Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 25 September 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.

Kellermensch re-release

You have deleted and redirected the article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kellermensch_(album_re-release)&redirect=no It is a re-release, with the debut and EP merged together, and under a completely new label. I agree there may not be that much of a difference, but for the sake chronological releases from the band it should be its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakathor (talk • contribs)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nayantara 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:

• | 2003 || '']'' || Gauri || ] ||[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi I am bollysitter, you deleted my entry at Mary Kom film page, BollySitter is focused on bringing awareness about Bollywood films to parents in order to help them make an informed decision if their child should watch a particular film. Our reviews are spoiler-free & objective in order to help you determine what you think is appropriate for your children. As an independent group, we provide fair & trustworthy information and tools, as well as a discussion forum, so that families can have a choice and a voice about the media they consume. We added recommended age and family go factor on the page of Mary Kom Film. Bollysitter (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Graphology 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:

• ] in 1991 stated that Juan Huarte de San Juan's 1575 ''Examen de ingenios para las ciencias'' was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mary Kom (film) 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:

• publisher = '']'' | date = September 5, 2014 | accessdate = September 6, 2014]]''}}</ref> It's first day box office collection is the 11th highest of 2014<ref name="Ankita Mehta"

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Majestic 12 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:

• the name was spelled out, not abbreviated. However, this document was later identified to be a hoax{<ref name="Donovan2011"/> In 1984, a set of documents was allegedly discovered in United States
• * Program July 13, 2006]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

Eliezer Yudkowsky

This has been discussed on the talk page and we decided to keep the material, so.... Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. 172.56.36.143 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page Talk:Eliezer_Yudkowsky#SAT_Score_Request_for_Comment speaks for itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry because I did not see the other discussion on the talk page. 69.124.52.215 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit on the GamerGate Article

Would the film qualify if the directors raised their target? --Xoviat (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be significant reliable secondary-source coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Subhash Ghai Career Section

Hi, I work in Mukta Arts Ltd and have edited the career section of Subhash Ghai. The details added are correctly updated and have been provided by him only. Mr Ghai needs his recent profile to be displayed on Wiki. Please do not again revert this to the old version. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Seemant

Subhash Ghai - Career section

Hi, First of all I am sorry for again editing the page this morning without checking the talk section. Now I have gone through the policies page and fully understand the rules and limitations in editing a page. The source link I used / referred is : http://muktaarts.com/subhash-ghai/. Thanks, Seemantraj (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on clarifying facts and removing promotional material from the Qnet article. It doesn't get enough attention from good editors, and there's a constant flood of users trying to whitewash it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof_et_al._reported_by_User:MicBenSte_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Civil Conduct

Hello there,

I thought I'd leave a message here in appreciation for your civil conduct over at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. I find that bias (even where it is justified) can often compromise encyclopedic standards in articles dealing with hoaxes/conspiracies et cetera. It is refreshing to encounter an editor who can view the matter impartially, despite disagreeing with the claims which are the article's subject.

IE 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten would like to hang out with Grumpy Cat and Lil Bub on your talk page for a while. (Careful he's not quite house trained.)

TaraInDC (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Graphology

Hi! I saw your comments on the talk page of graphology and I don't agree with you that "claims" regarding the ability of graphology to evaluate personality is "hogwash" and not verifiable. Though not experimented much, there are many peer-reviewed research studies in support of graphology (most in foreign languages) : http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology . Here is the link to a review of experimental research conducted in graphology: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 . It describes that graphology can reveal personality traits such as intelligence, vitality, neuroticism, anxiety level etc. The journal is "Perceptual and Motor Skills" published by Ammons Scientific. Please do look through ALL studies on a subject before dismissing it as a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to believe in it, I cannot stop you. I, however, will stick with the mainstream scientists and the lack of repeatable claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be repeatedly saying that scientific studies have failed to validate "claims" made by graphologists. So, I thought I should say this. Experimental studies in handwriting analysis have been able to conclude that handwriting analysis can predict intelligence, personal interests (especially aesthetic interests), neuroticism, anxiety levels, energy and vitality etc. (A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 -1960" (Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H: A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90) http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 Verify for yourself. A main reason why some experimental studies failed to validate graphology is the use of untrained professionals. Its like testing whether a medical diagnosis can be made by using judges who have read a book on anatomy and saying that medicine is not valid. Very often researchers did not understand what graphology can and cannot do, so they tended to focus on the wildest claims by marginal graphologists who are not genuine graphologists. Investimate (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

those studies are 60 years old and havent been duplicated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Research in graphology is not too old to be of value. The human graphic motor sequence has not altered; the anatomical system is the same and the neurological pathways for writing impulses are the same. However, this does not mean that graphologists don't have to replicate research done earlier. There have been studies after these in the 80's (eg: Baruch Nevo studies), 90's (eg: Graphology in Personality Assessment: Reliability and Validity Study A dissertation, Adelphi University 1993, Patricia Wellingham-Johnes studies etc), i the 2000's (eg: Ist an der Graphologie doch etwas dran? Jens F. Beckmann, Gabriele Schmidtand etc.) and studies are still being conducted, most in foreign languages. Astrology or palmistry do not have so many validating studies. According to Misplaced Pages, it does not involve changing the basic laws of nature and has nothing mystical to it and hence, it is not a pseudoscience but rather fits better under the questionable sciences division. Investimate (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. without any modern confirmations and many disconfirmations after the ancient publications, you have no case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For your information, modern confirmations are definitely there. Many are done as dissertations. I understand that facts and studies cannot convince some people who are highly biased. You really don't have any background in this subject do you? Investimate (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually gone through that list, you would have noticed that most studies are from the 90's and there are several from the 2000's. Have you noticed that in the Misplaced Pages article the "invalidating" studies you quoted are also from the same time, if not earlier. You wouldn't call those "ancient", would you? Only the validating studies... Investimate (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Chiranjeevi

Thank you, yes the award is less prominent Bhishek (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards

SIIMA awards are a part of awards section, but you are removing them to intimidate editors by showing your dominance. SIIMA awards are included in awards section, you better check in other actors list Bhishek (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Halo

I have provided all sources for SIIMA award. Hope your eyesight is working properly. Bhishek (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards

I have included Times of India reference for SIIMA, again I dont have to include the same in Awards section, but since you appear to abuse fellow editors, I will repeat the same source Bhishek (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

eye sight

I am talking about Times of India reference, not wikipedia article as a reference, I did not include any wikipedia reference, sure you may have to check your eye sight Bhishek (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA awards reference

I have only included SIIMA award with Times of India reference as an Inline citation, this is the only edit I did in Chiranjeevi article. I cant understand your personal attack over me. Bhishek (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain I really cannot understand which reference and claims you are talking about Bhishek (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Quit trying to intimidate people

If someone is violating policy, then you should politely note it to them. If they do so repeatedly, the proper thing to do, once polite correction has failed, is not to threaten them, but to bring it up to a higher level. Repeatedly threatening to report people is a form of harassment or intimidation, and is not WP:CIVIL. Likewise, your clamping down on many things is an example of biting the newbies. Please clamp down on your aggression in the future. Misplaced Pages is about WP:NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I like your use of Ping, I need to remember that, I like how it only requires 1 edit and doesn't clutter up talk pages or edit counts while still making that notifier come up. Ranze (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Response

Hi RedPen

Could you kindly respond to the points I have made regarding the inclusion of the Escapist DDoS on the Talk:Gamergate controversy talk page? In my edit comment I asked for a response to what I had written on the talk page in case of reversion. While you did give reasons for reversion in your edit comment, these did not address the points I had made on the talk page. According to WP:EW, reversions should be addressed on the talk page in case of dispute, so as someone who reverted the edit it would be highly useful to have a rebuttal from you. My apologies if I have come across as hostile or overzealous in any way. Bosstopher (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Marilou mcphedran

I see we have some editing disagreements. In general the piece is puffed up but the most egregious claim is that this person has a masters from Osgoode hall law school when in fact it is a degree from osgoode's professional development program- OPD-a terminal and course based masters. There is no such thing as a thesis based Osgoode masters in comparative constitutional law though there is that designation from the OPD. You rejected my hyperlink but I encourage you to contact that law school to confirm. A false credential is a serious offence in academic circles so I thought it important to correct. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopphippo (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paddington (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history at Paddington (film) 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then 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 may be in the right but don't go about it the wrong way. Oosh (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

List of hoaxes

Could you please explain why you deleted my edit on List of hoaxes? I merely linked to a Misplaced Pages article about a hoax. Thanks. --ToniSant (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@ToniSant: You did not provide any reliably published sources - Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable. In addition there is nothing in the main article that gives anything other than a typical tabloid flash in the pan that merits an article. We are not here to facilitate someones desperate crawl for fame. WP:BLP/ WP:NOT / WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I see you're a deletionist. I'm an inclusionist. I won't get into an edit war with you, mainly because I see that you're quite forceful on such things. :-) I think that this and this are reliable sources by Misplaced Pages guidelines; however, media hoaxes are often just "tabloid flash in pan" things anyway. Please consider reverting your deletion. --ToniSant (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

yes the trivialists and I frequently disagree on what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nayantara

Hi bauer, I know you are little very strange but I tell you, DON'T you undo my edits with one click!!! Never ever ever again!!! You removed all upcoming films, the whole awards section and a whole subsection that ALL had very very reliable sources!!! Such mass edits without any discussion, seriously? By a senior editor?? Any sensibility?? Last time you did this!! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Nayantara 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Amortias (T)(C) 19:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)