Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 26 November 2014

This is TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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 Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

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.

Barnstar

Thx 4 d barnstar :D. WIll do my best to make articles nicer to see and read. Ssven2 (talk)

Mammootty

Dude now check the main lead. Every thing mentioned is sourced and all sources are reliable. please check before reverting. myself cleaned unwanted content.now the article looks perfect. Thanks Harirajmohanhrm (talk)‎ 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Edit warring noticeboard notice

WP:ANEW

Rajput

Limited web access at the moment but re , many of those sources are not really reliable. And some of the phrasing is horrific. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in these SPIs

Given the problems you've recently had with UniGuard, et al., you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-senetor and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If you bump into other accounts that you feel are possible sockpuppets of these two, please let me know. KatyCave, whom you reverted, has been reported. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

100k

Good going! – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

i get a book! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Erdogan and Cuba

I know that Erdogan is not a historian, scholar or anything, but I added that paragraph as the source stated scholarly consensus against that hypothesis. That such consensus has had to be taken would suggest that he was not the first person to ever make that hypothesis. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: If there is evidence that we can frame in the article that it was a notable fringe position/held by people that might make an influence, then sure. But we dont need to quote every self-promoter who says something quite obviously looney and discredited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Young_(singer)_(2nd_nomination) and related

Hi; you might want to reconsider adding the album and single to that AfD - it's pretty bad form to add them in the middle of the debate (see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion). They're better off as separate discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been one comment total. If there is not sufficient evidence for the artist then there sure as hell is not going to be for the single or the album. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In which case case they can be speedied under A9. I'm not saying they'll survive, I'm saying it's bad form to bundle things in the middle of a discussion. If people have the AfD on their watchlist they're unlikely to notice the recordings got added, since your edit summary wasn't exactly precise either. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i dont see how ninja speedy-ing hours after an AfD would be "more fair" or "better form" than giving several days notice to improve along with the main article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why "more fair" is in quotes there but hey. I'll comment on the AfD to draw attention to the fact you've added them into the discussion (since you didn't). It's best to keep things as clear as possible, don't you think? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Grave Peril

With fifteen other books in the Dresden files each warranting an article on wikipedia, Grave Peril is notable. Ngebendi (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ngebendi: An editor making the claim that an subject is notable must actually , you know, provide sources that indicate that the subject has been noted. And pointing at other articles that ALSO fail to meet the requirements is not evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability issue has been dealt with some time ago for Cold Days, if I remember correctly. Ngebendi (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That sources may have been found for "cold days" does not in any way impact the fact that ZERO sources have been provided for Grave Peril in 6 months since the article was officially tagged as not having any sources and the SIX YEARS it sat without sources prior to that time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude you need to actually read the policies. "Being part of a series " is NOT given as a criteria in any of the pages discussing our notability policy see WP:N particularly WP:NOTINHERITED and the "notability for beginners" WP:42. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK... Agreed on the fact that the two of us counterediting each other and getting riled up won't work. You have issues with this page's notability, I have issues with the focus on only one page among however many there are, fifteen or sixteen, some people show.

Let us see if we can get something done on all the Dresden files pages so to keep everything consistent. The plot issue is probably moot, those sections were longer some time ago and shorten by a kind soul. The notability, and links, is the issue we have to deal with. Suggestions on how to go about it? Ngebendi (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of clean up that needs to be done with the series. WP:WAF / WP:N / WP:OR / WP:NOTFANSITE are violated up the kazoo up and down the articles related to the series. But to present the front that no clean up can be done unless all are cleaned up is a non-starter. Clean up has to start some where and Grave Peril is as good as any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Hi Red Pen! I had a question about one of your edits to the page Alex Jones that I did not understand. I saw that you did delete some information in the Charity section, which I didn't mind. However, I did not understand why you deleted what I had written about Tumble being canceled. What happened was I had read about the cancellation on Digital Spy and I and user SolomonMcKenzie added it to the end of the paragraph about Jones presenting Tumble with the Digital Spy source right after it. Then a few hours you reverted and said it was POV. I did not understand and reverted it but you reverted again saying " POV presentations are ONLY justified on your personal blog". I'm curious what that means and why writing "On 14 November 2014, the BBC decided to axe the show after just one series." with the source from DS which is still there at the end of the paragraph is POV? It's a sourced fact about Jones hosting Tumble but the programme being cancelled after one series. In fact there are many articles about the same subject. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a610036/tumble-axed-by-bbc-one-after-one-series-in-difficult-decision.html

I didn't want to revert it yet again but decided to ask you about your reasons for editing before doing anything to that paragraph on Alex Jones' page. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!74.15.186.97 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC) samusek2

I can understand that, but would it be all right to use alternative words to say it better, like "On 14 November, the BBC chose not to renew the programme for a second series.", if you don't like "axed". Just a suggestion, as not to make it sound too harsh. 74.15.186.97 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)samusek2

November 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Retartist (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Neil Francis

Re this edit, shouldn't a citation link actually lead to a source of some kind? What's WP:V without verifiability? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

see my response at Talk:Neil_Francis_(broadcaster)#Suspension. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I did. So that cite provides verifiability for readers who (1) know what an article talk page is, and (2) read the article's talk page when they discover that the citation doesn't point to anything useful. Assuming that the talk page section hasn't been archived. Such a practice would seem to undermine reader trust in Misplaced Pages's principle of verifiability. And we already had sufficient sourcing anyway, we didn't need that source. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS a link in the footnote is merely a convenience. with the paper name, date, article name, and author, (now all in the citation) the cite is a valid one. we do not know when kentonline may change their archiving policy and make the old pages available again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept that the edit follows the letter of a bad policy. Finis. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go against 3O

Please don't go against the 3O on my talk page. As per the 3O by Michael you should not delete referenced info and the quotes aren't promotional and can be included, just that to avoid claims of having too many quotes you must instead convert them to text. Please refer to the 3O by Michael on my talk page and don't go against it. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Course Reference Number

I hate to hassle you, but can you reconsider your proposed deletion? This is a fairly commonly used phrase/concept in higher education. It is used in the vast majority of colleges and universities in the United States, and our readers will likely look it up here. Is there any way you can do some more research before you continue support its deletion? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bearian: Its a classic WP:DICDEF - the only possible thing we can say about it is what the definition is- nothing about it. I am not seeing anything different. Unless you can provide sources that talk about history and evolution, impact, schools of thought, cultural impact, "The Great Course Reference Number Controversy of '08". etc. Merely existing or being common is not sufficient. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User page

Do you insist on living w/o a user page just so that you can be the "Red Pen Of Doom"? Because if you are, there are easier ways. Contact Basemetal here 17:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have existed quite well with no user page for 7 years. I see no reason to have one now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Am I getting this outpouring of support because of an alleged dox? —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I lashed out at you, it was childish and impulsive. I ask your forgiveness, please. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GS/GG/E

Statements at this page should be limited to 500 words. Please adhere to this rule. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Thanks, the process of gathering info and getting it into an appropriately readable form took a while and required several breaks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Joust

Why did you remove my added content from the Joust video game article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widowman88s (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sqrrl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRN. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

~~

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to I (film) Ustad hotel Action Jackson and PK. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.39.47.100.58 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted all the IP's unhelpful reversions. --NeilN 15:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Indians image at stake

WHY FIGHTING. Wolrd will laugh on us. wo bcha hay to tu maan ja Salmankhan2014 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Salmankhan2014: Yes, "the world" will laugh at articles where grammar is thrown out the window and unsourced hyperbole reigns - so why are you restoring the article to that state? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the Presidency University, Kolkata page has been vandalised

Please correct / delete unreferenced comments such as 'Hence all corruptions are tucked away under the cupboard.' The citations are to blogs hosted by specific individuals / interest groups.

Thanks

Many thanks for cleaning up the errors on the Presidency page. A few still remain but I'm not yet confident enough to make the changes on my own.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears"

Although the content you removed is not sourced, that's no justification for your removal of it. That's largely all valid and useful content, and per MINREF, it doesn't even need citations. You're not helping the encyclopedia, and more people will continue to add these pop culture references and more, because they think they're notable or worth mentioning. Because this is such a borderline issue, I'm at least going to paste back the information as invisible text, just so it doesn't get lost and is only accessible by scavenging through the article history.--ɱ (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

It might be worthwhile keeping a local copy of the current article at social justice warrior if it is deleted. It is likely that another version will be created in a few weeks or so with a similar bias to the initial version, so it saves the tiresome process of restructuring whilst the inevitable third deletion attempt takes place. Also I have to say that you've been doing good work at GamerGate the past few months, I can only imagine how exhausting it is dealing with so many SPAs --5.81.52.82 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Hello. Why have you reverted a lot of my edits, which intended to give a pronunciation key more intuitive to most audiences? Wolfdog (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, you've reverted edits of mine that have nothing to do with pronunciation. Please don't just use the buckshot approach; actually read my edits carefully. Wolfdog (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK; no problem. Thanks for checking in. Wolfdog (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Primarily for keeping biographies of living persons free of crap, crud, cruft, and nonsense. Secondarily for trying to keep Gamergate controversy free of crap, crud, cruft, false balance, and other nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Marin Magazine

The would-be owner of Marin Magazine requested proposed deletion of the article because he can't keep it in the promotional form that he wants, with the statement that a banned editor (yourself) has removed information and he (the would-be owner) can't restore it now. (Never mind that any removed information is still in the page history.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think someone else proposed deletion before and the coi editor opposed. but then couldnt keep the article as an advert and is now willing to go with the deletion.

I did a little searching on google books and found a lot of times where people had padded their creds with writing for the mag, but didnt come up with anything about the mag in the first several pages of results. i didnt get to checking the news sources to see if there's anything there, but it seems a likely candidate for deletion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is likely to qualify for AFD as non-notable, but the arguments given by the COI editor are patent nonsense. An alternative approach that was formerly common at the Help Desk is to request that the article be permanently locked in the approved version. I haven't seen that charming request recently. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Draft

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, RedPen, and until then, wouldn't be more sensible that the draft has the appropriate markers? Zakkarum (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: per WP:LEAD if it is sourced in the body, it doesnt necessarily need to be sourced in the lead. I personally think it is a stupid practices for Gamergate since the policy does state that controversial claims should be sourced in the lead and nothing about GG is not controversial. Some people think footnotes are "ugly". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Oh, got it. Thanks! But since you yourself said the policy does state that controversial claims should be sourced in the lead and nothing about GG is not controversial, why it's still only sourced in the body? I couldn't edit the main talk page and I don't see one talk page for the draft, as a lot is under sanction. --Zakkarum (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: someone opened a discussion on the article talk page. Place your statement on your talk page and I will link to it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)::

@TheRedPenOfDoom: You mean this statement about the source of controversial articles being presented also in the lead or that I should just open the talk page? --Zakkarum (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: a statement about why you think the lead should have sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Got it and done. Thank you very much. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Also, if you don't mind me asking, why was the neutrality disputed banner from both the draft and the current article removed? According to WP:NPOVD, it should still be in since it's a controversial topic and it was until some days ago. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zakkarum: Regarding the NPOV tag, it has been removed because per instructions Template:POV it should only be placed on an article when an editor is able to " to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. ". No editor has been able to articulate where and how the article violates NPOV or any specific actions that could be taken to correct any supposed POV violations. The article overall represents the topic as the sources have covered the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: However, the neutrality of the article is disputed and the topic, controversial. It was in the article before. I get that it could fit point 2 of Template:POV, but it's still a controversial topic. To address the point of where the article goes in the NPOV, the point is " While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. " Not to mention the big controversy about half the article and that it's heavily going to one side, in this editor's opinion, of the portrayal of the situation, sources like 49, 50 and 51 claim Felicia Day was harassed where the original comment they use as harassment don't claim affiliation to any movement or group, so it can't be pinpointed to any institution. Some of the "reliable" sources (their primary "primary documents" don't match what they write) are compromised, yet when I changed the articled, the change was undone by an editor who got funded by a third party who is interested in keeping the current version of the article. --Zakkarum (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Zakkarum, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to second guess the conclusions made by the sources it cites. If these four publications all come to the same conclusion that Felicia Day was harassed because of Gamergate, the mere fact that "Gamergate" is not officially mentioned by the person who was performing the harassment is not reason enough to cast doubt. If you disagree with the sources, tagging the statements as not cited when there are multiple citations that support the written information is not how Misplaced Pages works. Go to the article talk page and make an argument on what you want to change and stop edit warring. Read WP:TRUTH and also read WP:BRD. You were bold. You were reverted. Start a discussion on it instead of continuing to revert it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)