User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

And there is also This archive

INDIAN MANIPULATOR

Pls stop manipulating the History of Goa. You are watched by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Take to talk page if u got a problem and do some research rather reverting other peoples work! Warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugal Editor Exploration (talk • contribs)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Final Warning

Please stop your disruptive edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Arvind Kejriwal‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page. Thank you
dhiv talk 12:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

removing inappropriate claims about living people such as calling them "most corrupt" is not subject to restrictions and is not edit warring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Koch Rajbongshi people 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:

• practice of worshiping nature. Men wear ''gamasha'' (5 foot long ) or ''naucha'' (9 foot long)) from the waist till the knee, it never touches the ankle because they believe that water is sacred

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aishwarya Sakhuja

Personal Life has been re added with dating news having been removed and credible ref of yahoo news being added regarding the date of marriage. Boseritwik (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we like protect the page from regular unexplained section blanking of sourced content or should we just give up? Have to undo the section blanking like every hour.Getting annoying. Boseritwik (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tellychakkar

You are absolutely correct about its reliability.

Reason I keep coming to this article and going through all the trouble of editing because it is being viewed a lot these days, check [1]. If we could get an expert on this show, it will be helpful. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 20:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kirk W. Dillard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jim Thompson

List of fictional Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Vatican

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert in Thimerosal

Er... could I request a reason? You're welcome to debate the wording (I'm not thrilled with it myself), but the original before I changed it is grammatically incorrect: "these claims" has no referent. I tried to give it one while adding as little text as possible, and being NPOV.

The other changes seem pretty uncontroversial and I'm perplexed as to why you'd want to revert them. But your revert has no edit summary. So I am in the dark as to what the objection is. For now, I'm redoing the change as three smaller changes, so they can be reverted (or hopefully not) separately.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with edits?

Hi, a question re Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2: You endorsed jps' outside view, which said, among other things, that Wikipedia "would be better off if the two editors endorsing the RfC were banned from these topics" (said topics, I assume, being the areas where QG's conduct is indicted in the RfC; it's unclear). AFAIK, I've had virtually no interaction with you, but assume you must have reviewed my edits (and block log etc.), and those of Mallexikon (the other RfC endorser), or you wouldn't have endorsed such a strong statement. Apart from whatever objections you have to the RfC itself, can you explain why you believe Mallexikon and myself deserve to be topic-banned, and from which topics particularly? What have we done that's that bad? Maybe you can show me a couple diffs that are representative of whatever ongoing problems there are. I'd appreciate the feedback; I'm pretty sure Mallexikon would too! Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits to Article: Mansoor Ijaz

Sir,

I respect your right to edit as a Wikipedia contributor. I do not understand your disruptive edits to my page at all. The Formula One section has been part of my article for the better part of a year, and it is not yet a completed part of my biographical history. I am not at liberty to disclose the details due to confidentiality undertakings in our commercial dealings with Lotus. Your edits could be considered as harming our commercial negotiations, particularly with banking and other financial institutions.

As I write under my name and you write under a pseudonym, it is not possible to know who you are and why you have taken these unnecessary steps on this particular day. But I consider these disruptive edits that can harm my commercial interests. I am happy to discuss the article with you on talk pages, but kindly do not vandalize my article that is a primary source of information for those who I do business with and who take an interest in my biographical data.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir,

In response to your message left on my talk page, no one is asking Wikipedia to support anything. The article contains factual information that is supported by fully referenced material. There is no advocacy. Just statement of facts on an important transaction in which I am currently involved.

Neither do you get to alone decide what is relevant or not. It seems your history as an editor shows both good and not-so-good tendencies. I do not wish to enter into an edit war with you, but your basis of argument is completely flawed. And it now shows clear bias and borders on libel and slander of my person, both of which are AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY for biographies of living persons.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Red Pen,

After reading your comments on the Wiki Help Page where I left my original request, I see your point more clearly and I would like to withdraw my comment with respect to the use of the words "libel" and "slander". I hope there is no case of personal enmity, but I equally ask you to understand that a lot of people during the life of my Wiki article have used it as a forum for hurling every baseless and untrue allegation you can imagine at me. That is why I monitor the article closely and why I try to understand the rationale of someone making material changes.

I think there is middle ground, if you agree, because I also think the Formula One section got a bit out of control. In my discussions with Guffydrawers, who made many changes to that section, we agreed that once the deal either got done or failed, that he/she would take a stab at reducing the section to a proper summary.

I am a resource for the article and believe firmly that it must always maintain a NPOV based on factual information that is in the public domain. Certainly not everything I did in life was good, and the bad that appears in the article is all there. I hope this clears the misunderstanding up. Thank you.

Sincerely, Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen, can I make a suggestion on how the initial grafs would be better tidied up to meet the WP:LEAD criteria you set down? There are serious inaccuracies in your version, and factual misstatements. For example, there are three Times of India articles that state the US government -- and Pakistani government -- were exactly informed and backed my actions on Kashmir. The only issue is that the links are now down. If you wish, I can send those articles to you as they originally appeared in Times of India during the period where the intervention was taking place. You have based your entire material re-write on one source, and that is not a fully reported source. I have contravening information from equally credible first-hand reporting by the deputy editor of a major newspaper in India that says exactly opposite of what you have written. How do we fix that?

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

this is better suited to the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ijaz wrote a new intro, which I've implemented with some changes; what do you think? The differences between it and your most recent version appeared to be rather insubstantial, or I would have asked first. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your last revision. I have made a suggestion for how to deal with all this on my talk page if you care to review. I understand the fundamental point that has been made all throughout your re-write and revisions. Am trying to learn the ropes. Would appreciate that you work with me to sort it out. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, do you have an objection to my implementing a fuller and more complete section with references in respect of the Professional life section of the article? It is incomplete and not well presented as it stands. I want to do this with the collegial spirit intended by interactions between editors and users -- I have left my suggestions in the Sandbox for some days now, with no response. Perhaps you would allow me to bring the baseline material in and then you can edit or others can edit as they see fit. Thanks for a moment to reply.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping with the Enemy (novel)

I came very close to trouting you. Proposed deletion is for non-controversial topics. This novel was about domestic violence and stalking, certainly controversial topics. Please send this to WP:AfD instead. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germania Männerchor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stradella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop Delete of my Content

i personally know this person and he is live next to me so i changes the page. you delete the city 1st check that page's user's introduction etc. Sir check the reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartdilshad (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)