reverting. Filming on progress and release date been fixed. 31.221.87.87 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Interacting with you over the last few months has been a pleasure. Keep up the good work, I've been impressed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock Post

Hi, re helpdesk [7]

I decided to deal with this like so; [8]

I hope that's OK with you? 88.104.31.21 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You and the rules

Just some friendly advice: I think you need to spend less time reverting people and lecturing them about your opinion of the rules. Your behavior is not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, Useitorloseit. The editor you are so quick to criticize has an admirable agenda - building and defending a free encyclopedia for everyone. Look in the mirror. What is your agenda? Here's some friendly advice for you: your agenda reveals itself in your edit history, which any editor can review at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Its too much

You say a press note is not reliable. So what should i cite? You are a clear factor of hindrance of growth of wiki articles. With your worse behavior and disruptive editing, you amassed a lot of hatred and criticism from many fellow wiki users. I don't want any brawl with you. But one thing. You are removing content always saying "not reliable". If anyone asks you to suggest some reliable sources, you escape like a cat from there without any trace of reply. If you keep reverting, don't think that i am blind and dumb. I will try to contribute further. What happens, you will revert or after much harassment you start deleting data from many articles which i or others contribute. Stop your highhandedness. I am not your slave, subordinate or whatever to follow you. Mostly i may be blocked indefinitely. But i will not stop my work. I will fight against your rude and high handed behavior till the last minute i stay here. Now i am adding your favorite reliable source - The Times of India. Do not revert it at least.

Yours Seriously and Sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. i now added only the information that the film would be shot at Pollachi from March 9 to 26 and i will try not to add promotion stuff. But adding the info that the film's shoot would continue is Pollachi is not a promotional info. But you reverted it. Can you explain your intention behind that? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Editwar

Stop it with your crusade against Machine Elves already. The result was merge, someone looking up Machine elf should not have to read though half the section in order to tell whether or not they're in the right place: WP:SURPRISE.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at AMH1992's talk page.
Message added 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi TRPoD, this editor is blocked and has some follow-up questions related to some of the editing going on at Sanaya Irani. Since I don't want to just toss out a lot of speculation, I was hoping I could encourage you to drop by and answer some of their questions. Since they're blocked, they're pretty much confined to their talk page. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Final warning

You will be blocked from editing if you continue to revert my edits, when consensus has already been reached here and here. If you still have grievances, discuss there first before targeting individual pages. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This user is a repeat offender, just look at his talk page. I'm new to wikipedia, please let me know the procedure to report him so that the account might be blocked. Thanks. dhiv talk 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

CammieD

Please keep an eye on this user and let me know if her edits to Rachel Marsden continue, or if her activism promotes bad content. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kazys Morkunas

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kazys Morkunas for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Zeke Sonxx (Whine) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tellychakkar

You are absolutely correct about its reliability.

Reason I keep coming to this article and going through all the trouble of editing because it is being viewed a lot these days, check [9]. If we could get an expert on this show, it will be helpful. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 20:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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

Kirk W. Dillard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jim Thompson

List of fictional Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Vatican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Aishwarya Sakhuja

Personal Life has been re added with dating news having been removed and credible ref of yahoo news being added regarding the date of marriage. Boseritwik (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we like protect the page from regular unexplained section blanking of sourced content or should we just give up? Have to undo the section blanking like every hour.Getting annoying. Boseritwik (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert in Thimerosal

Er... could I request a reason? You're welcome to debate the wording (I'm not thrilled with it myself), but the original before I changed it is grammatically incorrect: "these claims" has no referent. I tried to give it one while adding as little text as possible, and being NPOV.

The other changes seem pretty uncontroversial and I'm perplexed as to why you'd want to revert them. But your revert has no edit summary. So I am in the dark as to what the objection is. For now, I'm redoing the change as three smaller changes, so they can be reverted (or hopefully not) separately.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping with the Enemy (novel)

I came very close to trouting you. Proposed deletion is for non-controversial topics. This novel was about domestic violence and stalking, certainly controversial topics. Please send this to WP:AfD instead. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop Delete of my Content

i personally know this person and he is live next to me so i changes the page. you delete the city 1st check that page's user's introduction etc. Sir check the reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartdilshad (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

reference for new page mushtaq pasha

reference for mushtaq pasha List of Indian Punjabi films after 2011 please check the director name.. also check IMDB reference . Please help to improve page and Quality don't be so mad about Privacy and policy. help user's to improve Quality of WikiPedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartdilshad (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits to Article: Mansoor Ijaz

Sir,

I respect your right to edit as a Wikipedia contributor. I do not understand your disruptive edits to my page at all. The Formula One section has been part of my article for the better part of a year, and it is not yet a completed part of my biographical history. I am not at liberty to disclose the details due to confidentiality undertakings in our commercial dealings with Lotus. Your edits could be considered as harming our commercial negotiations, particularly with banking and other financial institutions.

As I write under my name and you write under a pseudonym, it is not possible to know who you are and why you have taken these unnecessary steps on this particular day. But I consider these disruptive edits that can harm my commercial interests. I am happy to discuss the article with you on talk pages, but kindly do not vandalize my article that is a primary source of information for those who I do business with and who take an interest in my biographical data.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir,

In response to your message left on my talk page, no one is asking Wikipedia to support anything. The article contains factual information that is supported by fully referenced material. There is no advocacy. Just statement of facts on an important transaction in which I am currently involved.

Neither do you get to alone decide what is relevant or not. It seems your history as an editor shows both good and not-so-good tendencies. I do not wish to enter into an edit war with you, but your basis of argument is completely flawed. And it now shows clear bias and borders on libel and slander of my person, both of which are AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY for biographies of living persons.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Red Pen,

After reading your comments on the Wiki Help Page where I left my original request, I see your point more clearly and I would like to withdraw my comment with respect to the use of the words "libel" and "slander". I hope there is no case of personal enmity, but I equally ask you to understand that a lot of people during the life of my Wiki article have used it as a forum for hurling every baseless and untrue allegation you can imagine at me. That is why I monitor the article closely and why I try to understand the rationale of someone making material changes.

I think there is middle ground, if you agree, because I also think the Formula One section got a bit out of control. In my discussions with Guffydrawers, who made many changes to that section, we agreed that once the deal either got done or failed, that he/she would take a stab at reducing the section to a proper summary.

I am a resource for the article and believe firmly that it must always maintain a NPOV based on factual information that is in the public domain. Certainly not everything I did in life was good, and the bad that appears in the article is all there. I hope this clears the misunderstanding up. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen, can I make a suggestion on how the initial grafs would be better tidied up to meet the WP:LEAD criteria you set down? There are serious inaccuracies in your version, and factual misstatements. For example, there are three Times of India articles that state the US government -- and Pakistani government -- were exactly informed and backed my actions on Kashmir. The only issue is that the links are now down. If you wish, I can send those articles to you as they originally appeared in Times of India during the period where the intervention was taking place. You have based your entire material re-write on one source, and that is not a fully reported source. I have contravening information from equally credible first-hand reporting by the deputy editor of a major newspaper in India that says exactly opposite of what you have written. How do we fix that?

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

this is better suited to the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ijaz wrote a new intro, which I've implemented with some changes; what do you think? The differences between it and your most recent version appeared to be rather insubstantial, or I would have asked first. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your last revision. I have made a suggestion for how to deal with all this on my talk page if you care to review. I understand the fundamental point that has been made all throughout your re-write and revisions. Am trying to learn the ropes. Would appreciate that you work with me to sort it out. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, do you have an objection to my implementing a fuller and more complete section with references in respect of the Professional life section of the article? It is incomplete and not well presented as it stands. I want to do this with the collegial spirit intended by interactions between editors and users -- I have left my suggestions in the Sandbox for some days now, with no response. Perhaps you would allow me to bring the baseline material in and then you can edit or others can edit as they see fit. Thanks for a moment to reply.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor and I have been chatting a while tonight; his numerous suggestions are almost all improvements, as I see it, and the few problems involve retention of smaller problems that are already present, e.g. the indiscriminate listing of co-authors of publications. I told him that I was inclined to copy his suggestions into mainspace, but I wasn't going to make that kind of change unless someone else gave supportive input. Would you mind checking back, either to agree with me or to highlight problems that I've missed? It's all in the "Your latest note" section; I apologise for the length of the discussion, but I've basically been going point-by-point, and he's responded likewise. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

copyright violation?

You have accused me of copyright violation on my page regarding a picture of J Hammond - you say, "because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from URL"

but that pic is released clearly in the link I provided

http://freejeremy.net/contact/

under the

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

I attempted to follow guides - Please let me know under what reason you are threatening to block me?

I looked at your WP:G12 article and could not see anything that would require immediate deletion for copyright violation of my fair use claim without any discussion? I also can't find any guide that equals your statement, "as a living person, there is no valid justification for using a non free image"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G12

Would you please explain your reasons for the immediate deletion of the pic?

Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DISRUPTIVE EDITING

Almost totally deleted the live-looping definition and page to replace and correct it with visibly unexpert and not well documented sources and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdrilx (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kava

Regarding Kava- "Strains and Origins", Thank You. I went to WP:ELNO and see numerous potential reasons for reverting my edits. How can we find out specifically which one(s)? This was to provide a link/citation to the free, on-line Hawaiian 'Awa Book.75.233.157.82 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

as you say, the policy outlines many reasons why the link should not be included. What you need to do is identify why it should be included. But neither the fact that it is "free" nor the fact that it "is online" are reasons it should be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason it should be included - it is the source of the information regarding Hawaiian 'awa (kava) contained in the article. It seems it would meet these criteria- "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?"

Banned in Britain!

In case you haven't heard, you've been banned!   ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh NOES! "The Green Pen of Doom" is so, well, so ..... I think I will need to go in a corner and cry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Self

Hello. You wrote on my talk page recently that to stop the vandalism of Jonathan Self's page I would need to link to proof of his Maltese residency and divorce. I now have the link. As such I'm making the final changes to his page now - this is all non-biased fact. If it is changed again it will most likely be vandalism. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1745A (talk • contribs) 13:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Lab Linux

I undid your redirect of Black Lab Linux to Yellow Dog Linux. We're in the middle of discussions on what to do with this article. The current owners of the Black Lab Linux name and property rights are trying hard to update the article within Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. A preemptive redirect without any discussion doesn't seem to be the best approach to me, but I'd welcome your input to the current discussion ont eh talk page. Meters (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no more concerns with anything you think appropriate to do with this article. The COI editors seem to have abandoned their good faith efforts to negotiate edits and have reverted to hijacking the article. Their current version makes no mention of the original topic of the article. Meters (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mentioned on WP:AN/I

Hey, Pen o' Doom, I've dropped your name here within WP:AN/I. COI, paid editing, dark agendas ... are we quivering with fear yet? -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Longterm edit-warring by an editor at Evelyn Lozada

Hi TRPoD. Just letting you know that I reverted this edit today and upon further investigation I came across this reversion from 2012 which means that this is a case of longterm edit-warring by an editor. This is never good news. I saw the discussion from 2012 and it appears this editor had no consensus to add this information into the article. Do we reopen the discusion from 2012, or should this go to BLPN? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you've done it now...

You referred to it as concrete! :O Get ready to have your credibility fitted for a pair of EMC shoes... Unless Drmies' warning to him has finally instilled some caution concerning personal attacks. Will be interesting to see. Snow (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Tellychakkar.com

You continously removing Tellychakkar.com website from all articles as unreliable source, So tell me, What basis you claim that This is just a media wing of PR, not a reliable source? because This site is a clearly meeting with reliable source, read their About us, and also part of http://www.indiantelevision.com/tellychakkar, So now you provide me your evidence, which basis you removing this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.64 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

and That's not important that This site is a media wing of PR, The important is that This site is RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.64 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikipenofdoom

Does this account (has only the single contribution, no deleted contributions) mean anything to you? Also, pinging Darkness Shines because of the contribution itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea who that might be, and why the hell are so many socks and others filing SPI`s on me? Have I pissed off everyone around here? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23:Just looked properly, am nacked, the guy added me to an existing case, my cash is on LanguageXpert, he has filed a few SPI`s on me now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer your first question, not everyone. As for your guess, I'm reluctant to block the editor based on that, too speculative. I'm more inclined to block them for impersonating TRPoD, but I think I'll watch their contributions to see if they do anything futher. If a talk page stalking admin wants to block now, I have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: That just seems really random - doesnt ring any bells at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Have a comment

On Talk:Mannus#Removal_of_sourced_content. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 05:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

I saw that you cleaned the Development section of the article and removed the Marketing section of the article Govindudu Andarivadele. But in the Edit summary, you wrote "promoting the dates of promotional events?? oh fewgawsake no". what is this "fewgawsake". Please type with clarity. Don't type as if it is a nonsensical reply in a social networking website. At least tell its meaning. People will try to understand that the TRPoD found a new term in English language out of frustration. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This from someone who comes up with such literary pearls as "You remove content and i blindly follow, dis in unbearable" for their own edit summaries? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Psychonaut I accept that those were literary pearls which were a results of TRPoD's poetry "The Removal spree". But fewgawsake was a literary diamond. I just want to know its value (meaning). Let me know if you are interested to tell. Or else, leave it here. Same to TRPoD. If you don't want to tell me, leave it. I know that you are a very busy wiki user. You both have a nice time :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Undue" tag on Michelle Shocked

In accordance with the instructions on the 'undue' tag, I have opened a section on Michelle Shocked's talk page giving some media sources which justify the length of the section. I'm inviting you to respond, since you apparently disagree on the matter -- I'd like some counterpoint to the discussion. Thanks. --Heath 198.82.199.39 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "incorrect"

I was told by one of our esteemed colleagues on the article talk page this morning that based on the prior discussions, nobody is wedded to keeping the word "incorrect" in the lede and that it shouldn't be a part of the RfC. That directly conflicts with my memory of what you and I discussed (I believe you and I differed specifically on the removal of "incorrect", hence I asked how we should resolve the dispute and you kindly suggested we settle it with an RfC). In an effort to settle the problem between he and I, I removed the word from the lede just now with an edit summary asking that anyone who disagrees to please immediately revert. I wanted to swing by and leave you a comment so that you know I'm not trying to provoke you with the change, and that I would appreciate it if you would please immediately revert the edit if you feel we should continue with this RfC (I am assuming and expecting you will). Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 March

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

• On the Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Arvind Kejriwal‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page. Thank you
dhiv talk 12:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

removing inappropriate claims about living people such as calling them "most corrupt" is not subject to restrictions and is not edit warring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• practice of worshiping nature. Men wear ''gamasha'' (5 foot long ) or ''naucha'' (9 foot long)) from the waist till the knee, it never touches the ankle because they believe that water is sacred

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• story presents a fictionalized account of the 16th century Spanish mystic [[Santa Teresa de Jesus)]], a Spanish nun. In the novel, when she discovers that her ancestors were ''[[marrano]]'',

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The combination mayonnaise, ketchu] or curry and chopped [[onion]]s is called ''speciaal'' (special) and mayonnaise mixed with [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MasterChef (România season 2) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {REDIRECT [[MasterChef România]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well deserved, I'd say

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For bringing the situation on Talk:Energetically modified cement to community attention via WP:ANI and for staying involved in the the lengthy discussion which followed, all without getting dragged into the acrimony, I hope you will accept this Barnstar of Diligence. Snow (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Pokotia monolith

Looks like the effect of your Prod was to turn it into a fringe article. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, see [10]. Ironic that Auric tagged the only source that is even half-way reliable to query it. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than reverting and putting semi-passive summaries, please engage in the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gameloft#I_oppose_the_omission_of_the_.27controversy.27_section.

You reverting and mass blanking content on the basis of 'unreliable sources' needs to be elaborated. Please engage in the talk page discussion. Ging287 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Destructive editing by TheRedPenOfDoom

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Destructive editing by TheRedPenOfDoom. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Russell

The ip is trying to do the right thing, and reverting his RfC smacks of piling on. Perhaps you can make a suggestion on how to improve the RfC? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Manish Wadhwa

Hello, sorry if I sound a little biased, but please do not revert the information on Manish Wadha, as the page on how it is presented, is fine from how it is, from it's stand-point and references. -- BlueMario1016 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you know there's deletionist's barnstar? I didn't. Here's one for you!

		The Deletionist's Barnstar
		To the most deletionist of all deletionists! Wear your crown proudly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Trash disposal rarely gets appropriate credit for its value in maintaining a livable community. Thank you for your recognition!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

null

Share your opinion

Please share your opinion here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viraj Dobriyal. 70.39.186.122 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yummy grapes

Been a while Mr. Doom. Looks like the grapes have gotten sour again. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Varun Dhawan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Varun Dhawan 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. KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Reed Alexander, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ennybenny402 SPI

Hello TRPoD. I see you recently reverted Ennybenny402's edits to MasterChef (România season 3) on the grounds that they are a sockpuppet [11]. I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulika1995 but a clerk there is not satisfied with the evidence I submitted originally. If you could contribute additional evidence, or at least an endorsement of what I've already posted, that would be much appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Signature in the Cell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Signature in the Cell 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/Signature in the Cell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Donald W. McLeod

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Donald W. McLeod, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Yeah, this reads like a resume, and is liekly doomed at AFD, but there's enough in the bits and pieces to avoid an A7. Thank you. Courcelles 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Thank you for editing Bade Achhe Lagte Hain but please do not delete information and notices from articles on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Tamravidhir (২০১৪) 09:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete information from Bade Achhe Lagte Hain such as you did to the plot and the production section as that is considered as vandalism. Thank you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is strange to hear that you call a newspaper article an unreliable source. Please stop vandalising Bade Achhe Lagte Hain or else you would be blocked from editing. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Tamravidhir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a peer editor I would suggest that you go through the following articles once, but please not apparently:

• Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style
• WP:SMOS
• WP:MOSTV
• WP:ISNOT
• WP:WAF
• WP:JUSTPLOT
• WP:MOS

I hope this helps. If you have any queries leave a message on my talk page. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just stop! It's enough. You tell that the references of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain are not reliable. You have then just not gone through WP:RS. All references are those of news articles. They are as reliable as the sun and the moon and the article is not at all un-encyclopaedic in its tone. --[[User:Tamravidhir|Tamra<span style="font-weight:bold;

Re: Fringe Claims are Identified as Such

The wording on the Ken Ham article "His claims... are incorrect.." is biased. Wouldn't "His claims... are believed to be or thought to be incorrect" be less leading and not show partiality to either side? The scientific community believes he is incorrect, but they don't have any proof. Please show me one evidence that he's wrong: a transitional fossil, someone who was actually alive billions of years ago and actually witnessed evolution or an evidence of evolution, or a animal that is currently evolving into another animal. Creation has many proofs: Fossilized birds, mammals, and fish are exactly the same as living birds, mammals, and fish (No evolution has taken place!), there is a book that is an accurate account of where this world came from and who created it, written by people who were there and lived at that time, the Bible, and evolution has never, ever been observed. Since there is no proof Ken Ham is wrong, it seems presumptuous to state that he is! Snoopy5566 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From Earth citation 24 Dalrymple, G.B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6.

Newman, William L. (2007-07-09). "Age of the Earth". Publications Services, USGS. Retrieved 2007-09-20.

Dalrymple, G. Brent (2001). "The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved". Geological Society, London, Special Publications 190 (1): 205–221. :Bibcode:2001GSLSP.190..205D. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14. Retrieved 2007-09-20.

Stassen, Chris (2005-09-10). "The Age of the Earth". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-12-30.

Really overwhelming scientific consensus, with a ton of proof. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom would you take a look thoroughly at.Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Leuren K Moret

I was glad to see your comments to Starman05 (someone who appears to be closely associated with Moret judging from their recent creation of the anti-depleted uranium activists page that appears to be advertisement for Moret, Douglas Lind Rokke and Joyce Riley, all of whom appeared in "Beyond Treason" and were less than truthful in this supposed documentary. I would like to correspond with you about this if possible. DUstory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhotel1 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

UFO AfD

Hi,

This is one of those things that probably seems weird because we disagree, but thank you for being level-headed and Wikipedian with the article. I get a bit carried away with happiness sometimes (and other people seem a bit grumpy) - but you are very neutral so thank you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is David Bergstein. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

edits on Ken Ham article

I have undone your edits on the Ken Ham article because his beliefs have never been proved wrong.The K (talk)

You are incorrect. The overwhelming scientific evidence for over a hundred years has proven him not only right, but so right as to not even be anywhere close to being wrong. Revert yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelby2002 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what "scientific evidence" or which "100 years" you are talking about, but it is not actual scientific evidence or any hundred years in the twenty or twenty first century. You can go on living in your time machine, but you may not make any edits in Wikipedia based on what might have been thought back then. We use the current academic mainstream and their actual scientific evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

same to you buckaroo, according to you evolution has been proved for over a hundred years The K (talk)

not "according to me" - according to every piece of scientific evidence.09:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

This has become a mess - all sourced from one site and I don't even think I understand the last paragraph. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at A.Minkowiski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

Hello Doom, I noticed in your removal of my content that you also removed my text and reference to M.G. Lombal's analysis which was not published by Trinitas. Is there any reason for this? The text I am referring to is as follows

M. G. Lombal's analysis of Ryden's ordinary handwriting describes an individual confident in herself, with an ease of locution and a good level of intelligence, who can also display a strong personality. His analysis of the handwriting under dictation is that it denotes a lack of freedom, a constraint, with a strong restraint of movement. It is constrained compared to the fluency and homogeneity of the ordinary handwriting where the movement is natural and effortless. He states that this constraint is agreeable because there is a delight and also a joy in the essential thought expressed here, just as in the profoundness of its roots. He reports that certain signs indicate that Vassula resists at times in order to free herself from the constraint. She is at once under constraint and resistant to the constraint.Arkatakor (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

References

<talk page stalker> At least part of the Lombal material was sourced to "The Vassula Engima", published by Trinitas. The other part is sourced to something called "I saw Vassula write: Scientific analysis of True Life in God" by Philippe Coron and offered by a publisher with only one book to its credit, which is classified as "spirit writings" [12]. Neither are a suitable source of independent analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

i have started a discussion on the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

About Barun Sobti page

Hello. I agree about the edit warring. I'm sorry if it came across as a war. And I know that the info shouldn't be like it's a fanpage. But I really didn't like where you had edited it by saying that "the station awarded him". I found it really condescending. So I changed it. He won them through his hard work, so.. And for the awards, I put a table because it's easy to refer to.

I request you, please let these changes stay. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunholic (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

About Barun Sobti's page again

I'm sorry, I find it condescending. And I have no other option than to edit it, again. You can edit it as many times as you wish to, but I'll be correcting it all the times even if it's considered as edit warring. I don't really care. But what's condescending, is condescending. If the channel did that to pimp the show, they could have clearly awarded Sanaya too. But they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barunholic (talk • contribs) 10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ESPPhilSurrey

I got your message about the links you deleted and have to admit I'm confused.

What's the difference between, for example, on the Abinger page the External Link I put up to an information page on a website with links to orignal source material relevant to the history and heritage of Abinger, Surrey, and the links below which by their persistnece seem perfectly acceptable: Stained Glass Windows at St. James Abinger, Surrey St James's Church, Abinger

I'm trying to make information freely available and it keeps getting taken down by people I can't contact easily, communicate with directly or have a discussion with.

I also had to change my username because it didn't conform to the Wikipedia code of conduct and yet everyone who's removed my posts and blocked my account seems to hide behind anonymous user names. I'm quite happy to use my own name and can't understand why others have to hide behind strange titles.

I can understand that there has to be moderation of content on Wikipedia and that some subjects can be controversial but is adding some historical information about places in Surrey so bad that you need to spend time taking down my links? What I'd like is someone to explain to me what's wrong with the pages I'm linking to.

ESPPhilSurrey (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Red link on Help Desk

Your response to this question had a red link in it. Since the link is supposed to help people find further information, I created a redirect to what I assume is the Wikipedia article on the topic. I thought about using a piped link but that would have done the same thing and doesn't guarantee the article is the correct one. Does Creative Commons license include what you intended with a link to CC BY-SA 3.0 License?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ESPPhilSurrey - Acceptable External Links

Thanks for the further comment and advice. I've now had a read through the Wikipedia:External links page and in particular the "Links normally to be avoided". At the beginning of this section it says "...one should generally avoid providing external links to: 1.Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Turning the double negatives around this appears to say that links should be put in if the site provides a unique resource. The Surrey County archive collections provide exactly that - a unique resource - and the Exploring Surrey's Past website gives access to information about those resources. This was my logic in putting the links on Wikipedia. I felt the primary source material in the archive was the type of resource that could be cited in articles. If I'm wrong in this understanding I'm happy to stop trying to post links. I can understand why people involved in commercial websites shouldn't be allowed to add their links to Wikipedia pages and what I'm trying to get my head around is how I can argue the case for an exception. I'm just a bit frustrated because I went to the GLAM-Wiki 2013 conference and Wikimedians there were very encouraging and supportive and didn't raise any of the issues I'm now encountering. I'm just trying to share knowledge. Is there a place I can post links for others to assess their value as an External Link?

ESPPhilSurrey (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ESPPhilSurrey - Acceptable External Links - Post Script

Thanks again, and especially for the amazingly quick response. I'll leave a link on a talk page and see what reaction I get.

ESPPhilSurrey (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

please!

really, please don't disrupt the conversation i am trying to have. please. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

really? you have started mind controlling and made me begin that discussion that you now are proclaiming I cannot continue? pththththt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

sigh. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Undue?

Hi TRPoD, I noticed, but didn't understand this edit. What's objectionable about having a list of writers for this series? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: My thinking was that while not "wrong" as such, as mere unsourced relisting of the writers that appears in the info box without any context for why they are more relevant for special call out in stand alone section of their own than any other part of the production team is an UNDUE weight without adding any value for the reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Self

Hi. Sorry to bother you again but sadly the Jonathan Self page is being vandalised again in spite of providing the clear evidence you stated. Things that are inaccurate: 1. JS has only been married twice 2. JS is not a tax resident in Malta, he lives there. 3. Marianne Van Pelt is not a journalist just because she has written an article in a local paper in Ireland 4. The links are all wrong I'm really not sure what to do as this is wasting a lot of everyone's time. As I mentioned before, Self is very happy to have the page removed entirely to end this business. Please let me know what can be done. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1745A (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In regards to personal documents, of course he would far rather not have these in the public sphere. As I mentioned, as his page is clearly causing someone a lot of time and trouble to undermine, he would rather it was just taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1745A (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you are interpreting Wiki policy in a biased way inconsistent with actual usage. Are you willing to submit this to WP:3 (3O) Third Opinion or other forms of mediation? Please respond in the interest of resolving this short of more extreme measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the mention of marital partners and other very significant family members, as in this article, I cite the Cesar Chavez article as one among very many examples: "Chavez was born on March 31, 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, in a Mexican-American family of six children.[3] He was the son of Juana Estrada and Librado Chávez. He had two brothers, Richard (1929–2011) and Librado, and two sisters, Rita and Vicki.[4] He was named after his grandfather, Cesario." Note that only one of those family members are the subjects of Wikipedia articles (Richard). The notability of the others, sufficient to be mentioned in the main article, clearly is derived from their relationship to him. Purging all individuals mentioned in articles who do not themselves have articles would be a huge task and certainly contrary to Wikipedia goals. To exclude mention of all individuals not mentioned in articles would exclude the majority of women, which is clearly anathema to Wikipedia ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense! It is of course anathema to throw women's names into articles just to have women named in articles! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles about a notable person whose significant relatives (spouses, children, parents, business partners) are mentioned but not named because they do not have their own articles? Can you provide a citation for your claim that it is Wikipedia policy that significant relatives who are not themselves the subjects of Wikipedia articles are not to be named? I can find no such policy. JCvP 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

Respectfully, I think you are interpreting Wiki policy in a biased way inconsistent with actual usage. At present it appears that you are only disputing the fact that Self's most recent wife is an equestrienne, since her being an American and his wife and a journalist is cited. Therefore I will revert and remove that term. If you continue to undo despite the citations, I will submit this for dispute resolution in accordance with Wiki procedures, since others may want to do the same. JCvP 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

Qubool Hai

Hi I don't get why you think that the plot summary is too long. This is the actual story of 18 months held as short as possible. Th information is needed because without it the plot is not completed and a person who doesn't know the story also doesn't know where the story ended or when the season ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assiaksgian1 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi there! Were you aware that an account has been created for User:TheRedPenOfDoom2 on February 1? If this is a second account you made for yourself, it's fine; the concern is only that someone might have created that account with the intent to impersonate you. Please let me know if that's you or not, in order that either I can report them or forget the matter. Cheers! —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@This lousy T-shirt: Thank you! I did not create that account- it looks like the impostors have run out of colors and are now into the numbers.

Where do you see the new creations? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome!  :) They've been reported now! For future reference, you can check the list of new creations here.[13]. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding merge of article of Telugu film grossers

Hello, I'm Phani M. I undid your recent edit of merging the article. The discussion which started on 29th December,2013 is not yet over. You merged the Tollywood films article only though there is no discussion/result about Tollywood films especially. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page.Thank you Phani M (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Related to 2nd redirect: Why didn't you take an action on other articles?Phani M (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Never knew of Krampus' story till American Dad episode

It looks like he has a growing amount of pop-Western culture dedicated to him. TVTropes have over 90 references to Krampus list on their page[14]. Part of the drive behind this maybe the neo-pagan movements of the 90's? I don't have a RS about that hypothesis and not even NPR[15] made the connection. I think a few more important sources can be found about Krampus in popular culture though. A neo-pagan blogger extends the desire to popularize Krampus in opposition to the Christian message of the season Now if we could just popularize Befana and Krampus – Jason Mankey. Slate[16] mentions Krampus and a further book written by photographer Charles Fréger called Wilder Mann. Some members of the Occupy Movement have been pushing Krampus as a symbol for Occupying Christmas[17]. Another blog published by By Gendy Alimurung in the LATimes is a proponent of bringing Krampus to LA and popularizing him around America.[18]. GoogleScholar doesn't have anyhting I could find about why Krampus is becoming more popular in America so maybe you'll have better luck than me finding some RS; maybe after this Christmas some will turn up. Alatari (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Require clean ups and good editing

The below articles are full of POVs and unverified sources and need clean up. Please have a look at these pages

Dhobi,

List of Isai Velalar

Nassuvan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangood (talk • contribs) 11:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of future events from the filmography

Doom, there are future events listed in the filmography here. :) Salih (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Garrett Whitlock

Bio of Garrett Whitlock was merged with the Submersed page and deleted.?? Hello, I worked with Garrett on his bio. His bio meets the criteria to stand on it's own even though he was a member of the band Submersed. I don't understand why it got deleted. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBscreamer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs

The piping of Marilyn Steed is because the name of her article is spelled differently than in Warren's article. She spells her name differently at different points, as does the media. The piping is necessary. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Complaint about you at WP:ANI

It looks like nobody has bothered to tell you yet, so:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you song agree the birth date is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding merge of article of Telugu film grossers

Hello. I'm Phani M. I'am extremely opposing the merging of article. As of your note I added my opinion to the discussion which is going on. I think now I can proceed in reverting your merge..... Phani M (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for support. Thank you.Phani M (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC) even i to support phaneendra dnt merge the ariticls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.63.158 (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider..

Adding B. R. Ambedkar to your watchlist. Thanks Red. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Since June 2012, Khan started working in ''[[Shehr-e-Zaat]]'' (based on [[Umera Ahmad]]'s novel ''[[Shehr-e-Zaat|of the same name]]''. She made a cameo appearance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{div col}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange additions of images

Could you please take a look at these edits? Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And our Indian friend is also adding every image he uploads, to articles, regardless of who reverts and without establishing any encyclopaedic merit. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not going to get anywhere playing that game

Hey TRPOD - I'm requesting you be a little more transparent with me regarding your thinking. It's quite disingenuous for you to keep claiming that I don't accept some broad fact or policy at the exact moment I request that you or others explain how your applying them and then dangle an AE in front of me. First it's inaccurate. Secondly there is no evidence of your WP Aspersions. Thirdly, it just feels like I'm being harassed so therefore not really productive towards you and I building a consensus together. Let's try a more calm, thoughtful, and rational approach. SAS81 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You have failed to make a case why this is a problem, since TRPoD is a long-time Wikipedian with a solid grounding in policy and you are a PR guy with an agenda to buff up an article on a notorious proponent of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sean Lien

Thank you for your advice. I will try to incorporate the information into the main content of the article. Regards.Linfengfei (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Again my edits have been reverted by the person who seems intent on assisting Sean Lien with his campaign. As you can see I have tried to engage on the talk page, but that seems futile. Might I trouble you to take a look at my edits and render an impartial decision? I will respect whatever decision you render.Linfengfei (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that wiki is not concerned with facts but with what can be verified, and if the reports are widely made in the local media and never subject to refutation by Lien or his campaign staff, then why is this an "aspersion"? For context, please compare our last three presidents' wikipages--Ma Ying-jeou, Chen Shui-bian, or Lee Teng-hui--each of whom was a previous mayor of Taipei. Their wikipages make multiple references to allegations and controversies. So why should Lien be permitted to have supporters draft his own wikipage and make claims such as he transformed a Corporation into a profitable enterprise, when the only evidence for that is a singular report issued by the Taipei City government, the person who employed him, and who is his political ally? There have been many conflicting reports published in the media, and why are these ignored? Sincerely, I do not understand. As an aside, the failure to have served in the military is an important local issue.Linfengfei (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I ask that you or other editors examine the recent edits on Sean Lien's page. I suppose I've stated my position clearly enough, and I believe I've bent over backwards to be fair to him. But...well, please see for yourself, if that is convenient for you.Linfengfei (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thought of just editing the first clean version in the history. Thanks for the tip, and for cleaning up the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

I had earlier asked you not to remove sourced information from Wikipedia articles. This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do NOT remove sourced information from the article. If you have any issue with the sources, discuss first on the article's talk page. Do not push your agenda through blind reverts. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look much like vandalism to me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why revert on my Rupert Sheldrake edits (3)?

I put some work into this edit: Rupert Sheldrake edit

I fail to see why you reverted this contribution as no reason is given.

I would advise you to give reasons for what you do, otherwise misunderstandings can arise eg edit wars.--DadaNeem (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If I don't get a response I will mark your "contribution" as vandalism.--DadaNeem (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for withdrawing - I'd be careful with "incorrect click" edits in future. Have a good day;)--DadaNeem (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Has it been six months yet Mr. TRiPoD? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

New messages

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

--Tamravidhir (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry I will be doing the trims based on my version but it will be later. Thanks for understand my pleas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireydash21 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Unknown years of Jesus

Gomanazbt (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am slightly confused as the work referenced is copyrighted material registered with the US Copyright office since 2012. The work is publicly shared for anyone to download on the site referenced. Is that not a "reliable source"?

It also says that tone is "non-encyclopedic", so can you elaborate on the specific text in question? Not trying to state as fact since it is a theory so any feedback would be appreciated.

I am new to posting and the only feedback I got was when I just sighted the website. I have added more on the actual book so not sure if it is timing issue. Can you provide a link to the talk page of the latest submission?

---

Original Message-----

From: Wikipedia information team [19] Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2014 11:22 AM To: brian.tayloe@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Ticket#2014050110009776] Posting an article but being removed due to reference listing

Dear Brian Tayloe,

Your edit was reverted with the following summary:

"does not appear to be a reliable source, tone is non encyclopedic as well"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unknown_years_of_Jesus&diff=606657018&oldid=606656881>

You can communicate with the user that reverted your edit by using their Talk page, or by proposing the change in the article's own Talk page.

Yours sincerely, Kosten Frosch

-- Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/ --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/

05/01/2014 18:08 - Brian Tayloe wrote:

> The following is the reference listing I am trying to post. Can you > help me determine what the issue is with the reference? > > > > It was to be posted on > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_years_of_Jesus > under the "other theories" section: > > > > There is another theory on the "Silent Years of Jesus" that is based > on a couple of assumptions. The first, is that the best person to too > give an account of His entire life including the silent years, would > have been Jesus Himself. He would have had a desire to share > experiences but not divulge specifics. He may have assumed that it > would have been clear to others at some point or may never be > discovered. Second, the theory proposes that Jesus used events from > His life in formulating His analogies of the parables in the New > Testament. The theory contends that through circumstances beyond His > control, Jesus became a bondservant to a very wealthy man before being > released from His "debt" and beginning His ministry at age 30.

Was his father was militant or freedom fighter

How can be someone a militant before independence of India because they were fighting for our nation. That can be right in prespective of British rulers but how we can put that up on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscharan007 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

then atleast produce a document for that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscharan007 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Helen and Scott Nearing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Helen and Scott Nearing. Since you had some involvement with the Helen and Scott Nearing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To thank you for your edit/Talk Page contribution - and notify you as a courtesy

(THIS is about the WP ENTRY for TERENCE MCKENNA - in light of your Talk Page input - just posted, as follows, fyi):

With thanks to recent edits/effort. And specifically about the newly improved Stoned Apes paragraph - may I please cite the original, definitive 'better source'? "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" by B.P. Akers (http://realitysandwich.com/89329/terence_mckennas_stoned_apes/). Addressing a concern stated above, about source (S Woolfe) being "blog of a guy who works for a "libertarian-leaning magazine" in London ... Is he a member of the scientific community, or an authority on anthropology?":

The author of the original article is a phd scientist. Accredited in both biology and anthropology. With peer reviewed research, published in journals of scientific societies - fields including ethnobotany and mycology. Note (as reflects) his research as cited in WP entries e.g. Psilocybe hispanica; Rock Art of the Iberian Mediterranean Basin; and Villar del Humo. Since its Mar 28, 2011 publication, info from "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" - has been copied/pasted by many, like Mr Woolfe, without due citation.

As for this WP entry on Terence McKenna - my experience with it goes back to 2006. In view of that, and certain remarks above, may I note "Concerning ..." specifically cites WP's "entry for TM (which seemingly reflects ongoing tampering to keep a properly celebratory, uncritical tone)." I find that echoed above by vzaak (Jan 26) WP "has historically had problems with editors aiming to promote pseudoscience or lessen its criticism, which eventually lead to the arbitration case on pseudoscience." I question whether WP policy and practice is functionally sufficient to ensure WP purposes - against an 'inspired' determination of oppositional counter-purpose (TM hagiography). Whether appropriate edits here can stand against 'edit war' and subterfuge that's prevailed at this entry for years - is unclear considering, e.g.: "WP editors wish to minimize Terence's significance, so I think it's good not to let the bastards get away with this" (posted June 2, 2013, by ‘foxfire’ i.e. WP editor Peter Meyer: http://mckennaforum.com/forum/mckenna-forum-group1/terence-mckenna-forum-forum24/stoned-ape-theory-mckenna-shlain-hakim-bey-thread3.3/)

Again thanks to vzaak and others (TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom). With concern even doubts for this entry; may be a lost cause. Past conscientious edits have been easy targets for zapping - unable to stand or endure against a doggedly determined proprietary interest of McKenna 'admirers' (believers, followers, what are they exactly?), acting as WP editors, in service to a charismatic icon's PR. Time will tell? Akersbp (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) akersbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • contribs)

Suzannah Lipscomb

TRPOD - You insist upon adding that she dedicated a book to her husband Drake. The truth is that they separated in February 2013. Your approach is aggressive and unnecessary. I quite see that truth is needed, but every single personal detail about somebody is not necessary, especially if it is known that the subject does not want it known - there are many pages in which information provided is purely professional and not personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.80.5 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(:) can I ask why you are so obsessed with adding marriage details? It appears you view this as your personal page and think only yourself has any right to edit it. Just because there is no source on the internet confirming the marriage is over does not mean it is not a fact. Why will you not accept this?

(talk page stalker)are you trying to seriously add unsourced information to a BLP? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are so obsessed with showing who one of Dr. Lipscomb's books is dedicated to, surely for consistency you should include to whom all her books are dedicated to, unless of course, you have an agenda! You clearly do, and indeed I see from your page that you are an interfering busybody whom nobody appreciates sitting on your high horse 'we at Wikipedia', rubbish, you have no more right to make changes than anybody else. You want to put details of the failed marriage, but deny the separation, clearly your agenda is not veracity but disruption.MdeBohun (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Suzannah Lipscomb again. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband

Hiya, as you inserted this disputed content multiple times, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzannah_Lipscomb&diff=606801882&oldid=606801667 here is a link to the discussion for you , ta - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Richiez's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Richiez (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on

"the "notability " of marriage has been established by thousands of years of culture."--sheesh. You know what's also highly notable? Defecating, breathing, eating with knife and fork. You're pulling some really tenuous arguments out of God knows where--never mind that the issue was not marriage, but a dedication. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you can go on (and on and on) about "the dedication" - but the issue is not and has never been "the dedication" it is the marriage that the dedication documented by the hand of the subject.

And if you continue to posit that marriage is not important, i can only assume that you are trolling or incompetent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments

Don't refactor my talk page comments. Anything I add to a talk page is still part of my comment, talk pages are not mainspace. Since I have signed underneath, any unapproved modifications are still associated with my name, and not yours. If you have amendments to suggest, suggest them with a comment below. I've mentioned this specifically on that talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi (season 5)

I don't want to offend you but please don't change the Elimination chart table. First of all the legend or codes are mostly to maintain the progress of the contestants. This is not to offend or shout on anyone. I am maintaining a legend which will be an eye catcher and someone can understand the table easily. There are many wiki pages which follows the same format. If you need I can provide those info on those pages. Again if you are changing the table, then requesting you to correct the table with latest information. Why are you reverting to the old stale data. Third thing is the notice you have marked on the elimination table, every information is specific to some group. Not everyone wants everything. The progress tracking table is maintain in lot of wiki pages. Again I am not trying to offend you, this is just a request. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnayakan (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Again you revertetd to some old version. Why don't you at-least correct information. WIKI is all user provided information. You are only trying to say whats wrong, please fix it once and other users will follow the same. This table was not there initially, I created this one so that users can update and provide correct information. Deepak Nayak (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)dnayakan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MasterChef_India_(season_3) - This page also has the same style on elimination table. I see you have also edited few things. Shouldn't you raise the same concern here as well ? Deepak Nayak (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)dnayakan

Advice to a newbie

Hey Red Pen, your name is spot on. I was wondering what I should do now with the edits at Ervin Laszlo. What does the the first part of this sentence mean: "rollback, goodfaith, but BLP and NPOV require better sourcing and presentation?" How do I see what I wrote before to edit it up to an acceptable standard? There is some legit sources to make a criticism section. I don't really care either way about Laszlo it just looks like its written by a sycophant/apologist and that annoys me. The false balance. You are obviously a hardened veteran and you have low tolerance to sloppy work.

I'm glad when I changed Chopra's page from "writing gift" which is lame to "rhetorical skills." It was a slightly better change that some else then changed to changed to "technical terminology" which is pretty precise language. That is a dialectal exchange, probably what wikimedia is all about.

Any way, nice to cross paths and would appreciate some learning.

Tony Skinnytony1 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)