User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 7

Referencing
What does referencing have to with an edit of yours which doesn't help the article at all? Your edits to the plot gave a more negative outcome than positive. --TIAYN (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed soon, i'll continue this discussion tomorrow with you. --TIAYN (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray edit correction
[Withdrawn post removed.]

I withdraw that, I have just rechecked the same thing and it makes sense to me now. I have no idea what the problem was.—Ash (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Total post strikes typically don't show in searches. In our mutual best interests, and assuming your consent, I've retitled and removed your withdrawn post. Milo 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kutladampatti Falls
Hello TheRedPenOfDoom, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kutladampatti Falls has been removed. It was removed by Salih with the following edit summary ' (deprod. seems notable, take to afd if you wish.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Salih before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Warning
Please use the talk page if you are making changes that go against the general spirit of Wikipedia. Being aware of NPOV and NOR is not enough. Wikilawyering is not a nice thing. Edit warring is not a nice thing. Blanking entire pages is not what Wikipedia needs.

I think generally you have some kind of willingness to improve, but it shouldn't come at the expense of others' work. Your "cleanup"s have long gone over the top and been exaggerated. If you do something that others oppose to, you MUST discuss it on the talk page to prevent any edit war. Shahid Kapoor is a great example, because the policies you keep throwing do not really support the removal of titles from section headings. We have already discussed this on the talk page of Hrithik Roshan. You had nothing really to add, and now you start again. These titles are used to logically summarise the content of the sections or the first paragraph of the sections. There's no reason to remove the simple word breakthrough. It is supported by many sources through the entire section. Just like we summarise the entire article in the lead, we summarise the section in the heading title with a word or a phrase. That's why career sections are split into many subsections, divided according to the phase and/or the period. If it wasn't necessary to add titles, there would be no reason to split sections at all. It's common sense. I started another discussion on the talk page. Feel free to discuss it, and don't revert before the discussion is ENDED and a decision is taken. Otherwise, I think this time it's better for you to find some noticeboard which will give you a broader number of users' opinions, and then remove them all from the many GAs and FAs which use such titles (I would love to see you fighting for NPOV causes on these pages too, I would really love to see that!).

Also, as I see on the Priyanka Chopra article. Why are you just deleting entire sentences? Can you call them nonsense or illogical descriptions? If they're unsourced, then be BOLD (I'm sure you have not heard of this) and cite sources; if you don't want to (quite exspected, I've never seen you adding even one source - only blanking), then request a source. Why always remove? Not to mention that you left quite a misleading statement that she won awards for Dostana, which is not correct.

I'm yet to check your "cleanup" on Asin, then I'll decide what I think is right to do and whether I should revert you. I'm quite unfamiliar with the subject. It's major blanking, but I don't know what you've done. Other than that, I found it quite funny that you made a cleanup by blanking half the page, and after that still added tags about it being POV and OR.

I hope it was clear. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Subjective opinions presented as declarative statements in articles" - let me surprise you by telling you that I'm against this as well. Sources always must be cited and everything must be neutral. However, a positive commentary does not authmatically become POV. I don't doubt that your motives are good, but if you are going to do things the way you do, I can assure you that I'm going to go out of my way to fight your beahviour. Again, throwing "POV! POV! OR!!!" everywhere makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia, the info should be relevant, objective, neutral, but not completely bland. WP:NPOV says we should present both sides. If someone succeeded in something we should mention it (or better said - describe it). If someone failed we should mention it. This of course needs to be done with sources. But the way you do what you do is at times pathetic and highly disappointing. Please respect other editors' intelligence. Making DRASTIC edits to different articles and then reverting those who disagree with you by just saying "Puffery, POV, OR" is the most classic example of wikilawyering and edit warring. Why wouldn't you visit the Asin talk page?! You see that one editor is offended by your editing and feels disheartened at your way of working, so why wouldn't you go section by section if it's really important to you to adhere to all the possible policies and guidelines and turn this article into a decent one? You can ask me to join you and you'll see how much I want this article to be better.
 * During all this time of our involvement on the same articles, you've witnessed my willingness to collaborate with you. Everytime you questioned something, I was always there to accept your requirements, respect your work, copyedit an article and add sources when needed. You can't deny that can you? You yourself thanked me several times for that.
 * Who said there should be no split subsections for actors' career sections?? When there is a clear necessity/way of breaking a long career section into subsections per periods and phases, it should definitely be done. And if it is done, it is clearly done for a reason, and this very reason is called "summary".
 * Check out my cleanup on the John Abraham article (diff). You'll see that just like you I'm against POV/OR and I'm also against creating unnecessary sub-sections (see that). You're not dealing with a fool. I was the main editor of a well invested BLP FA, which was edited by many editors who went out of they ways to improve it.
 * Many of the things which for some reason you oppose to, constitute the most common aspects of the structure and writing style of many FAs, which are considered the best articles on Wikipedia and were wholeheartedly accepted by the community. Which means you go against consensus. Take a read through Bette Davis or Angelina Jolie, and try to make the same kind of edits on their articles if you dare. I'm not saying the articles you edit can be compared to those I mentioned, but there are very basic aspects that you just invalidate by citing policies like POV and OR. It is much more than just that. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Claims like blockbuster, successful are NEVER POV when they're properly sourced. If a film is cited as "commercially successful" it means a film earned much money at the box office. If the film is cited as "critically acclaimed" then it was appreciated by criticas. That it needs to be sourced goes without saying.
 * Anyway, I said one thing and you replied something completely different. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"his eyes open in a blank stare, dead"
Dear Mr Doom, please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario)
Hello again! I really appreciate your help in reviewing the article David Ferguson (impresario) and commenting on the talk page. I stumbled across this article in June, 2009 and decided it needed some attention. Despite User:DoriSmith's implications about WP:SPA editors, I have nothing to do with that history. She, however, has a long history of negative edits on this article that go back into last year. She refers to anyone who edits the article as "flying SPA monkeys"--which is rather offensive--and will not permit banners to be removed regardless of improvements and resolution of problems. There's a serious problem here with User:DoriSmith's non-NPOV. It appears that some gaming the system is taking place, contrary to Wikipedia's goals.

I wanted you to know that I've rolled the article back to User:Tabletop's last edit of 07-20-09 in order to recover lost text and citations that I'd been researching for improvement of sources to conform to Wikipedia standards. Further details of my edits are contained in my post of 08-10-09 at Talk: David Ferguson (impresario). deb (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

South Park title sequence
While I agree with you that the notability of an article for the title sequence by itself is somewhat lacking, a Prop. Del. is not the way to do it. If anything, AfD should be used as it gives others ample ability to debate the merits of an article or to propose alternatives such as a merger, especially in the case of such an article where significant third-party sourcing outside of a wikia article is not possible. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD is up. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

James Meredith (footballer)
Fair enough, but where does WP:RS state that tabloid newspapers (or "gossip rags") are discounted as reliable sources? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

House of Khater
I've blocked the IP you were edit-warring with at the above article. Please do note, however, that you did violate the three-revert rule yourself there - it was not blatant vandalism. While I agree that his edits weren't helpful, it would have been advisable to look for third-party assistance earlier in the dispute. ~ mazca  talk 22:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror
Is a reliable source and that particular article isn't based on gossip. --Jimbo[online] 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Havic: The Bothering


The article Havic: The Bothering has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable - no third party sourcing

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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should not be deleated because it is about the collectible card game Havic: The Bothering. It was one of the many collectible card games printed during the 1990’s and belongs in the Collectible card game category. The game Havic: The Bothering is notable because it relates to the other collectible card game Magic: The Gathering because of the legal issues raised in the printing of Havic: The Bothering. The article about Havic: The Bothering should not be deleted because it also has third party sourcing listed in the refrence section of the article.Nicholasweed (talk) 16:36, 09 August 2009 (UTC)''

Removed speedy deletion tag: Guzaarish
Hi TheRedPenOfDoom! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Guzaarish- because: the page has not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done
I deleted the revision and emailed oversight to make sure it's really gone. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence
Would you mind looking over this article, and its principle sources, and commenting on the most recent (bottommost) section of talk? Thanks,Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When Animals Attack!
Hi. I don't understand your recnt edits to this article. You added a comma and a period to the end of a sentence, and you removed a see also and a category. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reversions
Hi there,

When reverting unconstructive edits as you did here, you might like to check that editor's other contributions. For example, the same IP had made unconstructive edits to several other pages. It's just an easy way to help keep Wikipedia in good shape.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the message.

See I read per the policy you cited, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

I think it's important to source info that, though considered to be a summary, is not directly mentioned in the text, or info that even if it's directly mentioned and sourced, is somehow controversial. Before I re-added what you had removed, I made a check through the article and everthing that is mentioned in the lead (of what you removed) is mentioned and sourced. Other than that, I don't think that saying a few films are commercially successful is that of a big deal - it's not an exceptional claim. I believe many editors have this page on their watchlist, no reason to have it disappeared. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added much more elaborated messages on the talk page, explaining everything with sources, and I added several sources to the article as well. Anyway, I already told you that I'm gonna fight any kind of injustice, wikilawyering, edit warring from your part. I'm frankly very disappointed at your behaviour and your insistence to go into minute detail just to get your own at the expense of others' work. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you doing this on that particular page if so many particular articles use it? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ram (actor)
You really left "the promising young star has attained glory" in this mess of an article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I could use your help on World domination
I've come across your "red pen" many times, and to be frank I've followed it and looked for ways to improve articles. You've always has a good eye for issues that need to be fixed, both micro and macro. I've recently come across an article called World Domination which I feel is unreferenced, uncited, and wp:or. After an attempt to fix it, I've given up and applied my own "red pen". I'd really appreciate your view on the article. I think its going to get nasty--Work permit (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman salute
I've been struggling with this article for some time. It seems that "the roman salute" is interpreted by some editors as "anyone sticking their hand up". Other editors decided "I went overboard" by tagging statements with "citations". Could you take a look at this article? I hate being "the bad guy", but I recently got fed up and started deleting statements I should have months ago--Work permit (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ajith Kumar
Hi Concerning : I don't think that was a "test edit". First, there's been quite some POV pushing about the origin of the father. From all the sources I've found, I believe Palakkad Iyer is the most precise. There's also a section on this on the talk page, even though only one other editor commented on it. Second, I'm unsure about your changes from "Ajith" to "Kumar" throughout the article, which was undone in the same "test edit". I've a while ago, but was told by another editor that Kumar isn't his last name, but "a generic-sort-of appendage (I'll leave it at that for brevity) to Indian first names that has nothing to do with the family name. It is part of the given name." I know nothing about Indian/Tamil names in general or Ajith Kumar in particular, but from all sources I checked it's true that he is never addressed as "Kumar". Amalthea 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems that you have repeated that change. Do you think the above information is incorrect? Amalthea  07:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oops - I did not realize it was the same article. It does appear that the reliable sources in the article use Ajith and I dont have time to find if any of our policies or guidelines have addressed the usage issue. I dont have time to change it from Kumar to Ajith before heading to work, please feel free to do so. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, did that. If you find it covered by any guideline either way, please let me know, there are a number of other articles where this is a bit unclear. Thanks, Amalthea  14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kollywood !
kindly redirect "Kollywood !" to tamil cinema cuz there r a lot tamil cinema's worldwide apart frm tamilcinema ...... kollywood would be great & now itzz a mess ...... kindly assist how to proceed to retain ..... Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 10:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GreyWolfy
I came here to tell you I apologize and regret what I said to you before, even I know this will not change your mind about me.. Hope you will listen to me, and we will cooperate each other, and mostly you help me and teach me about things I would not understand. Belive me, all what up to now I edited in Gackt article was true, so please understand me. I am doing this for Gackt Camui, even I am not in his official fanbase or in his company but for pleasure, he has done in only 10 years plenty of thigns and would be wrong if the world couldn't knew it, at least few.. I will re-edit whole Gackt article, so I call you for all understanding and time I need to do it this night. Mostly of updates and news aren't going to have "sources" regularly, but two-three sources for whole "text", neverthless you will see and for few time I will bring all "sources" back and put to others what wouldn't had it, if you woudln't agree with me. It is going to be great,no amazing for me, you will see. (Note! >> After my re-editing to not remove what I will post there, just send me a message, or some note on "edit this page" )

I hope you will support me,

GreyWolfy --GreyWolfy (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Pearls Before Swine (comic strip)
Red Pen of Doom, everything you said made little sense. If Pastis said it, then it has to be true. That's just how it works, right? After all, Pastis made the strip. He controls all the rules. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding List of Mudaliars article
I have given many Wikipedia:Sources stating Tiruppur Kumaran is regarded as Martyr by Indians. Its not my POV. Not at all even if you say the the heading Martyr is a POV. Its cited with evidences. The word martyr can be atleast in the description line. Else there is no use of citing references in that article--Sureshmaran (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles having non-notable names and non-reliable sources
There are many non-notable names in Kongu Vellalar and List of Vanniars articles. So there is a need to clean up non-notable names in these articles--Sureshmaran (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Serena van der Woodsen
Hi. Regarding your attempt to redirect this page to that of the series, you do realise that there are several other Gossip Girl character articles with the same issues, right? Only the Blair Waldorf article may be sufficiently sourced and notable. Just wondering why you singled that Serena article out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.84.80 (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim Chambers
Ok, first of all, stop following and spying on me. Second of all, there is no such thing as white ethnicity. Ethnicity refers to someone's ethnic background (for example, if you are an Irish American, your ethnicity is Irish) and not to the race. Norum (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As for "no such thing as American ethnicity", please read the following. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity Kim might have some other ethnicity in her, but because she was born in the USA, she should be considered as ethnically American (plus whatever else she is). Norum (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Prithviraj Sukumaran
Excessive Trimming !!??

I see that the some sections have been trimmed mercilessly by The Red Pen of Doom. Now the article has no facts at all, just blunt statements.

See these two statements,


 * He performed in Stop Violence and Swapnakoodu.


 * Prithviraj performed in Parijatham and in 2007's Mozhi.

What does "Performed" mean here? I didnt quite understand why its used. All actors perform in their films. What is special about using the word performed here?

The trimming of facts have made this an un-imaginitive article, which goes on stating he "performed" in this, acted in that.. etc..

If the significance of those films in his career isnt mentioned, it serves no better than the filmography section.

- Icedaddycool (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

You have removed all films that was marked "To be announced", Well and good..

But The films marked "Announced" have come up in multiple media including magazines, websites and television.

The film ANWAR has been mentioned by Prithviraj himself on his twitter page : http://twitter.com/lionheart_ps

Prithviraj himself confirmed that he has committed to The 19th Step in a recent magazine Interview.

Director Lal Jose mentioned in a recent TV interview that Cousins is his next project of 2010.

and the other films as well have been reported in Various Magazines and websites.

But all these arent the "high quality news sources" as specified by Wikipedia because these are films in a local language and the coverage they get on National news sites is literally nil. Also, most of the time, the reports will be in the Malayalam or Tamil language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedaddycool (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

- Icedaddycool (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the "help" you did for Prithviraj Sukumaran. It would be nice if you showed the same "dedication" to wiki pages of bigger stars like Suresh Gopi and Dileep (actor)

- Icedaddycool (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Iam.Spark55
Re: Fanpage / Official page. I have a hard time believing that anyone is so vain they title their official page heroME. The site also refers to Ram in the third person and so while it claims to be "official page", I am still not convinced.
 * Content should not be deleted just by your belief, you should go by the facts. In case, you dont believe it, prove that it is not an official page.I am not sure if someone has to convince you for every addition in a wiki article. Please make sure that you undo the meaningless deletions you have done immediately.

Re: Sources - Please see our requirements that sources are Reliable - that is that they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The site that you have used appears to be a celebrity gossip site and not to meet our criteria.
 * First of all, the website you are mentioning is not at all a gossip or some kind of website. It is a website maintained by the Telugu Film Industry/Telugu Film Chamber itself. I am sure that you are not at all related or know about this topic or article or telugu film industry.


 * Secondly, what am I supposed to do if I copy some data from a website, shouldn't I keep the reference for that ???? Or do I need to remove the content I have copied to the wiki from that website ???


 * Also, don't ever dream that you are a genius...it will be the joke of the century.

Iam.Spark55 —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC).