Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 25 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)