Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 3 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.

Regarding Harshita Gaur

hi, you were right in removing unsourced material from Harshita Gaur but the information with a source should not be removed immediately like this.WP:PROVEIT also says that you should first add a citation needed tag to inform the editors that a citation with reliable source is needed for the information.If no response comes after that then you are free to blank all the information.I am not challenging you or proving you wrong, i cannot do so as all the editors work for the benefit of wikipedia but due to your removal of information afd discussion is also not possible as there is no information to look after at.Please consider that.I will not revert your edit again.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Abhi (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• | 2010|| ''] '' || ]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• by increasing international pressure on Mugabe.<ref> Joe Trippi and Roy Bennett interview on MSNBC]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• 4230288.html|accessdate=June 1, 2013|newspaper=]|date=May 23, 1994}}</ref><ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit revert

Hi, greetings. Please give some time so that I could add some sources. Maine Pyar Kiya this particular article is in developing condition. Do not simply revert edit like this. Give me time. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  17:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: You have all the time in the world to find sources AND THEN add the content as per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure in due time. But please do not remove it further. Since there are references which satisfies more than one sentence. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: then fix it to have appropriate inline citations - you cannot just wildly assert "one of the sources in the reference list verifies that claim." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You can always use citation tag instead of reverting edits of users. Some reader will find sources and will add. If sources not provided within few weeks, you can remove contents. You should revert in case it is clear vandalism or BLP violation. Why do you waste time of users and draw them in edit wars? Abhi (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have chosen to tag instead of remove, but I didnt. I removed. That leaves as the option for anyone who wishes to include the content to 1) restore with a source or 2) leave it out. if someone chooses instead to violate policy and restore without sources, that is in all means and measures fully beyond my ability to control. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Your talk page is looking gloomy, so I wanted to say thanks on Chromophobia. The article looks much nicer than it did a few days ago because of work from you. Good job. π♂101 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Work

How do you decide which source is reliable and which is not and how you can keep content removing sources from it which was added a month back with same sources. - (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Clarification would be welcome

You recently struck out a post that you made on the RSN noticeboard. When you said, "things that lined up with WP:SPS," did you mean that you do think that the source in question is suitable per WP:SPS or were you just trying to say that you hadn't meant to make the initial post?

This is a real hornet's nest, and I understand if you don't want to involve yourself further. Thanks either way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Hi there TRPOD, sorry to bother you about such an old edit but editor Collect is challenging an edit you made more than a year ago claiming that he doesn't find the quote in Google books. The edit is this one.

After I removed an inexistent link and quoted a source from the book Collect saw it fit to revert me thus not only removing the quote but also re-incorporating the inexistent link. I've pointed out that not finding it in Google books is not a particularly valid reason for removing it but he has nonetheless removed it twice now and twice has he brought back the inexistent Youtube link being used as a source.

I'll remove the YT link in a separate edit now but I'd really appreciate your input with this since it was you who added the statement back then. Here's the talk page discussion . Regards. Gaba 20:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting form of shopping -- the quote which was only a footnote in your edit became a major claim in Gaba's edit - so I tried to verify it via Google books and failed. Meanwhile Gaba seems to be searching for anything he can find to make Jones appear loonier than he already does - which I find an interesting means of following WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:NPOV to say the least, and he has repeatedly commanded me to accept his edits <g> which is not a recommended course of action, and he seems to think WP:CONSENSUS does not apply to his edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears Amazon UK has a searchable version of the paperback from 2011 - and quotes appear there, but the nature of the book appears to be a tiny bit polemic in nature, and so I used one of Will Bunch's opinions properly as his opinion in that BLP now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shopping? I leave a message asking the editor who made the original contribution to an article to please give their input, and you accuse me of shopping? I took the time to go through the article's history to track down the editor who made the original edit after you challenged the veracity of the source because you couldn't find it via a Google search (!), and even so you believe it is appropriate to accuse me of shopping? Collect: you should be more grateful that your incompetence and overall laziness is tolerated at all in the project (not to mention your constant whitewashing of conservative BLPs) and try not to randomly and baselessly accuse those who are forced to trail behind you cleaning up your mess. Regards. Gaba 23:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Please head over to User talk:JohnGHartnett and respond to the user's helpme request concerning your revert of his edit since an explanation was not provided in the edit summary. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Dorris

Re: your removal of the sections tag, you said this in the edit summary: "the strange fetish for single paragraph sections". There was no call for "single paragraph sections", ergo no "fetish". But the Biography section is long, and the tag was a suggestion to break it down somehow. Stevie is the man! 15:11, 31 August 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)

Barnstar

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

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. 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.46.36.38.75 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)