User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

And there is also This archive

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll disagree, but you should consider responding to this Arb's request anyway.
Best,
David in DC (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave Benson Phillips

Dave Benson Phillips's date of birth is the 3rd of February 1967. I know I don't know how to provide sources to Wikipedia, but other websites say that that's his date of birth.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

"Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility"

On reading this point again, I see that you are correct. My apologies. See my comment on the Sheldrake talk page. --Iantresman (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave Benson Phillips (something I forgot to include)

I can see, when I put in that he was born in Lincoln (or Lincolnshire) seems wrong, as it was written on websites by people who intentionally want to get his details wrong (though you can't not appreciate where I included that he's Black British, which he is).Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

December 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• †<small>Includes [[Sikh]]s (0.2%), Others (<0.1%).</small>
• {{prose}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The White Queen

Hello, you reverted my edit on the The White Queen because the image has nothing to do with the show. Since the whole series is based on the historical figure of Elizabeth Woodville would it not be of some relevance to the show an image of the woman who the show is about? The image has been used on the The White Queen novels article without objection. I'll respect your judgement if you decide it still does not belong on the article but I think you should reconsider.Tomh903 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to EMC page

Regarding the energetically modified cement page. I politely asked for your assistance in resolving an issue to do with nuances of OR which have nothing to do with anything on the page as yet. Instead, you have taken this as excuse to assault the page. For example

• I have just spent an hour writing a section -uncontroversial I might add - about the chemistry. All of the items were sourced. Within 2 minutes of my posting it, you removed it. Can you please justify why you would remove a perfectly properly discussion about the chemistry, which is well sourced? Especially when, I am trying to meet concerns that the article should explain more about why the benefits are what they are?

• You have said in you edit "not reliable sources" - in TWO minutes. How did you make that decision IN TWO MINUTES?

• Secondly you have removed external links as "spam". Can you justify why links which have been reviewed many times over should suddenly be removed by you? For example, if there is an external link so that the viewer can read more, why is this "spam". Can you show me the guideline that allows you to do this. For example, BMW car entries contain links to BMW and so on and so forth.

I look forward to hearing from you.

213.66.81.80 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your prolific deletion rate

In a period of a little more than three minutes from 00:15 to 00:19, you went across four different pages and deleted circa 9000 words

• 9000 words in barely more than 3 minutes across four different articles? Including 3,500 words from the energetically modified cement page which were well sourced and (in part) mirroring information elsewhere already well established on Wikipedia.

• On top of that, in the space of one minute (the SAME minute): you deleted a further 151 letters from the page AND THEN you placed a "re-write" tag DESPITE the admonishment about the caution in using such a tag. Incredible! There is no way in god's earth you followed the instructions there. No way at all.

• Then, in the space of two minutes, you deleted a further 2,500 characters from the page, which have remained undisturbed since the page's formation over 6 months ago.

Can you please offer an explanation - or are you someone who is disruptive for no reason?

213.66.81.80 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

regarding removals

Regarding your comment posted on my talk page

Removing massive amounts content that is non encyclopedic and/or advertorial crap IS improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your principal but dont think the time-record of your conduct bears out any correlation to someone making careful decisions. I do not want to argue with you but engage with you, and if you think you can assist me with the central issue I am looking for assistance on - then please help me. But I do need someone who has extensive history of writing actual scientific articles. If you think you can help then let's discuss this.

And, BTW, I would have thought you would be much better taking a look at the Geopolymer cement article, which really does need you! Let alone that I have zero COI, whereas Geopolymer cement is largely written by a professor heavily embedded in its promotion (and I think the son - or at least a relative of - Joseph_Davidovits).

As it is I am trying very hard to balance my additions with as much precision as I can. Swedish is my first language. I may occasionally fall foul of English requirements but if so it is in good faith and despite my trying my best.

Would you be open to discussing the central issue I do need guidance on? If you have requisite experience in balancing heuristics with "OR" in the context of writing a scientific article, then it would be deeply appreciated!

213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello !

Hello ! Thanks for the message. How I can change a picture ? I was having problems doing this because File:Barton-Zard mechanism.png is incorrect so I made a new one at File:Barton-Zard mechanism corrected.png. Can someone to rename it so it appears in the page (Barton-Zard reaction) ? --Smjerś (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You can actually find page at Barton–Zard synthesis. --Smjerś (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page move is  Done. Unless, of course, that is not what you want. Epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Baal Veer

Hello, I'm krishnadahal12. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Baal Veer without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! :---Krishna (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fort Funston

You recently removed two external links on Fort Funston, pointing to WP:EL in your edit summary. While I am usually very much against external links, and would generally agree with removing as many possible, those two links are currently relevant. The official site at NPS is one part of the park, with the GGNP site a partnered official site. The California State Military Museum site is also very important, as it documents the military history of the fort written by an NPS historian. All three sites have unique information found only those sites. I can see no reason for their removal. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

Comments such as these don't help establish consensus or a collaborative and collegial editing atmosphere. The big problem which is facing talk page discussion is that people aren't supporting their view point with reliable secondary sources. if you have reliable secondary sources which back up this statement then please provide them on the talk page, otherwise I ask you to please try and avoid statements such as this without sources to back them up. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you have not read the article with the dozens of sources there or the talk page where the dozens of sources have been previously presented ad nauseum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems which is facing the discussions is the lack of sources being used, then someone asking for them (as has happened in this instance). Hence the way to resolve or make discussion easier is for each side to present their evidence every time they ask for or suggest a change. Hope that make more sense of my message. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman the editor "requesting" sources is fully aware of the sources and in fact has a history of ignoring or completely misrepresenting them on the talk page

[1] until the misrepresentation is brought up in front of the arbcom [2] when considering perhaps reapplying sanctions for his tendentious editing on psuedoscience articles, then seems to quickly understand them. [3]-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

But if you and everyone else use the source on the talk page when you make a suggestion like that (exactly as I have and will ask everyone else to) then the question/delaying tactic/whatever you want to call it can't be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com again, deceptively sourced?

You remember the old Chess.com article for which you participated in an AFD about a year ago. Would you mind taking a look at this recreated one, Chess.com which was posted a few days ago? The article on Chess.com has been deleted four times previously as non-notable. While the article in its current state may seem properly referenced, upon scrutiny you can see that it is not.

The main reference that covers Chess.com is “TechCrunch.” TechCrunch is not a reliable source, however. You can see from this NY Times article [4] that the TechCrunch site had misled its readers into thinking it was a peer-reviewed reliable source when in fact it was nothing more than the personal blog of its founder, who disguised his own personal financial interests as unbiased peer-reviewed coverage. The founder and three of his associates were forced to resign from TechCrunch. Keep in mind that the Chess.com coverage in TechCrunch was from the period that TechCrunch was operating unethically and not a reliable source.

Besides the TechCrunch references, the rest of the references for the Chess.com article are obviously non-reliable sources such as blogs, the site itself, or fleeting mentions in articles concerning other things. If you take a few minutes to look into this, it is obvious that while the new article appears to meet “Reliable Sources” and “Notability” it in fact does not. I cannot nominate this article for deletion, as I am a new account, but I was wondering if you would be interested in doing so, or if you knew anyone that could take a look at this situation. Thank you. Fzldheim (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir: Thank you for taking a look at the article. What do you think about this "TechCrunch" as a reliable source in light of the NY Times article on its lack of editorial oversight and deceptive practices? Did you see that? Fzldheim (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much for the sage advice. I just checked over at WP:RSN and searched for previous discussions of "TechCrunch." There are over 20 (twenty) discussions that say TechCrunch is not a reliable source. The consensus is that it is a blog. Thanks. Now what to do? Fzldheim (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai

What do you want? What do know about this show? The article was incomplete and its complete useless before I made the changes. Why can't you update it before itself in your version? What matters you with the translation and the plot section? And also you told the reception is a promotional hype. It is from india-forums. But it was blocked from wikipedia. And about the external links, There can be any link related to the show. Do you know the meaning of EXTERNAL? And after all this, if you change it again, I won't leave unless and until you leave. Goodbye, broker