User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 10

Zombies and brains
I'm sure it's acceptable to make the occasional wiseass comment at an AfD, but doing so in this edit summary in an article is over the top. The AfD result was keep TWICE. Accept it and move on. Taroaldo (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a wise ass comment. I fully stand by the assessment that that is not an encyclopedic article but an embarrassment to Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Azaria Chamberlain
Would you mind taking a look at the matter of the hatnote and redirect in this article? The matter is being discussed on two pages.

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

Dingoes Ate My Baby

NOTE: I find this "an embarrassment to Wikipedia" (see comment above).

Amandajm (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the hatnote from the article, as BLP would suggest that until there is a consensus otherwise, contested material should NOT remain in article space.
 * You may wish to review WP:CANVASS, so I am not going to participate in the actual deletion discussions that I have not previously been participating in. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for alerting me to that! Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done! Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012
Your studied ownership behavior at Talk:Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is not appreciated. Someone with a redlink username commanding editors to cut the crap out of an article raises suspicions. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted. Your making assumptions about other editors based on the fact that they do not have a user page is also noted. The lack of responses on the article talk page that address my policy based questions is also noted. --  The Red Pen of Doom  10:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do be aware you have reverted this article three times today, and your last revert was rather hasty given the tox report. In response to your note above about AGF, I read your edit history, and your first edit with this account implies it is not your first. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * so when we have BLATANT evidence that unsourced claims in the article are WRONG we should wait? Bah.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Medeis_.28Result:_.29

Your cleanup tag on Zombie (fictional)
where do you feel the citations are most needed? Could you add some cn tags?  Serendi pod ous  19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is that the sources used are not reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or are analysis based on primary sources. But in addition, there are many unsource analytical claims like "After the mid-1980s, the subgenre was mostly relegated to the underground." and "a mind-altering pathogen, making them more commonly known as the Infected (as in 28 Days Later, Zombieland and Left 4 Dead)—instead of re-animated corpses—to avoid the "slow death walk" of Romero's variety of zombies." which contains two unsourced claims (that they are called infected, and that the pathogen premise was used for a specific reason). -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter
Since there was a 66% opinion that supported a merger, I have proposed more specifically this second time around a stronger push to merge or redirect, although I maintain that it should be deleted in its current form, accepting that some of it is salvageable makes me believe consensus can be reached, furthermore it is not very much a WP:BADIDEA as it stands and this needs to be corrected as its part of what what Wikipedia is WP:NOT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Salmone Williams
While functioning merely as a disinterested observer, I think it's reasonable to assume that User:69.207.3.57 and User:Salmone_williams are identical, and that the individual responsible likely possesses the copyright for the material:. If this assumption is reasonable, then I'd suggest that supplementing the existing final warnings regarding vandalism is inappropriate and that the user actually requires further explanation on how to donate copyrighted material. Thanks. Meph talk 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012
An article that you have been involved in editing, Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

requesting confirmed rights and uploading pic
pls can you help me in uploading darshan ( actor ) pic but it is copy righted some one have removed pic in page darshan ( actor ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

how to confirm my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

pls tell how to confirm my account. for example like mobile number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tilting at windmills
Why not just let Middle Eastern people go through the AFD process. Why waste your energy trying to improve an article that is most likely going to be deleted anyway, and engage in what is dangerously close to an edit war in the process? Just let it lie. If the article survives AFD (unlikely), we can fix it then. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Webonautics
Webonautics is the name of an Indian web design and public-image-management firm. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

learn some manners
LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Response
dear sir did not change because of my personal views Mr. Cathy only said he supported traditional marriage never spoke out against gay marriage it is spin to say he opposes gay-marriage while he clearly views himself as a traditional marriage supporter the same way someone who is pro- same sex marriage do not refer to themselves as opponents to traditional marriage but simply supporters of same-sex marriage the article was clearly has pov which i eliminated and you reinserted and I submit to you that an encyclopedia should report what the man said which is referanced in the article but does not and cannot include the articles obivious pov anyway I'll talkpage it before rv your edit as I think you should have done
 * That is not how the reliable sources are covering it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again just because they are legtimate news organizations does not mean they are not capable of bias that this enclyopedia is leave out fox news and Msnbc are great examples would we just ref one of their articles without clearly filtering the bias out of it when we add it to wikipedia. also random IP adress recently rv my huck edit saying it was not a pure source thinking he was just making things up I rv his edit since I thought he was just making excuses also that edit was mostly quotes and reporting the companies new official position so it would seem like copy and paste but I pretty it does not violate the copy right Algonquin7 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

someone just added Ed Helms a simple celebrity opinions about chick-fila yet no one is doing anything about it because it is a negative take on Mr. Cathy's pro-family view while Huckabee is being discluded because he gives positive take on it unless something is done to correct this clear bias I will be reinserting Mr. Huckabee in immediatly Algonquin7 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind someone took it outAlgonquin7 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RedPen I never thanked you for the welcome wagon you offered me it was a very nice and appreciated gesture thank you Algonquin7 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes‎
I have undone your edit. It was much too bold. There is a discussion taking place on the talk page and there are a significant number of editors who think your belief is incorrect. Ryan Vesey Review me!  00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the change is not in any way bold - it is straightforward application of the BLP principal - the exact situations for which it was designed to be applied. Regardless of whether there is an ongoing discussion, it needs to stay hidden during the discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at James Eagan Holmes‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RedPen, you must stop battling. Continue the discussion at ANI. Otherwise, you risk a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me be clearer. One more edit to the article, and I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected the page. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 01:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Pen, I'm not arguing for or against you here, but at the end of the day Wikipedia is a collaborative project. A discussion to merge is ongoing on the talk page. You are free to hold any opinion you choose, but it is pretty simple that a consensus thinks your edits do not qualify as an exemption.  Currently, your reverting is disruptive, even though I believe it is in the best of faith. I don't want to change your mind, I only want you to simply say you will stop reverting.  That is all.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, for the record, committing 4 reverts over 24 hours and 10 minutes is gaming the system. If I see continued gaming of the system and unrepentant edit warring on Chick-Fil-A from you, I will block your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

James2
Can I close the ANI? Arcandam (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A‎
Like say, I dunno, an article featuring the picture of a sign inside that one company's store saying that another company is putting out products hazardous to children? Good idea, wish I'd thought of that! --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy regarding foundation's beneficiaries This is a most excellent suggestion. Belchfire (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt, but I've posted about a half dozen reliable source citations that call Chick-fil-a "anti-gay". This is more than enough of a basis for us to do the same. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Chickfila, Winshape". Thank you. --216.81.94.73 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagging of articles
Good afternoon RedPenOfDoom. I see that you have tagged another article that I have created for content. I am trying to be nice, and I don't know of any other way to say it. The content that I am adding is meant to be seed content for contributors to expand on. Also, unfortunately, the alternate title you suggested is almost exactly the same as it is now. We are putting the word out to the main scientists and researchers in this field AS WE SPEAK to make changes. Please leave them alone for a longer period of time and wait for these subject matter experts make their contributions. Also, please remove your tags...tags such as these may act as a deterrent from making these contributions.

Like I said, I do not know of any other words to say the following: This is meant to be seed material to be expanded on. Unfortunately, radiation carcinogenesis will read like an essay to non-interested parties no matter what way you write it. Please stop tagging my articles and let me get the people who research this stuff on a daily basis on here and making contributions.Jssteil (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziya Songülen
Why Ziya Songülen is claimed he wasnt a noble Peson?

Strange...This Information in Turkish Wikipedia is wellknown, that he was a descendant of Saliha Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Amuca tribe
Why you can delete my Article Amuca Tribe?

Why you are made false statemant of this Tribe?

The sources are in Turkish, there is no any in eglish.

you delete the persons, the meaning of the word, descentants...

why? I never delete any article from you...

so if you deleted it...than removed all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Turkish Link: they explain about the name Amuca...

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amuca_Kabilesi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Shah Süleyman
Why you delete the truth story and sons?

This names who are just listed is not hin son.

Look please the Turkish Category...

I have not wrote any wrong about his sons and descendant.

Please see the name of his sons in the Turkish Article from Wikipedia.

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCleyman_%C5%9Eah

Under Ogullari:...

you see the name of his sons...

Süleyman Şah'ın Sungur Tekin, Gündoğdu, Dündar Bey ve Ertuğrul Bey adında dört oğlu vardı.

It means: Süleyman shahs sons are: Sungur Tekin, Gündogdu, Dündar Bey and Ertugrul Bey, four sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So what I have done wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanky.

July 2012
You appear to be involved in an edit war over the redirection status of Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons), Adherer, and Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). As you said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons "If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles." If it wasn't obvious that I objected by undoing the redirects, I'm making it explicit now: please return the articles to their un-redirected state, and start a discussion or discussions on one or all of them if you believe they should be redirected. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a note ""If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles." - not my statement. and as of the time of this "warning" about edit warring, I had edited the article all of 3 times. Two were to fiddle with tags, and one was to implement the consensus of the afd to redirect content that trivial in game mentions in ToH, Pathfinder etc were not sufficient to meet WP:N and the apparent agreement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons that other articles with similar non-notworthy sourcing should follow the direction of the AfD. --  The Red Pen of Doom  17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that you've done this again without responding here. Please stop. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TRPOD, maybe we should wait a bit and then take the articles to AfD as SudoGhost suggested at the D&D Project. That would be seen as a constructive behavior, and I don't think there could be an end to the edit war otherwise... Jclemens, though you have agressively expressed an objection by reverting, I haven't seen you taking part in any discussion regarding the articles, despite the existence of a thread about the issue:Talk:Adherer.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thefunnyjill
Thanks for reporting this problem. I have declined to block this person for now. Technically the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard is for clear-cut vandalism, not editorial disputes and edit-warring, which is what you have here. Having said that, I left a note on the user's talk page telling them to get consensus on the article talk page before editing the article; if they fail to do this, get me or another administrator to block them. They've had sufficient warnings. Feel free to reference this discussion and my warning on the person's talk page.

Thanks for watching over our articles! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalistic attacks in 2012
Feel free to discuss the list items separately. Simply removing the section wholesale amounts to vandalism. μηδείς (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The dukes of hazzard
You sent me a message, claiming I edited the dukes of hazzard page. I did not edit this. Also, this IP can be used by upward of 2500 people in our company. I noticed an awful lot of comments and criticism on your page. Looks like possibly whatever change was made, that you "fixed", may have been correct to begin with. Sorry, just calling it as I see it. You certainly appear as the type who over-analyzes everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.222.195 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dave Benson Phillips
You've no doubt seen the first from patrolling the noticeboard. You might not know that attention is coming to the article from the second. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112

Jumping on graves
This user ignored my polite notice not to post rubbish on my user talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt_me&diff=481560040&oldid=472886545
 * and one person's "rubbish" is another person's "WHY THE HELL DIDNT YOU TELL ME YOU WERE GOING TO TRY TO DELETE MY MOST EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON FOO!!!!" -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I just wanted to thank you for removing that comment from my talk page. I don't get to check my account that much because of my job so I appreciate that it was already taken care of. LlamaDude78 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, too
Like LlamaDude78, I would like to thank you as well for reverting 98.246.66.123's personal attack on my talk page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

John Sullivan
Thanks for working on the John Sullivan page this week, I appreciate you taking the time. I have posted another comment about the material related to his police record on his discussion page (here). I am concerned the current material is misleading and doesn't have sources, so I've written a possible replacement. Thanks in advance if you can look again. --EdwardDC (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Chavis Carter
I was wondering if you would consider reviewing your !Vote on the Chavis Carter article. obviously the article is in a poor state and needs improvement, but I am loath to take the time if it is all just going to be deleted shortly. In the time since your !vote, there has been a lot of further coverage, across the country, and in several international locataions as well (Canada, 2xUK, Australia, etc) Thanks for your time. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although we obviously disagree in this case, I do thank you for taking the time to review. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton
Hi TheRedPenOfDoom

Just to bring you up to speed - I believe that Capena is a sockpuppet of a banned user DeFacto. I have already reported him on the SPI noticeboard, but things are moving slowly. (S)he is hounding me, then their involvement in the Michael/Mike Shrimpton article.

As regards the article, if it is the view that the article Mike Shrimpton (New Zealand cricketer) should be moved to Michael Shrimpton, replacing an article about about an English barrister, then it is improper to add banners to the article. I have not had anything to do with the cricketer article, but Canepa seems intent on causing as much trouble as he can before an Admin banns him for being a sockpuppet. Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And you appear intent on creating the maximum amount of opportunity to allow him to cause you the greatest amount of grief possible. Let it go. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Post on KB
Did you not read the post, it said common knowledge!! If you look at football blogs and boards you will find that he is up there as the worst player quite easily!! So you do your research!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckb10157 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for revert on Yasin al-Qadi page?
Hi Red Pen, thanks for keeping a close eye on the Qadi page. What was your reason for the last revert? No edit summary given. Please explain, or I will repost in 24 hours. Thanks.Markshern7 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

2012 phenomenon
You seem to have a better grasp of what constitutes a bad external link than me so could you please lend your opinion to the budding edit war on this page?  Serendi pod ous  19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag discussion
Could you please initiate a discussion of your NPOV tag at Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy. It's unclear what your tag refers to specifically. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography citation
Thank you very much for helping me with editing this article. I'll be looking very carefully over everything and amend language to state only facts and any qualitative language will be from cited, third party sources. I appreciate your help and patience and will make the changes by the end of this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcr9336 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Amsterdam Magazine AfD
Hi, thanks for your participation in this AfD. I was just wondering: although you seem to have a clear opinion, you have not formally !voted. Is that an oversight or is it intentional? Just curious. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: dead link
regarding your edit.

When I clicked the link, it went to a live EB radio page, but just the general home landing page, not a transcript of the program or media file of the recording. Were you able to verify the article content the source is supposed to support? -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * nevermind - there is a link to a file. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a very substantial one but it's there and, at least within that region, it's reliable. Through archives, it will remain accessible for those who take the time to search even after the link dies. Take care, DocTree (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism of William E. "Billy" Nelson
Hello - I grinned at your Wikipedia handle, but did not smile at the way you handled my contribution to Cannibalism and necro-cannibalism. While you explained your rationale in your Edit summary, instead of removing the entire entry, I respectfully submit that it would have been more appropriate for you to either edit the entry to your specifications, or to leave me a message indicating that I should! (If you did leave such a message, but it didn't yet register so that it becomes visible in my account, then thank you.) I'm replacing the original item with a pared-down version. If you further object to it, then I would appreciate your courtesy of handling it as I have asked. Thank you in advance! - Froid 10:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pared down the article, which I agree was overly detailed. I believe it is now more suitable (so thank you for your intervention!). If you believe it needs further revision, I would appreciate it if you would please either refine the entry yourself or leave a message on my Talk page asking me to do so.  Thank you. - Froid 11:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yo-yo
To verify the content of Adam Park's merit, here is an email of a trusted yoyo judge: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.3.245 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D monsters...again
Hello ! I just wanted to tell you that it seems we are under another "attack" of IPs (99.102.236.90, 70.166.140.88, 75.149.195.214, 173.165.104.250, possibly iterations of 99.126.204.164 or 129.33.19.254) trying to turn new D&D monsters redirects into articles (without any consideration for our notability and sourcing guidelines, that goes without saying)...

I've already redirect a bunch of these articles, I guess it is enough to stop the flood for now, but what can we do about these IPs in general to prevent further "attacks" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would help matters considerably if IP editors were treated with some basic respect and consideration, and the creation of new articles were not referred to as "attacks". Let's avoid the battleground mentality, shall we? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of these editors have been told several times to have a more community-based approach when dealing with D&D, ie to actually consider policies, guidelines and consensuses (AfDs) before rushing to turn as much redirects into articles as possible. So far this has not proved effective. I think it would also help if the person behind all these IPs agreed to have a single account, which would certainly lift some concerns that this multiplicity of IPs, added to a complete absence of communication, is preventing others to keep track of what is redirected or not (or what shouldn't be unredirected), and by whom.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'll CU all those IP addresses for you if you want, to make sure they're not being used by any other participant in the discussions. I've done one on my own initiative, because Sockpuppets are bad in any consensus-building discussion, but haven't found anything.  The IP I did look at was an SPI, but no other wikipedia editor appeared to have used that IP address. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help
Hello there, Im sorry but i really dont understand how things work here.... im trying to recover my page Orly Ben Garti which was deleted ages ago and since then i couldn't recover it which i believe was because i really dont know how to do so.... I have wrote several times on the "talk" of the person who deleted it but i dont really know how to follow it up from there.. Please help

Thank you Orly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbg (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects without consensus.
Please stop reinstituting redirects without any discussion or consensus. WP:Fait accompli applies to your edits. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But there WAS buttloads of talk and the only "non consensus" is backed only by positions that are completely contrary to Policy. And restoring mass loads of articles as you did without consensus OR policy is the disruptive act. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles are not the same as each other, neither in terms of primary sourcing, nor in terms of a search for secondary sources. By all means, take them to AfD if you want the redirect enforced, but edit warring over it is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, to reiterate what I said on Folken's page: WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways, in that you can't claim that consensus in one AfD mandates a redirect outcome in these cases, just as no advocate of keeping them can say that because another AfD was closed as keep, that all of these must therefore be kept. Each is appropriately discussed individually. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding or restoring content to provide appropriate sourcing, and the sources in these articles have all been shown in multiple venues to be insufficient. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sources exist in every one of these I've looked at--That is, at the very least every one has self published sources that verify the article content. There is no "speedy perma-redirect" criterion for articles that don't meet one editor's interpretation of what sourcing is appropriate.  That is what AfD is for. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PRIMARY sources that are completely insufficient for meeting the "substantial coverage by independent reliable sources" --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Each article is a separate topic. Each may have differing coverage, and AfD is the place to send articles where editors disagree about the adequacy of coverage for meeting notability.  Again, no speedy-perma-redirect exists. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are incapable of seeing that the same primary sources are the same primary sources, well I think that is your problem. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Each may have differing coverage not currently present in the respective articles which could be elicited by a detailed and specific search. A perfunctory search is expected per WP:BEFORE, should you or anyone desire to nominate these for AfD.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war, I guess the only way to cut it short is to go to AfD (grouped nominations are welcome) when redirects don't stick, since BOZ also refuse to discuss the issues on article talk pages. I've started the process with Articles for deletion/Adherer by nominating the 3 articles that escaped the "death watch bettle" AfD, because BOZ's reverting spree also touched your redirects on Adherer, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons). If you want to start other AfDs, you're welcome to do so.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this statement is WP:CANVASSing, and Folken de Fanel has already been reprimanded for that canvassing. Would you rather strike your comments in the Adherer AfD, or have them annotated that you were brought to the AfD through partisan canvassing?  I can see either as an appropriate remedy, so leaving it up to you.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All three articles are on my watch list and the afd posting there is as much or more responsible than the above comment, so no I will not strike my opinion nor falsely state that the notice posted by FdF was responsible. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also don't pay any heed to Jclemens' misguided comment, per WP:CANVASS, I've only notified you since you are a "concerned editor" who "participated in previous discussions on the same topic", and since an "identical notice" was sent to BOZ, who is far from sharing our view on the subject, I can't see how I would be "partisan". Jclemens has already been told all that, but he just decided to be his usual old self.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Street food
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work with this article. Do you know about http://reftag.appspot.com/ ? It's a very useful tool if you are using sources from google books as it creates references for you from the URL. SmartSE (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The clean up of the refs is on my to do list and that tool will be of help. Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nae probs. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What WP:COATRACK is not
Please read the actual wording of COATRACK and review my comments at Talk:Adherer. Additions to an article that convey the fictional element's use in other media do not serve to obscure the main subject of the article. Also note that on Adherer, you've already reverted to add that inappropriate tag once--further readditions, especially in light of your history with the subject, may be construed as edit warring and could conceivably lead to a block, which I'm sure we're all agreed would be a most unfortunate outcome. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

List of people from Kerala
It is quite unusual to get such an apologetic reply. I find that all your edits in this title are authentic. Thank you very much.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MMM-2011 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MMM-2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/MMM-2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Monty 845  02:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Luna
Scientizzle is doing a one-man edit war to get in the political talking point  that Luna has never had anything to do with education etc. (except as a member of boards of education). I think he needs to be told why such is unwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You could tell me yourself, Collect. I'm a reasonable person, an experienced editor, and have clearly tried to find middle ground. To be accused of POV pandering is uncalled for. I think an accurate article should include information on why Luna is a contentious figure for some people and am simply trying to provide that information, sourced to major media outlets. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HuffPo is an opinion source -- the articles which are opinion articles should not be used to make "statements of negative fact" in any article, and esecially not in any BLP. I assure you that I hold the same position across all BLPs -- an article saying "John Gnarph has never been elected to US President" is just as useless -- saying what a person has not done is inane and, in the case at hand, simply a silly season political sort of edit.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HuffPo can be an opinion source, but if you look at the actual source, it's a reprint of an AP article. And other sources verify that this is one of the critiques that have been made against his reform plans--and also that some supporters like that fact. It's relevant to the larger picture of his work in education. It probably wouldn't be relevant that your fictional John Gnarph was never elected to the Presidency, but it might be relevant if John Gnarph had never studied medicine and was working to alter healthcare policy. It would be specifically relevant if supporters and critics said it was in reliable sources. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And don't tell me I'm campaign[ing][ just because you disagree with my wording. I've not been dismissive of your concerns, please return the favor. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]tizzle 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS-sorry RPOD for taking over your talk page...I'll be happy to take it elsewhere. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets move this to the article talk page where everyone will be more localized to comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

sp
Seeing this with your particular username subscribed recalls to me the mnemonic "I before E except...". Your basic point, however, seems valid. This new account seems a bit to quick into process. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, when my spell check is off, i mistype that every time. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's usually "journla" that gets me. :-) LeadSongDog come howl!  15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your possible violation of WP:3RR
Your recent editing history at Redefinition of marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 67.6.126.83 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloke (word)
I hope you will engage in talk page discussions and not revert in an edit war. I am willing to work with you for days, weeks, as required. Look forward to spending lots of time with you on this. I am willing to start an RFC on this topic and bring in dozens of people. We currently have two people who believe the quote is relevant and not OR. Perhaps you can find more to support your side. In any case, the first place to start is talk page discussions. Look forward to working with you and can't wait to hear back from you! Green Cardamom (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr Blakey has eturned
Michael Blakey (musician) may interest you, assuming it is still there. I cannot recall how similar it is to the previous AfD model. No need to reply. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adherer
I expanded the rationale some, but I expect it doesn`t say anything you couldn`t have guessed. If there`s something specific you have in mind, you`ll have to ask more specifically. Wily D 06:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DBP Changes
Hi there,

Only did so because the changes you had removed were from Dave Benson Phillips himself - tho I am not him, so will not put them back up as - technically - I don't have any evidence to prove the info is correct. DBP said he was barred from wiki from making too many changes to the page that weren't correctly sourced, etc. etc. & I was only trying to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.6.204 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Singapore Court Ruling on ICOC article
Hi, The Red Pen of Doom. You deleted mention of a Singapore High Court ruling regarding an ICOC church in the article on the ICOC. The reason you gave was that "tripod is a blog not a reliable source". Although I'm not the author of paragraph regarding the Court ruling, I edited it to make it appear more balanced. In my eyes, although blogs aren't generally reliable sources, if you look at the web page in question, it just appears to be a transcript of the Court ruling; that's why I left the paragraph in the entry on the ICOC. Something similar goes for a newspaper article I mentioned regarding the London Church of Christ's alleged bribes of police officers in Indonesia. The only place I could find on the internet that had the full article was the web site of Rick Ross, a known exit-counselor and critic of alleged destructive cults. Someone who doesn't like Ross could dismiss my paragraph for citing his web site. But I actually don't cite his web site; I cite the article that happens to be on his web site. So to dismiss my paragraph for citing Ross seems unreasonable. It also seems unreasonable to me to dismiss a paragraph for citing a court ruling that happens to be found on a blog. I'm interested in your thoughts. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoplophobia
Hi mate, thought I might post a note here so we can have a separate chat about the above and then take it back to the AfD if that is worthwhile. My impression is that the discussion hasn't really focussed on the article itself / its quality / its sources / its compliance with guidelines / etc. Rather, there seems to be debate about the use of the word itself - whether it is a legitimate term / legitimate medical term. I'm wondering if a re-writing of the article couldn't solve both problems. It would seem there is no end of sites / commentators / etc, using the term in the context of the gun debate and if that is the case, then the page should reflect that = ''The term Hoplophobia is a political neologism used by some in the context of the gun control debate[cite]. It was coined by Jeff Cooper who created to term to describe those he believed had an "irrational fear of guns"[cite]. It is not recognised as a specific phobia or medical condition.''

I think part of the problem is that people have tried to justify its use as a legitimate medical term (like arachnophobia or tokophobia) though none of the sources seem to support that. They do seem, however, (at first glance) to support its legitimacy as a political neologism like Islamophobia or xenophobia (obviously not legit medical conditions). Wondering what you though, post your analysis of the existing sources (some of which are offline so I don't have access to them to make any comment about legitimacy or not).

Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the tip. It was extraordinarily helpful. Deep Candle (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it's established that a neologism can have -phobia at the end while not being a legitimate medical condition, perhaps you can explain why one should stay while another is deleted. If all things are truly objective, it seems like an arbitrary decision. Deep Candle (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The validity of the Wikipedia page on Dr. David Hawkins
Hi, The Red Pen of Doom. You suggest I continue the discussion here, so I hope this is the right way to do it...

The page on Dr. Hawkins is seriously biased. He's ancient, perhaps around 90 years old, so hardly likely to be pursuing additional academic qualifications in 1995 which is when he was awarded his Doctorate of Philosophy. This suggests it's an honorary degree and, as such, the "the questionable nature of the school, Columbia Pacific University which had its approval revoked in December 1997" is hardly relevant.

How old is he? Let's speculate that he started practicing psychiatry at the age of 25, which is probably earlier than reality. Then he was born before or in 1927 (1952-25 years). So he's at least 85.

This suggests, in 1995, when he became a knight of the Sovereign Order, he was around 70, well past the age that such awards are sought after. This suggests that, just as his memory of the actual name of the place is not exact, the exact name of the organization might also not be exact. But at that age, and I'm getting close to it myself, degrees and awards start losing their meaning. There are far more important things to be concerned about in life.

His web-site, as of today Thursday, 2012/09/06, contains the following about-us page. see http://www.veritaspub.com/index.php?page=about

This lists around fifty scientific memberships, including Life Membership of the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. And an impressive list of awards and recognition for his extensive scientific contributions.

Read this and I think you'll be convinced that his page at Wikipedia seriously understates his qualifications.

I tried to update his Wikipedia page to include the mysteriously missing co-author - Nobelist Linus Pauling - to Hawkins first book: Orthomolecular Psychiatry, the name of which was misspelt, yet it doesn't seem to have taken...

So I'll await to see your response before doing any more on this. I looked but I couldn't see a link to the page you recommend I read, your post just contains this as source code:

" If you wish to provide support for keeping the article about Hawkins, you need to actually address how the subject meets the requirements for having a stand alone article. see WP:N. User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom| span style="color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;" The Red Pen of Doom /span ]] 13:30, 6 September 2012  UTC "

I guess this means that, as a newcomer to this, I'm getting confused! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisBCT (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) warm regards, Cris Baker Thursday, 2012/09/06 at 1648

CrisBCT (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes
Yes I have been working like crazy trying to sort out the issue for the page. Nothing is being done and I have requested like crazy. --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of politicians who switched parties for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of politicians who switched parties is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of politicians who switched parties until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of politicians who switched parties


A tag has been placed on List of politicians who switched parties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at List of politicians who switched parties
Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, you recently removed a deletion tag from List of politicians who switched parties. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

''St Lawrence? Seriously?'' Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * seriously. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to where in WP:BURDEN it suggests edit-warring against multiple editors in order to prove a WP:POINT. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only "disruption" would be people who repeatedly against policy return unsourced challenged material. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

death of William III
Re: Unusual Deaths Dear TheRedPenOfDoom: As a novice, I hope that this message reaches you. My addition today used as its reliable source the Wiki article on William III, which I thought was an adequate reference. (I recently used a similar technique in my insertion re Handel in 'duels', which seems to have slipped below your radar!) It also explains the collar bone/pneumonia link. (If you think my edit is worth restoring, I would be grateful if you would correct the reference from 'William III' to 'William III & II'.) HuPi (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)HuPi

Feedback on Justin Bieber
Hi Red Pen, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I've hidden it because it's a fairly clear BLP vio, and may be considered defamatory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there are quite a few you've marked as resolved, which should have been hidden. Whilst it's still in draft WP:FRG should provide some guidance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i just wondered into them by accident and was trying to feel my way around. I will check out thos guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN FYI
FYI: DRN Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI
You also keep on deleting many of my edits with no rationale or explanation. I don't think certain parts should be condensed. I'm an authority on the subject at hand so I'd appreciate you don't delete things you don't know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm following styles of leaders like JFK page. For example, Atta Mills was a Methodist, a fact he repeated thoughout his presidency so you shouldn't keep on deleting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to International reaction section, the leaders chosen were highly representative and not necessarily repetitive: UK: Former colonial masters. France: strong bilateral relations. USA: Strong USA-Ghana relations; personal friendship between Mills and Obama. FIFA: Atta Mills was a football administrator in the 80s and 90s and met Blatter several times. UN, AU, ECOWAS: Bodies for international relations,etc (obviously). Nigeria: Africa's superpower and major trading partner. South Africa: Ghana was a major supporter of the ANC and Mandela during the anti-apartheid struggle. Liberia: Ghana virtually committed a lot of peacekeeping troops during Liberia's Civil War and statement from Africa's first woman president is very significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just look at similar pages of leaders who die4d in office or world leaders in general. Of course, condolence messages are likely not to be that different from each other in general. However, the sources/figures behind the messages are very important esp if they played a major role in that country's history or the leader's presidency. I get the impression from other people's comments that you're a bit too confrontational and dsiruptive. I think collaboration is the whole point of Wikipedia so if you have a problem with anything I write, just leave me a message and I'll get back to you so we can come to agreement on what should be exactly written.Kandymotownie (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I'll find a source to support Atta Mills' Christian faith since he was very religious. Kandymotownie (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

ICOC official links
You recently deleted three links from the ICOC's article found in its external links section. As a reason for your edit you cited WP:ELOOFFICIAL. However, I'm having trouble understanding why the three links should be removed per this policy. If I'm reading WP:EL correctly, the links found in an article's external links section need not be official. Yet you seemed to have deleted the three links merely because they're not official. I'm sure that I'm just not understanding something; but if you could help me understand, I'd appreciate it. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ICOC articles
Hi RedPen. I just downloaded a whole bunch of copyrighted ICOC-related articles to PDF form from Factiva. At Nietzsche123's request, I will email them to him/her. Since you are also an interested party in the conversation, I would be glad to do the same for you. Simply email me so that I have your email address, and I will send them. Cheers, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

+tag spamming

 * Post an +afd, just don't +tag spam! JunoBeach (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to +tag spam articles you may be blocked from editing. JunoBeach (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * when there is a shitload of issues with an article, slopping on a shitload of tags to identify the issues is entirely appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to keep a civil tongue here in future please sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.247.153 (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and I can pretty much say FUCK ALL I want on my talk page as long as I am not attacking other editors. However your personal attack of other editors is entirely inappropriate and continued disruptions of that manner will quickly lead to you being blocked. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Miami Zombie
Hi, can you explain what exactly your problem is with the link at wordpress? It is hosted there by CBS Local Miami, and is the actual police report transcript. I understand a link to a blog might be problematic, but given the nature of the material and who posted it I don't see the problem. I will look for your answer here unless you want to put it on the article's talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * my bad, i have reverted. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured you were focused on the url. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Prens Sabahaddin
There is many Sources that he was Bisexuell...In Turkish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.108.134 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Atta Mills
Hi RedPen! Wrt the International reaction, it's similar for lots of articles on other presidents who died in office including JFK of USA, Lech Kacynski of Poland. There's nothing unusual about it. There will always be a part of the biography of a leader who dies in office which looks like a memorial whether proforma or not. Thanks for understanding! KwameM 41.66.195.164 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding user submitted reviews. Thanks for correcting the article appropriately and informing me. Lenschulwitz (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf
you obviously didn't check the link i added, there is only ONE naomi wolf (me) listed there. please don't remove it, thank you. Peyuti (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

one more thing, just checked the link again and the two other people (besides not having the first name naomi) were born in 1944 and 1993, so clearly they are not me. Peyuti (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

also i graduated yale in 1984, as the article states, which means i couldn't have been born in 1965 or 1969 as you falsely suggest. Peyuti (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

just responded on my talkpage Peyuti (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

i just want to get this straight, who is the "we" you mention when you say "we do not include the information in the article"? why do you get to decide to remove accurate cited info from an article? i will say this again, PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THE CORRECT INFO FROM THE ARTICLE. what don't you understand about this? and besides you violated the 3R rule of wikipedia so you should be banned already and not allowed to remove any accurate info from an article. Peyuti (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

IQ and the Wealth of Nations
Except what I have written does directly reference the actual content of the book. Here is a quote taken directly from the book: "South Korea's real GDP per capita is also considerably lower than expected on the basis of the country's exceptionally high level of national IQ (106). The principal explanation for this is probably that South Korea had a very low per capita income at the end of World War 2 as a result of military defeat and occupation by the Japanese and it has not had sufficient time to achieve the predicted level of per capita national income, although economic growth since 1950 has been extremely high (See Appendix 2)." Do you have any more issues with what I wrote?

YvelinesFrance (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll make sure to take note of that.


 * YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ahluwalia
Hi Fellow Editor, this article seems to be under attack with the same edits from IP's. Can we protect it? Thanks S H 15:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Again, Jat or Jatt does not mean "N*gg*r" or any other offensive word like that. Well I hope not because I am. It is a term used to described an ethnic group (originally from the Black Sea area) that has settled around the world, and also around the North West of INdia and Pakistan. Some person keeps inserting it in that article and is basically causing confusion. Thanks S H 10:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have requested long-term semi-protection by an admin who is not afraid to do such things under the provisions of WP:GS/Caste. I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Question...
So basically I revert another editor's change that removes the fact that Harry Warner is Jewish. I revert the edit because the man is Jewish and there is no reason to remove that piece of information. This other editor (TbHotch) comes to the article and claims I did wrong as per WP:MOSBIO and reverts my edit as he does on several other articles for the same reason. [] Am I doing something wrong here? YvelinesFrance (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

test new sig
-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User:The "good guy"
I honestly don't know if we have a policy or not on this particular situation, but we do have a policy on edit warring and you are in breach of it. This is way past the point where it would have been appropriate to initiate a discussion somewhere to determine a consensus on this redirect. Please do so now, or drop it. Edit warring is never the correct course of action, as I am sure you are aware. Traditionally the community has granted at least partial immunity to sanctions for edit warring to users who are doing so on their own user pages, so it is likely you would get the short end of the stick were this reported at WP:AN3. I'd rather not see it go that route. I can't say I get why either of you is so hung up on this point but edit warring and sniping in edit summaries is clearly not the correct path towards resolving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter is being discussed [] and had been discussed with an admin agreeing that redirecting was inappropriate and leaving a message to that effect . --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And my concern is that the user page and user name have been the subject of great confusion in the past. The current name is the result of a user name change from User:IP 12.153.112.21 NOTE NOT IP, but USER IP. And the user page is now home to an article that was deleted per discussion, but restored, and then the user page was subject to an MFD with the user name occurring inbetween and leading to all kinds of confusuion about where to find things. The redirect is an additional level of non-transparency that may greatly hinder any determinations of historical provenence if/when that article is moved back into main space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write up the text of any notice you think should appear at either the old account page or the renamed account page or their talks? Then I can post that at the IP pages and you can submit an RFD recommending the redirect(s) be replaced with the appropriate text. I am actually unsure what may be confusing you and would be happy to work together to explain it to other users and then we can just haply debate which page it should go on as a separate issue. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Andycjp
Hi. After talking with Tznkai, I decided to revert my own comment as it probably won't help - I am allowed to do that if I wish. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I just got your message - no problem -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
Can you explain on the article talk page why you have changed the paragraph order? I changed it to reflect what appeared to be a consensus on that page that the current claims would have a lasting effect on his reputation (which I think is now inevitable), and that a balanced view would be that they should be placed before his earlier career. I'm not going to revert you, but I think at least it would be a courtesy to other editors if you engaged in the discussion on that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Fifer
You've been editing the page on Richard Fifer. The man is well known in mining circles and he is a lot more contentious than the page currently indicates. Please take a look at these two articles that reference his arrest warrants for embezzlement while he was the governor of Cocle province (La Prensa is a major Panamanian newspaper):

http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2005/02/22/hoy/portada/141377.html http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2005/02/23/hoy/portada/141747.html

As well, he was arrested as a young man for cocaine trafficking (pdf of alleged court decision linked by the following blog:

http://incakolanews.blogspot.ca/2011/03/richard-fifer-convicted-drug-dealer-and.html

I am not familiar enough with wiki to know how to go about adding some/all of this information, so would like to ask if you would follow these links and decide what could be added to the wiki page? I feel that this is an important part of his history and should be addressed by his wiki page.

Dave 6298 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page, but was unsure of whether you would see it there... (do you get notified?) Putting my reply here as well in case. La Prensa is a leading paper in Panama. I see no reason why its articles cannot be treated as reliable. And, even unproven allegations of embezzlement are important when they concern an elected politician, especially one in a position such as Governor of a province. In this particular case, a warrant was issued for his arrest. This is an important part of his history, whether the accusations prove true or false. The arrest warrant would seem to be a matter of record. As to the blog, yes it may be a blog, but it is very highly regarded and followed in the professional mining world; it very often breaks important news before major news outlets. It was recently, for example, quoted as a source during a BNN interview  (starts about 5:30). The link in the blog leads to a scanned document that is allegedly Fifer's drug conviction court document. I do not know what level of authenticity is required for its inclusion as a source, but it does appear legitimate, at least to me. Dave 6298 (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Please revert yourself
WP:SELFPUB covers "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". The articles used as sources for Conan chronologies are qualified for this. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did restore "content about themselves" "published in third party sources writing", contents abut their timeline theories originally published in a third party source (namely the old REHUPA magazine; Shooterwalker's discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources is abut the mostly unrelated REHUPA blog-site). --109.189.55.145 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: They do not say "this is the Conan timeline" they say "this is my theory of a Conan timeline", this is the difference. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not abut "the Conan theory" it's abut THEIR Conan theories, thus it is abut themselves, abut what they themselves think. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "EVERYTHING published on ANY blog then becomes "reliable sourced" content". Indeed it does IF what they say on their blog only apply to their own belief and we do not portray it otherwise. Here is an analog:
 * 1. Politician X say on his blog that he believes global warming to be a hoax. Wikipedia write that "global warming is a hoax" and uses his blog as a source.
 * 2. Politician X say on his blog that he believes global warming to be a hoax. Wikipedia write that "Politician X believes global warming to be a hoax" and uses his blog as a source.
 * Obviously scenario 1 is misuse of the source, but scenario 2 is not. What the Conan articles does is clearly the same as scenario 2. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The politicians statement that they do or do not believe in global warming may be used as evidence about their position IN THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE POLITICIAN. This is the article about Conan." It is not an article abut Conan, it is an article abut Conan timeline theories. These are Conan timeline theories. Also SELFPUB say "usually" not "exclusively", there is a world of difference between the two. "If we were talking about edits to an article about either of the bloggers, then it would potentially be OK. We are not." They are not bloggers. Their articles where published in a magazine. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "The article is NOT "Blogger X's Theory of Conan Timeline"" Have you even read the entity of any of my replies? These are NOT BLOGGERS. And how does the name of the article matter? This is an article abut Conan timelines and these are important Conan timelines. (Dale Rippke's timeline theory (that was put to use by freaking DARK HORSE!) even mentions Marek's theories extensively and recognizes him as a "Howard scholar".) "And while it does say "usually" you have presented no valid reason why we would do the "unsual"" YOU have not presented any reason why it being unusual is reason enough to remove it when it qualifies under the listed requirements for it's inclusion. When the need to do something unusual arises we must do the unusual, that is how things work. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "otherwise, we could add Blogger Y's personal belief about climate change to Climate change." This is not analogous to an article abut "climate change", but to an article abut "opinions on climate change". "There is no reliable sources to support any of your claims. THAT is the issue." AGAIN, it qualifies for SELFPUB, the criteria is listed right there. --109.189.55.145 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle
I think the editor there is suffering from a major case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-itis. I can merge this page this evening as I proposed below, though I did want to get your feedback and see whether there might be some other appropriate target or if the page should just be deleted. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

John Birch revert?
Why did you revert my edit to John Birch Society with the comment "(clearly something like this needs to be in lead)"? Notable members: Added New York Time Bestelling author *James Wesley Rawles, an avowed member.). There are no sources cited for the entire "Notable Members" section. And Rawles is more well known and in print than many of the members listed there. If I list the source (http://www.survivalblog.com/biographies.html), can I re-add the edit? Jefferson Franklin (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are talking about, my edit did not remove any content, it just added a description to the lead. But if you are trying to add content based on a blog, you should read WP:SPS and WP:RS and WP:BLP. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just now removed the entire section as none of the names were supported by any citations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion
I've moved the discussion of Daily Mail as a reputable (or not) source to the List of unusual deaths talk page to give other editors an opportunity to discuss. --JeffJ (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your editing on List of unusual deaths
I have opened a discussion on the Talk Page of List of unusual deaths regarding the entry I added regarding Randy Lee Tenley (the Bigfoot hoax sighting death) - you have twice removed this entry, for reasons that I find unsatisfactory. Thus, I am opening the subject of the entry's merits for more input from other editors. Until consensus is reached on this subject, I will kindly ask that you refrain from removing the entry from the article. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sky AfD
For your information, Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky has been modified to include an expanded list of directly related articles. I'm just letting you know that this has happened so you may add or amend your comments in response. Many thanks, doktorb wordsdeeds 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Much appreciated, I needed the backup. Let me know when I can return the favour :-) Guy (Help!) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
I've moved the statement about the two charities closing from the opening para to the third para. I don't understand why you thought it was sufficiently important, given everything else that is going on, to be put in the opening para. Happy to discuss, if you like. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Verify identity
Hello The Red Pen of Doom, Thank you for your message regarding 'problems with an article about you'. I'd like to verify my identity and remove the article as the warnings are detrimental to me. Please advise. Regards Tom Cinematicwl (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph L. Goldstein
Hi Red Pen, I just came across this, and wonder if it, a Wikimedia publication, has any significance as a tacit acceptance of content, or if it's just a mirror of a previous version, and as such is meaningless. Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * its just a mirror or created by scraping wikipedia articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but I'd never seen something like that before. Good work restarting the article. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary source and Romnesia
Hello, there is no policy limiting the use of primary sources so long as they are reliably published relative to the context of the content they add to an article. Policy states: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. Your editing is erroneous in this regard. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks
Hi RPOD. You recently added some sources to an article that I'm passingly involved with, Gunilla Ekberg - thanks for that! I noticed, though, that you added the references as bare URLS, and wondered if you were aware of the Reflinks tool? It's an automated script by User:Dispenser that converts bare URLs to full citations. I just thought that if you didn't already know about it, you might find it useful - I certainly do. All the best, Yunshui 雲‍水 06:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel lineups AFD
Hello, RedPen. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky. I have just created another AfD, which also looks at articles with lists of channels. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropist
A philanthropist is someone who does good for humanity - not necessarily someone who raises lots of money for good causes. It's a philosophical term, not a description of what someone does financially. Yes, Savile raised lots of money for charity, but a balanced view would be that that good is, at least, outweighed by the harm he did. It was reasonable to call him a philanthropist when he died, as the extent of his good deeds was known at that time, but not his evil deeds. It is not reasonable or balanced to call him a philanthropist now, because the extent of his evil is becoming clear. "Philanthropist" is not a balanced term to describe him. "Philanthropist and paedophile" would be balanced - but is nonsensical. Best to leave the word "philanthropist" out entirely, except in noting in the text that he was thought to be one when he was alive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the rewriting and blackwashing of history is pretty disgraceful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My dictionary says: Philanthropy: Love of mankind; practical benevolence.  "Practical benevolence" - yes, in that he raised lots of money for good causes.  Love of mankind - very definitely not - he was a serial abuser of vulnerable people.   You can't use the word to mean just one of those things, without - quite wrongly - implying the other as well.  I've changed "philanthropist" to "fundraiser" - which is a neutral description of what he did.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * dictonary.com provides this SERIES of definitions:

1. altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes.

2. the activity of donating to such persons or purposes in this way: to devote one's later years to philanthropy.

3. a particular act, form, or instance of this activity: The art museum was their favorite philanthropy. 4. a philanthropic organization.

Absolutely ZERO reference to the fact that if someone kicked a bunny or stole a child's candy that they no longer are a "philanthropist" --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he did rather more than "kicking a bunny" or stealing candy. My point remains that, if you describe him as a philanthropist, you are indicating (supposedly, neutrally) that he was someone who did good for mankind, who has an "altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement".  I don't believe it is possible to take that position at present - though, if the allegations were to be disproved (pretty unlikely, I should think), the position might change in the future.  A philanthropist is, by definition, someone whose good deeds towards humanity outweighed their bad deeds.  You simply can't say that now about Savile in a neutral, balanced, biographical article - apart from whether or not it's "true", it's clearly and obviously contrary to reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

UK channel line up Afd
Just to let you know, I've created Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) as a further extension of the current debate on channel listings on Wikipedia. Your input would be appreciated doktorb wordsdeeds 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-directs and I.P. socks
Hi. First of all, I hope you don't remember me from my high school days, (about five years ago, I believe), because I feel pretty foolish looking back on my teenage years. But, on the subject of this topic, I came across the dispute between several editors, including yourself and this "good guy". I noticed that Floquenbeam proposed a compromise to them, in which they would include a notice on the I.P. page, in exchange for keeping the re-direct. Since nobody has edited since the 9th, I have to ask, is this a legitimate compromise you and the other editors feel is appropriate? D arth B otto talk•cont 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the long story has to do with concern about editors being able to easily be able to follow the history of a page that had resulted in delete being lost in userfication and a series of page moves but is no longer relevant because the short story, the content from that page has been merged and the userpage fully deleted and so there is absolutely no concern. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Autograph of Virchand Gandhi
Dear friend, you recently removed an autograph of virchand gandhi from an article due to ebay resource. Here is a resource, a blog run by great grand son of Virchand Gandhi stating the same signature in an image. Please consider it and if you agree then revert edit. http://virchandgandhi.blog.com/ Regards, --Nizil (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for speedy reply. I will look for better sources. What should I do for already uploaded image? --Nizil (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I appriciate your help regarding images. :)

--Nizil (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Fehime Sultan
It is forbidden to gave you this Photo?

Strange... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.115.3 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=347519955326470&set=o.56075470861&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.115.3 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about, except that you probably need to read WP:COPYRIGHT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a Photo of her, and I think...it will be great to put them in the Article: Fehime Sultan Also i found this: http://www.beck-shop.de/Source_Wikipedia-Women-of-Ottoman-Empire/productview.aspx?product=5800044

In this Book, it is said: Fehime had a daughter, called Nemzade Hatice, born 1911- 2000) by Mahmud Bey but this second Marriage wasnt reconized bey her Uncle Mehmed V., so this Girl was not accepted as a ottoman Princess in the Ottoman Dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.115.3 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fehime Sultan is not an article I have ever worked on and my only knowledge of the subject matter area is some blatant vandal fighting. Nor do I deal with images other than fighting copyright vios.
 * You would probably get better response contacting someone who has edited the article or the Talk:Fehime Sultan or one of the project groups listed on the talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop
Removing factual content from Whore of Babylon. Those are facts that do not have to be sourced. Not everything needs a source if it's true, and original research should be ENCOURAGED. ResonX (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You will need to change the policies then. You can start here Wikipedia talk:No original research. But until you achieve consensus to make such changes to the policy, you will need to work within the existing policy, or end up being blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fehime Sultan
I do not want, how I can put the Picture of Fehime in the Article?

Can you please help me?

I have copy the link of her...

Thanky

Perihan S. (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just, I asked Mr.Niceguy he helped me aout the Photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fehime_Sultan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perihan S. (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please Stop - Call detail record
Hi,

Please have a read of deletion policy, particularly WP:ATD-R, "If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.". The article had good references which you deleted as spam https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Call_detail_record&diff=520788957&oldid=520573178, which they are clearly not. The article belongs in Wikipedia and is far from unsuitable. Alex Sims (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have disputed your change of an article being replaced with a redirect without a merge. Can you please attempt to discuss and reach a consensus on the article talk page before reverting to the redirect. Also why have you called reliable sources spam? Please retread WP:ATD-R Alex Sims (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the talk page and explained there that the links are solely to unusable commercial sites. They are not valid as either reliable sources nor as WP:ELNO external links. And I encourage you to read WP:BURDEN and not restore challenged material without providing valid inline citations. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Making a note here that this user (TheRedPenofDoom) is also making inappropriate edits to the article "Stephanie Cutter". Atxav8r (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to make this as clear as possible.
I will NEVER accept Wikipedia's current policies. NEVER. I hate them more than any other entity in existence, and if someone were to put a shotgun to my head and order me to embrace Wikipedia's current policies or else die, I would choose the latter. ResonX (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

UUUUGHHH!! What I'm, telling you is: '''FORGET ABOUT THOSE RULES. DO THE RIGHT THING AND HELP ME GET THEM CHANGED, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T AGREE WITH THEM. NO ONE DOES.''' ResonX (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably should not take up a career as a mind reader as your ability to determine what other people think is not very good. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you think those rules are CORRECT?! ResonX (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they "correct" rules creating a fansite where anyone can write whatever they want? No they arent. BUT Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the rules are very good at guiding the creation of reliable encyclopedic content. So for the purpose of what Wikipedia is and should be, yes, i think the rules are, indeed, pretty much CORRECT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct rules would be a reasonable compromise, where everything is governed by common sense, and inclusion, rather than exclusion, is the default. ResonX (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia content is NOT created by wide open inclusion. It is created by carefully graded and examined inclusion and broadly excluding crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Using 'Year Month' is wrong
Don't disrespect fellow editors. This is obvious a content issue not a deletion issue. Concerning Romnesia there is nothing inherently wrong with reverting an incorrectly applied redirect. Articles in AfD should either remain or be deleted. AfD is not AfR. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh wah? The fate of Romnesia was determined by an AfD discussion. You do not get to summarily over-ride that consensus decision because you disagree. You are free to remove the notice attached to your IP page about the inappropriate action, but it will be considered as full acknowledgment that you have been forwarned of consequences of future similar behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is there was zero consensus. The AfD is plainly obvious in this regard. The closing admin decided to make a content decision as the redirect shows. This is also where you are wrong. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your personal decision to determine whether or not your are going to continue to attempt to personally over-ride the closure. But if you do, expect that you will be blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Neal Purvis and Robert Wade
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Food Composition Database
Food composition database Dear RedPenofDoom,

The list of global food composition databases was removed by yourself, but as food composition databases are reference sources themselves the global sources just expands and adds to the this huge area. The more data avaialble on food composition the stronger the data actually is as food composition can be so varied across the world.

Please consider its value and allow me to add it back in.

Thanks

HelenaNutrition (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, please can you direct me to the guidelines you refer to for listing links. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenaNutrition (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unusual play
The death of people that live an unusual life isn't unusual by association. "Homeless guy dies of exposure" is barely worth commenting on.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * very true.
 * as I make my first pass through the list to review the sources, however, I am being very generous in my application of WP:OR and not removing anything that has some type of allusion to "unusual"; leaving that battle for later as we appeared to be coming to a consensus of "multiple sources" which would eliminate without question most of the content in the current version.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Description of P.K Abdul Aziz
Hello redpenofdoom,

The information that Abdul Azis had to resign because of the CBI enquiry is entirely false. I request you to go through the reference that you yourself have posted and clarify. Please refer this link: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-11/india/30615322_1_pk-abdul-azis-cbi-amu-court

In the report it is clearly stated that CBI would take a "Final view" of the so called "allegations" later. It is no where stated that he had to resign because of this enquiry. He completed his term gracefully and demitted office. Please refer this link of the report where he is handing over charge to the next VC.

So, it can not be said that he had to "resign" and leave "unceremoniously".

Thanks,

Infinitebliss77 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello redpenofdoom,

I agree that you have not stated that he has not resigned because of the enquiry. But the truth of the matter is that he has not resigned at all. According to the Aligarh Muslim University Statutes, Section 2:

"The Vice Chancellor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office" and '"Notwithstanding anything contained in the above clause, a person appointed as Vice Chancellor shall, if he completes the age of 65years during the term of his office or any extension thereof, retire from office"'

Please refer this link: Please go to About us-->Policies and Procedures (University Acts and Statutes)--> Page number 23 and 24 (Section 2, Clauses 4 and 5).

As you have stated, Prof Azis would have completed 5 years by June 2012. But he completed 65 years first, on January 18th, 2012. So, in accordance with Section 2, Clause 5, he demitted his office one day before that is on January 17th 2012. Reference for that is already provided.

So, I request you to please stop using the word resign, as it would be insulting to a person such as him, who had occupied this position of national importance.

Thanks, Infinitebliss77 (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * we do not base article content upon our interpretation of the universities rules. we follow what the sources say. the sources say he left office early under the cloud of the investigations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please cite your sources where it is explicitly stated that he had to leave early under the cloud of the investigationsInfinitebliss77 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In case you didn't know, the template has been deprecated which means we're not supposed to use it any more. Regards, benzband  ( talk ) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Cutter
Your cherry picking and POV presentation of content at Stephanie Cutter is not appropriate. And edit warring to continually delete it is absolutely not acceptable. Atxav8r (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that removal of inappropriate BLP content is an activity specifically exempted from 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the notification of the incident that Atxav8r claims to have made? I was going to add my support for TRPoD's actions but I cannot find any such report. Meters (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I havent seen anything either, maybe he is talking about the Cutter talk page? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems bizarrely self-referential to write "Have fwd'd this issue for resolution." if that mention is the only place the issue is raised. Smells like a red herring. Please let me know if this issue ever does get raised. (I assume such a request avoids any possible accusation of canvassing.) Meters (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2012
In three edits in quick succession, you removed over a kilobyte of information from the article, two edits one edit of which were was labled "c/e". That's not copyediting, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * two of the 3 edits have summaries of what was done. the one labeled c/e entirely falls within "copy edit" removal of non encyclopedic non-content. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Admitted, yes, it was one c/e edit. My point is this: please use better edit summaries. I am not reverting your edits, but instead updated it with an AP analysis. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will absolutely stand by this edit and identifying it as "irrel to the campaign article" and I will stand by removing WP:SYN with this edit under the edit summary of "didnt see anything mentioning the impact on tickets down the line, let alone this particular race". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: wasn't that the point?
I'm not sure it was the point, but maybe. I mean, I think the entire essay is missing the point of IAR (not to mention a far too misleading and unintuitive shortcut), bu tthat's just me. If he's trying to make a point with an absurdly verbose nutshell (I mean, "metaphorical antipathy"?) maybe it's better off unmade. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkish people
Will you please stop removing my edits. Its fustrating as I am trying to merege certain sections and my edits keep being erased through edit conflicts. If you had a look at the discussion page you would understand what I am doing right now. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I removed certain content, but I had not yet finished my edits! Hence, most of it was going to be placed back, but everytime I try to save the page I get an edit conflict. Can you just wait a few minutes to see what I'm actually doing. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 12:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Strange symbol
In this edit, why did you replace hyphens with this bizarre symbol: �  ??? Cresix (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * oops. my browser is doing a weird auto-replace for some symbols. i missed that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

“Leonardo” versus “da Vinci”
Hi there. I notice you've been changing instances of “Leonardo” to “da Vinci” on Cultural references to Leonardo da Vinci. Art-historical convention is that he is referred to either as “Leonardo da Vinci” or as “Leonardo”, never “da Vinci”. The name translates to “Leonardo of Vinci” – “da Vinci” isn't a surname, as in more recent times it would be. This is true of some (though not all) other historical figures with “da”, “di”, “della” etc. in their names. (It does vary on a case-by-case basis: Piero della Francesca and Piero di Cosimo follow the rule; Andrea del Verrocchio doesn't.) Ham 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * oops. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing it back! :) Ham 14:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD
Hiya, Red Pen. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Debi Gliori
Thanks. Given the deletions you made to the Reception section of Debi Gliori, I would agree with WP:UNDUE. However, please also see the "Undue" sub-section in this ongoing AN/I. It's a very messy and bitter business. Regards, Eric:  Esowteric + Talk  07:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the controversy section per WP:UNDUE and added bulleted list to Media reception without comment. People are going to get the wrong idea about the unsubstantiated allegations of IP theft, however.  Esowteric + Talk  08:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

india-forums.com
At a recent WP:RSN discussion you indicated you support blacklisting of india-forums.com. I've therefore submitted such a proposal at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, so feel free to comment there. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Des Jarlais
I'm going to suggest that the template of "activepol" be reworded. Adding activepol=yes adds the article to Category:Active politicians, which says


 * "Active" means that the politician is in the media's eye enough for there to be an increased risk of vandalism or more sophisticated pro- and anti- PR edits to the attached article.

That's clearly still appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

New user help
Most authors use Medical tourism as a blanket term where the fundamental elements are the healthcare and traveling abroad. Carrera & Bridges (2006) adopt "the organized travel outside one’s local environment for the maintenance, enhancementor restoration of an individual’s wellbeing in mind and body" while Others like Reisman (2010) prefer "global medical care" instead of Medical Tourism. Khadkhall (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * as a note, "it is important to note" is non-encyclopedic phrasing and should be avoided. Such claims should be either specifically attributed in a direct quote (ie "Prof. John Doe of University X states that 'It is important to note ...' " (source)) or if it is a widely held position, the content should just be stated and then sourced (ie "The phrase does not have a specific widely agreed upon definition.(source)(source)) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Khadkhall (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * what about this?
 * I will read more about "neutral point of view" before changing anything. The major problem here the MT is a quite new topic and there is not enough papers (I could find only around 100) and authors do not seem to have a consensus on how to define or name the phenomenon. Only the medical tourism agencies which are actually tourism agencies for certain conveniences consistently call it like that. Thank you by the way for taking the time to offer help.Khadkhall (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Eagle eye
I suppose we stick with WP:DABNAME's "the spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page" - all but two of the items are "Eagle Eye", both words capitalised with no hyphen. --McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama campaign article
I did make the case on the talk page before you reverted. Please self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Over 30,000 news hits. Self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not evidence of any import, only evidence of a slow newsday. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
My friend, I can edit the section if you feel that sentence is debatable, but otherwise the content has credible sources. Advise! Another question, are you the author of John D Rockefeller's page?Rockthemind (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Grant Shapps
Hi, just to explain that my removal of the 'undue' tag was inadvertent; I had not spotted an edit conflict and was intending to remove the Judaism vandalism. Sorry! TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * oops, that is obvious now that I look at it. sorry about not assuming good faith. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wondering...
Hi, I see you have posted on User:MaybeMaybeMaybe's talk page about that user's tendency to overcategorize things. I am having this issue with that user on the horse and donkey breed articles where s/he is adding nation of origin categories to every single article, sometimes incorrectly, and sometimes with dubious reason to do so (only one article in the category, for example). This could wind up affecting about 400 articles. Other than the errors, the biggest problems are WP:SMALLCAT and a few cases of non-notable intersection (Originating roughly within a particular modern nation is often a pure coincidence, particularly if the breed is hundreds of years old) I am asking the user to not do this and getting no response other than more of the same. Wondering if you have any advice or suggestions? Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict
I was in the middle of editing the Tennessee election article, and you screwed up my edit. Let me put all the information in, then you can fix it. Please! Bearian (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your numbers were incomplete, and I just wanted to put in some contextual analysis, OK? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Message

The edits you changes were not un sourced and no different to those descriptions on many politicians and political campaigners pages about individuals their birth places etc all dont have to have a source link to confirm it unless their is conflict over their validity of claim ie not born where it is stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.98.198 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BlackLight Power
You seem needlessly hostile. I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the notion of pseudoscience given your comments on the BLP talk page. If you don't wish to discuss it there, perhaps you are willing to do so here? I'll copy the thread remnant for convenience:
 * what hogwash. pseudoscience is psuedoscience and BLP is pseudoscience and this whole section is violation of copyright and WP:TPG. not use this page as a chatforum - What specifically from what sources about BLP do you wish to add? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could expand on "pseudoscience is psuedoscience" and explain what exactly pseudoscience is in your mind? 110.32.79.50 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

110.32.79.50 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No I will not continue to waste my time on blathering discussions that have no hope of ending in a way that will be improving the encyclopedia. Go away unless you have valid reliable third party sources about the subject of the article you wish to discuss. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather thought that correcting your misunderstanding would be of great benefit to WP. If you don't want to chat about it, perhaps you would consider reading this.. 110.32.79.50 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

new licensed demi pic
finally found a licensed picture of demi that can be used on her wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato#NEW_PICTURE_WITH_LICENSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.72.89 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Bunker Roy
Thanks for your comments on Bunker Roy. If you check the section on criticism, you will find that I have cross-referenced the material to show how Bunker Roy is misleading the public. Wiredbee (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Barefoot College
Dear RPOD: This article is meticulously cited. You have no business to override my edits.Wiredbee (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
morelM William  08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine post on Barefoot College
Dear RPOD: Please refrain from using the Time Magazine post on Barefoot College. Did Time verify that Barefoot College has trained 3 million people to become professionals? The author of the post "Greg Mortenson" has dubious credentials as he himself is caught in a controversy. Check his Wikipedia page to know more.Wiredbee (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Kent Whealy
I've reverted you and the other editor. If Whealy isn't notable, the way to handle this is through AfD. There's been no discussion on the talk page, no response to my response at BLPN. I checked the sources and I don't see the problem, although I did a rewrite after seeing the BLPN complaint. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're at 3RR, and it's not clear you can claim a BLP exemption. Why aren't you discussing this at BLPN where the original complaint was made, stating what sources you don't see as reliable. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Subhasree Ganguly
Thanks for the revert. I saw it but did not revert because of 3RR rule. See User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. 3RR is sometimes bondage for us. They have uploaded the same image thrice today! I reported it in BLPN yesterday when I felt it was going to be an edit warring. I am waiting for a reply in that BLPN thread! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Too to do these at this moment. Currently I am dealing with an open SPI, a request for admin, at least 3 more BLPN issues, 5 more other conflicts and a much serious issue where page protection, ANI, admin intervention, direct request for help from multiple admins, edit notice everything has been tried and nothing worked (if you want I can give details about this issue, but it is a difficult one, even admins felt it is not wasy to handle, I also don't know what to do with this, he he, but here I am seriously looking for help! ). Thanks for your suggestion! An admin is already there! Hope he will do something, else I'll follow your suggestions soon! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction tied→tired, shown in  -Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It is four times per upload log. You can see the BLPN thread too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They have uploaded the same image in Commons, Commons:File:Subhashree.jpg I have reported copyvio. But, in the permission they have written "Check this page for permission. Seeing the number of likes in this page, I feel that might be an official page, stil, 1) There is not any clear information on permission 2) They have not followed procedure, the permission should be sent to Wikimedia. 3) The image has watermark 4) There is no way to understand that he is owner/moderator of the page and owns copyright of the page. He might be just a member too! We can ask him these questions if he owns copyright of that image, if subject herself is linked to their org/page.. only if he is ready to talk (so far he has not talked).. The image should be deleted for good for now!

PS. After clicking on the preview button I can see the image been deleted! Very quick, I must say! --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Qwest Choice TV channels
Saw you seconded my PROD. Article is now listed at AFD at Articles for deletion/List of Qwest Choice TV channels. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk back
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi, TRPOD. In theory, I agree 100% with what you said here. In this instance, I don't believe anyone has crossed a line. It has been a spirited discussion, a bit wide-ranging but always relating directly enough to what should or shouldn't go in the article. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on talk page procedure. Your substantive thoughts regarding the article would be nice. Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Allen West
Please review the AP article in the NY Times linked to the URL I posted. I would appreciate your reverting your reverts to my edit, as what you've reverted to is obsolete, therefore no longer factual, given the rapidly moving evolution of the situation. Please reword anything I've written to something with which you are more comfortable, as long as your edits are current and objective. Let's avoid an edit war. Thank you very much. Activist (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the URL for the original Palm Beach Post article, that has the count of the widened margin. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/recount-resumes-as-noon-deadline-looms/nS9Dh/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Saveeta
Hi, TRPOD!

There is no mention of the RCC in the body of the article. Abortion in the ROI is the relevant cat, under which the article is already listed. Abortion in the Catholic church is not. There is, as you have said already, no actual sources indicating any involvement with the Catholic church whatsoever. Thanks for your hard work. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that "The Catholic Church" is not specifically mentioned in the article at this time, however, it seems a ludicrous leap to claim that the "its a Catholic country" is NOT a direct reference to the Catholic Church and Abortion. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Find a source that demonstrates the Catholic church is involved in this specific case if you want it to be added to the Category. Every other article in that category does. Just because it happened in Ireland doesn't make the Catholic church responsible. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit, you have found a source. Thank you. The statement by the Catholic church that the Catholic church does permit abortion because of the life of the mother qualifies. I've removed the POV edit of the journalists you quoted earlier. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tanya Shafi
Many thanks for the prompt action and welcome message. Should I go ahead and mark the TS section in the BLP noticeboard as resolved? Sorry I am such a newb! Dephelis (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Halappanavar
Can you explain why we should treat something as opinion that reliable news sources treat as fact? The source clearly states that "a miscarrying woman suffering from blood poisoning was refused a quick termination of her pregnancy and died." As you may be unaware of the editing restrictions on abortion-related articles, I'll also link you to those now so you are able to avoid editing in a way that will draw sanction: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion (there's also a 1RR that holds over from earlier community-imposed sanctions) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bunker Roy
WP:AGF. Don't assume I am anti-Bunker Roy or part of a "squad". Assume I am pro-Wikipedia project. Don't seek "additional eyes" to circumvent your 3RR limit (additional eye edits are counted with yours). Don't assume I am Wiredbee, Northerncreek or Rebecca Qari till you confirm it through a CheckUser / SPI. BlackMansBurden (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you persist with your disruptive editing, this matter will reach a dispute forum. To do that I am once again politely requesting you to discuss and clarify your unexplained reverts on the Barefoot College talk page. BlackMansBurden (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a section on Bunker Roy's exceptional claims about Barefoot College in the article's talk page. BlackMansBurden (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

images
hey, please dont ignore me :( check the last section here please, no one replied to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato THANK YOU SO MUCH<333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.207.189 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * i do not deal with adding images. i dont know technically how and I dont care to. I only deal with removal of copyright images. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

notice me :/
hey, please dont ignore me :( check the last section here please, no one replied to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Lovato THANK YOU SO MUCH<333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.185.207.189 (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

SHIATS
I have checked the wikipages of several universities, atleast we can mention about central libraries and health care facilities. Why is it bothering you? And if the alumni don't have wikipage, it doesn't mean they are not notable person. Check their citation, they are all renowned scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHIATS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.104.178 (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edit
Please explain your rational for this edit. The claim in the previous sentence claims that these events had an effect on the election. The Atlantic article talks expressly about those incidents and that it does not appear to have had an effect. Or is only information which puts forth the meme being driven by the article acceptable? Arzel (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
morelM William  07:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot College / 3RR
On reviewing the edit logs for this article, I see that you are in breach of WP:3RR. Your reverts over-riding my edits on 21.Nov.2012 occurred 4 times starting at (1) 04:04, (2) 04:07, (3) 04:11, and (4) 04:21 within the space of 1 hour. That despite my specific request at 04:15 (contained in my edit summary) to discuss your self evident vandalism on the page talk, you did not respond, but proceeded to revert for the 4th time at 04:21 without any content discussion whatsoever. This is just for your information and future reference. I again remind you that if you have any WP:COI on this article or Bunker Roy disclose it and/or cease editing such pages. BlackMansBurden (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ganguly
Can you have a look at this: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard? In article's talk page I have created a section! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

IP. 212.7.192.143
IP 212.7.192.143 has recently made some suspicious edits on 2 pages you have recently edited. BlackMansBurden (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason
Please, suggest me what is superfluous in the article instead of tagging "clean up" notice. I've added information after reading lots of university article, & SHIATS is one of the oldest premier institute in India, and funded by government of India. It really don't need any advertisement but the detailed information of the institute is worth mentioning here. Thanks! Shiats editor (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot College's claim on training > 3 million people
TRPOD: Please provide additional sources for including the text "Barefoot College whose programs have trained more than 3 million people". You cannot refer to just one source "Time magazine" and put this number. 3 million is a huge number. Considering that Barefoot College was started in 1972, it will mean that the college has trained 75,000 people per year. Please note that the source should be credible, not just some newspaper article which is quoting what Barefoot College told the newspaper. If you cannot find a credible source, please remove this number. Wiredbee (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Time is an exceptional source. Take it to the Reliable source notice board if you have an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your recent "tone" implies you suspect me to be "Wiredbee" (the pages we edit are very similar). If so please request a checkuser and lets get this issue out of the way. BlackMansBurden (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BlackMansBurden (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Link
It's fine. But I've checked the wiki pages of other universities, External Links section have many links. I think adding an official link of the universities distance education will be useful for many students, enrolled in these programs. There are hundreds of study centre in every city. SHIATS is the only Distance Education university in the state of Uttar Pradesh. So, please be kind. Thanks! http://www.aaidudec.org 117.205.103.114 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Barefoot College and Bunker Roy
TRPOD: Please know that I'm not BMB. I have referred to Wikipedia as a reader until recently. I'm using your talk page to express disappointment with manner in which you've resolved your disagreement with BMB. You've asserted that the Time magazine claim about Barefoot College training 3 million villagers to be doctors, architects, solar engineers etc. is credible. Even though the Barefoot College website says that they have trained some 6,525 villagers to be doctors, architects, solar engineers etc. You have disregarded the 4 URLs - 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVuI4A1ka6U : 2. http://www.80hommes.com/80portraits/AboutBC.pdf : 3. http://bfi-internal.org/pdfs/Finalist_BarefootCollege_Application.pdf : 4. http://www.educationworldonline.net/index.php/page-article-choice-more-id-3033 - that I listed to show how Bunker Roy lies in front of the entire world in order to support his ambitions. You're now glorifying the Wikipedia page of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. My edits on the Wikipedia page currently refer to cross-referenced pages on the Internet. But in a short while, I will publish damning evidence of the misrepresentation of Bunker Roy. You will never be able to challenge the damning evidence for sure. Wiredbee (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will continue to disregard non reliable sources. Now go away.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT This is probably the best written article of any university. Marked + Check the external link. If MIT can mention 4 external links, one of the link is of MIT sport. Why can't we add the official website of Distance Education at SHIATS. http://www.aaidudec.org If not, then i need to ask it from wiki Admin. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.103.114 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If the reason mentioned, MIT sport link is there in external links isn't enough? And the website i want to add is official belongs to SHIATS Directorate of Distance education, you can check it here: http://www.shiats.edu.in/directorate.asp Then pls allow me to add or add it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.103.114 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC) That's i want to say, the other link is completely different, its for distance education? do you know what does it mean? I just read the guidelines of Wikipedia, i'm completely agree with you, I've removed few more shit from the article created by (USER: Danauj). Please warn him, he is mentioning the word chancellor again and again, but our first chancellor is elected only after 2000, when SHIATS became a university. And it's name was changed just 2 years ago, so i think in the wiki pages of principal and renowned scientists associated with the university, we should use Allahabad Agricultural Institute instead of SHIATS. Most of the alumni of the university don't really know what is THIS SHIATS. Do you AGREE? Please respond soon! Thanks!Neurofreak 12:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed my own content, because i agreed what you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just added citations from a reliable sources, delete whatever you think is advertisement, just don't add that ugly tag on the article. Thanks! Check the links dude! They are from ICAR for claiming to be first institute. Other sources of books are from google books, and oxford journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

AAI is the first institute in India, check and read the referenced pdf, of ICAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is looking quite neutral now. Most of the achievements of the institute are removed. Happpy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Required immediate cleanup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantnagar_University ... Campus Heading(LMAO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.96.37 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

English Standard Version
Do not know if you care about these and do not blame you if you do not. Basileias (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Petroleum_and_Energy_Studies Seems like an advert. lolNeurofreak 19:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs)

Should be speedy deleted
Nil references.. Amity University is considered as the most controversial university in India, recognition is doubtful, Rank #1 in Adversitising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Law_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_School_of_Engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_Institute_of_Biotechnology Neurofreak 20:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs)

PLEASE Cite this for infobox of SHIATS
http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/ecreportdu/aaidu.pdf It's an inspection report from UGC expert committee. Campus Area, Afflitions and many other facts are covered. Reply!Neurofreak 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs) What source can we use for citing campus area and its affiliations? These things are not covered in news or anywhere else? --Neurofreak 21:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Co-ordinates Help
I don't knw how to add coordinate on Wikipedia. Can you add them on SHIATS page? Here's the map: http://goo.gl/maps/AFXam Thanks! -- Neurofreak 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurofreak (talk • contribs)

WP:ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Northerncreek (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANEW notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nbauman (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Clash
I have trimmed the allegation some, and summarized some of the back and forth. The only thing outright cut was Clash's original "Its over put it behind" statement, as that appears to be completley irrelevant now? (But as it does cut some of his denial, I see argument for why it should remain). I am open to further summariation, but do think that the core facts of the allegations and rconsequences do need to be discusssed in the article. Let me know what you think. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
morelM William  06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Marshall Davis
Noticed you removed my edits to the article adding the assertion that Davis was a card-carrying member of the American Communist Party. Why would you consider the book, "THE COMMUNIST: FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS: THE UNTOLD STORY OF BARACK OBAMA'S MENTOR" to not objectionable? The author is a PHD and a college professor and the book is heavily documented? The book is also sold on Amazon and not just some "fringe site." SimonATL (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Conan clean-up
Thanks for providing a third opinion on the reliable sources at Conan chronologies. The dust appears to have settled and the more fringe ideas have been removed. I was going to proceed with clean-up of the summary table, removing the unreliable / original research from there, and also removing some of the fan theories from the external links. But I wanted an opinion from someone who understands reliable sources first, let alone someone who has a few minutes to do a bit of clean-up themselves.

Would you mind taking one more look at the article, and taking a shot at some clean-up? Or if not, let me know if I'm missing some policy or guideline and if I should just leave it be.

Thanks in advance. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the words of advice. Not sure if you're still paying attention to this thread. But if you are, would you mind pitching in even 5 minutes (or less) of help on the clean-up? The issue I've ran into in dealing with this article is WP:OWNERSHIP. But I don't think the answer to the WP:OWNERSHIP of others is to insert my own WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't mind doing the bulk of the clean-up, but even a small helping hand would go a long way to maintaining a spirit of collaboration and diffusing any power struggle. Jump in or let me know, whenever you can. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

David Brodbeck
I noticed you put David Brodbeck up for deletion and that it was turned down. I totally agree with you that it should be deleted. In fact, I consulted an administrator about it just a few hours ago. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Santhosh Pandit
Who are to you warn me !!! You don't know anything and come and do edits as per your personal views. The term 'Alien star' is used by all the local media. So, be in your limits, you are not an Admin here. Anish Viswa  06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Spam warning
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Suleiman the Magnificent. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [[Category:Edits. Why do you keep deleting my updates regarding Mr. Hammond's profile page?  I've followed the rules.  The accusations against Mr. Hammond were and are a big part of his career and is a true event and I've added a source link.  This is why Mr. Hammond left the University and why he was punished.  While I can't add source material to prove that's why he left and was punished, I've deleted that part of my statement.  What I've stated is true and I've provided legitmate source material to support the statement.  Let it stand.]] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont worry and take care...Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury

 * —  J J J   ( say hello ) 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Massimo Firpo
Thanks for letting me know. I have a feeling that this disruptive editor is going to be pretty persistent with the sockpuppets. However, the quicker each one is blocked, and the quicker each edit is reverted, the more likely it is that he will eventually give up. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said: Please read WP:MOSDAB
WP:MOSDAB

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page.

If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, do one of the following:
 * Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.
 * Start a new article for the red link, using the description on the disambiguation page.
 * Make a redirect to a page where the item is described (see Piping and redirects above).

In the following (made-up) example, the architectural motif is judged to be appropriate for a future article, but the noodle is not; therefore, only the entry for the architectural motif includes a red link (and this assumes that the fictitious "flibbygibby" entries are described in their respective linked articles):


 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=70%


 * Flibbygibby may refer to:
 * Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices
 * Flibbygibby, a type of noodle
 * }
 * }

Highlight: link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information.

Please revert your edit. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB Nowwhere in the target article does it state or imply that it is a science, or that it is a pseudo-science. Your addition does not aid the disambiguation. Further, it is WP:OR. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."
 * "Dab pages are not articles".


 * I see you have not yet reverted your edit. Is there any reason why I should not revert it?
 * I am awaiting your action, or your explanation for your inaction. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As you have provided no reasons why I should not revert your edit, I assume you agree that it should be reverted. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hogwash
Hi Red. Did you mean to indent your recent reply in the Koch Bros discussion under my post or under Mangoe's? If you were replying to Mangoe, I think you want to outdent it one notch (so it's level with mine) and maybe skip a line. Thanks. Joja lozzo  20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help
I am sorry but I have no connections to anyone here like someone wrote "Findblogging". I only expressed my opinion. Why I have to be blamed to be someone else. By the way the computer that I use is a public place and there is high possibility that many other people used it to open accounts within Wikipedia. Please solve this problem and help me.

Is it possible to stop this unusual situation to be blocked just because I use public computer? Can you help me?

Thanks in advance.

MaintiredTurkiye (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But if you check the citation Turkey was not under the category Europe, that is why I remove it.

Is there way out of my situation to be blocked just because I use public computer? MaintiredTurkiye (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Far Cry 3
—  J J J   ( say hello ) 23:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chess.com


The article Chess.com has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * All content is clearly promoting Chess.com. This article does not mention why the subject is significant. This article is all about its membership, forums etc. This article does not cite any reliable sources. Delete per WP:ORG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Forgot to put name (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson
I still have the article watchlisted after the last time it came up at BLP. RE the DoB source, I would disagree with your comment that its not accurately cited. It does appear to be 'accurate' in that a google book search does show there is a book by that name, and there is an entry for Attkisson on that page. I make no comment on its reliability as a source however. That its inaccessible doesnt make it less accurate. I would AGF that the source is correct on this one absent anything/one saying stuff to the contrary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While we can Assume Good Faith in the editors intent; for BLP I do not think that we are obligated to assume that any "source" or claim of a source is of good quality. But I thank you for doing the research and providing the source details and have made a request to have the content re-added with a full citation so that others can verify the content as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

please restore my edit to the sharyl attkisson article. here is the full legitimate reliable source which you requested: Gill, Kay Who, a Directory of Prominent People (2006) p. 31. the page is protected now for some reason so i cannot edit it, thank you very much. Coubelle (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Brenner Prestige Tax Issue
The tax issue is relevant. Andrew touts his experience as CEO of the business. His fiscal irresponsibility should be highlighted in the leadership role he claims. To leave it out allows him all the benefit of claiming leadership without any of the responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.21.173 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * since the source says none of this, to include it would be for WP:OR to establish a violation of WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article states that he has it listed on his resume: "His position with the company is listed on both his official House biography and his campaign website." It is clearly part of his political claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.21.173 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur T. Mosher
The DYK Project (Nominate) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
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.


 * Frank Marshall Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Henry Wallace


 * Tooter Turtle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Replacements

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hammond
Why do you keep deleting my updates regarding Mr. Hammond's profile page? I've followed the rules. The accusations against Mr. Hammond were and are a big part of his career and is a true event and I've added a source link. This is why Mr. Hammond left the University and why he was punished. While I can't add source material to prove that's why he left and was punished, I've deleted that part of my statement. What I've stated is true and I've provided legitmate source material to support the statement. Let it stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walledro (talk • contribs)
 * I have placed a link on your talk page to the discussion at Hammond's page explaining why your content is NOT appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Simmer, simmer now yawl" /authentic southern accent. It's already reported to edit warring.  a13ean (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"get out of here now" is not a discussion as to why the edit was deleted once I addressed the original issue. I will restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walledro (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me
This is not you, I have seen you around and figure you are a good editor. We do all get pissed at times I know, but I would hate to think you logged out to revert, even though you would have been correct to keep reverting the moron. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not RedPen--in fact, Drmies does, for one, know who I am--but I was adamant in supporting their position, and yes, I was pissed off to see an account continuing a disruptive agenda. And though I won't pretend to speak for RedPen, given the distinct and strong tone of my comments, the suggestion that we were both the same user travels into unwarranted territory. I've already responded to the 3rr warning at my talk page, and am uncomfortable, Darkness, with the implication here. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom vote link
Arbcom vote here Cause I cannot ever find the damn thing -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Mayanism
Can you please explain why Semir Osmanagic's own publication cannot be used to identify him as a participant in Mayanism? If you know the work, it's fairly obvious. Thanks. Hoopes (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian Cuisine
Sorry, but I don't talk with anonymous wikipedians. Have a user page, like normal wikipedians! Lele giannoni (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Challenging facts
Are you seriously challenging every single unsourced fact in the Geoff Fox article? Samer (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note this part of WP:VER (emphases mine):

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material on these grounds, make it clear that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself."
 * Things like his biography and AMS certification are not really controversial, and there is no good reason to remove such information without giving editors some time to add citations with a citations needed tag. I have no problem with removing poorly sourced controversial/unverifiable information immediately, but much of what you removed is verifiable. Samer (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just remind you that WP:OWN still applies. Samer (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: MfD
I'm aware that it's a user page, non-article sort of deal, with some history behind it. I emphasized potential article space too much in my post, and that's where my rhetoric became abstract. Thanks for pointing that out; I posted another response on that MfD. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Confused
I'm am confused about the last message you left on my talk, could you explain it to me, I am very confused. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Improve Proff Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi
Pls improve Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Thankx --118.103.231.3 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dont edit it Behen Chod Dalley
Dont edit these official articles Bhosrri waaley  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.174.210 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for Pilsen Wellness Center article
Thank you for your advice on the use of the Illinois audit in my edit for the article Pilsen Wellness Center. I found a media report that discussed the 2008 audit. Could you please go back to RSN and comment on it? It's the Fox News link, thank you! Kausticgirl (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Justice007 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Justice007 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Improve nice page of Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi by ading following links :)
Prof.Dr.Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is reliable called Father Of Pakistani Children Literature.Prof Hamidi is avery noted and hard working teacher and children writer also.The Wikipedia Encyclopedia compiled a great,awasome research thesis on Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi first time,ascension high most rating w.r.to content,writing and all possible reliable references.It is a great effort of wiki team(Editors).Thanks edi, thanks Wiki! Hi! Plz further improve it....plz... cheers :)

Thanks ! --118.103.226.53 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jfjIC4wmECsJ:www.funnyarabicjokes.easteuroland.com/showweb-163.dhtml+Prof.Mujeeb+Zafar+Anwar+Hameedi+is+father+of+children+Literature&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:n_uHpN6d9UsJ:urdunews.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/urdu-newspapers-kashmir-news-kashmir-observer-urdu-news-papers-links/+Prof.Mujeeb+Zafar+Anwar+Hameedi+is+father+of+children+Literature&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ok2_NZ9Vo7YJ:www.hamariweb.com/articles/article.aspx%3Fid%3D25698+famous+personalities+hamariweb&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk
 * These are just links, but not reliable sources - "funnyarabicjokes.com" for example is obviously not a reliable source. wordpress is a blog we can use them to talk about the blog owner on the blog owner's page, but even if it were Hameedi's blog, it would be a source closely related to the subject of the article and therefore count for zero weight in establishing notability, or the criteria needed for a stand alone article. the last site cites [[WP:CIRCULAR|Wikipedia as its source making it unsuitable for use. see WP:42 --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲 ‍ 水  08:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com ELN
Hi, Red Pen. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: External links/Noticeboard. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)