Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:02, 15 November 2013

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

Saraswatichandra

You have reverted my edit on the show time of Saraswatichandra. I think this is important. It is important to mention the exact hour when the show is shown. Please explain. Lyanaz (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Lyanaz

SynapseIndia

You have made more than 3 reverts on SynapseIndia page today and also have been posting abusive comments. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Esparami (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is regarding your comment on my talk page.

Hi, Thanks for leaving the message on my talk page. I noticed the mistake in my comment and have updated it. Also, I'm NOT currently associated with the business in anyway, but yes, my reference as "our own page" in my comment was actually a mistake and goes way back when I had been their employee, but quit the job several years ago after having a baby. Since I'm well aware of the business and their notability, last year while reading a few wiki pages, I found that they do have mentions but do not have a page, hence created one. I'm not completely aware of all wiki policies so as the editors are suggesting I'm editing the article to make it inline to the wiki policies. Any comment from your end would be appreciated.Mridu 08:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)

Hi, This is rgearding the Afd discussion of SynapseIndia page -- Indeed the business had only 200 people when this reference was published in economictimes, but have grown since then. Thanks for your comments, I'm working on to make the page more authentic. As agreed by Kimbrubeck, it is a notable company, but probably have not created the reference link properly and I'm working towards making it more inline to WP policies.

Mridu 06:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

datestamping for archiving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jordan Maron

Hello TRPoD! I might feel it is best to remove the view count section on the table. I find all of the edits are just updating the view count and not actually building up a BLP article. It's like having a Wiki-article on some wealthy person and just updating his or her revenue counter and not actually improving the article. ///EuroCarGT 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. I recommend that you revert this edit or else start working immediately to find reliable third party sources that discuss the subject of the article.Marcelrios (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Stealing Mary

I suggest you stop edit-warring over article content, and let the AfD run its course - you are over WP:3RR already by my count. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

removal of copyright material is exempt from 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience...  ;) The argumentative one has been blocked as a sock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

they were obviously not a new editor, but i had suspected a different serial socker. i am glad i kept my suspicions to myself.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Our new friend

This is the Vitamin C nut that caused the 1-month semi-protection on the Sheldrake article. A few weeks ago I filed a previous ANI complaint that was ignored, and there's still no action on Misplaced Pages:Ae#198.189.184.243. Sigh. vzaak (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anisa Moghaddam

I posted at the Help Desk indicating that I planned to move User:Anisa moghaddam to article space and list at AfD. I think there might be enough source material for an article on her and AfD would be a good place to get confirmation one way or another on that. I have the AfD request all ready and the saw your post at User talk:Anisa moghaddam. If you've no objections, I'll move the user article to article space and list at AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe not. I thought it was Anisa Moghaddam who wrote the article. However, it appears to not be her, so it probably would not be a good idea to move the article to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting on Hippogriff

You reverted my edit on Hippogriff in which I had added a mention of the use of the hippogriff as a plot element within the Harry Potter series. My edit summary indicated that this deserved mention because it may well be the singularly most popular reason anyone today would seek to look up the concept of a hippogriff. I used the primary sources (the novels themselves) to cite my edits. Your edit summary indicated you reverted because

our purpose is not to increase page hit count but to write an encyclopedia, primary source content would need third party sourcing.

Firstly, it was not my intention to increase the page hit count, but rather the acknowledge the reason the page hit count may well be high in the first place. Many readers probably come to the hippogriff page due to their mention in the Harry Potter novels. The page should make some mention of the concept as it relates to the novels. The policy on primary sources indicates that they may be used "to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". Expanding on this, the Manual of Style for writing about fiction indicates that the primary source itself (i.e. the novel) may be used to verify background information on fictional creatures. So, where's the problem? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the fact that it has been three hours since I first communicated my concerns above, and that you have continued making other edits since my last post, I am going to go on the assumption that you do not intend to address my concerns, so I will restore my edits. Bold, revert, discuss requires actual discussion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be helpful? Rather than making snarky comments in edit summaries, why not actually engage in a discussion? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again you appear unwilling to enter into discussion. Color me confused. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For why?

My edit of List of zombie films is part of clean up huge that list. All films deleted entry is not simply porno - it's indie ones. For why reverting? Thanks. --Vanquisher.UA 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sasural simar ka

THE episode are based on colors website and daily episode list. so why are you trying to edit it. and tellychakkar is a valid resource all the other shows in wiki has been quoted telly chakkar. if you have any questions feel free to check colors website or watch a episode of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remove that?

More conspiracy drama doesn't belong on that talk page. vzaak (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Avika Gor

Sorry I am trying to fix up Avika wiki profile with reference and you are trying to edit it. its really hard to find reference still i am putting reference and but you are still editing it. if you have better reference you can post the reference. and what i had was before is proper language. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC) sorry her parents info go under biography i am trying to fix up. but this takes time. if you have better reference you can post i already mentioned that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.87.82 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I dont want to fight with you, to be frank, i think you only have problem with sasural simar ka and avika gor, because all the other actors and shows page is set up the same way i did in wiki. i dont see you editing it. so i am done editing. it was a lot of work finding all those articles. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.82.131 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Unusual deaths

There was a mixup at the talk page which I have corrected. I shall arrange for further correction to avoid further confusion. Warden (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, one wouldnt want ones tirades to be confused as being made by someone else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Anne Hegerty

I see you reverted my removal of your refimprove template. Referring to WP:SELFSOURCE I read the following: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as...1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;...4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;". I think both apply in this case, as the information cited is purely factual, there's no analysis, acclamation or opinion or reason to doubt the sources. I think refimprove is unjustified, but I haven't reverted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom! I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits on Shruti Bisht article, because you removed the some refs and television table without any big reason. And if you think that the www.filmitown.com website is not reliable source? Okay, Go and remove this website on Shruti Bisht article, but first you remove this website from the all Articles. Thank You:- Chander ForYou 07:52, 26 October 2013 (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.  Chander ForYou 14:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Editing was posted 14:47, 26 October 2013 in case it's hard to find later due to archival. Ranze (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

You might want to email me for some sage (FSVO) counsel. Your instincts are sound. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for your edits at Bevan Morris! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued harassment.

You have been asked on more than one occasion to cease harassing me. You are more than welcome to keep your "pretend warnings" to yourself. If you were a Misplaced Pages administrator, and was there in fact a legal issue with my postings, I wouldn't be sitting here shaking my head at your ignorance. I notice that you INSIST on trying to have an edit war on a subject, may I know why? May I also know your qualifications to tout your opinion as fact?

The next time that you contact me without my express approval I am going to report you to the legal authorities for harassment. You may delete this posting if you wish, but Misplaced Pages will keep a record of it, and that will be admissible evidence should I press legal charges against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.227.132 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 have repeatedly removed maintanance tags without actually addressing the concerns noted. Please revert yourself or address the concerns that have been flagged. Feelingunwell? (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Feelingunwell, those are the warnings I placed on your page because you have been removing clean up tags that indicate context is needed for the content in the article as has been determined by the consensus on the talk page.

Now that we know you have gotten them, When can we expect that you stop editwarring against the consensus? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Don't revert any more, Red Pen. Have you filed at ANEW yet? Please do so and let the regular process take its course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not yet filed at ANEW. I have left him a message noting my assumption that he is not simply removing the tags, but that he is working on providing the context that the flag note as missing. I am awating to see his response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, they don't seem to be doing that at all. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Saural simar ka

whats your problem? if you dont like the show dont edit it. you are not the boss of wiki. we fans try to make page look better you edit everything out. even other fans have complained to me about you. we will report you if you keep on editing the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.66.73 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elli Avram may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thiagarajan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | 1990 || '']'' ||]||Thiagarajan]], ], ], ], ]||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saif Ali Khan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | spouse = {{Unbulleted list|] <br><small>(m.1991–2004; divorced (2 children)</small> <br>] <br><small>(m.2012–present)</
• Saif Ali Khan''' ({{IPA-hns|ˈsɛːf əˈli ˈxaːn|pron}}; born '''Sajid Ali Khan''' in 16 August<ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/saif-ali-khan/specialcoverage/6318120.cms</ref> 1970<ref>{{cite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah

There are many Misplaced Pages editors who think that Misplaced Pages is more important than it actually is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV complaint

You've been named in a complaint here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lorena Garcia page

I am confused, I was told by a wiki representative that in order to get the Lorena Garcia page reinstated I needed to:

1. Go to the Misplaced Pages Help Desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk) and ask them to re-instate the page. It should be made clear that they work for Lorena Garcia but also provide 3-4 reliable sources (news articles, etc.) to support what the page says about her.

2. When a Misplaced Pages page is removed, there is still a Talk page, which is what I believe Greg forwarded you below. Instead of emailing the two people on the page, Greg can create an account on Misplaced Pages himself and send a message directly on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lorena_Garcia&action=edit&redlink=1

So I made a post on the help page with a link to her deleted page, stating that I work for Lorena, and also included two recent press articles regarding Lorena. Confused on what I am supposed to do. thanks

Gbaroth (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

'researcher in parapsychology' replacing 'scientist' needs talkpage-consensus first please

Please not again. I'm just writing up a talkpage message myself, saying how the three cites there are wrong because they specifically say 'parapsychologist' and definitely not scientist. We *have* plenty of cites that say biologist/biochemist/scientist, however, and if you go and change that keyword in the article before you get talkpage consensus, we're gonna be here forever. Please self-revert, and then discuss your suggested change to the fragile consensus on the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where there is a consensus to not discuss in the lead the area of study for which he is most known. Can you point me to it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with you *adding* that phrase, like this... "scientist, who does research in parapsychology" ... but you are not appending, you are *deleting* the word 'scientist' from the first sentence. Which, if you do not remember the horrid talkpage discussions over getting that word back in .... :-)   I'm not complaining about the addition of material, I'm specifically complaining about the deletion. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be doing much research in parapsychology though. The question is do we call him a "scientist" and "researcher" even if he isn't doing any scientific research - basically lie to the reader to satisfy his fans supposedly on the basis of sources that also call him a scientist despite no evidence he's doing science? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, whowever to TRPoD, who modified the article to say scientist-and-researcher-in-the-following-areas. Much better. Barney raises two specific questions, which are distinct: #1, do we call him a scientist/biologist/similar? Yes, we have to, the sources do, we cannot pick winners-n-losers. Second, is the *research* that Sheldrake does (Jaytee in 1995 and whatever he did with the bequest-grant-monies from 2005-2010 and other stuff) *really* why he's Notable? Arguably not... the real reason Sheldrake is notable is the half-dozen-to-a-dozen books he's published (crucially: backed up by his highly respectable scientist-credentials! otherwise books would have been way less Notable), which describe past research, funds future research, and so on. But the *focus* is on the notions/concepts/hypotheses/theories/whatnot, which are mostly Notable because of the books, not so much because of the related research. Suggest we take this to the talkpage. But please, don't take out scientist, unless you're replacing it with biologist. That was they whole reason VeryScaryMary arrived, and getting that word in, she said hooray and considered her job completed. The quote in "TRPoD v1" seemed fine with that word, and Vzaak personally put it in, changing at the last second from biologist to the more generic scientist. Fragile fragile consensus!  :-)    Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you for your edits to James Spradley's page

Was going to do a Wikilove template but they all seemed too garish for this. I saw some issues in the page that I did not have time to address, and I'm glad you've managed to address a great number of them. Thanks! - Purplewowies (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ranee (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faroese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivia??

That's not trivia! Trivia is if I added cast, crew, shooting place, duration etc. This is how it it done in Misplaced Pages (as far as I have seen it) Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen your past discussions with other editors on the same topic. And I totally agree with them and disagree with you (once a film starts you can start an article, so you can add it in the table too, as simple as that. The guideline doesn't state anything like what you said!), but I'm not going to argue with you and not going to undo it again. Tomorrow someone else will come and change it again, because that's how it is done in almost all actors' pages. It is you only who breaks ranks. If it makes you happy, whatever.. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk)

Seen this WP:FILMOGRAPHY? Going to deny this too? That's the example of the style of filmography explicitly given by Misplaced Pages, so it's definitely NOT wrong, and you definitely canNOT change it (whether you agree or not). Thank you! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And nowhere, it is said that Notes should not be used for upcoming not completed projects. It is up to you to find a guideline that prohibits it, but you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Hence problem solved, there is absolutely no way you can deny this. I request you to not undo this again. Take care. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Thank you for your contribution on Shraddha Kapoor, Shraddha Kapoor had already gone to GA Nomination and had already been nominated, if you disagree anything about the information existed on the main page, you can reassess it. Join the talk page, see the GA template. Start your actions ---- Smauritius 123 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

co-evolution of Roxy

"Sheldrake's morphic fields would mean they are not only easy to find, but getting easier to find and getting better at knowing when their owners are coming home to be giving more and more conclusive results!" -- TRPoD @ 21:51

  Well, I'm no phytomorphologist, but I think this is backwards to what Sheldrake would say. He's a big advocate in favor of evolution, and in fact believes that morphic fields are subject to evolutionary pressures (a key separation between him and the new age crowd who believe mystic psychic resonance is forever), and thinks evolving-morphic-fields could potentially help explain super-quick 'punctuated evolution' periods like the Cambrian explosion. Sheldrake's most likely position -- whether authentic or self-serving you be the judge -- is that psychic dogs are *exceedingly* rare nowadays. Dogs were domesticated not-that-many-thousands-of-years-ago, and were primarily then presumably used as they still often are today, as guard-dogs.

  Telepathically detecting the location of humans, and of invaders, would be mildly useful in a modern home... but not necessarily evolutionarily selected for. It ain't like Jaytee or their owner would *die* if the psychic connection failed, right? Whereas, five or ten thousand years ago, having a psychic connection to your guard-dog really *might* conceivably save your life, and would be highly advantageous evolutionarily.

  Nowadays, in the modern world, the main sort of psychic is the jealous spouse: they don't *suspect* when their significant other has been cheating on them, they *know* it. As a countermeasure, the cheating spouse *also* needs to develop a psychic premonition that their angry spouse has decided to come home. If you've ever seen Jerry Springer, or studied the homicide-and-manslaughter statistics, that is where Sheldrake ought to be doing experiments, if he wants to find psychics.

  But it's hard to experimentally pin down such noisy environments rigorously.  :-)   Also, just like the dog thing, over time adultery has lost some of the evolutionary sting, since the Old Testament is no longer enforced, in most jurisdictions. Hope this helps. p.s. For the staring-experiments, Sheldrake ought to use nervous college kids (or maybe nervous grammas) as the stare-ee, and convicted mass murderers as the stare-ers, if he wants to maximize the chances of triggering some buried instinctive psychic behavior. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

thats not telepathy, thats just a recognition that you have married a sleazy horndog. :-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay *that* was funny, I don't care who you are. Better be careful about insulting canines around Roxy, though!  :-)   p.s. You are morphically receiving an irresistible urge to click this. User_talk:Barney_the_barney_barney#split_BLP_from_FRINGE.2C_without_causing_POV_fork. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Female novelist argument

Sorry, for prying, but I can't help but notice that you pick some rather strange positions of late in you deletion discussions. The female novelist vs Pokemon is one that I simply find astounding. More so because I am planning on working on both these areas. Would you agree that BLP is a preventative measure that articles on culture like Pokemon do not need to address? And that if Pokemon wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry and decades long success that none of the characters would be notable in the first place? Why advocate to remove content by arguing that other included content is worthless? And if you are sticking to your guns on this, why not make a big push in the area? Afterall, Misplaced Pages lost tens of thousands of articles on novelists and important novels - so much so that even FW's covered ones do not have any coverage - including their writers. I just think you are pushing a position that isn't backed by sound reasoning when you make such claims. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

are you referring to this edit where I am quoting content from the article linked by the previous poster?] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered the same type of argument by another user for composers and asking for deletion because an article deemed less worthy, but heavily sourced exists. Are you taking the quote as part of your argument or just echoing it or... doing what with it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Just emphasizing what the article actually said rather than what the original poster implied it said in support of their position. And that I do agree that Misplaced Pages has a glut of essentially useless stand alone articles about ultra trivial content that require us to spend inordinate amounts of time maintaining at even awful quality levels that exist purely because of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. At 4M+ articles we do NOT need content just because it is content -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, I misunderstood. Nevermind... its really late for me and my eyes go on me at this hour. And I find that those terrible quality articles are often grown throughout the years, but I have a plan for 10 of them in the coming year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Morrisburg Ontario

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom: I read your comment on the above page, but I can't find the copied text to which you are referring. I went back to the earliest version of the page and I still don't see any copying. The only information that is common to both articles are (1) who the town was named after, (2) the fact that the town and the highway were partially flooded by the Seaway project (3) Upper Canada Village, which I added myself, with a reference. Everything else is different, and the two facts in common are pretty necessary parts of the article. If you are seeing something that I have missed, can you please point it out? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhagwanji

Just told XrieJetInfo time to stop, you are both past 3RR/ Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thank you so much for changing the link to reference, I was trying to figure out how to do that. I appreciate your welcome and the info you left on my talk page! Nonnyme (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, Mr. Red, I was wondering if I came across any non-notable articles that I could consult with you on them. Thanks for your time. Momo Massaquoi (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Momo, you can call me 74, I was just here to leave TRPoD a message, but figured I would swoop in to take a shot at answering your question while I was in the area. There are all sorts of articles that need assistance of various types. I'm currently working on AV-8B, which needs a little fine-tuning, but is already a super-great article. There is a company in Malaysia called Duromac that does maintenance work for the military there, and needs help getting their article started -- we have some reliable sources, but not much else (yet).

  In fact there are a ton of articles in the Misplaced Pages:AfC queue that are waiting to become new articles -- they usually need help, and in particular, some of them are notable, but some are non-notable. You can try your hand there, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and learning about how to create good articles from Anne and Julie and Davidwr and the other AfC regulars, if that interests you.

  What sort of topics do you like? Arts, sciences, humanities, television, music, games... wikipedia has it all. Give us some hints about what you want to try first, and what skills you are trying to learn. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. If you have any quick questions, the best place to get fast answers is WP:TEAHOUSE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Edits on Kolhapur

Hello Red,

This is regarding the Kolhapur artcle, you said the edits made by me are unsourced, and i know that but not all the edits made by me are not without a reference, plaese, i need more time to get reference at least give me a day to get the reference while please undo your edit so i can update my edit and can get references as possible as i can for my edits to be reliable.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.68.6 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your respounce

Thanks for inviting me, But on other hand No Thanks, as been a veteran member of Misplaced Pages i am familiar with Misplaced Pages Policy and rules. It has been more than One year that i have taken active part but i no more wish no again log in in to my account User:Akshay b patil. Because of the Recent edits on Kolhapur article i made a few edit. I would give you a advice to look previous version of Kolhapur article so, that it will help you in maintaing the article according to the various Misplaced Pages policy. There are some reference in the edits form last one to two years of the article previous version. Any how thanks for help on your edits on Kolhapur.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with Misplaced Pages policy of sock puppetry But i really don't care even if i am Banned from any further edit and but jut look after the Kolhapur Article and even if possible try to adopt the article if you have sufficient knowledge about Kolhapur this would be my last edit on Misplaced Pages.

Thank you

1.22.68.6 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Embedded lists

Hi Pen. Thanks for the edit in Holy Trinity Diocesan High School. Do we have a policy or a guideline to how long, bulleted, unreferenced embedded lists we accept? Best, Sam Sailor 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

I wanted to thank you for your time. I just need to ask you how to finish an article that is in my sandbox. I finished it and want to save it as a regular edit. Do I need to start it on my user page?

Thanks again,

Aida delgado (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

American film categories

Hi. Please don't remove the parent category of Category:American films from film articles, even when there is a sub-cat on the article. Per the parent category instructions "For convenience, all American films are included in this category. This includes all American films that can also be found in the subcategories." This is standard for any top-level country category (French, German, etc). If you have any concerns, please visit the Film Project. Thanks. Lugnuts 13:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Kollywood films

Alright, then you need to remove the source for Thuppakki too, because it says: "Eros International announced the release of financial results for the quarter ending 31st December, 2012. As per the announcement made by Eros, Thuppakki made a total box office collection of Rs. 180 crore (domestic) to become the fourth film to join the 100 crore club in Tamil films". It's clear that Times of India itself took this number from Eros International's press release too. I can find other sources for Enthiran too that quote the gross of 179 crore (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/-enthiran-clocked-rs-179-cr-111053000078_1.html or http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-sun-pictures-future-on-shaky-ground-146820) all of them have taken it from Sun's press release too. Thuppakki's gross in indeed nowhere near to 180 crores, so let's remove them all I say. As I suggested before the article should be deleted, there are no official figures at all. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Is it fair to say that we've now seen an approach that seems out-of-bounds to FRINGE=fighter and BLP-junkie alike? Thanks for cleaning up my clean up. David in DC (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify

Please clarify WHY you deleted what you deleted on this article. because I can't seem to find a GOOD reason for deleting FACTS. https://en.wikipedia.org/LG_Display Yoonchip (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. You deleted this sentence "The company provides display panels in a wide range of sizes and specifications for use in TVs, monitors, notebook PCs, mobile products and other various applicatoins." and "currenty operates". Im sorry but its a FACT, how is this inappropriate?

and PLEASE examplain why deleted the product chart under key technolody and products. May I remind you that LG Display is NOT a B2C company but a B2B company. We do not SELL to endusers. last but not least, please, please explain why "www.lgdnewsroom.com" is inappropriate under External links. please. Yoonchip (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response to my question was extremely rude. I was confused why you deleted my edits, and thats how you reply back to me? i'm just providing information, NOT advertising. appreciate your damn help! Yoonchip (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, im going to undo most of your edits, because you lacked an explanation. please, have a GREAT day. Yoonchip (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for change

The comment by the DRV closing administrator is not relevant to the warning on that talk page, as it's no more than an empirical observation that the endorsed final statement was an admonition. It was directed at those who couldn't seem to wrap their head around this concept. It was not an approval of future superfluous nominations, nor did it remove/change any of the validity of the statement. Furthermore, the only point of the admonition/notice/warning on the talk page (and the wording in it) is to attempt to discourage the creation of further superfluous deletion discussions, (especially by editors not familiar with the last 7 AFDs or the standing community consensus) - Note: it does not actually prevent someone from doing so, as it's not moratoria. In other words it's only there to try to stop more of the community's time from being wasted. At any rate, the only possible effect of your change I can see is the further enablement of superfluous/useless nominations by those not familiar with the AFD/DRV/consensus process. I hope this was not your intention. If you still are unclear as to why I've changed the notice, please discuss it with me here before changing it on the talk page again. I'll gladly take the time to further discuss this with you, if you so choose. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

'academic" support, sounds a lot like barney talking about "serious" research...

  Over at the BLP noticeboard, that is the key hang-up. You and I both know that Sheldrake has very little academic aka scientific support. What 'support' he does have is people like Sokal, who make fun of him, but don't outright call him a terrible man, and people like Bohm and Durr, that don't *disrespect* Sheldrake but have hardly brought him any respect.

However...

amongst non-academic sources...

and most academic sources with four known exceptions...

  Sheldrake is always called a biologist. Misplaced Pages must reflect the sources. You cannot delete the fact that newspapers call him a biologist, from the wikipedia article, just because Nature once called him a pseudoscientist. You know, and I know, that logic dictates he can only be one or the other: 1960 thru 1980, biologist. 1981 thru 2013+ pseudoscientist.

  But wikipedia does not work that way. WP:VALID and WP:FRINGE do not permit you to pick and choose *which* Reliable Sources you want to reflect. They do permit giving more *weight* to academic sources, when in comes to SPECIFIC CLAIMS where their academic field-of-inquiry matters, especially when saying what mainstream-biology means, what mainstream-physics means, what mainstream-christian-theology means, and what mainstream-philosophyOfScience means.

  But you cannot synthesize, and use logic to delete otherwise perfectly valid sources, like the BBC, or like the Wiseman quote where he says "the patterns match". You can give plenty of *weight* to the Nature quote, and in fact get something like my the phrase of choice "biologist-and-now-parapsychologist" right into the very first sentence! You can give plenty of *weight* to Wiseman's indisputable final position that no evidence for psychic phenomena exists. But you cannot delete 'biologist' and ignore sources that say it, just because it conflicts with Aristotelian logic. You cannot delete 'the patterns match' based on some tortured argument about undue weight, and wp fringe, and so on.

  In other words: you cannot save the readers, by writing the truth. You can only save them, by writing the truth, in a way that they can decide for themselves.

  Yes, that means some readers will get suckered. Sheldrake is a master at it. Misplaced Pages is not gonna be able to stop him. Only death with stop him.

  Oh crap... unless his morphic resonance travels through time, and infects future biolo...... dammit, now Sheldrake's got ME spouting nonsense.  :-/

  The sources are spouting nonsense. Misplaced Pages has to reflect what they say. Sorry, I really am. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You're edits

I don't know why you keep reverting my edit at Srishty Rode. What do you mean by the Persondata is used in other processes? What process are your talking about? That Persondata does not appear in the article page. In case that persondata is not used anywhere than it is useless clutter and it should be removed immediately. You must explain what "other process" it is being used or it will be removed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)