User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 5

Sharmila Tagore
Hi, You've reverted the edit about the background of the actress, Sharmila Tagore. So i gave a reference, but you've labelled it with WP:COATRACK. We in India know the background of some of the actors, so out of our knowledge it was mentioned in the article. After it was removed saying it as unsourced, i gave it a reference of it in a leading newspaper. It is difficult to find content in the media on India related topics. We're working hard on India related topics, pls understand from our perspective. Thanks Randhir (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK
So you will teach me what WP:PEACOCK is? Well, thanks. That's what the article does? Saying that a film is successful is NOT a peacock. It's merely a fact when it's properly sourced. And your reason was not WP:PEACOCK, but apparently the use of IMDb, which you cited as being used for all the claims. Do not change articles drastically before you reach consensus on the talk page. And the quotes you cite are not at all relevant in this case. Nobody discusses Juhi Chawla's fame or greatness. It's all about the films. What's wrong about saying that film X was successful as long as it is sourced properly?!

You seemingly fight against POV, while clearly it's just a pretentious act to make yourself look as such. My advice, be a good editor, which you definitely are, without trying to go overboard. Oh, and read WP:BOLD. Instead of "cleaning up" articles and removing different things which are not sourced, try to source it, try to improve. I think you have noticed that everytime you added any tag, I took it in good faith and added sources. I expect you to be a part of the improvement. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  09:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IMDb is used only ONCE. I know IMDB is not reliable. But you removed all of them throughout, even when supported by reliable sources. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you removed them THROUGHOUT, not only in the IMDb part. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You give me time? LOL!! That was a good one I must say. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me?
Can you help me, TheRedPenOfDoom? I need your help to delete an article, with a non-containing information. The article is Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging. It only contains. Thank you, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, My mistake.
Oh, I'm sorry for disturbing you. I really didn't knew about that. Regards, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 11:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail Vandalism
Sorry to trouble you but an anonymous user is making unconstructive edits to the Daily Mail article again. I cannot revert it as I would breach the Three-Revert-Rule. I have warned them but they are persisting in making alterations. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC) PS. Is there any way I can report it to administrators as it is a University account address. I am unsure of how to report them Christian1985 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1776 - deleted external link
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page 1776 (musical) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Dear Red Pen,

I hope this gets to you as I'm not entirely sure how to respond. I am confused as to the reason why you deleted the external link for the musical 1776. The link is highly informative, even more so than the link for ibdb. If links for pages to sites such as ibdb, imdb and StageAgent are ok, then this one is ok as well. In fact, the rGreenRoom pages offer even more detailed information on a single page than any of the other sites. And it should be noted that the other sites are linked extensively throughout Wikipedia without incident. The link was clearly not spam or for promotion, in the same way that ibdb is not. The website is a free and open public site just like the others that I have mentioned. The link does offer additional information on the musical including character descriptions which are highly informative and constructive, a production history section for productions around the world (although there are not any listed yet for this musical) and a forum for further discussion of the musical by others. Please explain why you deleted the link because the reasons you gave in your above note clearly do not apply. If you have no other reason than your personal opinion, I have to ask you to please reinstate the link.

Thank you - Mlitsonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlitsonata (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

--

"Please read our guidelines on external links. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you for sending me the guidelines. I have read them and they are very informative. I see two points under the "avoid" list might be considered. One, that the linked site has ads, but not necessarily more than others so this is on the fence - after all websites have to survive. I do believe that imdb and StageAgent, which are both linked extensively have the same if not more ads than rGreenRoom.com The other, that I am the owner of the site. But this does not exclude the link, it only requests that I suggest the link on the talk page and leave it up to someone else to include. I can understand that request and will follow the request in the future.

It cannot be denied that the link is informative and constructive and that it adheres to the same standards of other links such as ibdb, imdb and StageAgent. Therefore, I ask that you recognize the merits of the link and how it can be useful to WP users and replace the link. If you do not feel it is suitable, please explain why.

Mlitsonata (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy authors/worlds/series
Can you please do some research before deleting additions that link to non-existent pages. I took you at face value before, but after looking into your edits, a good 1 in 4 of them were completely notable additions to the articles. Thank you. Alan 16 talk  12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any good faith I had in your edits is now almost gone. If you did some reserach you would realise that it was a mistaken internal link and nothing more. Richard Monaco is a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, for the novel Parsival or a Knight's Tale. Alan 16  talk  12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can have your Rodriguez and the Virtual Knight's one. I really don't care enough about them to argue for them. However I will not let you delete a novel which was nominated for a pulizer prize. One of the best known sources for info on Fantasy Fiction. You may want to search for the word "Pulitzer" as it is mentioned but it is not the main point of the page. Again, search for "Pulitzer". and  show some notablility for the author. Also, I would like to know what you think of my removing of the extra info. Regards.  Alan 16   talk  count  09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you, if there was not a consensus amongst reviewers and biographers. I think the obvious thing to do in this case is to follow the evidence, and the evidence points to him being a Pulitzer nominee. Regards. Alan 16   talk  count  13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we can argue about the veracity of the Pulitzer claims, but in engaging in this argument we have both acknowledged its notability, so Richard Monaco clearly deserves his place in the article. Regards. Alan 16   talk  count  23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These people published the statement "Richard Monaco... Pulitzer nominee". The argument that is an urban myth can only be taken so far - and who the hell would start that urban myth? It is mentioned in numerous sources, many reliable. Just because it isn't on the Pulitzer website, does not mean it did not happen. One reliable source does not outweigh 3 or 4. Regards. Alan 16   talk  count  23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
Please do not vandalise articles as you did at List of leaders of micronations. There is no "duplication of content" as you claim. There are 2 totally separate articles with 2 totally separate sets of data, both of which are part of an established larger series of similar articles. Your changes do not reflect consensus. If you wish to change consensus, please discuss on the appropriate talk pages. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * note - TRPoD's changes were in no way vandalism. This is a spurious accusation by the IP. --Ckatz chat spy  16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This IP is also User:Gene Poole, similar to the 124.170.58.xx IP's that have been making the same changes over the last few days. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "spurious" in the accusation. The removal of content from wikipedia without discussion, a sustainable policy-based rationale or demonstrable consensus constitutes vandalism. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IE
Good evening. I left a message to you on User talk:12.130.118.19, as the matter was the most topical there. Feel free to reply there or here (though please not on my own talk page, three relevant locations would make matters too confusing.) --Kiz o r  22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of content
If it was duplicated, then why was the list merged in its entirety into the original article? That would seem to be creating a self-duplication scenario. Orderinchaos 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Orderinchaos 03:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mohanlal
Hi, it seems you are putting zero effort to find sources before deleting the material from the Mohanlal article. Though the burden of providing the sources are onto the editor who adds the material, the editor who removes the material from the article can also try to look for the sources. Also, in a BLP only the unsourced negative information are usually deleted aggressively. Salih ( talk ) 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was okay, I was just wondering that the article would reduced to a stub :) Salih  ( talk ) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra
My mistake. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art controversy
The AFD discussion seems a bit stalled. Would you mind considering the question I put under your "merge" comment. The article could be deleted, or redirected, or merged to a couple of different places, and I'm not sure what you prefer. Thanks – no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Organization XIII
Hi- A number of months ago you tagged the article Organization XIII as in-universe style. I've been working on the article for its GA re-assessment, and was wondering if you could take a look at the article again. Any comments you may have would be appreciated. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Much appreciated. Thanks for the input. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Pressure and Safety Systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pressure and Safety Systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Global Cool
Thank you, as I am new to Wikipedia and I was unaware that editing our own information was not in keeping with the wikipedia protocols. It is just that the information which is being reverted to is out of date and no longer relevant to our campaigns. Hence the changes were initiated by us as no one else was doing so. What do you advise?Bob Stamegna (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pun
Hi, you removed the paragraph
 * Gag names based on puns (such as calling a character who is always almost late Justin Thyme) can be found in many works, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, Piers Anthony's Xanth novels, Uderzo and Goscinny's Asterix albums, and the Carmen Sandiego series of computer games.

with the comment "stop edit warring and WP:PROVEIT". I can't understand that comment. The examples were there precisely to serve as evidence for the assertion "Gag names ... can be found on many works" (clearly we need more than just one example to justify the "many"). The linked-to articles confirm that those works contain many gag names. Since those statements are about published works, the works themselves are definitive references. What other references are needed?. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that
 * all content involving analysis and interpretation must be attributed to a reliable third party source, and not a Wikipedia editor's original research. The fact that any of the authors actually used this form of punning must be shown to have been identified by a third party source with appropriate citation. Does that help clarify my edit summary?
 * Perhaps. According to your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules, an editor who has read Hamlet cannot just write "In Sakespeares's "Hamlet", the main character eventually dies", because that would be original research. He must find some other book that says so. And presumably, just to be on the safe side, he should also also find a third book that says that the second book says that. Sigh. I must have wasted 20-30 hours of my life copy-editing the Pun article to bring it from garbage state to something vaguely resembling an Encyclopedia article. I actually added little material of my own --- mostly cleaned up what was there, and deleted stuff that was clearly inappropriate or redundant.  However, I did try to retain anything that was relevant and of whose correctness I had no reason to doubt. (The note on gag names, in particular, is not mine.)  But I feel quite stupid now.  Perhaps I should stop doing constructive edits and just go about deleting anthing that other people have written which I do not know whether it is true or false, without bothering to check them myself.  Not only is deleting much easier than writing, but is must be more gratifying, too.  It must be fun to watch the reaction of the editors who had their work deleted.  If I manage to be sufficiently rude in my edit remarks, I may even be able to get a few prolific editors to quit WP in disgust.  Who knowns, I may even earn a barn star that way... 8-( All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
It's probably a good idea to leave User talk:173.79.58.33 alone. Reverting the removal of the whois is really just feeding the troll. The whois is very non-specific and mostly useless. If the IP continues to edit in a manner that indicates sockpuppetry, we can handle it from that end. Let's leave the user and talk pages alone. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Need help
Hey, what's up? I got a question. Are you allowed to use Youtube as a source for a singer's vocal range? I'm on the Freddie Mercury page, and some users and I have founds videos on youtube sourcing Freddie Mercury's range (F2-F5 Full voice and up to E6 in falsetto). We know this is accurate (because of the sound samples and we are major Queen fans). There is an ongoing war on the page about this. Could you add your input on the talk page at the article? Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on my talk page. The videos in question are not live performances, but rather a collection of notes he has hit. For example, the videos are a collection of song samples with the name of the song and the note he has note (example: "Hammer To Fall"-C#5). One particular youtube user named "RangeVocal" has his entire channel dedicated to various singers' ranges.

Here's a video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KY8Z69Oowc&feature=related

Here's his page: http://www.youtube.com/user/RangeVocal --Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the heads up!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco tiger attacks
Your reasons are utterly spurious. You have deleted all references to information that was widely reported upon, and considered germane to the investigation. You are not the arbiter of history. Reach consensus before deleting again - there are more users in favour of keeping that information than in favour of deleting. WP:Consensus. 99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Siddique-Lal page
I see that you removed the contents of Siddique-Lal and redirected it to Siddique (director). I wonder how you would give importance to only one of the duo, while both are equally popular and known. Why can't an article on Siddique-Lal exist? Is it against any Wiki policy? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Angus burgers
Good call:. I should have seen that myself. Un sch  ool  01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

CN Real
My edits were reverting vandalism and promotional items, and the article was horribly written. I would have not created the article in the first place, so I've redirected it to a section in the network's article instead because there's no way this block will reach any kind of critical or viewer mass. Thanks for acting.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Corretta Lipp
Mate, I wouldn't delete the best part of a page just because it was mainly unsourced. Do this some more and someone is gonna give you a vandalism warning, which to be honest, no one really wants. Alaphent (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the message on my page regarding this article, I would say that if you can provide some sources either refuting or supporting any of the information that you blanked I would fully support any edits that you made. However, there has been none of this so therefore the information already contained within the article should be left to stand...IMHO..Alaphent (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Alaphent (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising Ally Mcbeal related pages.I'm completely unbiased here; I've never even watched a single episode, but it is obvious that you are blatently vandalising wikipedia. So STOP IT! Before someone with a slower temper than me looks at the recent changes and gets pissed off. Consider this a level 0.5 warning against vandalism. Alaphent (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to help you here, perhaps try this template


 * The aim is to improve an article, not to remove it entirely. Any information is good information. If it is sourced, then that is creditable information and that is what should be on wikipedia. But, I have just spent a while reading into this topic with a bit of googling and tbh if you wanted to improve these articles, all the information you want is pretty much citable on the first page of results. I admit, I know nothing about this topic and you probably know more than I. This means that you should be able to improve these articles with a fair minimum of effort compared to most people. So go for it...As wikipedia says BE BOLD! Alaphent (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misread the above comment. I said "If it is sourced, than that is creditable information and that is what should be on wikepedia". I feel that I need to make my point in clearer terms. If information seems to be unsourced do you not think that it is better to find a source that supports or refutes it and then make an edit based upon that? Edits are generally made with good intent. If you profess to know about this subject matter, then it should be easy work to provide a reference either way. I see neither. Alaphent (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It would actually also seem that you have three accounts, each having a very similar reference to another. One of these has been banned indefinately. I think this is worth mentioning here Alaphent (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Look mate, I've seriously been trying to help. I've just added unreferenced tags to the top of several articles that you have blanked, maybe you should consider starting a discussion on the talk pages of the concerned articles? Alaphent (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)