User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


And there is also This archive.

Barnstar[edit]

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

Graphology[edit]

Hi! I saw your comments on the talk page of graphology and I don't agree with you that "claims" regarding the ability of graphology to evaluate personality is "hogwash" and not verifiable. Though not experimented much, there are many peer-reviewed research studies in support of graphology (most in foreign languages) : http://www.igc-grapho.net/research-in-graphology . Here is the link to a review of experimental research conducted in graphology: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 . It describes that graphology can reveal personality traits such as intelligence, vitality, neuroticism, anxiety level etc. The journal is "Perceptual and Motor Skills" published by Ammons Scientific. Please do look through ALL studies on a subject before dismissing it as a pseudoscience. Investimate (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to believe in it, I cannot stop you. I, however, will stick with the mainstream scientists and the lack of repeatable claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, you seem to be repeatedly saying that scientific studies have failed to validate "claims" made by graphologists. So, I thought I should say this. Experimental studies in handwriting analysis have been able to conclude that handwriting analysis can predict intelligence, personal interests (especially aesthetic interests), neuroticism, anxiety levels, energy and vitality etc. (A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 -1960" (Fluckiger, Fritz A, Tripp, Clarence A & Weinberg, George H: A Review of Experimental Research in Graphology: 1933 - 1960. Perceptual and Motor Skills 12: 67–90) http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.67 Verify for yourself. A main reason why some experimental studies failed to validate graphology is the use of untrained professionals. Its like testing whether a medical diagnosis can be made by using judges who have read a book on anatomy and saying that medicine is not valid. Very often researchers did not understand what graphology can and cannot do, so they tended to focus on the wildest claims by marginal graphologists who are not genuine graphologists. Investimate (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

those studies are 60 years old and havent been duplicated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Research in graphology is not too old to be of value. The human graphic motor sequence has not altered; the anatomical system is the same and the neurological pathways for writing impulses are the same. However, this does not mean that graphologists don't have to replicate research done earlier. There have been studies after these in the 80's (eg: Baruch Nevo studies), 90's (eg: Graphology in Personality Assessment: Reliability and Validity Study A dissertation, Adelphi University 1993, Patricia Wellingham-Johnes studies etc), i the 2000's (eg: Ist an der Graphologie doch etwas dran? Jens F. Beckmann, Gabriele Schmidtand etc.) and studies are still being conducted, most in foreign languages. Astrology or palmistry do not have so many validating studies. According to Wikipedia, it does not involve changing the basic laws of nature and has nothing mystical to it and hence, it is not a pseudoscience but rather fits better under the questionable sciences division. Investimate (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. without any modern confirmations and many disconfirmations after the ancient publications, you have no case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For your information, modern confirmations are definitely there. Many are done as dissertations. I understand that facts and studies cannot convince some people who are highly biased. You really don't have any background in this subject do you? Investimate (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had actually gone through that list, you would have noticed that most studies are from the 90's and there are several from the 2000's. Have you noticed that in the Wikipedia article the "invalidating" studies you quoted are also from the same time, if not earlier. You wouldn't call those "ancient", would you? Only the validating studies... Investimate (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Chiranjeevi[edit]

Thank you, yes the award is less prominent Bhishek (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards[edit]

SIIMA awards are a part of awards section, but you are removing them to intimidate editors by showing your dominance. SIIMA awards are included in awards section, you better check in other actors list Bhishek (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Halo[edit]

I have provided all sources for SIIMA award. Hope your eyesight is working properly. Bhishek (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA Awards[edit]

I have included Times of India reference for SIIMA, again I dont have to include the same in Awards section, but since you appear to abuse fellow editors, I will repeat the same source Bhishek (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

eye sight[edit]

I am talking about Times of India reference, not wikipedia article as a reference, I did not include any wikipedia reference, sure you may have to check your eye sight Bhishek (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SIIMA awards reference[edit]

I have only included SIIMA award with Times of India reference as an Inline citation, this is the only edit I did in Chiranjeevi article. I cant understand your personal attack over me. Bhishek (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Please explain I really cannot understand which reference and claims you are talking about Bhishek (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Quit trying to intimidate people[edit]

If someone is violating policy, then you should politely note it to them. If they do so repeatedly, the proper thing to do, once polite correction has failed, is not to threaten them, but to bring it up to a higher level. Repeatedly threatening to report people is a form of harassment or intimidation, and is not WP:CIVIL. Likewise, your clamping down on many things is an example of biting the newbies. Please clamp down on your aggression in the future. Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I like your use of Ping, I need to remember that, I like how it only requires 1 edit and doesn't clutter up talk pages or edit counts while still making that notifier come up. Ranze (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Response[edit]

Hi RedPen

Could you kindly respond to the points I have made regarding the inclusion of the Escapist DDoS on the Talk:Gamergate controversy talk page? In my edit comment I asked for a response to what I had written on the talk page in case of reversion. While you did give reasons for reversion in your edit comment, these did not address the points I had made on the talk page. According to WP:EW, reversions should be addressed on the talk page in case of dispute, so as someone who reverted the edit it would be highly useful to have a rebuttal from you. My apologies if I have come across as hostile or overzealous in any way. Bosstopher (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Marilou mcphedran[edit]

I see we have some editing disagreements. In general the piece is puffed up but the most egregious claim is that this person has a masters from Osgoode hall law school when in fact it is a degree from osgoode's professional development program- OPD-a terminal and course based masters. There is no such thing as a thesis based Osgoode masters in comparative constitutional law though there is that designation from the OPD. You rejected my hyperlink but I encourage you to contact that law school to confirm. A false credential is a serious offence in academic circles so I thought it important to correct. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopphippo (talkcontribs) 04:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paddington (film). 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 Wikipedia'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.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Paddington (film) 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.
You may be in the right but don't go about it the wrong way. Oosh (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

List of hoaxes[edit]

Could you please explain why you deleted my edit on List of hoaxes? I merely linked to a Wikipedia article about a hoax. Thanks. --ToniSant (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@ToniSant: You did not provide any reliably published sources - Wikipedia articles are not reliable. In addition there is nothing in the main article that gives anything other than a typical tabloid flash in the pan that merits an article. We are not here to facilitate someones desperate crawl for fame. WP:BLP/ WP:NOT / WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I see you're a deletionist. I'm an inclusionist. I won't get into an edit war with you, mainly because I see that you're quite forceful on such things. :-) I think that this and this are reliable sources by Wikipedia guidelines; however, media hoaxes are often just "tabloid flash in pan" things anyway. Please consider reverting your deletion. --ToniSant (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
yes the trivialists and I frequently disagree on what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nayantara[edit]

Hi bauer, I know you are little very strange but I tell you, DON'T you undo my edits with one click!!! Never ever ever again!!! You removed all upcoming films, the whole awards section and a whole subsection that ALL had very very reliable sources!!! Such mass edits without any discussion, seriously? By a senior editor?? Any sensibility?? Last time you did this!! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

1) No, you removed everything including sourced content! 2) POV commentary? What exactly? How do you define POV commentary? All claims I added are objective, all of them are sourced! Check the sources first! 3) I was referring to this edit in particular. This is removal of sourced content! Not done! 4) The are a few nominations in the table that are not separately sourced (but they are wikilinked and in those articles you will find sources!), still not a reason to remove the ENTIRE awards section including the reliably sourced ones (and ALL of the sources I added in the section are reliable!) Regarding the upcoming films, she has signed up those films, sources are added, nothing more is required and it's irrelevant in which stage of production the films are! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Nayantara 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. Amortias (T)(C) 19:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bade Achhe Lagte Hain[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain#The section on shooting.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain#The section on shooting.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tamravidhir (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, let me start by saying I appreciate your work and you obviously are knowledgable about how to create the best articles. However I feel I need to comment on that you caused an editwar at Yoshukai Karate, violating te 3RR guideline. This was obviously not a matter of life and dead and could have waited untill discussion. Please dont do this again, you really demotivated your fellow editors who ran for help, for no reason at all. Thank you for your time and effort. All the best, Taketa (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, seconded (in part, at least). You're absolutely right - the list of links doesn't belong there, and I've commented on the talkpage to that effect - but there's no need to to edit war to keep it out. It doesn't fall under the 3RR exceptions, so you're risking a block by warring over it; once consensus is established (well, it's already pretty clear that policy's on your side) then the list can be removed without any problems. Yunshui  07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mammootty[edit]

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 (talk)‎ 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Complaint of edit warring at Nayantara[edit]

Do you want to reply to WP:AN3#User:Veera Dheera Sooran and User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Amortias (Result: )? It is a claim of edit warring at Nayantara. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IQ and Global Inequality[edit]

You appear to be edit-warring on this article and further reverts may lead to a block. Please continue to discuss on the talk page. TFD (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Giving you fair warning. Do not make article suck by reverting relevant edits. As you are doing with Salman Khan filmography. You have also removed important points without proper reason. First you must read WP:CRYSTAL before reverting. Article has given Under construction tag so don't remove any sentence until you see that particular tag.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A article I found from 2010 that I'm not sure what to make of it[edit]

Rahim Mombeini found it on shortest bios. First off-born in 1334? And nobody has noticed that all these years??? He might be notable though, I think this needs clean up but not sure what tags to use. Wgolf (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wgolf: the 1334 is a non-julian calendar, roughly translating to 1955.
The newsbank preview is extremely unhelpful in providing details about the actual source it has archived- but it looks like it is from a BBC skim of official and semi official government websites.
Depending upon the country, the president's budget aide may be a role that automatically confers notability, but I am not sure and i didnt find any other coverage in google news or google books, but they are not great at collecting non-western stuff and would not have collected any hits in persian which i cannot read anyway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
-thanks, I was not sure how to tag it as to be honest, and I am surprised nobody changed the year all this time. Wgolf (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wgolf: i have swapped tags - the BLP and notability seem to cover it now. several experienced editors had briefly worked on it in the past and knowing the quality of their work now, it is surprising that it got left in the state that it was in. Thanks for your attention! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome-it might need a AFD possibly. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A proposed compromise for the ACIM article[edit]

Hi Red-Pen, If I were to accept your two "negatively phrased" points in the last sentence of the lead for the A Course in Miracles article, could you allow me to add one more "positively phrased" point there, such that it would read something like:

"The book has been called everything from "New Age psychobabble"[5] and "a Satanic seduction"[1] to the "Third Testament",[7] and "The New Age Bible". [6]"

Would this be acceptable to you? Hoping we might be able to settle this thing directly between us. Scott P. (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: it would probably be better to beef up the reception section and once that is more fully reflective of the views that are out there, adjust the lead to match. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
The book is clearly a somewhat "controversial" book, with very strong opinions on both sides. "Christians" and athiests on the one side considering it as pure rubbish at best, or satanic at worst, while the millions who study it, obviously consider it to be of considerable value. You would appear to me to fall into the "anti-camp" while I admittedly fall into the "pro-camp". With controversial topics, it is my understanding that Wikipedia generally attempts to suitably represent both sides of any such "conversation", no? Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
nope Wikipedia presents the mainstream academic assessment which per Miller is "Christians think it is non-Christian at best and Satanic at worst, Academia considers it pure psychobabble, its promoters see it as a financial cash cow, and its adherents love it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So you are then saying that the reports of its adherents cannot be represented in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia policy?Scott P. (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
reports of its adherents are only appropriate when filtered through a third party expert who evaluates their representation and value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So then, all articles on Christianity cannot allow for any "Christian" authors to be directly represented? Is that what you are saying? Same would go for athiests, birthers, etc. etc. I have not heard that rule before. Scott P. (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
sure we do. we dont include "John Doe Christian believes/do/are considered X" we have "Theologian John Doe says Christians believe/do/are considered X" and when it is clear that Theologian John Doe's views represent a majority of the experts on the subject, we simply say "Christians believe/do/are considered X" but its based on the third party expert.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the readers of an article about a book that has sold into the millions deserve to hear directly from experts such as Dyer, Winfrey, and Tolle about what makes the book "tick", as well as hearing from expert Theologians and folks akin to yourself as to why it is nothing more than "Satanic psychobabble". Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1) please stop making assertions about who i am and what i believe. WP:NPA
2) we are an encyclopedia and we present the subject as an encyclopedia would. if people come here expecting something else, they will still find an encyclopedia. if they are disappointed because they wanted something other than an encyclopedia when they came to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, oh well, hopefully they know how to google. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
You have insisted on including the terms "psychbabble" and "Satanic" in the article's lead. That is a mere point of fact, and not meant to be an attack. Wikipedia, by its nature, is far more than Britannica ever was. Britannica only treated nearly all subjects very "sparsley", if for no other reason, simply due to lack of space. One definition of an encyclopedia is "a well-rounded view". Not only an "academic-mainstream view". It seems to me that Wikipedia has enough room to represent more views than Britannica ever did. So are you going to attempt to delete the views of the experts I listed then? Scott P. (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"psychbabble" and "Satanic" are sourced by third party Miller as significant views of the book by major populations. thats what we present.
wikipedia is NOT a promotional platform for adherents to spread their views or have their views presented as they wish to have them presented.
If your involvement in with the subject creates aw conflict of interest that prevents you from editing appropriately you should seek out other subjects where you do not have the conflict. Wikipedia is big and there are lots of articles that need help where you can edit all day long without worrying touching subjects that you cannot approach with the required perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So you would prefer to only represent the "critical" view in the article and no other. That is apparently your take on what a "well rounded view" should be, one that is entirely critical in this case, no? You would censor out the experts who are not critical, is that correct? And you would attempt to drive away anyone who did not agree with you, no? On the one hand you say you want "experts" to be represented, but then you are apparently saying that only critical experts may be represented, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
if the mainstream sources only give out negative reviews, then yes that is what we present as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean "that is what we only present", not "what we present as well", no? Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so.
  • Mainstream reliable sources present the topic as : AAA BB C D
  • Our article presents the topic as: AAA BB C D
Given the paucity of third party coverage given and used in the article, we have to make some estimates, but roughly seems to me that the coverage is 1) popular with the New Age masses, 2) rejected by Christians as anti-biblical at best and satanic at worst 3) dismissed by academics as psychobabble, 4) New age speaker home industry cash cow (see 1) 5) long-running litigious copyright fight (see 4) 6) splintering into "just unique enough" derivatives or MyTakeOnACIM to keep 4 in business.
What am I missing?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, in your view, Wikipedia is supposed to be the "arbiter of the correct, supposedly mainstream academic view". A place where only the majority voice is heard, and all others censored. If for example, it were one century ago, when the mainstream view was that outer space is filled with a material called "ether", and anyone published a theory that outer space was pure vacuum, then a Wikipedia of that day would have refused to let the "vacuum scientist" be heard directly, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not my view, it is policy: WP:BALASPS. So yes we present the current mainstream academic views and as they change, if they do, the article content changes to reflect them. we are not here to present new and breaking views or a platform for the poor frontline warriors fighting for The TRUTHTM-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that it would have been "correct" Wikipedia policy to "censor out the vacuum scientist." What about WP:RS which states that, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.", and on the same page that you referred to: WP:NPOV? Would the views of the adherents of a New Religious Movement such as ACIM, not represent a significant minority view in an article about that movement's primary study book? Scott P. (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
yes, until the vacuum scientist had published his papers and convinced a significant portion of the mainstream scientists that he was on the right track and not a looney, he would not be covered as anything other than a curiosity. We dont make any effort to predict what is going to turn out to be true and what is going to turn out pure crap, we just follow what the mainstream has agreed has actually been convincingly demonstrated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing I can say with fair certainty, Britannica's tone was always "respectful" (read NPOV) towards all subject matters. You will never find a Britannica article with loaded words like "Psychobabble" in the leads of any of their articles. Scott P. (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
britanica had better things to do than cover anything that it might have called "psychobabble" in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that even in a Wikipedia article specifically about a given New Religious Movement (NRM), the Wikipedia readership ought to be "protected" (by editors such as yourself) from actually getting to read the uncensored views of that NRM's adherents, even if such adherents have published reliable sources on these views? 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If people want to find out what a new religious movement has to say about themselves, they should google the new religious movement's home page. If they come to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they should find encyclopedic coverage dont you think? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
For the last 10 years (since the article was first created), this article has stood with both the critical and the adherent's views being presented, side by side, as many other such articles in Wikipedia are still written to this day. Apparently you are of the opinion that this was 10 years of "error". Since you arrived at the article last summer, you have apparently intended to rewrite the article so that it explained primarily your view (which you believe is the "mainstream-academic" view), that ACIM is essentially nothing but "psychobabble", and would be slanted heavily against, if even permitting, any other views. If these are the new policies in Wikipedia, then I stand humbly corrected. If not, then it is my aim to seek out a consultation from a mutually respected neutral third party on this question. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
What third party sources haven't been included? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you are quite sincere in your belief that such is Wikipedia policy. I too feel sincere in my understanding of Wikipedia policy. It would seem to me that one (or perhaps both) of us may need a little "tweaking" of our understanding of Wikipedia policy. As such, it is my aim to ask for a comment on these questions from a mutually respected third-party person from Wikipedia. (Good night from America) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite sincere that there are policies that we present what the reliable third parties say: WP:V / WP:PSTS / WP:OR / WP:NOTADVERT / WP:UNDUE / WP:RS. I am not sure where you got the idea that there are policies that say otherwise.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements[edit]

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

relating conspiracies[edit]

how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:

   Alleged UFO-related entities
   Energy beings
   Grey aliens
   Insectoids
   Little green men
   Nordic aliens
   Reptilians

Projects has a list:

   Project Sign (1948)
   Estimate of the Situation
   Project Grudge (1949)
   Flying Saucer Working Party (1950)
   Project Magnet (1950–1962)
   Project Blue Book (1952–1970)
   Robertson Panel (1953)
   Condon Report (1966–1968)
   Institute 22 (1978–?)
   Project Condign (1997–2000)
   Identification studies of UFOs
   List of notable studies in ufology

Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere if these are as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talkcontribs) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:" uh none. ever. anywhere.
"Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere" you must have mistaken Wikipedia for a webhosting service. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"uh none. ever. anywhere." Tripod? They sell them in the Los Angeles Times in the Pasadena are near Jet Propulsion Labratories. Highlights of the advertisement include the cyrogenics for freezing. So you are not credible or the Los Angeles Times isnt. I personally choose them over you.

Heres webhosting that you say ive mistaben wikipedia for (anyone can create an incident : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

Maybe the CIA pays you to remove such documentation that maybe seen as "neutral" and for your to maintain an opinionated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talkcontribs) 04:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil!" Cell phones don't need tinfoil. Get a new IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talkcontribs) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC) So you admit you're a spirit using a cellphone Haha Don't spend all your time editing wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talkcontribs) 04:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)