User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

And there is also This archive

White Queen OR

I think we've hit a brick wall. The only option is to call an WP:RFC, I think. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a jolly good idea. I'm getting so bored waiting for it. Deb (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A brick wall that follows you around. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_White_Queen_.28TV_series.29.23Historicity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely the WQ RFC should be in "Media", much more than then "History and geography" or "Society, sports, and culture"? I think to add it you can delete the current template and add it, if you want to. Actually I think a major source of the problem is people treating this as if it were a "History" article. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Jhalak Dikhla Jaa Season 6

1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is no source cited for the scores, so your adding up of content from the Wikipedia article is not valid.
Reply: Well, since the link to Jhalak Dikhla Jaa's official website has already been given in the Wikipedia page, I didn't think it was required to mention it again. But since you want a "reliable source", here goes the link. It has all the videos of every performance which Clearly mentions their scores. Link: http://colors.in.com/in/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa/videos/episodes/#nav
2) Content in the lead section should cover the primary content that people need to know about the subject of the article. The fact that a scoring oddity happened is not among the primary things people should know about the show.
Reply: Just the way it's important for people to know who the winner is, it's also important for people to know who the top scorer is. It's not about whether the top scorer won or not, but people should be given full information and not partial information based on the author's wishes.
3) without a reliably published third party source making note of the scoring, a Wikipedia editor calling it out is giving it too much prominence. Just because it is a "fact" does not mean it belongs in the encyclopedia article.
Reply: Mentioned the source in point no.1. The official website of the event is certainly a reliable source and the link mentioned in point no. 1 has the videos of all the performances and thus also all the scores. And of course..if the winner is given prominence, why shouldn't the top scorer of the event be given prominence too? Just because somebody has been declared the winner, doesn't mean that the top scorer doesn't need any mention! Otherwise don't mention either the winner or the top scorer..just the was it's given in the Jhalak Dikhla Jaa Season 5 wikipedia page. No problems with that. But if the winner is mentioned, people should know the top scorer too, also because this year Lauren and Punit broke all records and scored an unprecedented number of perfect 30s. So, just the way the name of the winner is impotant, Lauren and Punit have created a record for themselves and that Certainly deserves a mention.

And yes, people Do care about who "scores" what in Jhalak besides who the winner is. Some of the links:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Television/Jhalak-Dikhhla-Jaa-6-sets-off-Lauren-Gottlieb-scores-highest/Article1-1070686.aspx
http://newsportalindex.com/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa-6-celebrity-points-table-in-jdj-6-23-a
http://topnews.in/light/jhalak-dikhhla-jaa-6-sets-lauren-gottlieb-scores-highest-262211
http://www.metromasti.com/tv/gossip/Jhalak-Dikhhla-Jaa-6-winner-JDJ-6-2013-final-title-winners-lists/32168
Also, as per what you said : "you have shown me that you care; and you have shown me what the score on the primary source of the TV say, but you still havent shown me any reliably published third party sources care and until you do, putting your opinion and interpretations into the article is not appropriate." , going by the same logic, you shouldn't have put up the scoring chart, marked the highest and lowest scored, put the average table, marked the highest and lowest scored dance forms and corresponding songs and lastly put the highest and lowest scoring performances table. On one hand you say that no reliable third party sources care about the scores and who got the highest and on the other hand 90% of the details in the page is related to the scores..don't you think your words and actions are contradictory? I've mentioned the link of a very reliable source which mentions all the marks scored by each contestant and also since the table of averages has been put up, you too agree to the fact that Lauren and Punit are the top scorers and that is not just my interpretation (though I fail to see where 'interpretation' comes into play here) and since the table is still put up there, I'm sure you have some "reliable third party sources" to back that up. Then what exactly is the problem to write that one tiny little sentence? That still doesn't answer my question as to if the other parts of the article can be there on the wikipedia page without any reliable third party source to second it (as don't most of the other articles in wikipedia), what problem does my one tiny fragment of a sentence cause, which factually has no error in it. In No way whatsoever can that tiny little phrase be proved wrong by Anybody. Yet, that tiny phrase is the only bit that becomes the target and removed. Anyway, forget it. I guess you have some issues with Lauren and Punit and so you don't want the world to be given the truth directly that Drashti and Salman had way less a total than the former two. So anyway, bunk it. Lauren and Punit have gained popularity in their own right and the entire country knows anyway that they were the top scorers this season. They don't need a mention in wikipedia to inform the world that. Unlike certain other participants, they didn't have to depend on previous popularity to gain people's love and respect. They have real talent. So yeah, let it be.
If calling the highest scorer of a contest (and that too with proper reference. Not just a figment of imagination or any personal interpretation) the 'top scorer' is "bad stuff", Lord save you!

date stamping to get this archived since the user insists on not only not signing, but removing the bot added signatures. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for Helping Destroy Wikipedia

I feel no inclination to participate in your legalistic maneuverings. You're fighting tooth and nail over a list of historical trivia that very few people will want to read. You use rules not as a means of resolving disputes, but as a way of bullying other users. I don't care which trivia goes into a "List of Historical Inaccuracies", but I do care that you're making Wikipedia an unfriendly place that fewer and fewer people want to participate in. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

i smile at your comment, Isaac Rabinovitch. RPoD also acts like this on List of unusual deaths and made me wonder why i bother putting time into servicing this encyclopedia. with smug pride and with the aid of this one friend, red pen renders others' contributions a waste of time Cramyourspam (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is preventing you or anyone else from starting a blog and putting whatever you want on there. Wikipedia, however, is a project to construct an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia is a community-edited encyclopedia. That means you work with other editors, not constantly pick fights with them. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to work with people who are trying to build an encyclopedia, I am not willing to work with people who are trying to abscond with a freely hosted fansite on Wikipedia's servers.

and saying that people who take disputes to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board which exists to help resolve disputes as one of the primary steps in the dispute resolution process are participating in " legalistic maneuvering" is hardly "working with" the community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

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

• evil ranger Belkar is said to have a similar slaad in '' The Order of the Stick #435]''.<ref>[[http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html]</ref>{{primary source-inline}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Godzilla 2000 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:

• {| class="wikitable"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

most solo hero films in hindi

http://www.mensxp.com/entertainment/bollywood/8831-10-actors-who-changed-indian-filmmaking-forever.html says Rajesh khanna holds record for doing maximum solo hero films in hindi as of 2013 and that means the record is yet to be broken by anyone. Other sites also say he got award in 1991 for not only completing 25 years in hindi film industry but also for his unique feat of doing 101 solo hero films till 1991. Many sites online say rajesh khanna did 106 solo hero films and that he did least number of multi start films. So why are you changing the article???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.60.105 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC) There are so many sources in Wikipedia article which do mention that rajesh khanna has done most number of solo hero films in hindi. You can Google and see find more websites which say the same thing. Event there are books available on the actor which say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.60.105 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Heartstone (artifact)

Hi,

I think removing almost all the content from the article Heartstone (artifact) is not the right course of action for how to handle that article. While the statements in the article aren't backed up by sources, they aren't statements that are problematic and need to be immediately removed (as opposed to negative claims in BLPs for example, which do need to be immediately removed when uncited). I do understand that in general sources should be found for all statements in an article. However, I also think that it is inappropriate to reduce an article to the point that it provides almost no information. The statements in the article provide a general summary of the topic that would be useful for anyone trying to understand what the article is about or looking for sources for the article. While a stub with no sources is a problem that needs to be dealt with, I think changing it to a sub-stub with neither sources nor information is not a right way to address such an article. Either the article should be taken to AFD, or it should be left with basic information on the topic and citation needed tags, to assist anyone trying to source the article in knowing what related subjects might mention the article. Again, I would in no way object to you taking the article to AFD. Calathan (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have now nominated the article for AFD. I believe that is the correct course of action for this article. However, I also believe that it is almost always inappropriate to remove most content from an article when nominating it for deletion. Removing almost all content from an article when nominating it for deletion makes it harder for people considering the article at AFD to understand the subject (not everyone is going to look at the article history). In this particular case, you are also leaving in a trivial refernce to one use of heartstones in fiction while removing a more general description of the subject, which might give people an incorrect impression that the subject only relates to that work of fiction (which isn't the case). Any unsourced content in the article is going to go away anyway if the article is deleted, so it seems completely unnecessary to remove it now anyway. Again, please leave that general description for now so that people at the AFD can tell what the article is about. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not the way WP:SPEEDY#A1 works (nor A3). The A1 criteria doesn't care whether the information is sourced, but instead whether or not the information identifies the subject. You simply can't remove all the content or context from an article, then nominate it for speedy deletion. AFD is indeed the right place for this article. Also, in reply to your previous comment, "immediately" was probably a poor choice of words on my part . . . I really just meant the description of the subject should remain until it can be considered at AFD. Calathan (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain more of what I am thinking. Basically, I am aware of heartstones being used in a few works of modern fiction, but the article suggests that it is something that people in the Middle Ages actually believed existed, which I wouldn't have expected before reading the article. The claims in the article, if true, raise the possibility that the subject could be covered in scholarly sources on medieval beliefs. While it is possible that the claims in the article are entirely false, and that no sources will be found, leaving the article as it is gives the AFD participants a different path to search for sources than your edited version (i.e., people should be looking at scholarly works on the middle ages, alchemy, beliefs in wizards, etc., as opposed to looking at works on tropes of modern fantasy). Your edited version basically presented the article as a concept used in one modern TV series, and perhaps a few other works of modern fiction, which seems far less likely to have been written about in reliable sources than the actual subject - a medieval belief that has since been used as a trope in fiction. Basically, I feel that your actions were kind of like a straw man argument - you were presenting the subject as something non-notable, but were simultaneously changing the subject into something far less likely to be notable than what it was originally presented as. I feel that making changes like that is dishonest and inappropriate (though I think it is more likely you were not reading the article carefully, rather than being intentionally dishonest in your AFD nomination). While articles certainly can be edited while at AFD, and unsourced material shouldn't be kept around indefinitely, presenting an honest version of the subject to AFD participants seems like a necessity to have a worthwhile discussion at AFD. The guidelines for nominating an article for AFD don't need to state that you shouldn't edit it into a different, less likely to be notable subject before nominating it . . . it is just common sense and common courtesy that, when nominating an article at AFD, the subject of an article shouldn't be changed in such a way to make it less likely to be notable and to hide where the actual sources might be found. And no, I don't know of any source, and I'm not personally planning to look for them. I'm just saying you need to give an honest version of the subject to anyone who does wants to look for sources. Leaving unsourced claims in place for seven more days seems far less odious than trying to have an AFD discussion where the participants are deprived of knowledge of what the subject actually is. Also, I'm sorry if my comments are getting a little unfriendly, but your comments on my talk page seem to be entirely ignoring what I'm saying (again, I'm not suggesting that I have sources for the information in the article, but that the AFD participants need that information in order for a legitimate discussion to take place). Calathan (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shivam Patil page

Regarding the Mumbai Mirror review, when a film or actor's review states that something was "completely intentional", it means it was deliberate, it was an act.--Shivamevolution (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread / misremembered that phrase as "completely unintentional". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

please check this Articles, because I've seen unnecessary commentary, notes and table in these articles.

• Gurmeet Choudhary (complex table)
• Jai Kalra (unnecessary commentary)
• Hansika Motwani (complex table)
• Ram Kapoor (complex table)
• Niveda Thomas (complex table and unnecessary commentary)
• Kshitee Jog (empty table notes section)
• Shafi Inamdar (television)
• Karan Singh Grover (unnecessary television notes)
• Mohit Malhotra (television advertisement table)
• Amit Dolawat (unnecessary table) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.251 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Basket _Feudalist 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)