User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

GamerGate Draft

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, RedPen, and until then, wouldn't be more sensible that the draft has the appropriate markers? Zakkarum (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: per WP:LEAD if it is sourced in the body, it doesnt necessarily need to be sourced in the lead. I personally think it is a stupid practices for Gamergate since the policy does state that controversial claims should be sourced in the lead and nothing about GG is not controversial. Some people think footnotes are "ugly". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Oh, got it. Thanks! But since you yourself said the policy does state that controversial claims should be sourced in the lead and nothing about GG is not controversial, why it's still only sourced in the body? I couldn't edit the main talk page and I don't see one talk page for the draft, as a lot is under sanction. --Zakkarum (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: someone opened a discussion on the article talk page. Place your statement on your talk page and I will link to it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)::

@TheRedPenOfDoom: You mean this statement about the source of controversial articles being presented also in the lead or that I should just open the talk page? --Zakkarum (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: a statement about why you think the lead should have sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Got it and done. Thank you very much. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Also, if you don't mind me asking, why was the neutrality disputed banner from both the draft and the current article removed? According to WP:NPOVD, it should still be in since it's a controversial topic and it was until some days ago. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: Regarding the NPOV tag, it has been removed because per instructions Template:POV it should only be placed on an article when an editor is able to " [point] to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. ". No editor has been able to articulate where and how the article violates NPOV or any specific actions that could be taken to correct any supposed POV violations. The article overall represents the topic as the sources have covered the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: However, the neutrality of the article is disputed and the topic, controversial. It was in the article before. I get that it could fit point 2 of Template:POV, but it's still a controversial topic. To address the point of where the article goes in the NPOV, the point is " While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. " Not to mention the big controversy about half the article and that it's heavily going to one side, in this editor's opinion, of the portrayal of the situation, sources like 49, 50 and 51 claim Felicia Day was harassed where the original comment they use as harassment don't claim affiliation to any movement or group, so it can't be pinpointed to any institution. Some of the "reliable" sources (their primary "primary documents" don't match what they write) are compromised, yet when I changed the articled, the change was undone by an editor who got funded by a third party who is interested in keeping the current version of the article. --Zakkarum (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Zakkarum, it is not the place of Wikipedia to second guess the conclusions made by the sources it cites. If these four publications all come to the same conclusion that Felicia Day was harassed because of Gamergate, the mere fact that "Gamergate" is not officially mentioned by the person who was performing the harassment is not reason enough to cast doubt. If you disagree with the sources, tagging the statements as not cited when there are multiple citations that support the written information is not how Wikipedia works. Go to the article talk page and make an argument on what you want to change and stop edit warring. Read WP:TRUTH and also read WP:BRD. You were bold. You were reverted. Start a discussion on it instead of continuing to revert it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: the user is not autoconfirmed yet and so cannot use the protected article talk page directly at this point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may offer advice in the face of the pending Arbcom, I would simply decline to engage with any new single-purpose-account like this, as it just feeds tempers all around. Point them to the article talk page, and they can make their case there. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, @Tarc:, I can't edit the talk page. --Zakkarum (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: reading the archives to understand the discussions that have already occurred (and occurred and occurred) so that we dont have to repeat them yest again could be a way to pass your time until you become autoconfirmed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, well I see now that you are a single-purpose account in both action and in the technical sense, having only created this account today. Such accounts have been responsible for much of the grief and vandalism and such in this topic area, so the articles, even the talk page, has had to be restricted. It may be wise to go edit elsewhere for awhile, to show people that you are interested in encyclopedia improvement generally and not just here to advocate for a single issue. Then come back to GG in a few weeks, then you'll be able to edit the talk page. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware I had to prove I'm innocent before I got permission to talk, @Tarc:. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was more specifically addressing how one becomes an auto-confirmed user, a privilege level that allows an account to edit semi-protected pages. Also, if you would, lay off the "ping"; I can see these messages just fine. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Content-centered debate on enforcement page

Can you please stop engaging in content-centered debate on that enforcement page [1]. I was about to go and warn off the other guy for the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I was attempting to understand why the filer thought that removal of {cite needed} from content that was clearly cited could be considered evidence of the COI/Bias editing that they claimed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

just a helpful FYI: On this edit [2] you want want to 1) assign your name to the larger block section title (there's a block of such "findings"/etc that each user can provide), and 2) sign your name to the one you added. (and also thirdly trim out any templates you don't want at the currrent time); you'll be able to add more without stepping on toes as the case proceeds that way. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pawan Kalyan, without knowing the original proofs. Why are more interested when there is no proper proofs for that. We should not take news papers content when writing about personal information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malliktajmahal (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) .

Earlier Deccon chronicle provided one false news saying that Pawan was attacked by some one . That itself proves that DC has some wrong intentions about the hero.

References

Stop being idiotic

Stop screwing around with the sources I added to Purple-Cow. If you continue to violate the principle of assuming good will among editors, you might be blocked from editing wikipedia. Thank you. Hypatea (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hypatea: It is not a violation of assumption of good will to remove unsourced and improperly sourced content from an article. It is a demonstration of ill will to reinsert unsourced and improperly sourced content into an article and to call other editors vandals who are actually editing directly within policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

gg

You should probably rename your section header on the workshop page so it's under your username rather than "User:Example".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies

As the article currently stands, it has few reliable sources. What you're doing--and have repeatedly done--isn't helping to improve that.

I am aware that there is scientific criticism of PEAR. I am aware that its views are far from conventional. That doesn't mean you can or should use inferior sources to "prove" whatever point you're trying to make--if you want to add additional, referenced criticism about PEAR, I encourage you to do so. But don't remove well-sourced information. The paranormal claims are subjective and not the core of the research: Academic research of this kind is by its very nature interdisciplinary. The article should reflect the facts about PEAR.

The article was previously much more more informational, but a group of editors removed all references because they misunderstood what the entire project was--they put it in the "pseudoscience" category. Whatever your view of PEAR, that was not objective editorial work. I am trying to bring back the balance that the article used to have before it was vandalized--I'm not witewashing anything; if you want to add more discussion about the problems with the parapsychological aspects of PEAR, YOU GO DO THAT. But stop removing my well-sourced work.

I quoted from the New York Times on both the pro-PEAR side and anti-PEAR side. I quoted from Nature. I gave background on the funding and credentials behind the project--these are RELEVANT FACTS. As it stands, the article contains none of this information. ADDING INFORMATION TO AN ARTICLE IS NOT WHITEWASHING -- IT'S IMPROVING. If you have a particular qualm with something that's been written, tell me about it in the talk page. I'll respond promptly. If I'm making an egregious error, correct me. But what you are currently doing is PURE VANDALISM.

Listen to yourself: It is not a violation of assumption of good will to remove unsourced and improperly sourced content from an article. It is a demonstration of ill will to reinsert unsourced and improperly sourced content into an article and to call other editors vandals who are actually editing directly within policy. STOP ADDING IMPROPERLY SOURCED CONTENT INTO THE PEAR ARTICLE--I WILL NOT STAN FOR IT AND NEITHER WILL SCIENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biotheoretician (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper science journalism (what I wrote): Criticism of the project has been a mainstay since its inception. University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park called the Princeton University-backed project and its associated theoretical models "an embarrassment to Princeton" and "an embarrassment to science." Director Robert Jahn, following the project's closing, retorted, "For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data...If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will." According to Nature, "the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?"

Improper science journalism (what you wrote): PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises on topics such as telekinesis and remote viewing. The program had a strained relationship with Princeton University, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."

You replaced two quotes from the New York Times and one from Nature with one from the New York Times and one from the non-academic, privately-motivated "Skeptical Inquirer." Might as well be the National Enquirer: You are DEFAMING the work of a PH.D. PHYSICIST FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY for a non-academic, non-expert source who proclaims himself to his online audience a "skeptic". What you're doing isn't unbiased and it is hurting the future of the PEAR article.

I'm trying to do an honest job at improving it--because as it stands, it reads like it was written by an angry 15 year old who only has a high school education in physics and psychology. The article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and I'm trying to collect data to improve it. If you have a specific alteration to make, make it. But replacing "Nature" with the "Skeptical Enquirer" is lazy, unscientific, uninformed, and poor journalism.

Seriously, what the hell does "Tachyons and Other Nonentities" have to do with PEAR? You're quoting irrelevant things instead of Nature because you'd rather see a poorly-written PEAR article than something even the least bit informative. Science does not and will not stand for this sort of editorial hogwash.

Have a nice day.

Biotheoretician (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see this 128.125.73.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.181.207.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Biotheoretician (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is (or is related to) the banned user Blastikus, same writing style and IP traces to a University in California (where his previous socks trace to [3]. Goblin Face (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Same writing style"

Prove it. I'm not who you say I am. And it's the University of Southern California, not the "University in California."

Biotheoretician (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:NPPOV

Hi, last week I wrote the above essay to address a seemingly common source of confusion for newcomers (and even some non-newcomers). I posted a related comment to WT:NPOV, but there hasn't been a reaction yet (perhaps because the archiving bot buried it, or because the suggestion therein doesn't have a snowball's chance). In any case, considering what you've been dealing with lately, you might possibly get some use out of WP:NPPOV. Manul 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fursuit-related

Hi. I understood that you moved Chicken suit to Fursuit. If you wanted to do that, you could've at least made an entry for it on that page as a type of Fursuit. Just making a suggestion here if you don't want the page separate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: I found no sources that made any differentiation between "chicken suits" and any other fursuit costumes. Are you aware of any? Otherwise making such distinctions of our own observations or preferences within article content is not allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The chicken suits did appear an various media appearances and costume parties. If we can't find any info that would get the chicken suit's page restored, then we'll have to put it down as a type of fursuit on the Fursuit page. Any objections to that suggestion? Also, an example of a chicken suit is the suit used for The Subservient Chicken. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: If you have sources-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Retartist (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't agree with the additional plot I have added in to Ek Hasina Thi (TV series), but I only added in the parts that I thought were important things to the plot but I will bare that in mind next time. Besides there are many other things that I have left out so I have tried to make it as short as possible. However, a show like this is kinda hard to ignore all the time. And another person before me also added things that weren't that important so please stop blaming it all on me. Missdolly7 xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdolly7

Why are you being soooooo rude? It's not the end of the world and I'll just not contribute any more if that will make you happy. You have no right to throw all those rude questions at me! Please stop because you're making it seem like I'm the only person who is wrong. Have you ever seen other TV Series pages and how much there can be there? I didn't think there was anything to take out coz it made complete sense to me and I thought it was fine. Missdolly7 xx (talk •

Sorry but why do you keep saying that I made a "potential well intentioned mistake" because I didn't! I only wrote the plot the way I thought could be acceptable but I guess you don't like me or my contributions so I'm not going to contribute any longer. Plus, I had no intention to make other people make that "mistake" as through many of the Wikipedia pages could have long plot summaries. I wasn't ignoring the note, I was letting people know what happened in the show. Wikipedia is a website where we can Contribute freely and publicly and you still have no right to push me into a corner and say that I'm the only wrong person here! Missdolly7 xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdolly7 (talk •

I understand the note and I accept that I wrote more so I won't edit it again. I'm not upset about that but I'm upset about the way you're treating me because you don't even know me! I'm not dumb so you don't have to make anything bigger:'(:-(:O. I just didn't read the note when editing it, I only read it when you started commenting. Missdolly7 xx

I have added in a reference so now you don't have to ask me questions (hopefully)!!! User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

contribs) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC) contribs) 17:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

PEAR somewhat

Greets TRPoD. Just a quick note. The source (Reed, 2003) said "And although it has permitted the research to continue for almost 25 years, the university itself appears to be a bit embarrassed by PEAR." That is what I paraphrased to somewhat. Just making sure the content can withstand challenge. I am not reverting you, but you may wish to reconsider or find another source. Not a big deal to me. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. SultaanPop (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Naayak

Hi. I recently undid your edit at Naayak as Filmibeat, previously Oneindia Entertainment, is a reliable source. I actually entered this url which gave me access to this new url. This it does not fall under WP:SYN. I don't know why you hate me this much, as if though i am your killer. Well, it happens always. Bye. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, i forgot one thing. Mine was not unsourced or arbitrary nonsense. The fact that the film is a big hit is published here. I did not cite it in the lead section only to follow WP:LEAD. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek mythology in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan. 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) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SultaanPop (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello I'm Missdolly7, and I just wanted to inform you that I have added a couple of more information in Ek Hasina Thi (TV series). This is because the show is going to end soon and I believe that we should conclude the story in a sensible way. I have tried to remove things as well. You can leave a message on my talk page if you have anything to say about this. User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write something that was going to happen in the future, I wrote something that has already happened but I said that we should keep it that way so in the future we could conclude it easily User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you are interested.

You may enjoy reading this. Since it is about you.

https://twitter.com/ThePirateCapn

and this whole article:

http://realitysandwich.com/215568/wikipedia-cyberbullying-a-case-study/

And then visit my talk page (or e mail me). I seem to be having some disagreement with Manul who thinks I am the one going overboard.. and I don't have time for it right now. So I am seeking advice from editors that were active on the Chopra page when it was all taking place. I have done all the math..(quite a while ago) factoring in "ISHAR" as a multiplier to the above multiplicand.. but am not sure how to proceed with what turns out to be the final product. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Unknown Unkown

The Red Pen of Doom,

I see that the search "unknown unknown" redirects here. I know that there used to be a separate article for the unknown unknown. Do you know how it can be located? Please let me know. Thank you.

Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albraun01 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Cuneta

You should have seen the article on Sharon Cuneta before I found it. Both the article and talk page were a mess; it was rated B class by a blocked sockpuppet, who had also added a big template that falsely claimed the article was under general sanctions. I demoted it to C class and attempted to cleaned up the worst of the promotional content, but it still needs work. It's difficult to believe an article could be that promotional for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, that was indeed a mess! I found it when searching for the word "megastar" to see if there were any other obvious candidates for a DAB page. What came up instead were completely inappropriate uses in actual articles! I removed that particular issue at Sharon Cuneta, but did not have time to taking it a part. Thanks for your work! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Majestic

What does this edit summary even mean? I interpreted it as "you need a reference", however the other In popular culture entry about a video game didn't have a reference to begin with, so either the entry I tried to add needs to be restored or the other one needs to be removed as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Issues about the Article

Hello, there was a Talk Page about this Article and it was decided to leave it because writing on wikipedia about this Gallery is not advertisement and the subject is notable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sommer_Contemporary_Art of course it needs more work. Krokamaora (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi responded to your point over at NPOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Use_of_the_word_cult is the previous discussion we already had about this topic. The people VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw are attempting to get around a conclusion or at least a lack of consensus that was already established in a very recent discussion on the same manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Per_Wikipedia_policy.2C_is_there_anything_wrong_with_a_quote_containing_the_word_.22cult.22_in_the_lead.3F is where you had commented. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RPOD, I've had enough of this.

At this point, you're going to have to decide whether to permanently ban me, because I will not accept your interpretation of this. All I can say is, I have 30 FAs to my credit, and Wikipedia will not be better off with me gone. So you have to make up your mind what outcome you prefer. Serendi^podous 20:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: WTF are you talking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me at least attempt a conversation, though you have shown yourself to be marked thick-headed on this issue. I will try and make it as simple as possible.

Zombie: The lead sentence, which lest we forget, is meant to describe what the topic of the article is, reads "In Haitian folklore, a zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi, Haitian French: zombi) is an animated corpse raised by magical means, such as witchcraft."

Zombie (fictional): the lead reads, "Zombies are fictional creatures, typically depicted as mindless, reanimated, usually human corpses with a hunger for human flesh."

Two lead sentences, describing two completely different things. If you want to make either Zombie the main article, or Zombie (fictional) a branch article of Zombie you need to come up with a definition that somehow encompasses both those descriptions. This you have never done in all the times I've known you; all you've done is ham-fistedly copy-paste information from one article to the other, completely ignoring what each article is actually about. If you can come up with such a definition, then we can compromise. If not, then I guess it's guns at noon. Serendi^podous 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When you provide any level of support for your position from reliably published sources, maybe then my thick head will comprehend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When you can come up with a definition that accurately describes both of these creatures, then I'll back down. Serendi^podous 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait ... Hang on! ... There is a ... Gulp ... Difference !!! Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers

Hello. About the thing I said on Christina Hoff Sommers's page. The gentleman from Oakland made some weird statement about how "Wikipedia seems to be interested in HER opinion about herself...etc. and that she's an anti feminist, etc." That falls under possible Weasel talk OR Political Biases. By Philosophical definitions, she is a feminist. Not a left-wing Feminist (this is admittedly true) but it's inappropriate for users to make claims about her being anti-Feminist on her page. The same goes for right wing attacks on left wing figures, etc. It doesn't look good in terms of Debate/Philosophy. Sorry, I'm a Philosophy Grad student and it itches my nerves when people attack one another (ad hominem) instead of finding proper means to argue with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocoTrooper95 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Lingaa#Protected_edit_request_on_15_December_2014_h.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

kolam

Hi, on the page Kolam, I have noticed that external link of Kolasurabhi, an online kolam generator, has been removed by you. I agree to remove the spam links on the section. However I feel this generator is the only tool available for drawing online which would be helpful for readers. It doesn't have any copyright violation. Please let me know if this can be added again. Thanks --Neechalkaran (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom. From your recent reverts at Gamergate, I'd like to direct your attention to WP:BURDEN (which you have apparently read), specifically: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." That's why I added the citation needed tag to the previous editor's content. It was quite apparent the information was correct by any basic search, but that we mainly had blogs describing it. The citation needed tag was meant more for finding slightly more reliable sources. In the future, please read the reasoning behind why specific content was tagged, not removed, etc. before engaging in automatic reverts. Content that is generally verifiable but doesn't have a great source yet is exactly what CN tags are for, whereas stuff that doesn't appear like it is easily verifiable or will ever have a decent source tends to get the boot right away. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I also realize that it looks like you're going through a lot of edits, so this recent kerfluffle probably was just the result of just a quick glance at the page. No worries if that was the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Problem is, Kingofaces43, stuff that isn't yet verified, or verified weakly (as your own citation suggests), may also be utterly trivial--as in this case. I think with "documentive source" [sic] you mean something like "reliable"--well, please find a reliable source that proves this isn't just cruft; see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm actually very wary of popular culture type content as well. I was about to remove the content myself at first, but it looked like an interesting enough reference to the topic that a CN tag would encourage more searching for sources and so we could gauge the specific content a bit better. It wasn't my content, but I was in the process of giving it some attention and time to think about whether it should be in the article as well. Basically, weight was more of my concern at that point as you alluded to, but I don't think we have such a deadline that we can't let a tagged piece of content sit for a little bit to get other editor's attention. I don't really have a horse in that race either way though, so I'll be at the article talk page if anything new comes up (and to prevent TheRedPenOfDoom's page from unneeded discussion). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I will move it to the talk page where it is OK for potentially useful stuff to linger rather than be a clutter on the actual page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it might very well be notable, but the present course of action seems the wisest to me. Thanks to you both, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Divyanka Tripathi

Hi, I just found out that you removed the external links for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divyanka_Tripathi. I'd added the link because I found Dramatize to have a lot more for a fan like me compared to the imdb page which has nothing for Indian actors. Not intending to spam and please let me know if I can add this again. Thanks Shoaib Khan (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilayats

Please use afd--do admin seems willing to use speedy DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the most strategic and constructive tone at Talk:Deepak Chopra

Hey there TRPoD. I'm not sure you'd remember, as it's been some time, but you and I have crossed paths quite a few times on ANI, SPI, and various talk pages over the years. I preface my comments here with that fact because I want to underscore that we are generally always on the same side of an issue and, indeed, that we are largely of the same mind concerning the content issue I am about to discuss. All of that being said, I do have a comment that I hope you will take to heart as good-faith, though it be a little critical of your approach. I think perhaps the longstanding, persistent, and COI-driven nitpickery at Deepak Chopra might have gotten just a bit too far under your skin and caused you to advocate your position in a less than ideal manner. Specifically, I don't think it's a very good idea (from a purely strategic standpoint, mind you) to lean so heavily on comments describing Chopra as a snake-oil salesman and the like.

Let me be clear here: coming from a background in physiology-driven science, I couldn't be more convinced that the man has made his fortune off of pure quackery. Indeed, there's nary an example in all the modern world that better or more prominently exemplifies the frequent absurdity of new age pseudoscience. But as you of all people are aware, our own perspectives on the man are not really relevant; the claims of our sources are the only element that ought to enter into the type of content/policy debates that have been a permanent feature of the relevant pages for about as long as they've existed. Mind you, I am not saying that you have not backed up your content arguments with valid sources -- you've certainly gone above and beyond in that respect, exactly as I'd expect from you. But the tone of some of your comments relays more of your personal perspective on the man than is ideal for a policy discussion, in my opinion. My concern is that it may cause some middle-ground editors involved in discussions there to see the position you advocate as an adversarial one, thus causing them to lose sight of the fact that your arguments -- provocatively-worded or not -- have a solid policy basis.

Mind you, I also appreciate that there is a historical context here and that you and a group of other dedicated editors have long been engaged in protecting the page from single-purpose accounts -- at least some of whom seem to have been working for the direct benefit of the subject and several of whom have engaged in socking and other blatant manipulations of procedure. I can appreciate how long-term and consistent involvement there could stretch even the most even-tempered contributor's patience to the limit. Even so, my position is that more reserved and dispassionate language will better serve the purpose of keeping those who clearly do not prioritize Wikipedia's policies and standards from unduly influencing the course of discussion (and thus the content on the page). In short, until such time as you're genuinely arguing for the inclusion of such phrases as "snake oil salesman" and so-forth, it's probably best to avoid using them on the talk page as well. Without needing to part from the honestly-portrayed positions of our sources, we can say essentially the same thing with other language that doesn't give fuel to those who would like to see all mention of criticism of the man excised from the article.

Just my two cents anyway, do with it as you will! Snow talk 09:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Eggslut

I have removed from the article a lot of unverifiable and unsourced synthesis regarding what the Japanese think is the origin of this subject. Please stop restoring the wholly unsourced speculative article on this food truck and its signature dish.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Stop restoring the article in a state that violates all of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Stop gaming me into edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.172.115 (talk • contribs)

The above was added by 24.211.172.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with Ryulong signatures apparently faked. IP user also reverted the auto-sinebot's signatures. — Strongjam (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not faked per-se - just copy-pasted verbatim from a message they got themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pk

Stop spreading negative propaganda about the film. There are a thousand rave reviews. You see only 1 negative review!

You will be blocked. 2.49.19.192 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eenadu

This link obviously doesn't work and the edit is fine to me...but just in case you didn't know..Eenadu is the most circulated daily in Andhra and Telangana..and one of the most circulated in India....their website is a mess I agree but the news are quite reliable.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I don't think the information is so important anyway..I won't be adding it back... ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Purported

I see the edit you made to the section title on the GG article. Though I agree in spirit according to the sources, i'm not sure if "Purported" is the best wording. While technically accurate, it feels clumsy. Maybe "Alleged" or "Stated" might be a better choice? Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 December

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 Gamergate controversy 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) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My material was not copyrighted!

I wrote the whole plot summary for PK (The film) taking out time, revising. This whole took me an hour and then they say it is copyrighted and I maybe banned from editing. My 1 hour hard work is a waste? And they claim it to be someone else' work. Please add it, I have written it myself. I don't know how to reply to that edit ban message. Please help! I wrote it fully myself. They should have checked it first. My whole 1 hour hard work for Wikipedia in waste. I could have done a better work rather but I chose to contribute to wikipedia for 1 long hour and now they say it was copyrighted? Please help! And how can you say it was a copyright? Please help! It is sad to hear that you get negative results for helping.

You did this whole thing, now you need to help me out! You are spoiling the page. And there was an edit previously which maybe copyrighted. But not mine. I expanded it in my own words. The comment over there said "Please expand in your own words" and I did the same. What was that final warning for then?

Regards.

Kashisharora11 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, no! I didn't take it from anywhere. The reference was there before too! I just didn't delete it. And you yourself told to write it in your own words. What now? I didn't even see that before. And if I saw, what matters is YOU YOURSELF TOLD write it in your own words. Story is same, everything is same, so obviously the text can clash. Right? But what matters is the words. Every word is different, how can you claim that? You ban me, you do anything. But I know that your reputation is spoiled. You don't seem to be worth taking this action. I came to you for help and instead you didn't agree and in turn said that I copied.

You yourself told write it in your own words. I wrote it all myself, just to get messages that I copied it. Please, that doesn't make any sense. Previously I agreed that I uploaded copyrighted images. But now, I will not, when I have not. If you still think that this was copyrighted, please ban me. I don't need to be a part of such pages where people don't respect each other where people don't respect each other's contribution. I have made numerous articles worth reading, and I would have never boasted that but to prove that I was innocent, I will have to boast.

Thank you for you co-operating and reading my informal messages.

Regards.

Kashisharora11 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No spam intended

Hello, this really was not a spam link I posted on LakeBled..... Have you checked the website? But no problem, I added the link because the Wikipedia itself invited me to do that. I am sorry for any inconvinience. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpleters (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Miss World Romania page

Hello, i just finally changed my username :)) thank you for your support! ;) i am new user, i was just reader for many years, but i start to understand how wikipedia work, thanks to you and some other editors from here.

Now, the main reason why i decided to make an account - you deleted all the information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World_Romania you even deleted the romanian flag from the page :p From what i understood with my beginner wikipedia knowledge is that the creator of the page Mrdhimas made the page, writing all the information without putting there the sources from where he took the information? Correct? And if the sources are not written, then Wikipedia must delete all the info? So any information from wikipedia must come from independently en reliable cited sourced or "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources" conform WP:BIASED so i also can be a source of this info, helping the neutral editor from now on? If i own the Miss World Romania organization, which is a non profit organization, in the same way as Miss World Organization is, i am the best source for some info like names of girls who won the Miss World Romania title for example from 1990, contractual details, etc.

I studied a little this 2 pages from curiosity to understand better this "cite sources" policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe_Romania or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World they have flag, so is not against the wikipedia policy this flag near the country name of Location... so why you deleted our flag? This 2 pages of Miss Universe Romania and Miss World also have many information written by creator or editors without "Cite the sources"... for them other wikipedia rules are applied? Are different kind of pages than Miss World Romania page made by Mrdhimas? Cause i don't understand.

I wrote to Mrdhimas (talk), the creator of the Miss World Romania page, to help him to Cite the sources for all the information he put on Miss World Romania page. I can say that all info it was correct, for sure he had his own sources cause he did not invented nothing... but he did not Cite the sources, it was his mistake, if this is against Wikipedia rules. The problem is that he did not answered yet to my message. In conclusion, please help me with this problem. If i give you the sources for all info he put on the page, you can put back all the information (you deleted) or i need to contact another editor? You deleted them so i think you are the right editor to work with in this problem.

What happen by deleting this info (now the page is 90% empty) is like you delete from history book the history of Romania from 1990... all romanian title holders of the 3 biggest beauty pageants from the world (Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International) and Miss Grand International, starting with 1990 NOW disappeared... Is not fair, and we need to put this info back with Cite the sources, so wikipedia readers can be informed corectly. Can you help me?

Thanks! Max at MWRO (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Brahmanandam Filmography

Hi. I'm Political Cricketer. I noticed that you recently undid one of my edits. As of you the reason is row-span is deprecated in filmographies . Then why don't you go for all in the article. Who will edit the remaining? Incomplete tasks are not better to wikipedia. Is there any rule not to use row-span. I hope you will edit the article which looks alike. Thank you. PK ^talk 05:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Zombie (disambiguation)

I'm pretty sure you've been around here long enough for me to not have to leave the 3rr template. You're at four reverts. No more, please. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in animation

Thanks for the catch on List of LGBT characters in animation. I reverted one version too far. Great work! —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry that you had to fix that. Wasn't my intention. — Strongjam (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in animation

Rather than deleting entire notes I write, just point out what citations need to be redone, please. I've only been writing descriptions for the characters I know of, and I've found that for many of these characters, citations beyond wiki pages are hard to come by. But these notes are far better than just writing 'Anime.' I really want to try and fix up the page best I can, so some help beyond reverting the changes I make would be helpful. Not trying to sound mean here-- I just want to fix things up. :) Hanhange (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can the living be raised (resurrected)? About Rapture article!

Can the living be raised (resurrected)? You have referred:

"Rapture is a term in Christian eschatology to refer to the belief that upon the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the living believers WILL BE RAISED and rescued from Great Tribulation."

Bible says:

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ WILL RISE first. Then we who are ALIVE and remain shall be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." - 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Will the living be raised or the dead? The living will be caught up, not raised. Only the dead will rise (be resurrected). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Vaani Kapoor. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per WP: LEAD, the lead must summarize the article, and not "be" the article. And the introduction should be on the work that the subject is best known for. If you dislike the wording, change it, don't mass revert and remove the corrections I made to the prose. KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

HOURDOSE

Hello, i see that you have reverted the changes that i have made.Im trying to add the reviews to wikipedia and i have absolutely no intentions of spamming. All i am trying to do is to add reviews to the respective pages from HOURDOSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourdose (talk • contribs)

we only use professional reviews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid, they are professional reviews. have a look at the website,we constantly review movies and they are straight to the point. do you think the reviews are un professional and biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourdose (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur with TheRedPenOfDoom. Two problems - first if you've got an obvious conflict of interest on this. Second, I can't see anything that would suggest that your website meets our criteria for being a reliable source. It pays for content which is generally a bad sign. Ravensfire (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 December 2014

Hi, Could you please leave this section from WP:NOTCHAT tag as it is another section? - abhilashkrishn ^talk 06:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As you may have expected, I've reported the incivility at ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=639643141&oldid=639642361 for what I see as clear personal abuse. Bramble window (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good Grief. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit on GamerGate workshop

The incivility and casting aspersions in this edit (particularly "paranoia") to the GamerGate workshop page are not helpful and disruptive. Please ensure that any further comments maintain the required level of civility. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unbelievable -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd AIV report

Not sure what this report is about, but I'd surmise this editor is someone with an axe to grind. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanessa Villela

Please Enough !, if you do not care actress that's not my problem, and if that matter on trivia, because articles like these: Brad Pitt, Selena Gomez and Debby Ryan have this information?. You asked for references, that I have placed it, and if you're not going to anything constructive for the item, then allowed to destroy it.--McVeigh / talk 23:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

And to complete, wants to start an edit war, nor intends to respond?.--McVeigh / talk 23:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GG

What happened to the section on Sommers? because now she's name dropped with no context in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: I dont know, I missed that as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there's been a lot taken out. I'd comment on the absence of like Zaid Jilani's criticism of Milo and his discussion of the shadow of mordor game debacle but that'd make the sea lions go ape shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it got dropped in the draft because it's completely missing after the draft got applied.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bramble window posted a link to gamergate.me on the talk page, which is one of the many places that attacks us.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh look someone's trying to suggest gamergate.me should be added to the article in earnest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone screencapped this and posted it to Reddit and claimed that your post on the talk page 12 hours before I spoke to you here is evidence of you proxy editing for me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that. they are not real bright. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

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.

Kick (2014 film)

added a link pointing to Blockbuster

Qubool Hai

added a link pointing to IBN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

I know it's pointless to try and reason with you, but since you are hell-bent on ruining someone else's contributions on Kaif's page, I'll give it a go. Firstly, the discrepancy on her date of birth has been widely discussed on the talk page, and the current version stands as per the consensus. So it's highly unfair to all of us who discussed on the topic, for you to go and change it without even posting the reason there. Next come the headings. There are numerous sources in the main body that first point to a breakthrough, and then to her achieving success, so no, the headings aren't "original" research. And when sources already exits it isn't my burden to point them out to you repeatedly. You need to be responsible enough to go see what the sources say before you begin one of your rampages on the article. Honestly, if you continue disrupting other people's hard-work without as much as a talk page message, it is utterly pointless for anyone to try and improve this encyclopedia. And oh, instead of your usual snide, sarcastic replies, it will be better if you actually think about what I said for a change and discuss with the contributors. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss all this last time? Why is it that you get a sudden urge to ruin pages every now and again? The article follows the layout of FA/GA-class articles. Go and get a consensus against them, first. Don't just ruin ONE article by imposing your own opinions of what's acceptable content/layout. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 07:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoax and edit warring

One of the editor(User:Iṣṭa Devata) has clearly attempted to promote hoax on Malasana, you can check the previous versions. This[4] one was the best, included image, category, but bigger etymology section. See Malasana#Additional Notes, no mention outside Wikipedia,[5] personal communication is even a citation? Bladesmulti (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Comedy Nights with Kapil episodes

Please stop removing the serial number. It is more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradip garala (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you saying ? I didn't get you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradip garala (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not necessary to give citation for each every episodes. Please refer other articles.

Why are you undoing other's work. Desiraman (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pyarey Afzal

Why you reverted my edit on this page as I removed fan written phrases. Now its well referenced and upto neutrality. If you think there is promotional material then please help me remove it or do it yourself. UBStalk 15:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

You cited "BLP issues" with your edit-revert of SL. Can you explain why parsing-out the text (as I did) and correcting the legal reference (so it corrolated with her indictment) implied BLP issues?

For ex: She wasn't charged under the Patriot Act, explicitly. She was charged under a specific law for "financial crimes applied to terrorism" for which the implementation would have been, a priori, affected by the Patriot Act - which is in fact an important distinction.

Beyond this, the text re: her education and work history is mixed-up. What is your issue with clarification?

Can you explicitly state why my rectifications are BLP issues?

Thanks in advance.

QualityFeet (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the blp issues are either, but this article has had problems with new or ip accounts before and will receive extra scrutiny than other articles.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Twenty:20 (film) was at that title due to a formal move discussion in August

Hello TRPOD. See Talk:Twenty:20#Requested move 16 August 2014. Please restore the article to the previous title (with 'film' as the dab), unless you want to open a new WP:RM. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are known knowns

Hi, I’m following up for a client who contacted you in early December about the page for “There are known knowns.” This page started as an entry on the term “unknown unknown” from the field of decision analysis, but got somewhat ambushed by the Donald Rumsfeld 2002 press briefing. I gather that the initial issue was a lack of citations for the term existing in its own right before Rumsfeld’s statement brought it into popular vernacular. I’ve been asked to make the case for reinstating “unknown unknown” as its own page. I’m brand-new to editing on Wikipedia and want to avoid spending a lot of time on something that will likely be deleted all over again, so I wondered if we can get your opinion on what would stick.

The first and most direct reference we find to “unknown unknown” is by Catholic philosopher Bernard Lonergan in a 1959 lecture, transcribed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=8Vqa4_4mCTQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22unknown+unknown%22+catholic&source=web&ots=6UYkKoT_zU&sig=0TNsNjUefLBp#v=onepage&q&f=false

But there are also several references to the use of the term in the context of engineering, the military (particularly regarding the Department of Defense), as well as contemporary project management. The term is very often shortened to “unk-unk” or “unk-unks” and appears in the following print articles: Fortune, “Everything’s Coming Up Unk-Unks.” August, 1969, p. 77. Time, “Aerospace: End of the Gravy Years.” March 19, 1970, p. 63. New York Times, “The Vague General Haig.” December 17, 1980. p. A34.

More uses from the area of business/project management appear here: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/discovering-unkunks/ (regarding innovation) http://derivadow.com/2007/09/28/scrummaging-for-unk-unks/ (same, but attributes “unk-unks” to NASA)

A “dictionary” write-up from a public radio website: http://www.waywordradio.org/unk_unk/

Finally, here’s a perhaps more solidly academic definition from a footnote of an article at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29762047?sid=21105560671423&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3739776&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=2129 is as follows:

“Unk Unks” is a colloquialism for unknown-unknowns, i.e., something that may be lurking outside the known sphere (sometimes referred to as the global cognitive map) of investigation; the term is typically used in research and development projects, especially those involving Department of Defense requirements for military aircraft having performance characteristics not previously achieved by production models then available.

The problem with absorbing “unknown unknown” into “There are known knowns” is that Rumsfeld did not coin the term, and the concept independent from the particular incident in which he used it. On the other hand, it’s not as clear-cut as to where the term originated--as other users have pointed out, the same (or very similar) idea has been expressed in different terminology in the realms of philosophy/epistemology, but we have yet to find the specific phrase “unknown unknown” outside of Lonergan. Regardless, it’s an established concept, and as such has clearly made it into more than one discipline of study. But it may actually have more notoriety in its abbreviated form as “unk unks” than as “unknown unknown(s).”

Any advice?

Apologies if this belongs on the article talk page rather than here, but since you responded to my client’s initial inquiry, this is where we’re starting. Thanks! Lyonmegg (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Lyonmegg: Why isn't your "client" doing this theirself? You should also know about WP:Paid editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit for Tomay Amay Mile

Dear TheRedPenofDoom, please don't delete any data which really has reliable references. The guest appearances and awards sections should be present in the article . For verification please check videos of the star jalsha awards on youtube. Hope youtube is a reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.79.252 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redpen

I know we haven't seen eye to eye of late, but I wanted you to know I appreciate the work you did against Gamergate, and I hope the reprisals weren't too bad. Serendi^podous 19:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackthomas321 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags

Hello, while I generally think "drive by tagging" of articles is more disruptive than anything, if you are going to do it, could you please use the multiple issues tag instead of just having a ton of tags at the top of each article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

what is your problem?why did u undid my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejaz92 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arijit Singh

On the above page I did attempt to revert to the same edits that you reverted to but I am guessing it has something to do with the pending changes protection why my edits did not go though. Its just you said there was no source for claim so I got a bit confused by that one.Daniel298289 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Irony

"If you choose to be anonymous on the Internet dont expect to be taken seriously" -TheRedPenOfDoom

LOL noted. 166.171.186.190 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

PK week 2 and week 3 box

Hey Red Pen, so mid-way through my discussion at Talk:PK (film) with The Indian Yosemite Sam, I realized that I had misinterpreted his first post--I mistakenly thought he was arguing for the inclusion of non-noteworthy 2nd and 3rd week box office totals, which is why I wrote, "If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections" and also why I pointed to an earlier discussion I'd raised at Talk:Drishyam. I chalk up this interpretive mistake to a natural human resistance to read carefully what the editor was writing, because I'd twice encountered him acting irrationally hot-headed in the days prior and had to reprimand him thusly. Sort of an "oh boy, what's he complaining about now" reaction. Mea culpa. By the time I realized that I had misinterpreted his proposal, he had launched into a tirade and that then became the new focus. In the interest of integrity, I should probably say that I don't outright object to the inclusion of box office records that were achieved in the second and third week. While it is an "other stuff exists" argument, while looking at the Avatar article (not the list of ridiculous records) it seemed there was some coverage of this info, and is arguably worth including since it helps to convey reception. I do also realize the inherent difficulty of tracking Bollywood "records" given Bollywood's obvious history of corrupt box office data. One argument against the inclusion might be that although PK is being tracked by Rentrak now, how do we accurately compare that to films from the past that have not been properly monitored? And I also recognize the validity of an argument that including this information now might serve to promote the film. A bit of a rant, I know, and I'm not really proposing any specific change, but I needed a little closure on this and I wanted to clarify my position on the record. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that this comment needed to be copy/pasted to the PK talk page. I would have been happy to post anew. The "Indian Yosemite Sam" was meant for your amusement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

oops sorry. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Stevens Johnson syndrome

Hi, looks like you removed the image of the man's face from the infobox on Stevens–Johnson syndrome. I'm curious about why you did that. I thought it was important to understanding the disease. BakerStMD T|C 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baal Veer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vishal. 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) 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hera Pheri 3

have a close and a deeper look into my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera_Pheri_3--Alynaa (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

moseley101 request for help

That comment wasn't at all helpful. The reason I have been deleted 3 times is that I clearly don't know where the appropriate place to post 1st drafts is. I am genuinely trying to post an objective, informative article (which you have never read) and would like somewhere to post it where it won't be deleted post haste in order to get help improving it. Flip suggestions like yours don't help. Can you be of any constructive help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseley101 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Qubool Hai Taj scene.png

I declined speedy delete on this: File:Qubool Hai Taj scene.png but see if you can add back the appropriate db template with the date specified so as to give the 2 days chance to justify a fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure if you're aware of this. Dreadstar ☥ 22:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Moseley101

Thanks for getting back to me. Apologies if I was terse, but this procedure is starting to get frustrating. I appreciate that the tone I have been using in the article may be overly ornate (a symptom of being an English teacher), and yes, I am connected with the organisation in a volunteer capacity. I saw a need for the students that I am tutoring to research the organisation that is responsible for (on one level or another) every conference they attend as MUN delegates. It is in that capacity that I am trying to write this article. The problem is, after several revisions, I am starting to go 'register-blind', and can no longer accurately assess if the tone is appropriate or not. This is where I could really do with some constructive pointers instead of just having the piece deleted ad infinitum. Is there a way that I can post the draft and get some constructive feedback without it being deleted immediately? I have a feeling that I risk being banned if my drafts keep getting deletedMoseley101 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the need to stay on top of COI, I think this caveat probably applies to me: [[6]]

"Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concern.

Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest."
Moseley101 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

article on Tv Channel

dear! Madni Channel is a Tv Channel, but this article redirect to dawat e islami, why? plz rollback to thais article۔--Obaid Raza (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Baby, It's Cold Outside

What footnote are you speaking about? I don't see any footnotes on the WaPo article. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit-warring on Draft:Gamergate controversy (on a draft for crying out loud!) and for your extremely hostile tone on the talk page, which severely affects the atmosphere and the productiveness of the discussion. This block is made in accordance with the GamerGate community sanctions and may only be lifted with my consent or as a result of consensus at ANI. You may use the {{adminhelp}} or {{unblock}} templates or ping me to request that your appeal be copied to ANI. As an aside, you are going to have to start taking a more collaborative approach to editing in this topic area, otherwise longer blocks and/or a topic ban are the likely result. May I suggest you take this an opportunity to do something else for the weekend and regain a sense of perspective? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At HiaB's request, I've taken this to ANI for review. You're welcome to make a statement here to be copied over to that thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating a review. The edit war itself is long over, and my connection here is horrible - its taken me 20 to get to ANI and this comment so I cannot see what the other specifics were to place them in whatever context there may have been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all the reasons anyone who has ever watched your contribs will know immediately. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Here, here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. Look forward to having you back. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Welcome back. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Andhraboxoffice link

Welcome back TRPOD,in list of highest-grossing Tamil films page you have removed all links pertaining to andhraboxoffice.com but currently this is the only reliable site providing BO reports for Tamil and Telugu movies and their reports are also quoted by International Business Times in their BO reports..My only question was what made you think it is unreliable.. Thank you MeeGhaMan ^(talk) 08:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My mistake

You're completely right, I should not have reinstated that crufty factoid. Hope this is the worst error I ever have to plead Huggle confusion on. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Saath Nibhana Saathiya

Hi, why are you constantly cutting everything I write on this page? (Kamleshbhabhi (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

Submitting movie plot before release of the movie

please stop this Hitenray09 from writing movie plots in Baby (2015 film) which will release tomorrow 23 january , but he is submitting full plot today--Frost The World (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Phantom (2015 film). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not be a bully. Wikipedia is built on co-operation, something which is lacking in some of your edits. Please don't push your personal agenda on articles, and try to listen to other contributors as well. Have a nice day! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary in this edit says, "name one film that has not had the same level of promotional gossip". I do not understand what you mean by "has not had the same level of promotional gossip". Kindly explain the summary in correct English so that it's easier for me to understand what you mean by it. Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An admission, and Apology

I must apologize. You see, I am a gamergater (And this account is newish, because I have yet to comprehend how to DO anything on here... I sincerely apologize if I botch this message horribly.) and not to long ago, I was among many who trashed you alongside Ryulong and NbSB. For this, I feel I must apologize. Looking through your arguments, while you do sometimes have a less-than-genial tone, your edits are... entirely fine, and in line with the purpose and policies of Wikipedia. And for my undeserved slights upon you, even though you probably never saw them, I must apologize. So, for as little as it is worth, I am sorry. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you do not feel this is an infringement upon your space, but could you please tell me how to spot, vet, and identify a reputable source? I am coming at this from a Pro-GG perspective, but I also know that Wikipedia itself is neutral, and has stringent standards. So while I do see the current article as skewed, I do not want to try to change it in a way that goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, standards, or policies. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @AnsFenrisulfr: WP:IRS should be what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daddy Dewdrop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Go for Broke. 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, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1.1)

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Similar accounts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Akki%27s_Biggest_Fan&action=edit&redlink=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Akshay_Kumar_Wiki&action=edit&redlink=1

Is it just a coincidence that the above two accounts have similar names ? Or they are one person . Not sure --Frost The World (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frost The World: Probably just two friends who got excited decided to edit at the same time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Akshay Kumar

This is the version of the page before you started removing awards and nominations for being unsourced. There was 1 source under the "Screen Awards" section so the sourced one should have stayed, now there's no award under that section but still a source remains. In IIFA Awards Dhadkan, Garam Masala and OMG were unsourced. You removed more than that and now you can see 3 refs. under the year column and the Garam Masala one is still unsourced. Your edits removed the awards which were sourced and left the one which was unsourced. This is just one example. Please revert back to the original version. Go through the list carefully and only remove the unsourced ones. I wonder what all you have done to other pages—removed sourced content for being "unsourced". Please use preview feature and avoid such blunders. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Any reply?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm Krimuk90. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sonam Kapoor without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on fixing the problem, if you feel there is need for improvement. Do not remove well-sourced information only because it's against your personal preference. Please read the editing policy that you should follow on this project and also maintain good faith when dealing with other editors. Bullying others can only get you blocked. Thank you and happy editing on Wikipedia. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not fix the problem. You removed an already sourced information only because it did not meet your personal preference. That's not fixing the problem, that's creating more problems. Wikipedia works on helping other editors improve articles, not blindly removing stuff only because it doesn't appeal to you. I'm sure we'll lose out on several constructive contributors when their work is brutally removed in this manner. O, the shame! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So when it is already cited in the article, how can you remove it and call your edit constructive? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's what distinguishes an editor who is constructive and one who is not. A constructive editor will never remove well-sourced information from an article. If he/she feels that an in-line citation is required at every time the claim is mentioned in the same article, then he will at most add a citation needed tag to that particular statement. But removing something that has already been cited with a reliable source in the very same article can in no way be considered constructive, sorry. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember the last time you tried to remove unreleased films from articles and what the unanimous consensus was? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Any response, Pen? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please Review Edit to Mohamed Soltan

you deleted religion as Islam. His name is Mohamed for the love of God. What more prove do you want ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Soltan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.58.6 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please email me

You email address is not registered, so please mail me, guy@chapmancentral.co.uk. I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask privately. Nothing especially personal, I just don't want the drama whores interjecting.

Cheers, Guy (Help!) 21:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Really getting insight into where you're coming from lately. Rhoark (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

John A. Shaw

Hi there, Red Pen. I noticed that around a year ago you made some edits to John A. "Jack" Shaw to remove some content that violated BLP (link); I believe this article's content still has significant issues, particularly in terms of UNDUE and NPOV. Earlier this month, I posted a request on the Talk page to point out a couple of simple points to start, but I haven't received any response. Important to note, I'm working as a consultant to Jack Shaw, so won't be making direct edits myself due to my financial conflict of interest. Would you be willing to take a look at this for me? Also, hope you're doing well post-ArbCom. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for going about it the right way. Red Pen seems uncharacteristically inactive at the moment, so I took the liberty of handling this. Rhoark (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhoark! It's really appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request "America: Imagine the World Without Her"

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that the above case, on which you were listed as a party, has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

MasterChef India (season 4)

Hi RedPen, Why did you delete the page for MasterChef India (season 4)? This would have provided details related specific to this season. Deepak Nayak (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)dnayakan

Madni Channel

what's your problem, Madni Channel is a tv channel, thousands of articals on tv channel, but your jealousy only Madani Channel... plz --Obaid Raza (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Lightspeed2012. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Sandbox seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I was conducting a test... Lightspeed2012 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uh... the sandbox is actually for testing. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone who was over at the sandbox Think this was conflicting reverts that might have ended up at the wrong talkpage after someone broke the sandbox. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias:@MadGuy7023: I used the wrong warning. I was only testing the capabilities of this specific computer. Lightspeed2012 18:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Pastor

Please specify exactly what is wrong with the article and what needs to be corrected. I'm new to this, so I'm trying to cut to the chase, make the changes, get rid of the "idiot" messages at the top of the article and be done with it. Thank you for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Pastor2014 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You said it twice on my talk page

You said twice on my talk page something about the Foundation pressuring ArbCom into making a press release. That is absolutely false. I have no idea where you heard such a thing, nor do I know how far and wide you have spread this rumor, but it is absolutely false.

The ArbCom began discussing making a statement in response to the false press coverage in The Guardian all on their own. I looped in Katherine as an advisor to help with the crafting. There was no pressure of any kind from the Foundation, and indeed, the Foundation has basically no tools at their disposal with which to pressure ArbCom anyway. You do the Arbcom, the Foundation, and a project a real disservice by spreading such disinformation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I cannot find it now in the sea of comments and pages where the "press release" has been discussed and blanked, but the question was asked "Whose idea was this?" and an ArbCom member stated "The Foundation". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the comment [[7] " In fact the impetus for the ArbCom (not Wikipedia, ArbCom) statement came from the WMF.   Roger Davies]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)" ]}

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, someone's being a bit less-than-truthful here... Tarc (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mohanlal

Any idea what all can be included in the "title" parameter in Infobox person. I think in this article only Lieutenant colonel can be a title. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya

You said here that the claim is vague. Is it not backed up by sections 6 and 7? ~ P-123 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Another editor Mbcap has raised more or less the same point as you did, on the Talk page. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just love your username! ~ P-123 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

GG debate

There's more than enough constructive posts arguing against attempts to skew Gamergate controversy to a pro-GG POV. I don't agree with any of the suggestions that harassment claims should be "proved" or that the article should be renamed, but they don't require hyperboles like this to refute. Please consider letting arguments speak for themselves and don't allow yourself to be provoked.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded - I also agree with most of what (I think) you're trying to say, but edits like that one and this one are exactly the sort of acidity ArbCom warned you against, IIRC. Random ^(?) 23:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident

FYI Brace yourself. This just showed up on the front page of the Telegraph's website. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content from Michiel Huisman's wikipage

You said that I had to add a source to his upcoming projects. Can you please explain to me what you mean about that? There are links in the reference section to all of his upcoming projects projects, and you can also verify this by checking his IMDb page aswell. Please explain what I can to fix this, assuming I did something wrong. Explain it to me like i am 12 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.201.55 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There's information in the links on your talk page User talk:188.126.201.55. Vague assertions that "there is a source over there somewhere" are not sufficient. Each challenged claim needs a specific reliable source, provided in-line with the content, before it can be returned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Special:Contributions/TheGreenPenOfHope EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

Stop vandalizing the PEAR article, calling the research pseudoscience. The talk page clearly says this ought not be done, and I've been following your edits to the page for quite a while, most of which are contentless, information-less, written in terrible prose, completely lacking in scientifically-validated references, and destructive to the quality of the PEAR article generally.

I won't let you get away with this pseudo-skeptic, pseudo-scientific hogwash--STOP VANDALIZING THE PEAR PAGE. You clearly don't know the first thing about the brain, quantum mechanics, anomalistic psychology, or science in general. Here's a good video from Google you ought to watch since your university clearly failed you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

06:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.207.188 (talk)

Kaththi

How do you prove that the website is well established? And how do you know that websites like IBT, Forbes and TOI are 100% reliable? Just asking this as a doubt. If you can give me tips regarding this I shall prove that Telangana Stateinfo is one of the most reliable out there. Otherwise your argument is just baseless!! Please help. User:Richie Gooner (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Richie Gooner: WP:IRS is what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate the warm welcome. Perhaps we can work together to clean up the article about the GG movement. I am open to any suggestions you may have. Marcos12 (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Ivan J. Parron shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Feb 2015

Your recent editing history at Ritmoteca.com shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User Conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [8] Thank you. — Marcos12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Adavi Kaachina Vennela

The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Content removed from the Lipman Hearne page

Can you please explain why my post on the Lipman Hearne page was taken down. You stated that my information was less than neutral, but I felt I was just listing facts about the company. How can I change my post to better align with the terms of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah.woj (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

archaya

I think you forgot to sign your post after mine and before the "hypocritical" comment. FYI. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you forgot to sign a recent post. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

David Bergstein

In regards to your comments regarding David Bergstein, the recent Wiki profile did not speak to Bergstein's career. It spoke to a brief period of litigation initiated by one party -David Molner. David Molner's company, Aramid Entertainment was put into Bankruptcy itself. Aramid lost all of its cases against Bergstein, and Aramid's lawyers were found guilty of fraud and a $50 Million judgement was rendered against them for their role in the fraud perpetrated on Bergstein. The litigation itself, does not define Bergstein. Mr. Bergstein's career spans over 30 years. Many business men and company's currently are and have been involved in litigation, but none of thos instances I have searched on Wikipedia define those persons by their litigation - nor is it even mentioned. Not the case with David Bergstein. Moreover, the articles chosen by "Betty Logan" do not even properly reflect what occurred with Mr. Bergstein. A brief period of concentrated litigation is not a reflection of Mr. Bergstein's 30 year career - which is better summarized by the outline in the Huffington Report that what Betty Logan is attempting to do with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspeditor (talk • contribs) 06:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sheldrake tone

Looks like the Sheldrake discussion has just hit the classic "pah, Wikipedia is an unreliable joke (even though I am editing it)" - although I agree with where you're coming from on the hogwash/eyecandy/tripe stuff and appreciate that you're presumably hoping for a swift, intimidated end to discussion, you're also running the risk of angering people into an edit war, or giving Sheldrake supporters a bright red flag URL to wave at potential meatpuppets on an off-site forum. Everything you've said on that talk page would stand just as strongly with "eyecandy" as "primary-source interpretation of data", etc. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)

RedPen, I appreciate your zeal, but see the policy: "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." Please don't restore--ask an admin in case of doubt. I think TexasAndroid and Bencherlite are awake. Thanks, 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Michiel Huisman's wikipedia page

IMDb is a reliable source Sebahed (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)sebahed

Bill Cowsill

Unclear why you added a refimprove tag. Surely what is here is adequately supported?

Dreadarthur (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy tag on Draft:Indigo Project

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, regarding your nomination of Draft:Indigo Project for deletion, was there a different criterion you wished to use? {{db-user}} is for pages that you create and this page appears to have been created by SheriSmith (talk · contribs). If you were making the request at her request, can you provide a diff? If there was some other reason you would like to request that the draft be deleted, please feel free to do so. --B (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@B: Thanks for checking. I left the tag uncompleted. The user made this statement [9] at the help desk. and I left [10] instructions on how to move on if she wanted. it looks like [11] one of the other regulars at the help desk saw the incomplete tag and completed it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Deleted. --B (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mad.

Are you gone mad ???? Why you erase my edits again and again ????

Daniyal0502 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Book

I have stated more reasons why the upcoming book should be mentioned in the Eliezer Yudkowsky article, on its talk page. --Distelfinck (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning upcoming products is done in Wikipedia articles all the time, and it's perfectly fine. E.g. the article Jurassic Park III says "A sequel titled Jurassic World, is set to be released on June 12, 2015." --Distelfinck (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Distelfinck: There are at least 2 things wrong with your position.

1) There is a lot of terrible and inappropriate self promotion of products on Wikipedia that should be removed. Pointing to other promotion and saying "see it exists over there so I should be able to do it here!" does not make a good case for including it in the Yudkowsky article. Rather it provides an example of why it needs to be excised quickly from the Yudkowsky article so that some other naive editor doesnt read the Yudkowsky article and come away thinking "see Yudkowsky gets to promote his book so I should too!"

2) Jurassic World has received significant coverage about multiple encyclopedic areas by many third party sources and meets the general notability requirements on its own. Yudkowsky 's upcoming product has only been covered by related parties in their promotional works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The book is not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about the author? OK... The Roald Dahl article by the way even lists collections of his works published after his death. Go ahead and remove those then. --Distelfinck (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A not yet existent book is not appropriate to promote in any article, even the article about the author. If/When it is published, it can be added to a bibliography section. If it recieves third party coverage, that commentary can be added to the body of the article. We are writing an encyclopedia after all, not a promotional speaker's introduction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are you linking to "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"? We can write "... announced the book ... to be released in mid-march 2015". That's fine and no speculation, opposed to "... will release the book ... in mid-march 2015", which would be speculation.--Distelfinck (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How about finding some other source that discusses its upcoming release? It's not WP:UNDUE or self-promotional if it's an independent WP:RS commenting on it. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. --Distelfinck (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Humayun

Since you removed his religion, you might want to read this section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. 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.

You are being very disruptive on the Philip Benedict page. You are deleting material without going to talk, without making a case, and without demonstrating how material is in violation of wikipedia policies. The teaching section is a perfect example. The section is filled with secondary sources from University Press books, articles, and independent University websites such as Stanford and Reed that Benedict has nothing to do with. But you delete them for no reason. Another example, you arbitrarily decide to merge the early life and training sections. There is no reason for this whatsoever. This is vandalism. please stop.RefHistory (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

This is your final warning. As per the talk page, you may not delete entire sections that are this well sourced. You are not trying to add or improve the article. You are being incredibly disruptive, deleting an entire section that has existed for years and that is sourced from prize winning University Press books, university websites, and articles.RefHistory (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Barnstar!

45sixtyone (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

communication with other users

Hi....i am HotsVeronica, but i thought we leave a message to the other person by leaving an edit on their page. Is this how they do it? If not then please help me out. Thanks!!!😄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotsVeronica (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, its me again! Thanks for helping me out and telling me the rules of communication and i hope you have great day! 😜😀 And a quick question.....How do we "leave a signature" after making a comment??? Please help.😝

(talk page watcher) @HotsVeronica: TheRedPenOfDoom is somewhat Wikipedia famous for copy-editing and removing text from pages that is promotional, non-neutral, or poorly sourced (that is, he uses a "red pen".) Sometimes editors of the pages he edits are a bit too attached to their articles (see WP:OWN) and take it very personally. Sometimes they try to accuse him of vandalism or disruptive editing because of that. Also, to leave a signature you should put four tildes in a row (~~~~) The text editor has a button for it Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ — Strongjam (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping!😄 HotsVeronica (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) - HotsVeronica

Willliam C. Rader

I noticed you removed all reference to the fact that Rader lost his medical license last year, including this link to the Medical Board of California's Disciplinary Action Alert page, showing his license "REVOKED" as of 11/5/14. Why is a government website not an appropriate or acceptable Wikipedia reference?

You also modified a Washington Post reference to the origins of Rader's stem cell injections. In the 2008 Washington Post article, we read that "Rader said he gets his product from a lab in the republic of Georgia, where technicians extract stem cells from the brains and livers of aborted fetuses." You retained in the article the phrase "In 2008, Rader claimed in a telephone interview that his stem cell product was obtained from a laboratory in the Republic of Georgia", but deleted the clause "and derived from the brains and livers of aborted fetuses". In the edit summary you said that this was "not in the source." Did you read the source carefully?

Look, I understand Wikipedia's WP:BLP standards. I also understand how references to abortion can be controversial and (to some) gristly and inflammatory. But is it controversial even to MENTION that this doctor had his medical license revoked last year, after a Medical Board of California investigation? We should do our best, at the very least, to include that basic fact on his page.Vesuvius Dogg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-revert

After some reconsideration, I have decided that I wish to self-revert this, but I can't do it unless you self-revert that. Sorry for the inconvenience. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I was not able to use the undo button, so i manually self reverted. You may have to do that too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you, I self-reverted too, you can check. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)