User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.

I also edit South Park and Family Guy and other "cultural reference" pages and from public log in sites as User:Notnotkenny. Notnotkenny (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yes I do. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1776 - deleted external link

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page 1776 (musical) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Dear Red Pen,

I hope this gets to you as I'm not entirely sure how to respond. I am confused as to the reason why you deleted the external link for the musical 1776. The link is highly informative, even more so than the link for ibdb. If links for pages to sites such as ibdb, imdb and StageAgent are ok, then this one is ok as well. In fact, the rGreenRoom pages offer even more detailed information on a single page than any of the other sites. And it should be noted that the other sites are linked extensively throughout Wikipedia without incident. The link was clearly not spam or for promotion, in the same way that ibdb is not. The website is a free and open public site just like the others that I have mentioned. The link does offer additional information on the musical including character descriptions which are highly informative and constructive, a production history section for productions around the world (although there are not any listed yet for this musical) and a forum for further discussion of the musical by others. Please explain why you deleted the link because the reasons you gave in your above note clearly do not apply. If you have no other reason than your personal opinion, I have to ask you to please reinstate the link.

Thank you - Mlitsonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlitsonata (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please read our guidelines on external links. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Thank you for sending me the guidelines. I have read them and they are very informative. I see two points under the "avoid" list might be considered. One, that the linked site has ads, but not necessarily more than others so this is on the fence - after all websites have to survive. I do believe that imdb and StageAgent, which are both linked extensively have the same if not more ads than rGreenRoom.com The other, that I am the owner of the site. But this does not exclude the link, it only requests that I suggest the link on the talk page and leave it up to someone else to include. I can understand that request and will follow the request in the future.

It cannot be denied that the link is informative and constructive and that it adheres to the same standards of other links such as ibdb, imdb and StageAgent. Therefore, I ask that you recognize the merits of the link and how it can be useful to WP users and replace the link. If you do not feel it is suitable, please explain why.

Mlitsonata (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

my link is allowed. according to WP:EL, a link that should be added is: An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media... video feed is other media of norm coleman giving his personal views on the conflict. Ashreipinkus (talk)

Hopefully baloney has ceased

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_terrorism_and_the_United_States&diff=195801334&oldid=195780422

Notes to self

{{db-user}} <- get rid of user page

funny exchange

Technical fix

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&diff=204348234&oldid=204346190

Edit Warring

[thoughtless comment removed by author]

Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Nn123645's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Javed Miandad

Added BBC reference.

Joseph Vijay

Why is it that you are deleting information just because they do not have sources. Of course sources are necessary but valuable information should not be removed. There are several articles lacking sources, some without any sources, yet they are kept on Wikipedia. Please stop removing large amounts of info from articles next time, unless the info is harmful or notable vandalism. Rather put up a tag and someone will take care of it. The info you deleted from Joseph Vijay is still verifiable. I am reverting your edits and will add sources. Please don't remove it again. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning? This isn't a war. This is just saving information. Don't delete info from Joseph Vijay. I will get sources for it. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for those POV statements and rewrite them now AND provide sources where necessary. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 18:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Criminal tattoo to the list of articles that have had entire sections removed with no explanation other than "unsourced", and no attempt made to actually help improve the article and FIND a source. WP:V clearly states "any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged may be removed." RedPen, If you want to delete large amounts of content because you feel the material violates WP:OR or WP:NPOV then at least state that in your edit summary.. else that's what the maintenance tags are there for. If the content is uncontroversial and informative then it can still be of use to readers... plus there's entire Wikiprojects dedicated to providing sources for unreferenced articles.. anyways I could go on and on, maybe you just caught me on a bad day but I just had to get that out. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for impartial opinion.

I noticed that you have removed most of the promotional material related with Michelle Belanger from the article on Vampire Lifestyle, as well as the assessments made on the lack of WP:N and WP:RS on her published works. Given all the past attempts at promotion I am worried if a bio page on this person has enough notability for an individual article in an encyclopedia or will just open doors for added promotion in the future. I have expressed my personal view at the new AfD, but given your closer involvement in this matter, your impartial opinion on this topic would be appreciated. AfD Link

Note: I am leaving this notification on TheRedPenOfDoom and Firestorm talk pages, since both have been involved in this issue for longer than I did. DianaLeCrois : 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Control click

Whenever I look at my user page, right by those links with numbers on them, it says control click and it's driving me nuts trying to find why this is suddenly happening. Do you have any idea of what I am talking about. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(In the interests of keeping the conv in one place) see User_talk:Chzz#Control_click Chzz ► 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Varbas

New editor. Does not quite understand the scope of the project as a whole. If he is blocked, and even if he is not, I am willing to counsel him and offer guidence and patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly not a new editor. He's been determined to be using socks and is likely to be a sock of a banned user who had a farm of socks and participated in AFDs with faulty reasonings and multiple votes cast. I'm not sure why he hasn't been blocked yet, but deserves to be. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Varbas (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeMee (2nd nomination)

Perhaps you might wish to revisit the discussion? Silly as a WeeMee is, somehow dozens of significant, in-depth reliable sources were overlooked. I dug. i found. I shared. Later, time allowing, I'll add them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not real source, press releases

I wish you'd reconsider your vote and look into those links. Marketwire, marketsource, businesswire, etc. are PRESS RELEASE services. Reuters, etc. reprints them on their websites but they are not independent news articles. Some of the ones that do not immediately signal that they are merely press releases appear to be simple reprints of those press releases with no editorial oversight -- looking at the article titles shows that many that are linked separately all have the exact same title -- reprints of each other or the press releases. So far I have one maybe good source with the rest being obvious self-promotion, but I haven't finished looking through them all yet. I'd hate the AFD to be closed on the basis of such deceptive information. DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Maria Fowler article.

Hi Red, that was bold (cool).You did what I was wanting to do. I am just learning about the strength of cites and notability. I stumbled upon ithe article yesterday and tagged it with an unnotable delete tag which was removed, if your open to giving a bit of advice sometimes I would be grateful. regards(Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Road to Germany

Could you please quit removing accurate and verifiable information from Road to Germany? Some things are so obvious they really shouldn't need a citation, and even it needs it anyway, you could add citation needed to the content, and someone could possibly provide it. Seriously, some of it's practically like demanding citations for "2+2=4" and "water is wet." --173.28.14.41 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read Template:Fact, perhaps you should do the same. Nothing I've seen you immediately remove on Road to Germany is biographical information that is uncited or inaccurate. --173.28.14.41 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you!

Thank you for welcoming me! If I have any question, i will let you know! :) --Emely1219 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1776 edits

Gracias, senor -- I was about to go looking for a second opinion on that message.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urimai Kural (2010 film)

I was wondering if you are an admin. Can you nominate Urimai Kural (2010 film) for speedy deletion? That is not an officially announced film and was only very recently suggested through out a few websites. The user who created it is "crystal-balling." I believe that the user who created it was the owner of a previous account accused for crystal balling and sock puppetry. Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 21:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for that personal welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoGoWikiRangers (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No personal attacks

There was no personal attacks. He was commenting me badly. So, I replied him back. If you look at what he did, you'll know. You just don't understand my situation. If you're in my place, you will also do that. If you see, this Eaelam StlyeZ and Universal Hero is combining and just wanted to rule the tamil articles. So, when anyone creates good article, they started to changed the article. Hope you understand my situation.

Remember, there was no personal attacks, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you're going to put it on that way, I'll apologized. But, just one rule, I do want him to comment me badly, such as saying I've sockpuppet. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm happry to be friend with you. Any help, I'll ask you. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 06:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket Nectars

Good day! I removed the PROD tag and added some third-party sourced refs to the article. Not that the article couldn't be further improved, but I thought deletion to be a bit drastic after I was able to find a few fairly good refs to cite. Cheers! Geoff ^T ^C 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sf studies

Hi. You added several "neutral point of view" tags to the science fiction studies article. I'm removing those tags for two reasons. First, the better tag to use for your stated reason (lack of criteria) is {{unreferenced}}. Second, as with all tags, it's good practice to start a conversation on the talk page explaining your concerns and intentions. This is particularly so with the NPOV tag, which in fact says "see talk page" -- so you in effect posted tags that linked to nothing. I don't have time at the moment to pursue this, so I'm not going to do drive-by tagging for the lack of references. If you wish to pursue this, please do, and I'll check in as I have time. --Lquilter (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I started a section on the talk page; feel free to follow up. --Lquilter (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of several recent edits by User:Shsilver and references to SFSite.com

It should be noted that User:Shsilver is a nine-time Hugo nominee, and that SF Site (itself a Locus Award winner) is considered a reliable source in the field. Your reversions of his recent edits are, in my opinion, inappropriate, as there is no COI involved; and while he is news editor there, that does not mean that news posted on SF Site does not go through a review process. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Can you do some work on The Fox and the Hound? PLEASE! THAT IS MY FAV MOVIE EVER! And Charlotte's Web (1973 film)! BEST MOVIES EVER! I even like the sequels, Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure and The Fox and the Hound 2, as well as Charlotte's Web (2006 film). 207.59.153.210 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox and the Hound and Robin Hood need better lead sections. See WP:LEAD. If not The Fox and the Hound, please at least do Robin Hood so it'll be sourced. 207.59.153.210 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Daly

The format of the Last Call show has changed and I attempted to describe the changes for those who do not know what came before. I added the following which you completely removed:

"For the eighth season in 2008 the format of Last Call was changed from a desk show with a stand-up act in NBC's Burbank Studios to a documentary on-site, roaming recorded video bits that bring the viewer along on the journey with Carson. Music performance acts continue to be hosted on a stage called the "Denny's All-Nighter Stage" in Burbank, California. Examples of the new shows include Daly's motorcycle trip across the historic Route 66, a visit to comedian Tom Green's house in the Hollywood Hills, and an impromptu hangout at the Whiskey Bar with the Grammy Award-winning band Kings of Leon. "

I would like to put it back with a reference. uriel8 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bambifan101 IP sock

Hey, there. :) If you ever happen to get a request from an anon or a new user asking for help re. The Fox and The Hound, The Rescuers, Bambi, Charlotte's Web or pretty much any juvenile-themed Disney feature under semi-protection, odds are really good it's hard-banned user User:Bambifan101. If it happens again, please let me know or leave word on either the vandalism-in-progress page or the admin noticeboard. I've seen some real guile on the part of banned users, but this little monster just takes the flipping prize. Anyway, take care and drop me a yell if he shows up again. I'm going to semi-protect the articles he edited via the IP since his "pets" are already locked down. Later! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Pasternak

We worked on the Kenneth Pasternak article together a while back, and I wanted to let you know that an anon IP has made a number of changes today. Interestingly enough, that anon IP is registered to an investment group in new jersey that is......the subject of the article's newest business. The edits, for the most part appear to be alright and I haven't changed much other than a little style correction, but I'd appreciate having another set of familiar eyes on it. Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmila Tagore

Hi, You've reverted the edit about the background of the actress, Sharmila Tagore. So i gave a reference, but you've labelled it with WP:COATRACK. We in India know the background of some of the actors, so out of our knowledge it was mentioned in the article. After it was removed saying it as unsourced, i gave it a reference of it in a leading newspaper. It is difficult to find content in the media on India related topics. We're working hard on India related topics, pls understand from our perspective. Thanks Randhir (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEACOCK

So you will teach me what WP:PEACOCK is? Well, thanks. That's what the article does? Saying that a film is successful is NOT a peacock. It's merely a fact when it's properly sourced. And your reason was not WP:PEACOCK, but apparently the use of IMDb, which you cited as being used for all the claims. Do not change articles drastically before you reach consensus on the talk page. And the quotes you cite are not at all relevant in this case. Nobody discusses Juhi Chawla's fame or greatness. It's all about the films. What's wrong about saying that film X was successful as long as it is sourced properly?!

You seemingly fight against POV, while clearly it's just a pretentious act to make yourself look as such. My advice, be a good editor, which you definitely are, without trying to go overboard. Oh, and read WP:BOLD. Instead of "cleaning up" articles and removing different things which are not sourced, try to source it, try to improve. I think you have noticed that everytime you added any tag, I took it in good faith and added sources. I expect you to be a part of the improvement. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is used only ONCE. I know IMDB is not reliable. But you removed all of them throughout, even when supported by reliable sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed them THROUGHOUT, not only in the IMDb part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You give me time? LOL!! That was a good one I must say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

Can you help me, TheRedPenOfDoom? I need your help to delete an article, with a non-containing information. The article is Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging. It only contains I love Aaron Johnson. Thank you, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, My mistake.

Oh, I'm sorry for disturbing you. I really didn't knew about that. Regards, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 11:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy authors/worlds/series

Can you please do some research before deleting additions that link to non-existent pages. I took you at face value before, but after looking into your edits, a good 1 in 4 of them were completely notable additions to the articles. Thank you. Alan16 ^talk 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any good faith I had in your edits is now almost gone. If you did some reserach you would realise that it was a mistaken internal link and nothing more. Richard Monaco is a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, for the novel Parsival or a Knight's Tale. Alan16 ^talk 12:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can have your Rodriguez and the Virtual Knight's one. I really don't care enough about them to argue for them. However I will not let you delete a novel which was nominated for a pulizer prize. One of the best known sources for info on Fantasy Fiction. You may want to search for the word "Pulitzer" as it is mentioned but it is not the main point of the page. Again, search for "Pulitzer". [1] and [2] show some notablility for the author. Also, I would like to know what you think of my removing of the extra info. Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, if there was not a consensus amongst reviewers and biographers. I think the obvious thing to do in this case is to follow the evidence, and the evidence points to him being a Pulitzer nominee. Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 13:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can argue about the veracity of the Pulitzer claims, but in engaging in this argument we have both acknowledged its notability, so Richard Monaco clearly deserves his place in the article. Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3][4] These people published the statement "Richard Monaco... Pulitzer nominee". The argument that is an urban myth can only be taken so far - and who the hell would start that urban myth? It is mentioned in numerous sources, many reliable. Just because it isn't on the Pulitzer website, does not mean it did not happen. One reliable source does not outweigh 3 or 4. Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail Vandalism

Sorry to trouble you but an anonymous user is making unconstructive edits to the Daily Mail article again. I cannot revert it as I would breach the Three-Revert-Rule. I have warned them but they are persisting in making alterations. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC) PS. Is there any way I can report it to administrators as it is a University account address. I am unsure of how to report them Christian1985 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Please do not vandalise articles as you did at List of leaders of micronations. There is no "duplication of content" as you claim. There are 2 totally separate articles with 2 totally separate sets of data, both of which are part of an established larger series of similar articles. Your changes do not reflect consensus. If you wish to change consensus, please discuss on the appropriate talk pages. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note - TRPoD's changes were in no way vandalism. This is a spurious accusation by the IP. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is also User:Gene Poole, similar to the 124.170.58.xx IP's that have been making the same changes over the last few days. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "spurious" in the accusation. The removal of content from wikipedia without discussion, a sustainable policy-based rationale or demonstrable consensus constitutes vandalism. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IE

Good evening. I left a message to you on User talk:12.130.118.19, as the matter was the most topical there. Feel free to reply there or here (though please not on my own talk page, three relevant locations would make matters too confusing.) --Kizor 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of content

If it was duplicated, then why was the list merged in its entirety into the original article? That would seem to be creating a self-duplication scenario. Orderinchaos 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Orderinchaos 03:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanlal

Hi, it seems you are putting zero effort to find sources before deleting the material from the Mohanlal article. Though the burden of providing the sources are onto the editor who adds the material, the editor who removes the material from the article can also try to look for the sources. Also, in a BLP only the unsourced negative information are usually deleted aggressively. Salih (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was okay, I was just wondering that the article would reduced to a stub :) Salih (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Chopra

My mistake. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mohanlal Exclusive.jpg

I got the original photo that is too large with many other photos in one poster from the original person who took the photo. So i cut it and provide more lights and works in different parts. So i upload it as entirely my own work. If such type of photos are there how should i upload it. Please help me. Like this one that i upload the photo File:Lt Col Mohanlal. Please help me that u told that some copyright issues are there. Thank u ---> User_talk:Saj2009 16:47, 15 June 2009

Wikipedia Art controversy

The AFD discussion seems a bit stalled. Would you mind considering the question I put under your "merge" comment. The article could be deleted, or redirected, or merged to a couple of different places, and I'm not sure what you prefer. Thanks – no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization XIII

Hi- A number of months ago you tagged the article Organization XIII as in-universe style. I've been working on the article for its GA re-assessment, and was wondering if you could take a look at the article again. Any comments you may have would be appreciated. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Much appreciated. Thanks for the input. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Help- Uploading

Hi, you have warned me for uploading some images. Please help me that how can i upload images under what rights like images saved from internet, screenshots, capture from powerdvd & the images that i don't know the correct sources etc. I have many images that i would like to upload in wikipedia fo several articles. Thank you. Saj2009 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2009

AfD nomination of Pressure and Safety Systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pressure and Safety Systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pressure and Safety Systems. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Cool

Thank you, as I am new to Wikipedia and I was unaware that editing our own information was not in keeping with the wikipedia protocols. It is just that the information which is being reverted to is out of date and no longer relevant to our campaigns. Hence the changes were initiated by us as no one else was doing so. What do you advise?Bob Stamegna (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pun

Hi, you removed the paragraph

Gag names based on puns (such as calling a character who is always almost late Justin Thyme) can be found in many works, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, Piers Anthony's Xanth novels, Uderzo and Goscinny's Asterix albums, and the Carmen Sandiego series of computer games.

with the comment "stop edit warring and WP:PROVEIT". I can't understand that comment. The examples were there precisely to serve as evidence for the assertion "Gag names ... can be found on many works" (clearly we need more than just one example to justify the "many"). The linked-to articles confirm that those works contain many gag names. Since those statements are about published works, the works themselves are definitive references. What other references are needed?. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that

all content involving analysis and interpretation must be attributed to a reliable third party source, and not a Wikipedia editor's original research. The fact that any of the authors actually used this form of punning must be shown to have been identified by a third party source with appropriate citation. Does that help clarify my edit summary?

Perhaps. According to your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules, an editor who has read Hamlet cannot just write "In Sakespeares's "Hamlet", the main character eventually dies", because that would be original research. He must find some other book that says so. And presumably, just to be on the safe side, he should also also find a third book that says that the second book says that.
Sigh. I must have wasted 20-30 hours of my life copy-editing the Pun article to bring it from garbage state to something vaguely resembling an Encyclopedia article. I actually added little material of my own --- mostly cleaned up what was there, and deleted stuff that was clearly inappropriate or redundant. However, I did try to retain anything that was relevant and of whose correctness I had no reason to doubt. (The note on gag names, in particular, is not mine.) But I feel quite stupid now. Perhaps I should stop doing constructive edits and just go about deleting anthing that other people have written which I do not know whether it is true or false, without bothering to check them myself. Not only is deleting much easier than writing, but is must be more gratifying, too. It must be fun to watch the reaction of the editors who had their work deleted. If I manage to be sufficiently rude in my edit remarks, I may even be able to get a few prolific editors to quit WP in disgust. Who knowns, I may even earn a barn star that way... 8-(
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join Novels WikiProject

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

You might like to take an extra interest in our Fantasy task force

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Alan16 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

It's probably a good idea to leave User talk:173.79.58.33 alone. Reverting the removal of the whois is really just feeding the troll. The whois is very non-specific and mostly useless. If the IP continues to edit in a manner that indicates sockpuppetry, we can handle it from that end. Let's leave the user and talk pages alone. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hey, what's up? I got a question. Are you allowed to use Youtube as a source for a singer's vocal range? I'm on the Freddie Mercury page, and some users and I have founds videos on youtube sourcing Freddie Mercury's range (F2-F5 Full voice and up to E6 in falsetto). We know this is accurate (because of the sound samples and we are major Queen fans). There is an ongoing war on the page about this. Could you add your input on the talk page at the article? Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on my talk page. The videos in question are not live performances, but rather a collection of notes he has hit. For example, the videos are a collection of song samples with the name of the song and the note he has note (example: "Hammer To Fall"-C#5). One particular youtube user named "RangeVocal" has his entire channel dedicated to various singers' ranges.

Here's a video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KY8Z69Oowc&feature=related

Here's his page: http://www.youtube.com/user/RangeVocal --Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the heads up!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco tiger attacks

Your reasons are utterly spurious. You have deleted all references to information that was widely reported upon, and considered germane to the investigation. You are not the arbiter of history. Reach consensus before deleting again - there are more users in favour of keeping that information than in favour of deleting. WP:Consensus. 99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddique-Lal page

I see that you removed the contents of Siddique-Lal and redirected it to Siddique (director). I wonder how you would give importance to only one of the duo, while both are equally popular and known. Why can't an article on Siddique-Lal exist? Is it against any Wiki policy? -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus burgers

Good call: [5]. I should have seen that myself. Un school 01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CN Real

My edits were reverting vandalism and promotional items, and the article was horribly written. I would have not created the article in the first place, so I've redirected it to a section in the network's article instead because there's no way this block will reach any kind of critical or viewer mass. Thanks for acting. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corretta Lipp

Mate, I wouldn't delete the best part of a page just because it was mainly unsourced. Do this some more and someone is gonna give you a vandalism warning, which to be honest, no one really wants. Alaphent (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the message on my page regarding this article, I would say that if you can provide some sources either refuting or supporting any of the information that you blanked I would fully support any edits that you made. However, there has been none of this so therefore the information already contained within the article should be left to stand...IMHO..Alaphent (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ling Woo, you will be blocked from editing. Alaphent (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising Ally Mcbeal related pages.I'm completely unbiased here; I've never even watched a single episode, but it is obvious that you are blatently vandalising wikipedia. So STOP IT! Before someone with a slower temper than me looks at the recent changes and gets pissed off. Consider this a level 0.5 warning against vandalism. Alaphent (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to help you here, perhaps try this template

The aim is to improve an article, not to remove it entirely. Any information is good information. If it is sourced, then that is creditable information and that is what should be on wikipedia. But, I have just spent a while reading into this topic with a bit of googling and tbh if you wanted to improve these articles, all the information you want is pretty much citable on the first page of results. I admit, I know nothing about this topic and you probably know more than I. This means that you should be able to improve these articles with a fair minimum of effort compared to most people. So go for it...As wikipedia says BE BOLD! Alaphent (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misread the above comment. I said "If it is sourced, than that is creditable information and that is what should be on wikepedia". I feel that I need to make my point in clearer terms. If information seems to be unsourced do you not think that it is better to find a source that supports or refutes it and then make an edit based upon that? Edits are generally made with good intent. If you profess to know about this subject matter, then it should be easy work to provide a reference either way. I see neither. Alaphent (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually also seem that you have three accounts, each having a very similar reference to another. One of these has been banned indefinately. I think this is worth mentioning here Alaphent (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look mate, I've seriously been trying to help. I've just added unreferenced tags to the top of several articles that you have blanked, maybe you should consider starting a discussion on the talk pages of the concerned articles? Alaphent (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about living people - Lindsey Graham

The Ally McBeal fight is kinda funny in it insignifcance. But articles about living people are a completely different thing DO NOT add unsourced content as you did to Lindsey Graham. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I'm fairly new here, I've tried to be civil and all. I just hope that anyone who takes the time to read through this issue will make a complete job of it. Alaphent (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I added no information. I simply undid a deletion of information that should probably have been mentioned on the talk page prior to any deletion. Alaphent (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI response

In response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RedPenOfDoom:

User The Red Pen of Doom does not appear to be guilty of vandalism in any form. This user is merely attempting to enforce policy as he/she sees it. It appears that the parties are having a content disagreement which is fairly routine on Wikipedia, and I recommend all parties resolve it on the relevant talk pages. In the event the issue cannot be resolved then there are numerous methods for resolving the dispute, such as WP:RFC. I also advise all parties to adhere to WP:CIVIL. Regards Manning (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Haasan

Hi, I do understand your point and I will just improve the current version, but I do feel a bit upset that you approached me in that manner. After all, I did write 80% of the article :) Universal Hero (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BDay Cake!!

Hello, R-POD. Admittedly this article is a bit farcical, and I wrote it with the intention of being so...every now and then someone comes along and corrects my citations etc. My apologies for the quick revert, but that is how i usually respond to such rehauls (in hopes that that rehauler will not notice) in order to preserve the meaningfulness of the article (as a parody of wikipedia, which is *ironically* valid). However, this particular rehauler did notice, and I have no choice but to address your rehaul seriously. I perused your edits; some i agreed with and others not - I will look over them when I have time, reedit, and hopefully we can come to a consensus. If you are not to busy, I would appreciate some help with citations on one of my more serious articles bangladesh famine of 1974. Thanks, mmm.