User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

And there is also This archive.

Barnstar

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

Mammootty

Dude now check the main lead. Every thing mentioned is sourced and all sources are reliable. please check before reverting. myself cleaned unwanted content.now the article looks perfect. Thanks Harirajmohanhrm ^talk (talk)‎ 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

Joust

Why did you remove my added content from the Joust video game article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widowman88s (talk • contribs)

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

Please correct / delete unreferenced comments such as 'Hence all corruptions are tucked away under the cupboard.[3]' The citations are to blogs hosted by specific individuals / interest groups.

Thanks

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

AfD notification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)

Happy New Year!

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Susan Lindauer

You cited "BLP issues" with your edit-revert of SL. Can you explain why parsing-out the text (as I did) and correcting the legal reference (so it corrolated with her indictment) implied BLP issues?

For ex: She wasn't charged under the Patriot Act, explicitly. She was charged under a specific law for "financial crimes applied to terrorism" for which the implementation would have been, a priori, affected by the Patriot Act - which is in fact an important distinction.

Beyond this, the text re: her education and work history is mixed-up. What is your issue with clarification?

Can you explicitly state why my rectifications are BLP issues?

Thanks in advance.

QualityFeet (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the blp issues are either, but this article has had problems with new or ip accounts before and will receive extra scrutiny than other articles.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Twenty:20 (film) was at that title due to a formal move discussion in August

Hello TRPOD. See Talk:Twenty:20#Requested move 16 August 2014. Please restore the article to the previous title (with 'film' as the dab), unless you want to open a new WP:RM. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There are known knowns

Hi, I’m following up for a client who contacted you in early December about the page for “There are known knowns.” This page started as an entry on the term “unknown unknown” from the field of decision analysis, but got somewhat ambushed by the Donald Rumsfeld 2002 press briefing. I gather that the initial issue was a lack of citations for the term existing in its own right before Rumsfeld’s statement brought it into popular vernacular. I’ve been asked to make the case for reinstating “unknown unknown” as its own page. I’m brand-new to editing on Wikipedia and want to avoid spending a lot of time on something that will likely be deleted all over again, so I wondered if we can get your opinion on what would stick.

The first and most direct reference we find to “unknown unknown” is by Catholic philosopher Bernard Lonergan in a 1959 lecture, transcribed here: http://books.google.com/books?id=8Vqa4_4mCTQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22unknown+unknown%22+catholic&source=web&ots=6UYkKoT_zU&sig=0TNsNjUefLBp#v=onepage&q&f=false

But there are also several references to the use of the term in the context of engineering, the military (particularly regarding the Department of Defense), as well as contemporary project management. The term is very often shortened to “unk-unk” or “unk-unks” and appears in the following print articles: Fortune, “Everything’s Coming Up Unk-Unks.” August, 1969, p. 77. Time, “Aerospace: End of the Gravy Years.” March 19, 1970, p. 63. New York Times, “The Vague General Haig.” December 17, 1980. p. A34.

More uses from the area of business/project management appear here: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/discovering-unkunks/ (regarding innovation) http://derivadow.com/2007/09/28/scrummaging-for-unk-unks/ (same, but attributes “unk-unks” to NASA)

A “dictionary” write-up from a public radio website: http://www.waywordradio.org/unk_unk/

Finally, here’s a perhaps more solidly academic definition from a footnote of an article at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/29762047?sid=21105560671423&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3739776&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=2129 is as follows:

“Unk Unks” is a colloquialism for unknown-unknowns, i.e., something that may be lurking outside the known sphere (sometimes referred to as the global cognitive map) of investigation; the term is typically used in research and development projects, especially those involving Department of Defense requirements for military aircraft having performance characteristics not previously achieved by production models then available.

The problem with absorbing “unknown unknown” into “There are known knowns” is that Rumsfeld did not coin the term, and the concept independent from the particular incident in which he used it. On the other hand, it’s not as clear-cut as to where the term originated--as other users have pointed out, the same (or very similar) idea has been expressed in different terminology in the realms of philosophy/epistemology, but we have yet to find the specific phrase “unknown unknown” outside of Lonergan. Regardless, it’s an established concept, and as such has clearly made it into more than one discipline of study. But it may actually have more notoriety in its abbreviated form as “unk unks” than as “unknown unknown(s).”

Any advice?

Apologies if this belongs on the article talk page rather than here, but since you responded to my client’s initial inquiry, this is where we’re starting. Thanks! Lyonmegg (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Lyonmegg: Why isn't your "client" doing this theirself? You should also know about WP:Paid editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit for Tomay Amay Mile

Dear TheRedPenofDoom, please don't delete any data which really has reliable references. The guest appearances and awards sections should be present in the article . For verification please check videos of the star jalsha awards on youtube. Hope youtube is a reliable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.79.252 (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redpen

I know we haven't seen eye to eye of late, but I wanted you to know I appreciate the work you did against Gamergate, and I hope the reprisals weren't too bad. Serendi^podous 19:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackthomas321 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags

Hello, while I generally think "drive by tagging" of articles is more disruptive than anything, if you are going to do it, could you please use the multiple issues tag instead of just having a ton of tags at the top of each article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

what is your problem?why did u undid my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejaz92 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dual Survival (season 4)

I noticed you my reverted edit again on that article. I thought I would show you the WP:PROVEIT. I don't care if we wait until the date of the show actually airing to link on the next season page. But I thought I would let you know the first episode of season five is titled "Into The Canyons" and is scheduled to air on January 21, 2015. [1]

Arijit Singh

On the above page I did attempt to revert to the same edits that you reverted to but I am guessing it has something to do with the pending changes protection why my edits did not go though. Its just you said there was no source for claim so I got a bit confused by that one.Daniel298289 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Irony

"If you choose to be anonymous on the Internet dont expect to be taken seriously" -TheRedPenOfDoom

LOL noted. 166.171.186.190 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm Cutest Penguin. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Make in India have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)