User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

3rd graders also... (NOT#PLOT)

Write reports on sports. Might be a good idea to remove that from here too. Science topics too. Out with those! Just saying that that's not a very solid reason. :-) Hobit (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• In all seriousness just as science and engineering can happen at many levels (where my PhD sits), so can other things. I don't see a good reason why "plot" should be somehow specially restricted. Hobit (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know that I buy "people write bad articles on the topic" as a reason not to cover something. Hobit (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • A plot summary is covering fiction as a third grader? I always think of the plot as being the most important part of the piece of fiction. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not an expert on the field, but I think most adults, when asked about a piece of fiction, would focus almost exclusively on the plot and characters. Good night to you! (or at least to me, I'm off to bed). Hobit (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

family guy source

what source do you want? one that says that 420 is related to marijuana? Grande13 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The official description from Fox talks about how Brian attempts to legalize marijuana and they even said in an interview there would be a weed song. So fox is verifying themselves the episode is about marijuana and 420 is the term used for thatGrande13 (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New RFC

See [1]Mattnad (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

signing in

You'll note that immediately, I realized what I did, and a few moments, minutes later, did sign in. Thanks, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrannar (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the question on the RfC/U -- I hope it reflects some substantial changes on my part from "new editor seeking to be Superman" to one whose primary emphasis has been now on hundreds of pages and lots of XfD discussion. Collect (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are abusing the (Undo) feature

Please review the Wikipedia policy on reverting, particularly the When to revert and Explain reverts sections.Brentonboy (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamil cinema

Since you seem to work a lot on the article, do you want to give me a hand there? There's an IP running a little wild at the moment and I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks, Yintaɳ  14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

your edit war

Could you answer on the talk page or you would like simply ignore users that have received your warnings? My answer you can find here Talk:Canada on Strike!. --91.76.109.32 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My explanations on the episode talk page. --91.76.109.32 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look, I've probably found a source. --91.76.109.32 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical guitar pedagogy

Thanks for the clean up. And you're right: the intro was not sourced, etc. But: the whole article is in a terrible state at the moment. There's not even a decent sentence in there.

So these 2 links:

• uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/416/41618104.pdf A New Guitar Teaching Philosophy (scientificcommons.org/ice_b_risteski Ice B. Risteski; Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
• uaemex.mx/pdf/299/29915210.pdf A new foundation of guitar philosophy (.scientificcommons.org/ice_b_risteski Ice B. Risteski; Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

would go a long way to at least providing information, and rather interesting/valuable information at that, since those are 2 open research-papers that provide numerous citations; with the first one providing a valuable breakdown into the aspects involved in teaching music and an instrument

The same author (Risteski) also has an interesting paper on tuning guitars:

• A new precise guitar tuning method (Prof. dr. sc. Ice B. Risteski; Toronto, Ontario, Canada) 1

It would fit perfectly as an external link here: Guitar_tunings

Don't let my 2 paragraphs of unsourced rubbish, lead you to automatically delete suitable external links ;)

I'm putting them back in good faith. Have a nice day. Methodguitar (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines would the 2 removed external links in the article classical guitar pedagogy break? Methodguitar (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually point 3 of WP:ELYES applies. I cannot go ahead and copy the text of the external links verbatim. And if I'd use the information and formulate it in my own words, that would require me to source the information, so then there would be a link anyway. In addition the first external link is rather detailed. If you don't like the heading "External Links", we could use something like "References"... Or maby I'll just have a soda and watch some TV, right? ;) Methodguitar (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You failed to answer the above to my satisfaction. Also: see this. I'm going to have a soda now and log off. Don't worry, I'll let you decide what happens now; and let time decide what will happen in the long run. wooosh! Methodguitar (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamil cinema

I understand. But it's easier for us if the information is kept without removal so we can adjust and simply insert sources for statements, rather than having to revamp the whole thing later. Thanks for adding the tags in the meantime. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your last message was received when it was nighttime here in Canada, so it would be nice if the 24 hours could start a few hours before now. :P Yes, I'll get whatever I can. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 13:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: A Rose by any other name ...

The "Further Reading" are all books. They would be great for further reading but even if they're integrated as "References" if would be hard to reference (unless you wanted to buy the book to check a reference). The notice seemed sort of silly. --MarsRover (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is your point then find a tag that says "books are not welcome for the further reading section". --MarsRover (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a guideline page and an appropriate template which says that 'this is not a Oprah's book book club' or so? linkfarm template is not appropriate for a further reading section. If you disagree, please show me a guideline page which supports your view. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More on "Reliable sources"

It's clear I'm not the first to suffer your pen/reasoning re: blogs as sources. For the moment I will just quote "Reliable sources" above: "I have read and understand the policy, and no where does WP:RS ban blogs outright ...." In that section, you don't seem to rebut the basic policy point.

For my particular instance, you've banished a writer John Ridley who has his own Wiki entry and a blogger (/editor), as it were, Ridley's host Sharon Waxman, who has hers. I think they can stand on ... their own feet, without your ... "pen" to protect gentle readers from soft facts or opinion.

The substance of Ridley's comment was nicely appropriate, and additive, to the article Magical Negro, to which I'd contributed before. Your apparently over-aggressive application of a non-confirmed "policy" seems to be harming the reach and depth of Wikipedia.

I probably triggered your response by using the term "blog" in the footnote ('"The Wrap" blog') .... Would you feel better/would ... the world be better ... if I'd not identified "The Wrap" as a "blog"? ... Would you have still found, then deleted, the whole entry as objectionable, had I not identified it so? (I ... wonder about all the other what I would consider similar but perhaps not so-identified "blog" citations ... I've propogated.)

Hoping you're open to discussion ... and, yes, ultimately, reversal, ... in good spirit.

Cheers.Swliv (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Our host here replied to me on my user page, and now I've replied to him/r ... there. Swliv (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

John Michell (writer)

Hi, I assumed the reference was directly to the Fortean Times. I should have checked and reverted yesterday. Apologies. Yours, Verbal chat 17:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Tamil-language films

Next time, just ask for protection instead of playing daily reversions with the users. They will either learn to communicate or will move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle, K.

Red, all I entered was a quote from "Time" magazine. Did you see it? I will be glad to spend my copious free time searching out a number of press clippings on BattleKreek since she was the the favorite stadium beach ball of the press for several years for her antics, if that will satisfy you. But if it will not, and everything I do will be expunged, the heck with it; I'll forget the whole thing. I just stumbled on this mare's nest in the process of some research for my own work. I basically don't much care. The reason I'm annoyed is that there is something wrong with using Wikipedia as nothing more than a very popular media outlet for the press releases of superannuated divas. After all, Wiki belongs to you and to me. NaySay (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ah, so "mental illness" is the problem? Okay, I'll go back and just say she was "wiggy." I am not a diagnostician. NaySay (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over Logging

Hope you're well, I was wondering if you might cast a second opinion over the article above. A few users are trying to make a point about OR by consistently scrubbing something from the plot section (it'll show up pretty easily through the edit histroy). If you could cast some light on it, it would be appreciated. I don't think such a minor plot point should need citing (and it's mentioned in the reception section anyway), I think they're wikilawyering perhaps. Alastairward (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping to hold off on that, it was something I could see coming back again in every episode those editors decided to make a fuss about. On the other hand, they wouldn't really be able to complain. I'll mull it over, thanks. Alastairward (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste

Well my apologies but using WP:MOVE didn't look like it was working. So I had to do that to bring the article back to it's original title. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I was not writing about his father, but about Hussein Obama (as he again allows himself to be called post election) Not his father, your president was born muslim, even if he has been christian for nearly all his life (nobody denies that). I still think this is an interesting if small fact about him, even if it does not make him the devil or a terrorist or unamerican, still I find it strange that this simple fact seems to be too enormous to grasp for the pc crowd. But I don' t need to start any edit wars or replies about this, just am looking through my old contributions--Radh (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Vijay

Why is it that you are deleting information just because they do not have sources. Of course sources are necessary but valuable information should not be removed. There are several articles lacking sources, some without any sources, yet they are kept on Wikipedia. Please stop removing large amounts of info from articles next time, unless the info is harmful or notable vandalism. Rather put up a tag and someone will take care of it. The info you deleted from Joseph Vijay is still verifiable. I am reverting your edits and will add sources. Please don't remove it again. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning? This isn't a war. This is just saving information. Don't delete info from Joseph Vijay. I will get sources for it. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I will look for those POV statements and rewrite them now AND provide sources where necessary. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You can add Criminal tattoo to the list of articles that have had entire sections removed with no explanation other than "unsourced", and no attempt made to actually help improve the article and FIND a source. WP:V clearly states "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may be removed." RedPen, If you want to delete large amounts of content because you feel the material violates WP:OR or WP:NPOV then at least state that in your edit summary.. else that's what the maintenance tags are there for. If the content is uncontroversial and informative then it can still be of use to readers... plus there's entire Wikiprojects dedicated to providing sources for unreferenced articles.. anyways I could go on and on, maybe you just caught me on a bad day but I just had to get that out. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for impartial opinion.

I noticed that you have removed most of the promotional material related with Michelle Belanger from the article on Vampire Lifestyle, as well as the assessments made on the lack of WP:N and WP:RS on her published works. Given all the past attempts at promotion I am worried if a bio page on this person has enough notability for an individual article in an encyclopedia or will just open doors for added promotion in the future. I have expressed my personal view at the new AfD, but given your closer involvement in this matter, your impartial opinion on this topic would be appreciated. AfD Link

Note: I am leaving this notification on TheRedPenOfDoom and Firestorm talk pages, since both have been involved in this issue for longer than I did. DianaLeCrois  : 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

collect

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

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

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Control click

Whenever I look at my user page, right by those links with numbers on them, it says control click and it's driving me nuts trying to find why this is suddenly happening. Do you have any idea of what I am talking about. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(In the interests of keeping the conv in one place) see User_talk:Chzz#Control_click  Chzz  ►  20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Varbas

New editor. Does not quite understand the scope of the project as a whole. If he is blocked, and even if he is not, I am willing to counsel him and offer guidence and patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He's clearly not a new editor. He's been determined to be using socks and is likely to be a sock of a banned user who had a farm of socks and participated in AFDs with faulty reasonings and multiple votes cast. I'm not sure why he hasn't been blocked yet, but deserves to be. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Varbas (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeMee (2nd nomination)

Perhaps you might wish to revisit the discussion? Silly as a WeeMee is, somehow dozens of significant, in-depth reliable sources were overlooked. I dug. i found. I shared. Later, time allowing, I'll add them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

not real source, press releases

I wish you'd reconsider your vote and look into those links. Marketwire, marketsource, businesswire, etc. are PRESS RELEASE services. Reuters, etc. reprints them on their websites but they are not independent news articles. Some of the ones that do not immediately signal that they are merely press releases appear to be simple reprints of those press releases with no editorial oversight -- looking at the article titles shows that many that are linked separately all have the exact same title -- reprints of each other or the press releases. So far I have one maybe good source with the rest being obvious self-promotion, but I haven't finished looking through them all yet. I'd hate the AFD to be closed on the basis of such deceptive information. DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Maria Fowler article.

Hi Red, that was bold (cool).You did what I was wanting to do. I am just learning about the strength of cites and notability. I stumbled upon ithe article yesterday and tagged it with an unnotable delete tag which was removed, if your open to giving a bit of advice sometimes I would be grateful. regards(Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

Road to Germany

Could you please quit removing accurate and verifiable information from Road to Germany? Some things are so obvious they really shouldn't need a citation, and even it needs it anyway, you could add citation needed to the content, and someone could possibly provide it. Seriously, some of it's practically like demanding citations for "2+2=4" and "water is wet." --173.28.14.41 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just read Template:Fact, perhaps you should do the same. Nothing I've seen you immediately remove on Road to Germany is biographical information that is uncited or inaccurate. --173.28.14.41 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you!

Thank you for welcoming me! If I have any question, i will let you know! :) --Emely1219 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1776 edits

Gracias, senor -- I was about to go looking for a second opinion on that message.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Urimai Kural (2010 film)

I was wondering if you are an admin. Can you nominate Urimai Kural (2010 film) for speedy deletion? That is not an officially announced film and was only very recently suggested through out a few websites. The user who created it is "crystal-balling." I believe that the user who created it was the owner of a previous account accused for crystal balling and sock puppetry. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 21:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for that personal welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoGoWikiRangers (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: No personal attacks

There was no personal attacks. He was commenting me badly. So, I replied him back. If you look at what he did, you'll know. You just don't understand my situation. If you're in my place, you will also do that. If you see, this Eaelam StlyeZ and Universal Hero is combining and just wanted to rule the tamil articles. So, when anyone creates good article, they started to changed the article. Hope you understand my situation.

Remember, there was no personal attacks, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if you're going to put it on that way, I'll apologized. But, just one rule, I do want him to comment me badly, such as saying I've sockpuppet. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm happry to be friend with you. Any help, I'll ask you. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 06:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nantucket Nectars

Good day! I removed the PROD tag and added some third-party sourced refs to the article. Not that the article couldn't be further improved, but I thought deletion to be a bit drastic after I was able to find a few fairly good refs to cite. Cheers! Geoff ^{T C} 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

sf studies

Hi. You added several "neutral point of view" tags to the science fiction studies article. I'm removing those tags for two reasons. First, the better tag to use for your stated reason (lack of criteria) is {{unreferenced}}. Second, as with all tags, it's good practice to start a conversation on the talk page explaining your concerns and intentions. This is particularly so with the NPOV tag, which in fact says "see talk page" -- so you in effect posted tags that linked to nothing. I don't have time at the moment to pursue this, so I'm not going to do drive-by tagging for the lack of references. If you wish to pursue this, please do, and I'll check in as I have time. --Lquilter (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• PS: I started a section on the talk page; feel free to follow up. --Lquilter (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of several recent edits by User:Shsilver and references to SFSite.com

It should be noted that User:Shsilver is a nine-time Hugo nominee, and that SF Site (itself a Locus Award winner) is considered a reliable source in the field. Your reversions of his recent edits are, in my opinion, inappropriate, as there is no COI involved; and while he is news editor there, that does not mean that news posted on SF Site does not go through a review process. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Can you do some work on The Fox and the Hound? PLEASE! THAT IS MY FAV MOVIE EVER! And Charlotte's Web (1973 film)! BEST MOVIES EVER! I even like the sequels, Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure and The Fox and the Hound 2, as well as Charlotte's Web (2006 film). 207.59.153.210 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox and the Hound and Robin Hood need better lead sections. See WP:LEAD. If not The Fox and the Hound, please at least do Robin Hood so it'll be sourced. 207.59.153.210 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Carson Daly

The format of the Last Call show has changed and I attempted to describe the changes for those who do not know what came before. I added the following which you completely removed:

"For the eighth season in 2008 the format of Last Call was changed from a desk show with a stand-up act in NBC's Burbank Studios to a documentary on-site, roaming recorded video bits that bring the viewer along on the journey with Carson. Music performance acts continue to be hosted on a stage called the "Denny's All-Nighter Stage" in Burbank, California. Examples of the new shows include Daly's motorcycle trip across the historic Route 66, a visit to comedian Tom Green's house in the Hollywood Hills, and an impromptu hangout at the Whiskey Bar with the Grammy Award-winning band Kings of Leon. "

I would like to put it back with a reference.  uriel8  (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan101 IP sock

Hey, there.  :) If you ever happen to get a request from an anon or a new user asking for help re. The Fox and The Hound, The Rescuers, Bambi, Charlotte's Web or pretty much any juvenile-themed Disney feature under semi-protection, odds are really good it's hard-banned user User:Bambifan101. If it happens again, please let me know or leave word on either the vandalism-in-progress page or the admin noticeboard. I've seen some real guile on the part of banned users, but this little monster just takes the flipping prize. Anyway, take care and drop me a yell if he shows up again. I'm going to semi-protect the articles he edited via the IP since his "pets" are already locked down. Later! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Pasternak

We worked on the Kenneth Pasternak article together a while back, and I wanted to let you know that an anon IP has made a number of changes today. Interestingly enough, that anon IP is registered to an investment group in new jersey that is......the subject of the article's newest business. The edits, for the most part appear to be alright and I haven't changed much other than a little style correction, but I'd appreciate having another set of familiar eyes on it. Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)