Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 14 December 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

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)

I'm sorry if you don't agree with the additional plot I have added in to Ek Hasina Thi (TV series), but I only added in the parts that I thought were important things to the plot but I will bare that in mind next time. Besides there are many other things that I have left out so I have tried to make it as short as possible. However, a show like this is kinda hard to ignore all the time. And another person before me also added things that weren't that important so please stop blaming it all on me. Missdolly7 xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdolly7

Why are you being soooooo rude? It's not the end of the world and I'll just not contribute any more if that will make you happy. You have no right to throw all those rude questions at me! Please stop because you're making it seem like I'm the only person who is wrong. Have you ever seen other TV Series pages and how much there can be there? I didn't think there was anything to take out coz it made complete sense to me and I thought it was fine. Missdolly7 xx (talk •

Sorry but why do you keep saying that I made a "potential well intentioned mistake" because I didn't! I only wrote the plot the way I thought could be acceptable but I guess you don't like me or my contributions so I'm not going to contribute any longer. Plus, I had no intention to make other people make that "mistake" as through many of the Misplaced Pages pages could have long plot summaries. I wasn't ignoring the note, I was letting people know what happened in the show. Misplaced Pages is a website where we can Contribute freely and publicly and you still have no right to push me into a corner and say that I'm the only wrong person here! Missdolly7 xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missdolly7 (talk •

I understand the note and I accept that I wrote more so I won't edit it again. I'm not upset about that but I'm upset about the way you're treating me because you don't even know me! I'm not dumb so you don't have to make anything bigger:'(:-(:O. I just didn't read the note when editing it, I only read it when you started commenting. Missdolly7 xx

I have added in a reference so now you don't have to ask me questions (hopefully)!!! User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

contribs) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC) contribs) 17:49, 28 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)

Please note that the Presidency University, Kolkata page has been vandalised

Please correct / delete unreferenced comments such as 'Hence all corruptions are tucked away under the cupboard.' The citations are to blogs hosted by specific individuals / interest groups.

Thanks

Many thanks for cleaning up the errors on the Presidency page. A few still remain but I'm not yet confident enough to make the changes on my own.

Fursuit-related

Hi. I understood that you moved Chicken suit to Fursuit. If you wanted to do that, you could've at least made an entry for it on that page as a type of Fursuit. Just making a suggestion here if you don't want the page separate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: I found no sources that made any differentiation between "chicken suits" and any other fursuit costumes. Are you aware of any? Otherwise making such distinctions of our own observations or preferences within article content is not allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The chicken suits did appear an various media appearances and costume parties. If we can't find any info that would get the chicken suit's page restored, then we'll have to put it down as a type of fursuit on the Fursuit page. Any objections to that suggestion? Also, an example of a chicken suit is the suit used for The Subservient Chicken. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: If you have sources-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Princeton Engineering Anomalies

As the article currently stands, it has few reliable sources. What you're doing--and have repeatedly done--isn't helping to improve that.

I am aware that there is scientific criticism of PEAR. I am aware that its views are far from conventional. That doesn't mean you can or should use inferior sources to "prove" whatever point you're trying to make--if you want to add additional, referenced criticism about PEAR, I encourage you to do so. But don't remove well-sourced information. The paranormal claims are subjective and not the core of the research: Academic research of this kind is by its very nature interdisciplinary. The article should reflect the facts about PEAR.

The article was previously much more more informational, but a group of editors removed all references because they misunderstood what the entire project was--they put it in the "pseudoscience" category. Whatever your view of PEAR, that was not objective editorial work. I am trying to bring back the balance that the article used to have before it was vandalized--I'm not witewashing anything; if you want to add more discussion about the problems with the parapsychological aspects of PEAR, YOU GO DO THAT. But stop removing my well-sourced work.

I quoted from the New York Times on both the pro-PEAR side and anti-PEAR side. I quoted from Nature. I gave background on the funding and credentials behind the project--these are RELEVANT FACTS. As it stands, the article contains none of this information. ADDING INFORMATION TO AN ARTICLE IS NOT WHITEWASHING -- IT'S IMPROVING. If you have a particular qualm with something that's been written, tell me about it in the talk page. I'll respond promptly. If I'm making an egregious error, correct me. But what you are currently doing is PURE VANDALISM.

Listen to yourself: It is not a violation of assumption of good will to remove unsourced and improperly sourced content from an article. It is a demonstration of ill will to reinsert unsourced and improperly sourced content into an article and to call other editors vandals who are actually editing directly within policy. STOP ADDING IMPROPERLY SOURCED CONTENT INTO THE PEAR ARTICLE--I WILL NOT STAN FOR IT AND NEITHER WILL SCIENCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biotheoretician (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper science journalism (what I wrote): Criticism of the project has been a mainstay since its inception. University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park called the Princeton University-backed project and its associated theoretical models "an embarrassment to Princeton" and "an embarrassment to science." Director Robert Jahn, following the project's closing, retorted, "For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data...If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will." According to Nature, "the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?"

Improper science journalism (what you wrote): PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises on topics such as telekinesis and remote viewing. The program had a strained relationship with Princeton University, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."

You replaced two quotes from the New York Times and one from Nature with one from the New York Times and one from the non-academic, privately-motivated "Skeptical Inquirer." Might as well be the National Enquirer: You are DEFAMING the work of a PH.D. PHYSICIST FROM PRINCETON UNIVERSITY for a non-academic, non-expert source who proclaims himself to his online audience a "skeptic". What you're doing isn't unbiased and it is hurting the future of the PEAR article.

I'm trying to do an honest job at improving it--because as it stands, it reads like it was written by an angry 15 year old who only has a high school education in physics and psychology. The article is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages and I'm trying to collect data to improve it. If you have a specific alteration to make, make it. But replacing "Nature" with the "Skeptical Enquirer" is lazy, unscientific, uninformed, and poor journalism.

Seriously, what the hell does "Tachyons and Other Nonentities" have to do with PEAR? You're quoting irrelevant things instead of Nature because you'd rather see a poorly-written PEAR article than something even the least bit informative. Science does not and will not stand for this sort of editorial hogwash.

Have a nice day.

Biotheoretician (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see this 128.125.73.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.181.207.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Biotheoretician (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is (or is related to) the banned user Blastikus, same writing style and IP traces to a University in California (where his previous socks trace to . Goblin Face (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Same writing style"

Prove it. I'm not who you say I am. And it's the University of Southern California, not the "University in California."

Biotheoretician (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. "A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to close its doors". nytimes.com. New York Times.
2. "After 28 years, Princeton loses ESP lab, to the relief of some". nytimes.com. New York Times.
3. "The lab that asked the wrong questions". nature.com. Nature.
4. "Experiments". princeton.edu. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research.
5. Rothman, Milton (September 1994). "Tachyons and Other Nonentities". Skeptical Inquirer. 4.3. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Retrieved 2014-03-16.
6. Carey, Benedict (2007-02-10). "A Princeton lab on ESP plans to close its doors". New York Times.

WP:NPPOV

Hi, last week I wrote the above essay to address a seemingly common source of confusion for newcomers (and even some non-newcomers). I posted a related comment to WT:NPOV, but there hasn't been a reaction yet (perhaps because the archiving bot buried it, or because the suggestion therein doesn't have a snowball's chance). In any case, considering what you've been dealing with lately, you might possibly get some use out of WP:NPPOV. Manul 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

PEAR somewhat

Greets TRPoD. Just a quick note. The source (Reed, 2003) said "And although it has permitted the research to continue for almost 25 years, the university itself appears to be a bit embarrassed by PEAR." That is what I paraphrased to somewhat. Just making sure the content can withstand challenge. I am not reverting you, but you may wish to reconsider or find another source. Not a big deal to me. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SultaanPop (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello I'm Missdolly7, and I just wanted to inform you that I have added a couple of more information in Ek Hasina Thi (TV series). This is because the show is going to end soon and I believe that we should conclude the story in a sensible way. I have tried to remove things as well. You can leave a message on my talk page if you have anything to say about this. User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write something that was going to happen in the future, I wrote something that has already happened but I said that we should keep it that way so in the future we could conclude it easily User talk:Missdolly7 — Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. SultaanPop (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Naayak

Hi. I recently undid your edit at Naayak as Filmibeat, previously Oneindia Entertainment, is a reliable source. I actually entered this url which gave me access to this new url. This it does not fall under WP:SYN. I don't know why you hate me this much, as if though i am your killer. Well, it happens always. Bye. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, i forgot one thing. Mine was not unsourced or arbitrary nonsense. The fact that the film is a big hit is published here. I did not cite it in the lead section only to follow WP:LEAD. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek mythology in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan. 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) 09:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you are interested.

You may enjoy reading this. Since it is about you.

https://twitter.com/ThePirateCapn

and this whole article:

http://realitysandwich.com/215568/wikipedia-cyberbullying-a-case-study/

And then visit my talk page (or e mail me). I seem to be having some disagreement with Manul who thinks I am the one going overboard.. and I don't have time for it right now. So I am seeking advice from editors that were active on the Chopra page when it was all taking place. I have done all the math..(quite a while ago) factoring in "ISHAR" as a multiplier to the above multiplicand.. but am not sure how to proceed with what turns out to be the final product. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Unknown Unkown

The Red Pen of Doom,

I see that the search "unknown unknown" redirects here. I know that there used to be a separate article for the unknown unknown. Do you know how it can be located? Please let me know. Thank you.

Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albraun01 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Cuneta

You should have seen the article on Sharon Cuneta before I found it. Both the article and talk page were a mess; it was rated B class by a blocked sockpuppet, who had also added a big template that falsely claimed the article was under general sanctions. I demoted it to C class and attempted to cleaned up the worst of the promotional content, but it still needs work. It's difficult to believe an article could be that promotional for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, that was indeed a mess! I found it when searching for the word "megastar" to see if there were any other obvious candidates for a DAB page. What came up instead were completely inappropriate uses in actual articles! I removed that particular issue at Sharon Cuneta, but did not have time to taking it a part. Thanks for your work! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Majestic

What does this edit summary even mean? I interpreted it as "you need a reference", however the other In popular culture entry about a video game didn't have a reference to begin with, so either the entry I tried to add needs to be restored or the other one needs to be removed as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Issues about the Article

Hello, there was a Talk Page about this Article and it was decided to leave it because writing on wikipedia about this Gallery is not advertisement and the subject is notable https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sommer_Contemporary_Art of course it needs more work. Krokamaora (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi responded to your point over at NPOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Use_of_the_word_cult is the previous discussion we already had about this topic. The people VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw are attempting to get around a conclusion or at least a lack of consensus that was already established in a very recent discussion on the same manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Per_Wikipedia_policy.2C_is_there_anything_wrong_with_a_quote_containing_the_word_.22cult.22_in_the_lead.3F is where you had commented. Prasangika37 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RPOD, I've had enough of this.

At this point, you're going to have to decide whether to permanently ban me, because I will not accept your interpretation of this. All I can say is, I have 30 FAs to my credit, and Misplaced Pages will not be better off with me gone. So you have to make up your mind what outcome you prefer. Serendious 20:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: WTF are you talking about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me at least attempt a conversation, though you have shown yourself to be marked thick-headed on this issue. I will try and make it as simple as possible.

Zombie: The lead sentence, which lest we forget, is meant to describe what the topic of the article is, reads "In Haitian folklore, a zombie (Haitian Creole: zonbi, Haitian French: zombi) is an animated corpse raised by magical means, such as witchcraft."

Zombie (fictional): the lead reads, "Zombies are fictional creatures, typically depicted as mindless, reanimated, usually human corpses with a hunger for human flesh."

Two lead sentences, describing two completely different things. If you want to make either Zombie the main article, or Zombie (fictional) a branch article of Zombie you need to come up with a definition that somehow encompasses both those descriptions. This you have never done in all the times I've known you; all you've done is ham-fistedly copy-paste information from one article to the other, completely ignoring what each article is actually about. If you can come up with such a definition, then we can compromise. If not, then I guess it's guns at noon. Serendious 20:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When you provide any level of support for your position from reliably published sources, maybe then my thick head will comprehend. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When you can come up with a definition that accurately describes both of these creatures, then I'll back down. Serendious 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait ... Hang on! ... There is a ... Gulp ... Difference !!! Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers

Hello. About the thing I said on Christina Hoff Sommers's page. The gentleman from Oakland made some weird statement about how "Misplaced Pages seems to be interested in HER opinion about herself...etc. and that she's an anti feminist, etc." That falls under possible Weasel talk OR Political Biases. By Philosophical definitions, she is a feminist. Not a left-wing Feminist (this is admittedly true) but it's inappropriate for users to make claims about her being anti-Feminist on her page. The same goes for right wing attacks on left wing figures, etc. It doesn't look good in terms of Debate/Philosophy. Sorry, I'm a Philosophy Grad student and it itches my nerves when people attack one another (ad hominem) instead of finding proper means to argue with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocoTrooper95 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Draft:Gamergate controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Really? Retartist (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)