| Revision as of 22:10, 13 February 2013 editAstros4477 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers26,472 editsm →February 2013← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:15, 13 February 2013 edit undoGeraldo Perez (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers259,370 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sam & Cat. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
| == February 2013 == | == February 2013 == | ||
| ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-delete4im --> ''Stop removing the intimation. Geraldo has stated that it's ok and I agree. Please do not swear.'' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-delete4im --> ''Stop removing the intimation. Geraldo has stated that it's ok and I agree. Please do not swear.'' <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''You should know better. Take it to the article talk page and make your case there'' ] (]) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:15, 13 February 2013
| This is TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
And there is also This archive
RE:BLP requires reliable third party sources
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WP:ANI notice
Holiday Greetings
Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Re your recent "work" on colostomy
Destruction is easy, replacing unsourced content or content based on 2o sources takes more time, but it is better for the encyclopedia. Lesion (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- How can the content be reinserted? It is lost to the history. Don't pretend you are doing some important task, this is just aimless, destructive vandalism. Lesion (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- issue is not about how long unsourced statements were present. Better to find sources and edit article responsibly than what you have done. Remember the template is "citation needed" not "blanket delete without looking for supporting citation". Lesion (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- How can the content be reinserted? It is lost to the history. Don't pretend you are doing some important task, this is just aimless, destructive vandalism. Lesion (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- you are choosing to ignore parts of policy and then claiming that your own interpretation of policy "trumps" any other argument. Stop destructive vandalism, you create more work for serious editors. Also, I am pretty certain that warnings are given in order (if indeed a warning was justified at all here), instead of skipping straight to a final warning. Another example of your selective interpretation of policy. I think you may be a troll, seeking out conflict as an expression of dissatisfaction with your own unhappy life. Leave wikipedia alone please. Lesion (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- TheRedPenOfDoom has a habit of removing section he/she disagrees with using selective/personal interpretations of 'policies' as an excuse, to the point of disregarding verifiable sources provided. Zzsignup (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- you are choosing to ignore parts of policy and then claiming that your own interpretation of policy "trumps" any other argument. Stop destructive vandalism, you create more work for serious editors. Also, I am pretty certain that warnings are given in order (if indeed a warning was justified at all here), instead of skipping straight to a final warning. Another example of your selective interpretation of policy. I think you may be a troll, seeking out conflict as an expression of dissatisfaction with your own unhappy life. Leave wikipedia alone please. Lesion (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
claims of "controversial" must be attributed
Per your policy link "(labels) are best avoided UNLESS WIDELY USED by reliable sources to describe the subject" (emphasis mine). As Niemti have pointed out, there are MULTIPLE reliable sources describing the video as controversial, and it is rather self-evident (see Misplaced Pages:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue) to anyone who followed the video (have you?). As I have pointed out, the Wiki Kony video article even called the video 'controversial' multiple times without challenge. Why is it so hard for you to accept that factually, it is a controversial video? If you have a problem with how the edit is sourced, then correct the edit or add 'Citation needed' as others have suggested. Simply removing them even when they can easily be verified smacks of unilateral censorship/ownership/disruptive editing.
Regarding the source, did you even read the article or look at the title? The title is "Invisible Children's 'Kony 2012' viral video stirs emotion and controversy". A direct quote from the article "In less than a week, the video has garnered over 26.6 million views, but it's also sparked controversy." How can you claim the article is about Invisible Children the organization and not the video?
Nice straw-man argument. However you clearly knew that the source was about the Kony 2012 video, which IS a section on the Joseph Kony page. If you feel that the video is not relevant to Joseph Kony (I disagree) then the whole section should be removed. If you feel the video is relevant, then the controversies need to be mentioned as they are part of why the video gained notoriety, and balance the section out. As it was, only the positive effects of the video are mentioned and unchallenged, which I don't doubt is intentional. Zzsignup (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Uh, hey
What exactly was wrong with the edit I made on the Orly Taitz page? You didn't give a reason. Does it need a source? I could only find HuffPost news and Taitz own webpage (which I don't think is a reliable source). Maedar (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Maedar
Do not undo actress cat adding
If you do not like actress categories, you are free to nominate them for deletion at categories for deletion. As long as the categories exist, actresses should be added to them. Removing such categories is disruptive and should not be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll second that. Please do not remove articles from categories in which they belong, just because you would prefer that the categories do not exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Film ratings
I'm sure you are aware that Template:film ratings was deleted, which was basically {{video game ratings}} but for films. Adding a substituted version of this template to Lokpal (film) is basically going against the TfD outcome. I trust you won't add it again without starting a discussion at WT:FILM. thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am actually quite sure that I was absolutely UNaware of such a discussion, but that you for sharing the link. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Rape culture
I am correct in that opinion pieces can be used when attributed right? I ask due to this revert of content you had restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the context involved I would think it best not to use op-ed pieces. Op-ed pieces tend to want to get people to act, an article like this one needs to have restraint and focus on the facts. Horrific indicents get momentary overeactions that should not be incorporated into an encyclopedia. If the claims are valid they will find publication in more reliable sources than op-ed pieces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- exactly what "facts" ?
- the horrific incident is, according to all of the commentators that I have heard, not is not bringing "momentary overeactions" - it is opening a space where people are finally talking about things that have long existed and been ignored. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the context involved I would think it best not to use op-ed pieces. Op-ed pieces tend to want to get people to act, an article like this one needs to have restraint and focus on the facts. Horrific indicents get momentary overeactions that should not be incorporated into an encyclopedia. If the claims are valid they will find publication in more reliable sources than op-ed pieces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your kind words on my Username. Are you an Administrator? Do you check if things have sources etc. Much respect - Aucklandisgood (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Thanks for your response. Its good that people are doing that. Appreciate your help, thanks --Aucklandisgood (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Path to deletion
Hi RedPen, I opted for prodding rather than speedy on Alex Gilbert under the assumption that the article is not substantially similar to the entry of 2006, before he was working as a cameraman. Either way, this is deletion-bound. Cheers, 99.136.254.88 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Alex Gilbert
Hey there. I do not think the page 'Alex Gilbert' should be deleted. It needs a chance. I mean Alex Gilbert even has an award win on his IMDB page. Sources for this is online for the film events that won his group this award. Please try and fix and save this Article. Needs a little more information that is all. Thanks --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
-- I agree with that. We have enough sources here, but not worth to deleting at all. Thanks - --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- uhh, of course you agree with that. you said it 4 minutes earlier. but it doesnt change the fact that while there may be skads of links, there are not actually links to third party reliable sources that covers the subject in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing up the page for Alex Gilbert. Is it still not a notable enough article yet? for the Proposed Deletion template to be removed? Thanks --DemandProcessNZ (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
My editing of Mike Milken page
I do not believe Wiki guidelines prohibit me from editing a BLP, even if I am a representative of that individual. In fact, I believe I have followed Wiki guidelines by being completely transparent in noting my bias. I then have posted on the Milken talk page the evidence supporting my suggestions. That said, please address my concern - the fact that there is documented proof that Mike Milken has funded medical research since 1982. This documentation exists not only at www.mff.org, but has been reported by Fortune magazine (^ a b c Daniels, Cora (2004-11-29). "The Man Who Changed Medicine". Fortune. Retrieved 2009-07-28.) Also, please be so good as to review Wiki editing guidelines so that you understand that I do indeed have the right to edit this article. Quoting from Wiki policy: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Misplaced Pages discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.. Indeed, as in this case, Wiki policy states that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." LarryWeisenberg (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in here, but I just followed this conversation regarding this article. While your statements are well thought out, the problem is that the recent edit you made today here removed a factual, properly source material, and that your removal of that information shows particular bias. As something that would certainly be considered a contentious statement "Since his release from prison", you should avoid editing it directly it. Your rights to remove "unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable" but that is not the case here, it is factual and properly sourced. I understand you would like to avoid negative statements about your client, however wikipedia is not the platform for sanitizing an article or whitewashing history. With regards to what you want to edit, please see WP:NPOV, in addition to WP:COI which you have previously been presented with. Tiggerjay (talk)
February 2013
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Sam & Cat, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop removing the intimation. Geraldo has stated that it's ok and I agree. Please do not swear. Astros4477 (Talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Sam & Cat shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. You should know better. Take it to the article talk page and make your case there Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)