User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Articles about living people - Lindsey Graham

The Ally McBeal fight is kinda funny in it insignifcance. But articles about living people are a completely different thing DO NOT add unsourced content as you did to Lindsey Graham. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mate, I'm fairly new here, I've tried to be civil and all. I just hope that anyone who takes the time to read through this issue will make a complete job of it. Alaphent (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - I added no information. I simply undid a deletion of information that should probably have been mentioned on the talk page prior to any deletion. Alaphent (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI response

In response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RedPenOfDoom:

User The Red Pen of Doom does not appear to be guilty of vandalism in any form. This user is merely attempting to enforce policy as he/she sees it. It appears that the parties are having a content disagreement which is fairly routine on Wikipedia, and I recommend all parties resolve it on the relevant talk pages. In the event the issue cannot be resolved then there are numerous methods for resolving the dispute, such as WP:RFC. I also advise all parties to adhere to WP:CIVIL. Regards Manning (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Grain of salt

Hello again, TheRedPenOfDoom … I'd like to request that Some Other Editor take a look at the References section in Grain of salt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … I think that the first one (for bartleby.com) is Just Plain Wrong (it's a generic catalog order page), but I don't have time to look for the intended article on the site. Happy Editing! — 138.88.93.15 (talk · contribs) _{11:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}

 Done … Thnx! — 138.88.93.15 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I support the merge of Wardstone Chronicles into Joseph Delaney. You may as well go ahead if nobody objects soonish. Fences&Windows 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan

Hi, I do understand your point and I will just improve the current version, but I do feel a bit upset that you approached me in that manner. After all, I did write 80% of the article :) Universal Hero (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you might have misunderstood, I am not a new editor. Don't remove sources and threaten blockings. Universal Hero (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Tamil cinema, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 23:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, the owner of the site (Thekohser) has complained about your description of his site as "pure self promotion […] or hatchet jobs" and "a cesspool of the internets [sic]". Regardless of whether the site deserves such epithets, they're not really necessary in a civil discussion. Please, deal with him civilly no matter your dislike of him or his website. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link to Summa Logicae book III part 1

This was bizarre. It's well known in medieval circles that until a few months ago the only scanned versions of this famous and important medieval work were books I and II. To increase the sum of human knowledge available on the net I scanned in book III part 1, corrected the many scanning errors in the Latin and checked against the original, and placed on MyWikiBiz. There is no other source for this work on the net. Please help by not removing that link, which will be valuable for medieval scholars who do not have access to this work in print (the critical edition was in 1964 and many libraries do not have it). Peter Damian (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said. There is no other source of this part of the work on the net. That is true. Peter Damian (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I have reverted your revert. Your objection is ludicrous. There are actually two points at issue - the link to MWB, and the footnotes. Footnotes are really unnecessary here. It is merely a list of chapter headings and a summary of contents. Peter Damian (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove books III, why not books I and II? These are also online sources that cannot be verified. 99% of stuff would then disappear from Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wars_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

An article you recently edited Wars_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire has been nominated for deletion. [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Cause you disagree with everyone else and now you pout?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Stewart

Thanks. Sometimes I feel like I am to Premiers of Alberta as this guy is to anteaters. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quidelines

Could you please comment about this, here on your Talk page? I'm truly fascinated. -- Thekohser 18:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"qu" seems to be permanently fused in my brain. it is a typo i freuqently make and have no idea why. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Please help me to lock the page as it kept getting vandalized and I know that I don't own the page but I am sure of what I wrote and someone previesouly changed a lot of things on my page and someone else later deleted everything. I will put everything back but again, please help me to fully protect the page or at least semi-protect it to keep it safe from non-member editors. Bin Khater —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

Dear RedPenofDoom

Dear RPoD,

What I wrote in the Norm Coleman article was no mistake and it was in fact on purpose. Even though you reverted it which I strongly abhor, I do take offense to the fact that you try and whitewash my edit as a "test," which according to you "worked." Please verify in the future the intention of the edits that you revert so that you do not make a similar mistake.

Kindly yours,

61.213.76.87 (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Torrid/ hot topic

I'm attempting to change the articles to use a more neutral, definable, widely used term. This is not some "boo fat chicks" thing, it's a "boo, euphemisms" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.98.207 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

blogs are reliable sources

Hi, I undid your removal of sources at Pioneer Courthouse Square. There isn't a lot of room in the editsummary, so I thought I'd post here. Both of those blogs are "offical" blogs of semi-respectable newspapers (alternative weeklies): Willamette Week and The Portland Mercury.

It took me a while to find it, because it's a note on WP:V, but footnote 4 begins as follows:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. (...)

Apologies if you were already familiar with this caveat. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse external links

Hi, with regard to your recent edit to Gay bathhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), you probably missed the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Gay bathhouse#External links falling foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) on this very topic. I plan to reverse your edits on the basis that there has been plenty of time for prior discussion should you disagree with the original suggestion and a significant change such as this requires some reasonable discussion first. I understand that your concern may have been the most recent addition of an external link and I would not personally disagree with you removing it.—Teahot (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need advice/help with VHS

Hi, I have a possible edit conflict with an anon user at the VHS article. Basically, he's entering unsourced information regarding purchasing VHS tapes at eBay. I've already told him that what he did was original research, reaching a conclusion on his own, and that eBay is not a reliable source, but rather it is a garage sale, and that anyone can find discontinued products there. I've already RV'd twice, and I don't want to approach the 3RR rule. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Groink (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. VHS still needs your help. The anon is very persistent. Groink (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for the welcome. I will let you know if anything goes awry. Dursty (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Betrayed page?

Yesterday, I wrote an article for the book Betrayed by P.C. Cast. But when I tried to get back to it today, it was gone. Can you help me? By the way, thanks for welcoming me. --Bntz (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting tables

seabreeze 1001 how do you put a table of information on the left hand side of a wikipedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabreeze1001 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario)

The WP:BLP, David Ferguson (impresario), has been tagged with a lot of templates by two editors who have a long history of negative edits on this article. Could you be kind enough to take a look at the text, citations, and templates and share your views? There is also a posting on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about these templates. I'm writing to you because you've expressed interest in this article before and I think help is needed about a NPOV. Thank you. --deb (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out the David Ferguson (impresario) article. Per your advice, I've made edits to address the WP:Peacock template; after I removed the corresponding banner I also left a post on the article's discussion page. --deb (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I've done some edits and removed some banner templates on the David Ferguson (impresario) article, per your comments (thanks again for your assistance.) deb (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Roman Abramovich

OK, I'll stop. BTW, my intension was not to cause any offense to anyone. Thanks ;) --Bugnot (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

if you're in the neighborhood

I am considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Graham and "opinion piece"

Is there a Wikipedia policy which I am unaware of which forbids linking to opinion pieces, especially if the information is represented in the article as being a particular prominent person's opinion? Otherwise, your justification of your removal of the section seems unjustified.--Larrybob (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be of utility to other editors if this conversation continues at Talk:Lindsey Graham--Larrybob (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Peach

Hi. Have redirected the page to BBC Radio 2, the thing he is most well known for, and I'll de-link him from there. As the page is permenantly protected protected we shouldn't have any problems with people trying to restore it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BDay Cake!!

Hello, R-POD. Admittedly this article is a bit farcical, and I wrote it with the intention of being so...every now and then someone comes along and corrects my citations etc. My apologies for the quick revert, but that is how i usually respond to such rehauls (in hopes that that rehauler will not notice) in order to preserve the meaningfulness of the article (as a parody of wikipedia, which is *ironically* valid). However, this particular rehauler did notice, and I have no choice but to address your rehaul seriously. I perused your edits; some i agreed with and others not - I will look over them when I have time, reedit, and hopefully we can come to a consensus. If you are not too busy, I would appreciate some help with citations on one of my more serious articles bangladesh famine of 1974. Thanks, mmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineminemine (talk • contribs) 2009-07-01T01:42:31

I have reviewed your corrections and found them to be ridiculous. You have without reason removed large sections of text - many of which are properly sourced. I would suggest that you read the sources and . Your edits thusfar have not been constructive but destructive - "in bad faith" as I believe wikipedia calls it. I will re-edit again this time with my arguments. I am sorry if, I sound brash, but you must understand this from my point of view - I spent considerable time doing research for this article and without reasonable cause, you remove the majority of it. Again, while agree with some of your points, you have not taken any time to help improve the article, but have simply removed sections which you disagree with. As I understand, this is not in the spirit of wikipedia and in any case removes important information which is valid. While I admit that I do not understand wiki protocol completely, you could at least explain and as per my request help me to improve the article rather than cannibalizing it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineminemine (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, take a look at my contributions and you will realise that a) i am fairly new to wikipedia and b) yes, I actually have been quite constructive. As for this article, I am slightly offended that you just did a revert, erasing all of my changes (I had added to and rearranged parts of the article to try to correct my citation errors. I went line by line and explained why the information was relevant/correctly cited ) and without at least responding to my explanations. The main academic citation comes from an academic article by Cherasky (2000) published in gastronomica (I'll admit I didn't give a proper citation, just listing the website). Most of the material refers in some way to Cherasky; unfortunately, this source is one which you have removed, though i'm sure it's in the history. I would appreciate if you could reply to my comments and explain your edits. Thanks and I hope we can work through this amicably;- for myself, I hope to improve my wikipedia skills, as I intend to continue contributing. signed, mineminemine (by the way, how does one sign one's name?)

So my post has been on the discussion page and has not met contention, does this mean that information that points to that source can be returned?Mineminemine (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gomolo

I have been seeing this too. They are flooding every page related to Indian Movies and Indian actors. I think we should be taking this too editors and stop their spam flooding. Nadesai (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Heidi Klum

This content is not originally mine and was posted by someone else. I was interested in this topic and saw many changes happen to it over time. The main poster apparently had this discussion with one of the editors 5-6 month ago and I helped out in the discussion. Finally, a consensus was achieved and the text was posted. Now, new editors came up and started deleting the text. As you might see in history, when original poster asked for explanation, he was not given any. Eventually, he left this topic alone claiming that the editors are racists and would not understand this. I asked for explanations and no one provided any. You left me with no choice but to start undoing the changes. When I did that you ask me for an explanation?

Please stop threatening me. My views are not biased, and if you think they are, please do correct them. Simply removing the content is not a solution, at least not in my opinion. Worst come worst, you block my IP. I have ways to fix that. Instead, I would ask the Indian community I moderate (with over 50000 members) to visit this page daily and undo the changes. I am not sure if you guys would really appreciate the effort you might have to put in to block over 50K IPs.

The goal here is not an edit war. Goal here is to come up with a consensus and that dialogue should happen from both sides. It really does not work that i do not explanation for deletions and you ask for explanations for me undoing the change. if you want to consider this a war, I will fight for what i think is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.51.40 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gackt

I don't know what and who you are, but Gackt Camui changed his stage name from Gackt to GACKT, go to his official web page, look at RR II tour or 10th anniversary countdown singles. All what I done, I am for his popularity. He is from June GACKT and stop deleteing it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.5.157 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the welcome

RPOD -- Hello, and thanks for the welcome, and the links. I really enjoyed the work that I did in the last couple of days. In particular, I've focused on editing pages devoted to fiction that I've read. I'd like to bring those pages a little more into line with Wikipedia's standards, but I'm not sure how to do so.

Do you have any advice on what information I can add to help the stub articles move up to start articles? Any suggestions on what would be good references for the reference section? I'm not asking for you to do my homework for me, just give me a smidge of inspiration.

Thanks!

--Elegantelbow (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I'm taking this onto your page - I think the users on the Andy Murray page have long since formed the view that you and I are unlikely to agree.

"We cannot be everything to everyone. I'd be grateful if you could show me where that is written on WP:NOT." - Well, if you really cant actually tell, very word of the page is dedicated to the premise that we cannot be everything to everyone and we focus on what makes us an encyclopedia. And while the site in question does contain "professional athlete statistics", it is not "a unique resource" for those stats.

No, I can't "actually tell" and I dislike being patronised quite so openly. What I can see, from your response, is that you have chosen to paraphrase WP:NOT into a single pithy line to suit your argument and somehow justify that as being a reason why one should not try to be "useful and helpful".David T Tokyo (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not deliberately obtuse (I'm not like that at all btw) and despite the collection of links, I still don't read it that way - although I can obviously see how some might. My angle on this has always been from the users side - a direction that I picked up from a lifetime in business. It's a shame we don't agree but not the end of the world. Let's leave it at that. David T Tokyo (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the sock puppet thing. Appreciated. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Names

I had to revert your recent edits on Asin Thottumkal despite yours being good faith edits. Asin is never and will never be referred to with her surname. For example, take Rajinikanth or even Madonna who are referred to via their stage and first name. Universal Hero (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray RFC and COI

I can see you are summarizing the RFC in progress. Having been attracted to the RFC, I was not that familiar with the talk page history or separate user page discussions. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the history of RFC's (or their equivalent) on this page and the potential influence and canvassing activities of users with a declared (see Mark7144 (talk · contribs), it is impossible to check undeclared users) COI with the fansite in question. If there are potentially a number of editors with an interest in the fansite, it would be difficult to assume an unbiased RFC process if their COI is undeclared or not understood by those taking part in the RFC.

I was thinking of adding a comment (similar to the SPA comment) to the RFC in progress but have held off now you are summarizing the discussion so far but do wonder if this should be generally highlighted as an ongoing issue for a credible consensus as the fansite is the exact topic of the RFC.—Teahot (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Einstuerzende Neubauten

I removed the material and after flagging up issues here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Einst%C3%BCrzende_Neubauten#Language_corrections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.247.186 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for my edit to the Russell Brand article. I thought it might be necessary to include his rather left-wing political views. Exiledone (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray personal attack accusation

Could you take a look at Milomedes' accusation against me on the Andy Murray RFC and give me a little reassurance I've not got my head on back to front. It's all rather odd, particularly after I asked for a more detailed reference on his/her user page and got garbage back. i am starting to wonder if it is just evidence of an wp:ownership problem or something more daft than that. Here's a diff to take you to the right area.—Teahot (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll cool it, ignore it and get my sense of humour back. Thank you —Ash (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gackt singles

The three individual Gackt singles you have been redirecting to the main article are part of his 10th anniversary release, which is stated clearly in the text. It is a stub. There is no deadline. Just leave them be and they will be improved in due time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a statement of notability in that they say they are part of the anniversary releases. Just because there are no references on the articles currently does not mean that they should not exist at all. Stop redirecting them, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They now have independent third party sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sania Mirza

You provided no justification for the Sania Mirza revert. So I undid it. I am also reviewing my own edits, to look for anything that may be considered POV. If you think my edits are unjustified, please explain and come to unanimity before reverting it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Real-Life Superheroes

I apologize for using your talk page once again to communicate with you. I would like you to review once again http://www.reallifesuperheroes.org and see if it meets the standards for it to be listed on real life superhero page as a external link. I believe I have posted enough content to represent the sub culture as a whole. Thank you very much. ZETAMAN (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Rajinikanth

I am reverting the article back to its previous version. I will search for and remove any unverifiable/unsourced/personal commentary statements myself. This article was written up in good faith by only a couple editors so there is no way there would be so many POV statements. Please give it some time before I go through the article carefully. Any other disputes, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There were no editors who wrote personal fan sites that wrote this article, which includes me. I don't know who you're talking about. I am not being disruptive so there is no reason for you to have me blocked. But your edits are almost blanking the entire article--not just this one but several others too. I concurred with your edits to articles like Tamil cinema and Joseph Vijay, but not Rajinikanth which is basically a complete article. The article was also given a B class rating. The unsourced statements are not POV statements. There is nothing in the article which is totally inappropriate or contoversial. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave it to your version and find sources for the previous one and once sources have been given to those, I will revert back (also promise to remove any unsourced personal commentaries I may find) — hopefully it will live up to your likings. Peace. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)