TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
What happened to the section on Sommers? because now she's name dropped with no context in the article.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
What happened to the section on Sommers? because now she's name dropped with no context in the article.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Ryulong}} I dont know, I missed that as well. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Ryulong}} I dont know, I missed that as well. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
::It seems like there's been a lot taken out. I'd comment on the absence of like Zaid Jilani's criticism of Milo and his discussion of the shadow of mordor game debacle but that'd make the sea lions go ape shit.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:12, 26 December 2014
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
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).
Edit warring noticeboard notice
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.
Wilayats
Please use afd--do admin seems willing to use speedy DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the most strategic and constructive tone at Talk:Deepak Chopra
Hey there TRPoD. I'm not sure you'd remember, as it's been some time, but you and I have crossed paths quite a few times on ANI, SPI, and various talk pages over the years. I preface my comments here with that fact because I want to underscore that we are generally always on the same side of an issue and, indeed, that we are largely of the same mind concerning the content issue I am about to discuss. All of that being said, I do have a comment that I hope you will take to heart as good-faith, though it be a little critical of your approach. I think perhaps the longstanding, persistent, and COI-driven nitpickery at Deepak Chopra might have gotten just a bit too far under your skin and caused you to advocate your position in a less than ideal manner. Specifically, I don't think it's a very good idea (from a purely strategic standpoint, mind you) to lean so heavily on comments describing Chopra as a snake-oil salesman and the like.
Let me be clear here: coming from a background in physiology-driven science, I couldn't be more convinced that the man has made his fortune off of pure quackery. Indeed, there's nary an example in all the modern world that better or more prominently exemplifies the frequent absurdity of new age pseudoscience. But as you of all people are aware, our own perspectives on the man are not really relevant; the claims of our sources are the only element that ought to enter into the type of content/policy debates that have been a permanent feature of the relevant pages for about as long as they've existed. Mind you, I am not saying that you have not backed up your content arguments with valid sources -- you've certainly gone above and beyond in that respect, exactly as I'd expect from you. But the tone of some of your comments relays more of your personal perspective on the man than is ideal for a policy discussion, in my opinion. My concern is that it may cause some middle-ground editors involved in discussions there to see the position you advocate as an adversarial one, thus causing them to lose sight of the fact that your arguments -- provocatively-worded or not -- have a solid policy basis.
Mind you, I also appreciate that there is a historical context here and that you and a group of other dedicated editors have long been engaged in protecting the page from single-purpose accounts -- at least some of whom seem to have been working for the direct benefit of the subject and several of whom have engaged in socking and other blatant manipulations of procedure. I can appreciate how long-term and consistent involvement there could stretch even the most even-tempered contributor's patience to the limit. Even so, my position is that more reserved and dispassionate language will better serve the purpose of keeping those who clearly do not prioritize Wikipedia's policies and standards from unduly influencing the course of discussion (and thus the content on the page). In short, until such time as you're genuinely arguing for the inclusion of such phrases as "snake oil salesman" and so-forth, it's probably best to avoid using them on the talk page as well. Without needing to part from the honestly-portrayed positions of our sources, we can say essentially the same thing with other language that doesn't give fuel to those who would like to see all mention of criticism of the man excised from the article.
Just my two cents anyway, do with it as you will! Snow talk 09:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed from the article a lot of unverifiable and unsourced synthesis regarding what the Japanese think is the origin of this subject. Please stop restoring the wholly unsourced speculative article on this food truck and its signature dish.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop restoring the article in a state that violates all of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Stop gaming me into edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.172.115 (talk • contribs)
- The above was added by 24.211.172.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with Ryulong signatures apparently faked. IP user also reverted the auto-sinebot's signatures. — Strongjam (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not faked per-se - just copy-pasted verbatim from a message they got themselves. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pk
Stop spreading negative propaganda about the film. There are a thousand rave reviews. You see only 1 negative review!
You will be blocked. 2.49.19.192 (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Eenadu
This link obviously doesn't work and the edit is fine to me...but just in case you didn't know..Eenadu is the most circulated daily in Andhra and Telangana..and one of the most circulated in India....their website is a mess I agree but the news are quite reliable.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- PS: I don't think the information is so important anyway..I won't be adding it back... ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Purported
I see the edit you made to the section title on the GG article. Though I agree in spirit according to the sources, i'm not sure if "Purported" is the best wording. While technically accurate, it feels clumsy. Maybe "Alleged" or "Stated" might be a better choice? Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 20 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Gamergate controversy page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My material was not copyrighted!
I wrote the whole plot summary for PK (The film) taking out time, revising. This whole took me an hour and then they say it is copyrighted and I maybe banned from editing. My 1 hour hard work is a waste? And they claim it to be someone else' work. Please add it, I have written it myself. I don't know how to reply to that edit ban message. Please help! I wrote it fully myself. They should have checked it first. My whole 1 hour hard work for Wikipedia in waste. I could have done a better work rather but I chose to contribute to wikipedia for 1 long hour and now they say it was copyrighted? Please help! And how can you say it was a copyright? Please help! It is sad to hear that you get negative results for helping.
You did this whole thing, now you need to help me out! You are spoiling the page. And there was an edit previously which maybe copyrighted. But not mine. I expanded it in my own words. The comment over there said "Please expand in your own words" and I did the same. What was that final warning for then?
Regards.
Kashisharora11 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait, no! I didn't take it from anywhere. The reference was there before too! I just didn't delete it. And you yourself told to write it in your own words. What now? I didn't even see that before. And if I saw, what matters is YOU YOURSELF TOLD write it in your own words. Story is same, everything is same, so obviously the text can clash. Right? But what matters is the words. Every word is different, how can you claim that? You ban me, you do anything. But I know that your reputation is spoiled. You don't seem to be worth taking this action. I came to you for help and instead you didn't agree and in turn said that I copied.
You yourself told write it in your own words. I wrote it all myself, just to get messages that I copied it. Please, that doesn't make any sense. Previously I agreed that I uploaded copyrighted images. But now, I will not, when I have not. If you still think that this was copyrighted, please ban me. I don't need to be a part of such pages where people don't respect each other where people don't respect each other's contribution. I have made numerous articles worth reading, and I would have never boasted that but to prove that I was innocent, I will have to boast.
Thank you for you co-operating and reading my informal messages.
Regards.
Kashisharora11 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
No spam intended
Hello, this really was not a spam link I posted on LakeBled..... Have you checked the website? But no problem, I added the link because the Wikipedia itself invited me to do that. I am sorry for any inconvinience. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpleters (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Miss World Romania page
Hello, i just finally changed my username :)) thank you for your support! ;) i am new user, i was just reader for many years, but i start to understand how wikipedia work, thanks to you and some other editors from here.
- Now, the main reason why i decided to make an account - you deleted all the information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World_Romania you even deleted the romanian flag from the page :p From what i understood with my beginner wikipedia knowledge is that the creator of the page Mrdhimas made the page, writing all the information without putting there the sources from where he took the information? Correct? And if the sources are not written, then Wikipedia must delete all the info? So any information from wikipedia must come from independently en reliable cited sourced or "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources" conform WP:BIASED so i also can be a source of this info, helping the neutral editor from now on? If i own the Miss World Romania organization, which is a non profit organization, in the same way as Miss World Organization is, i am the best source for some info like names of girls who won the Miss World Romania title for example from 1990, contractual details, etc.
- I studied a little this 2 pages from curiosity to understand better this "cite sources" policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe_Romania or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World they have flag, so is not against the wikipedia policy this flag near the country name of Location... so why you deleted our flag? This 2 pages of Miss Universe Romania and Miss World also have many information written by creator or editors without "Cite the sources"... for them other wikipedia rules are applied? Are different kind of pages than Miss World Romania page made by Mrdhimas? Cause i don't understand.
- I wrote to Mrdhimas (talk), the creator of the Miss World Romania page, to help him to Cite the sources for all the information he put on Miss World Romania page. I can say that all info it was correct, for sure he had his own sources cause he did not invented nothing... but he did not Cite the sources, it was his mistake, if this is against Wikipedia rules. The problem is that he did not answered yet to my message. In conclusion, please help me with this problem. If i give you the sources for all info he put on the page, you can put back all the information (you deleted) or i need to contact another editor? You deleted them so i think you are the right editor to work with in this problem.
- What happen by deleting this info (now the page is 90% empty) is like you delete from history book the history of Romania from 1990... all romanian title holders of the 3 biggest beauty pageants from the world (Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International) and Miss Grand International, starting with 1990 NOW disappeared... Is not fair, and we need to put this info back with Cite the sources, so wikipedia readers can be informed corectly. Can you help me?
Thanks! Max at MWRO (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Brahmanandam Filmography
Hi. I'm Political Cricketer. I noticed that you recently undid one of my edits. As of you the reason is row-span is deprecated in filmographies . Then why don't you go for all in the article. Who will edit the remaining? Incomplete tasks are not better to wikipedia. Is there any rule not to use row-span. I hope you will edit the article which looks alike. Thank you. PK talk 05:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring at Zombie (disambiguation)
I'm pretty sure you've been around here long enough for me to not have to leave the 3rr template. You're at four reverts. No more, please. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch on List of LGBT characters in animation. I reverted one version too far. Great work! —Josh3580talk/hist 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
AfD notification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
Ooops
Sorry that you had to fix that. Wasn't my intention. — Strongjam (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
List of LGBT characters in animation
Rather than deleting entire notes I write, just point out what citations need to be redone, please. I've only been writing descriptions for the characters I know of, and I've found that for many of these characters, citations beyond wiki pages are hard to come by. But these notes are far better than just writing 'Anime.' I really want to try and fix up the page best I can, so some help beyond reverting the changes I make would be helpful. Not trying to sound mean here-- I just want to fix things up. :) Hanhange (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Can the living be raised (resurrected)? About Rapture article!
Can the living be raised (resurrected)? You have referred:
"Rapture is a term in Christian eschatology to refer to the belief that upon the return of Jesus Christ to earth, the living believers WILL BE RAISED and rescued from Great Tribulation."
Bible says:
"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ WILL RISE first. Then we who are ALIVE and remain shall be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." - 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Will the living be raised or the dead? The living will be caught up, not raised. Only the dead will rise (be resurrected). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Vaani Kapoor. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per WP: LEAD, the lead must summarize the article, and not "be" the article. And the introduction should be on the work that the subject is best known for. If you dislike the wording, change it, don't mass revert and remove the corrections I made to the prose. KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
GG
What happened to the section on Sommers? because now she's name dropped with no context in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Ryulong: I dont know, I missed that as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)