Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 15 October 2013

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

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Talk:Alex Jones 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Believing you are right does not give you the right to violate 3RR Daffydavid (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hai, Then you have to clean all the Indian film actors filmography tables also Include Kamal Hassan, Rajanikanth, Ajith Kumar, Vijay_(actor) Vijay,Akshay Kumar, Aamir Khan, Chiranjeevi filmography and so on. thanks Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2013‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (talk • contribs)

Hi, request you to kindly not make any changes on Pallavi Purohit page by removing the tables, picture, etc. If you believe it is not constructed properly then kindly share your suggestions and point of view before making any further changes to the same. Thanks. Anonymous.celeb (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you go ahead girlfriend Basket _Feudalist 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

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

• {{issues|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce R. McConkie 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce R. McConkie 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce R. McConkie 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesse Wellens

Jesse Wellens had a UK #68 hit under the name "Chip Chocolate" and thus is notable under that name under WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. It is the name he is most commonly associated with; it is co-incidence he is also notable for one event for being one half of BFvsGF.--Launchballer 21:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please make an attempt to behave more reasonably in the future

As you may have guessed by now, I am not a fan of your confrontational style of editing which promotes the development of hostility; based upon what I've read and seen of your personal interactions, I am very much not alone in that belief. In my personal opinion you are guilty of Wikilawyering and POV railroading at the very least, and really should stop and take a look at the unproductive way in which you interact with your peers in what is intended to be a collaborative environment. Your style is marked by the baiting and goading of your peers in the apparent hopes of inciting improper behavior, and here is a perfect example in which you abide by the letter of a policy or guideline while clearly violating its spirit and underlying principles. This is damaging to the building of this encyclopedia. Should an WP:RFC/U ever be filed against you, you can rest assured that I will be among the long list of editors who gladly take part. Enjoy your day. ChakaKong 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please be more civil

I saw you post at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Laduguer is offensive to the contributors and general editing atmosphere. Namely the comment about "The proposed merge target... is merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another to let it stink there." Please try to curb such comments in the future. I've gone ahead and merged the important parts to another page ahead of the redirecting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Sharma (actor)

Hello, It seems that you're removing gathered information for Hindi voice actor, Rahul Sharma (actor) and I suggest you don't keep on removing the information, since there's important notes and remarks regarding the page, such as the release of the Hindi dubbed version and such.

I know this sounds short, but I would recommend to let the page be kept the way it is. I don't wanna have to revert it repeatedly. --BlueMario1016 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fanboy

I find it hard to imagine you weren't aware of what I was referring to. In case you actually are unaware, "fanboy" in the way you use it (over and over) would certainly appear to be name calling. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Suppose I should have read the material above here first. Yeah, I see that others have issues with your lack of civility too. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

i never called anyone a fanboy. i said that the materials should be moved to a fanboy site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"I never called anyone a fag, I said it should be moved to a fag site". That too would be acceptable in your mind? Hobit (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dulquer Salmaan

Formatting tables does not follow the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline for how these tables are to be formatted. HRM (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2013‎ (UTC)

According to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is a WikiProject dedicated to building comprehensive and detailed articles for actors and other filmmakers. Working to provide a greater focus on people in the film industry. To maintain standards for articles about people in world cinema, as well as for categories, templates, and other Misplaced Pages items that may support those articles. so tables are needed here for easy and better way to understand. HRM (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the link? "Some filmographies are presented in a tabled format; however, you should make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography." ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMOGRAPHY the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. It will be an obvious benefit to this article. HRM (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Creating a reason? information on every article must be clearly conveyed. So here for clearly conveying tables can be used.HRM (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Ok i removed unnecessary broken and unwanted tables from the article. I think this new version of tables are appropriate. THanks HRM (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit warring on Mammootty filmography

Your recent editing history at Mammootty filmography 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. You can 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've started the discussion. Wait for an answer, or report them for edit warring. Don't edit war yourself. GedUK  11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

treehouse attachment bolt editing clarifications

Dear Red

Some confusion exists regarding the removal of previous edits that were an attempt to clarify basic engineering facts regarding this section. Factual errors remain (the TAB was NOT developed to satisfy the Josephine County building department, a measurement("10,000 pounds") is not based upon any scientific criteria, it is NOT a Hex Head Cap Screw, as examples) and it reads more like a cult-of-personality post rather than something that desperately needs engineering clarification.

It should be either removed or allowed to grow into a true fact-based technical section. If non-technical editors are free to gut the information at any time there seems to be little value in making the effort to achieve a higher standard.

Charles S. Greenwood, P.E., LLC

Gnwdeng8895 (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Hi there. I am new to Wiki. I was told that I can edit on Misplaced Pages and help disseminate knowledge. I have nothing against PrankVsPrank. I just Googled to see if their Pranks were fake and I found this site as a source and put the information based on that source. I read the WP:RS and I believe there has to be a bunch of other editors that decide whether a source is reliable or not. I felt bullied as I am new. Thats all. Thanks for the welcome Marcelrios (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobic incidents

Wow. Didn't expect to meet such resistance. I'm staying out of the debate but I've made my feelings clear on the talk page. My final point is important - merger is merger, not a substitute for AfD. I hope that whatever your feelings are on this issue you will see that. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

D&D

I've been trying to merge and handle the content appropriately, I did a massive amount of work in the past few days. Purging the categories and not carrying in the content only reduces the coverage and limits what I actually have to work with. Can you hold off on redirecting a contentious redirect for the time being? Surely the 80+ pages merged show that I am more than capable and willing to do the task, but I've got a backlog to go through and I want to at least finish up the demon page before I go back into a monster creature page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record I see no contentious redirect, but a merge that was fully supported by consensus at AfD and talk page. I think we're equally capable of performing the task and I do not appreciate the suspicion of "not carrying the content" and other nonsense. ChrisG, while I appreciate your efforts on D&D, I would not like you to reproduce the same mindset you exhibited at WP:ANIME where you saw yourself as the only one with the "right" idea on how to improve WP. Cut us some slack, do your work on your own and leave us do ours. We've done an AfD and a merge discussion on this one, we're carrying it, fair and simple, I don't see any problem nor interference with what you're doing. I think that you initially acted without taking the time to understand this particular situation, so rather than trying to tell us now not to "interfere", just admit you messed up on this one and drop the stick.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A sign of a disruptive editor is one who repeatedly refuses to assume good faith and allow work to be carried out. This is a community encyclopedia, not Folken's encyclopedia. I've made a simple and reasonable request; it is wrong to refuse it. I do not even need a week, and I am short on time. Sparing only 10 mins here and there for the time being. What is the pressing issue for it to be removed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And why would Folken de Fanel's merging per the AfD NOT be considered a good faith effort? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would moving the cats to the talk page when redirecting allow you to continue your merging process? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It'd still redirect me for each one and even as part of a larger category will still take a lot of time before I hit them alphabetically. It'd be easier just to give me a list of the redirects as a compromise. Also, the issue with Folken's repeated accusations of bad faith is my issue with him. It is not the act of merging, it is his tendentious behavior in the "my way or the highway"-style of interactions that is neither productive or civil. Reinsertion of a BLP issue via edit warring, redirecting content which is agreed to meet N/GNG yet won't delete. That sort of thing is disruptive. I know that D&D needs hundreds of mergers and a massive reorganization, but I've shown that major work is being done and I think it is fair to do that work without an editor taking pot shots on someone else's page when you are working together with a slightly different time scale. I cannot do everything with a flick of a switch and I've put over 30 hours into doing it this week, should be more than enough to demonstrate a "hold please". If he has a pressing issue, why not propose a deadline of 3 days? I don't see why it needs to be edit warred to redirect, when I've asked for a little extension after all I've done to merge them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

admittedly, your "Hold please I am working on this" is of an entirely different plateau than the "Hold please I am working on this" that has come many times from other editors in the D&D project space.

But that doesnt change the fact that the AfD regarding the hag was settled many weeks ago as Merge and that the immediate characterization of FdF's work to carry out that merge (AFTER giving another 2 weeks to someone who stated "Hold please I am working on this" ) as anything but working in good faith to carry out the community's consensus to merge is really unacceptable.

it not like the D&D project hasn't been aware for YEARS that there is a HUGE sourcing and notability issue within the articles of the D&D space. (the project leaders admitting so in the fall of 2009 and stating that they had been aware of poor results of clean up attempts in the year before ) And yet, when someone conducts a merger per AfD results, what is the first thing that happens? they attack the motives and methods of the merger. That 5 articles were merged per an AfD consensus before you got to them is really not something to go on and on about attacking the intentions of the merger. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your and Folken de Fanel's history speaks for itself, actually, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the requesting editor isn't aware of any of the issues that have happened since before his arrival. Chris Gualtieri has been doing merges in a rapid way that hasn't been reverted. If your interest is really in cleaning up the topic area, then you both should be encouraging his efforts and facilitating them in any way you can. If, on the other hand, you're interested in something besides the actual clean-up (and the possible reasons are several, but I'll leave them as an exercise for the reader), then by all means it would be in your best interest (if not the encyclopedia's) for you to obstruct and hinder Chris Gualtieri. You response will undoubtedly become a lens through which others view your participation in the topic area. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean "wouldn't be" right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I take it as a good sign that there are now multiple clean up efforts to address the longstanding issues, and I applaud ChrisGualtieri's Herculean efforts. However, the fact there are some hick-ups in implementing a multi-pronged cleanup drive is not a sign that any one or all should be eliminated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD has perfectly summed up the issue in his earlier comment, ChrisG's work on D&D is greatly appreciated, but he has also made his underlying motives for his initial revert very clear, while there were far more constructive ways to handle this. ChrisG is now aware of these redirects and can access article history at will when he has time to actually take care of it, so as far as I'm concerned (with no prejudice to further compromise as long as it is clear that these merges are not negociable), case closed. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I find Folken's lack of good faith a permanent barrier to working together. Thanks for the compliment and understanding TRPoD, I have some more 15 hour work days ahead of me, but I should be able to carry out plenty more merges and work in my down time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

well, the fact is that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project an so you do have to "work together" while you are here, but you can be the bigger man and show more respect and good faith than you feel he is showing you. and Misplaced Pages is a huge space (heck even the poorly sourced D&D articles are a big space!) and so there is probably a way that you can both continue to contribute where you dont have to interact in a manner where either of you would even have to assume anything about the other. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I will try to do that. I'm here to improve its function and operation, Jclemens did a bit more explaining for Folken to hopefully resolve the underlying issue of my request; not to keep the content, but to allow it to be found and worked on. Without seeing it via someone else I would never have found them! Hope his explanation helps; considering the three of us all have the same goal in mind. D&D's big space can be shrunk with proper table and list management. I hope to extend cross-functionality between the merged pages and their contents without needing some 600+ odd pages comprised of two paragraphs. Even bouncing between that many pages, with or without navigational templates would be bothersome! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Finished reading Wiki Guidelines

I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Misplaced Pages. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from using abusive language on Misplaced Pages. Maybe you are not aware of Misplaced Pages:Civility. Please be civil. Misplaced Pages is better without editors who are not civil. I repeat. Please be civil and do not use abusive language while addressing other Misplaced Pages users. Have a good day. 174.116.4.162 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously confused.

As you are very well aware, I have not made any defamatory posts to any page. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you could point out what you believe, in your personal opinion, as a biased observant, is defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.227.132 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

uhh, no you are making unsourced and potentially defamatory comments about a living person. , repeatedly -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping to User:Tumbleman

Tumbleman (talk · contribs), I will refrain from editing your talk page- if you either 1) remove the personal attacks stating that I (and other editors) have been " harassing" or " WP Gaming " the system or 2) unless you provide actual evidence of such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Had you simply made the request not to edit on your page without including the unsubstantiated personal attacks or removed the attacks, I would not have had any reason to add the template warning you about not making personal attacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Better to ignore him and not waste your time. The goal of a troll is to eat your time, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)