Revision as of 17:11, 16 February 2014 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots668,681 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:58, 16 February 2014 edit undoUgog Nizdast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,126 edits →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLoveNext edit → | ||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
== A barnstar for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For being a highly active editor for all these years and for your 74000+ edits. ] (]) 17:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
|} |
Revision as of 17:58, 16 February 2014
This is TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
And there is also This archive
Holiday Cheer
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
- Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 6 February 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.
Ballentine, Mississippi
Hi there, I added a short note about this article on User talk:Jreferees talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Red Pen - Why such a long edit summary? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- to show that I considered many factors that may have impacted its relevance to the article and did not find any. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Paul Murphy quotes
I suggest that since Paul Murphy did not get much RS coverage of his "homophobia" comments, that it may be UNDUE to place them into a BLP. His citing of specific names does not add to the article, and may be a BLP violation n its own -- it would be equally strong and not pushing WP:BLP if it were just changed to "Paul Murphy, MEP, supported Panti's use of 'homophobia'." Though I am uncertain just how notable the opinion of any MEP actually is, per se. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- you mean in addition to the IT, the lack of coverage in the The Journal and the lack of coverage in the American publication The Advocate and the lack of coverage in The Independent? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The quotes appear to be about as important as the endless material in the Congressional Record - the opinion of a singularly unimportant politician who is immune from any rules about defamation. We can certainly state that he supports Panti, but repeating allegations about living persons, even if the speaker has legislative immunity, is contrary to BLP. I trust you see the point I am making. Collect (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- the endless quotes made by MPs are rarely if ever covered by all three major Irish newspapers let alone American press. So no, I do not see your point. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The quotes appear to be about as important as the endless material in the Congressional Record - the opinion of a singularly unimportant politician who is immune from any rules about defamation. We can certainly state that he supports Panti, but repeating allegations about living persons, even if the speaker has legislative immunity, is contrary to BLP. I trust you see the point I am making. Collect (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- It also featured on RTE . Unimportant? Ireland has only 12 MEPs. Paul Murphy is a household name in Ireland. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
favour
An IP deled the material from the Independent about the spending of the RTE money in memory of a deceased Ions member. (Some of the money is going to a fund in memory of a savagely murdered member of the institute, Tom O'Gorman. ref in cite in article) Consider if that claim is appropriate to the Iona article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ave atque Vale
Per the strange emasculation of WP:BLP at WP:AN/EW I say "Hail and Farewell". If a retracted item gets printed by someone else, it can now be used in BLPs, even where the original "publisher" (in the case at hand, RTE) has removed it from view, and removed it from outside sites under copyright law (and paid a fortune rather than fight defamation suits). But the defamation can be placed boldly on Misplaced Pages in BLPs. I do not agree always with anyone, but this particular view of WP:BLP is one I personally can not abide. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Reverting Iona Institute
I note your continuous reverts to the Iona Institute page. This story has now been headline news in Ireland for 2 weeks. The story itself has been reported on BBC News in the UK and tonight there's a feature on Channel 4 news in the UK. This is by far the biggest controversy the group has been involved in. Paul Moloney (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- But that is just the point, at this point it is merely "controversy" - lots of hot air, millions of pixels, and naught for actual impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pen, by that reasoning the Seralini affair is just lots of hot air. Is that what you claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Third parties have commentated on the impact of the "affair" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Third party commentary exists (i.e blogs, senators, TDS, MEPs), but don't constitute secondary sources. They would be primary opinions. Journalists have written analyses of the events. Secondary sources "relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" and syntheses them together. That is what the newspaper coverage does. In the US there is a tendency to throw in opinions as well, but that is not the job of a secondary source. Irish newspapers stick to the facts as much as possible. Also Red, apply the exact same criteria you have described to every other section of that article. Do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You have again proven my point. The Newspapers are merely reporting the incidents. We need a third party reliable source - NOT WIKIPEDIA EDITORS - to place the events into context and show that they have some meaning and importance. And yes, the rest of the article sucks too, but clearly that is not a reason to add more bad content to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Facepalm . Newspapers are analysing the events, they are not throwing in opinions. There is a difference. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where is this analysis? I have looked at lots and lots and lots of the articles and merely seen recitation of this happened and this happened and this happened but no "because" or "that means" or "its important" or any analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will look at the very first source used in that section . How you can say there is no in depth analysis there, I don't know. The kind of analysis you are looking for are opinion pieces, not factual articles. Opinion pieces wouldn't generally be reliable for inclusion except as opinion. They also exist, but I intentionally stay away from them. They are synthesising the primary sources, and that makes them a secondary source by definition. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Where is this analysis? I have looked at lots and lots and lots of the articles and merely seen recitation of this happened and this happened and this happened but no "because" or "that means" or "its important" or any analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Facepalm . Newspapers are analysing the events, they are not throwing in opinions. There is a difference. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You have again proven my point. The Newspapers are merely reporting the incidents. We need a third party reliable source - NOT WIKIPEDIA EDITORS - to place the events into context and show that they have some meaning and importance. And yes, the rest of the article sucks too, but clearly that is not a reason to add more bad content to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Third party commentary exists (i.e blogs, senators, TDS, MEPs), but don't constitute secondary sources. They would be primary opinions. Journalists have written analyses of the events. Secondary sources "relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" and syntheses them together. That is what the newspaper coverage does. In the US there is a tendency to throw in opinions as well, but that is not the job of a secondary source. Irish newspapers stick to the facts as much as possible. Also Red, apply the exact same criteria you have described to every other section of that article. Do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Third parties have commentated on the impact of the "affair" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Pen, by that reasoning the Seralini affair is just lots of hot air. Is that what you claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Terence McKenna.Message added 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think the article has been improved enough to remove tags. I little insertion and emphasis of mainstream consensus and description as fringe is probably appropriate, with due respect for the considerable effort of a relatively new editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited America Unearthed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Search Of (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) 09:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI
Greetings. In case you didn't know; Edits in the topic area of "race" by anons that geolocate to Korea are practically guaranteed to be sockpuppets of User:Mikemikev. I.e., Nuke from orbit, destroy with fire, use the Death Star, fire all phasers, weapons free, strike with the red pen of doom, etc. Enjoy:) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Heart Attack
I see that you remove reviews from the critics reception from the article Heart Attack. It is unfair to remove the reviews there which are considered to be done by professional sites. You did the same in the case of Yevadu previously and Raghusri reverted back the changes citing your edit a removal of content on 13 January 2014 12:00. I too reverted your edit on the same basis. Hope you don't repeat it again. I would repeat to revert, it you repeat to remove. Thank you :| Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note to watch you don't go over WP:3RR. I have opened a discussion here. --NeilN 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
See, WP:PROVEIT cannot be used in this case to check their reliability. If they are indeed non reliable sources, give/provide a list of websites publishing the reliable news/reviews. Even then many users still use those sites since they found them reliable. Please help in these matters. If there is indeed such a list or restriction, we may avoid using them. But stating all of them non reliable would result in one thing only - Removal of substantial part of content in many pages. Even websites like IBTimes India, The Times of India gets the news info from source like 123telugu, gulte, idlebrain etc. which you considered to be non reliable. This matter definitely needs your help. Please do respond soon at my talk page. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Subhash K. Jha
With due respect i agree with you on this but how can u judge that skjbollywoodnews.com is not a reliable source, it is headed by veteran journalist Subhash K. Jha giving reviews from almost 20 years and all of the reviews are his, i didn't add anything which is spammy or out of context. Adding reliable source and comments are of what wikipedia is all about, you can't just consider anything spammy as per your opinion. I with due respect like you to take notice of all the reviews done by Subhash K. Jha and try to verify the fact before considering something reliable or not. You have full authority to delete anything anytime but considering a reliable source spammy doesn't solve the purpose. Final decision rests on you. And SK jha is the main source of content for IANS and all major websites. With warm regards Thank YouVaibhav.times (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
edit warring
Hello Im jeffrd10 I can see that you are in a dispute with Pavanjandhyala and Are currently warring. I would like to remind you of the three revert rule and to remind you not to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours or I will report you. I also see no attempt at conceses so please instead of warring try to reach consensus on the article's talk page. Thank You.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 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#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Jeffrd10 (Result: ). Thank you. Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Carvalho
Please check the source on the "lobbyist" claim that you restored to Bernard Carvalho. Yes there was an inline cite, but unless I missed something, there was no slightest mention of lobbying in the page so cited. NeilN seems to have felt the same, he and I edit-conflicted on undoing your edit. This is a BLP, care is needed. DES 23:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy Henchman page
Please note that this page has been vetted, litigated and adjudicated by the Misplaced Pages community. I think the RfD would be instructive. I tried to restore the version closes to the entire discussion while keeping the new info on projected date of murder trial and new sentencing. As it stood it was wildly inaccurate. Please help keep this page from being vandalized. I don't think anyone wants to endure an entirely new RfD on this page again. Thanks for you anticipated cooperation. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Misplaced Pages:Sir Steve Clark, PhD
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to Arvind Kejriwal
Hi, The intro is slightly incorrect, and previously worked as a bureaucrat in various government agencies. He worked only as an IRS in one federal agency over his entire tenure. Adding that he's a former bureaucrat would be better, isn't it. Also, I think ""under the AAP banner isn't good for the intro. Tell me what you think. Harsh (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
List of unusual deaths
Don't worry, was a time delay. --JanRobin (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Cologne Business School
Thanks for your help on this article. It's been a constant pain in the ass due to a steady stream of CBS employees coming over to edit the page. They tend to be very focused on adding inappropriate amounts of detail about the school, often from primary sources, although they seem to have gotten the message now that they can't just copy/paste text from the school's web site. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Lloyd's List (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Edward Lloyd
- Madha Gaja Raja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Masala
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
For being a highly active editor for all these years and for your 74000+ edits. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |