Jump to content

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BFG (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 25 June 2015 (→Your changes to Hydra effect: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HURRY, HURRY, HURRY!


Step right up and see a treasury of pinnipeds right before your very eyes!


The next act in only 4 days and 10 edits.


The most ethical show in the big top!












And there is also This archive

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

Changes made to The Cultural Competency Organizational Assessment-360 (COA360)

May you please explain why you made the changes that you did? If the information was obtained from clearview360.org, should I put that and is it then verified? CHinds89 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89[reply]

I suppose that makes sense. So if the only topics about this are the main contributors and Johns Hopkins University, then it cannot be trusted since it is not discussed by others? CHinds89 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89[reply]

That makes sense. So then the page will end up getting deleted, won't it? CHinds89 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89[reply]

Alright, I will try to work on that. Thank you very much for your time and help. CHinds89 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89[reply]

Hello, if possible, could you look at the page again? The same issues are listed, but sources were added and the information was greatly cut. Thank you for your time. CHinds89 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89[reply]

Help with editing

Hello, you deleted one of my past pages for copyright infringement; I was wondering if you would take a look at another page I created to see what I can change to make it better for Wikipedia. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corinna.jpg/Para_Site Corinna.jpg (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motorist

I reverted you at Motorist. The subject has a clear primary topic, and neither of the links listed on the disambiguation page was actually ambiguous with motorist.--Srleffler (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

odd formatting

The formatting of your addition of the Boston Globe to the source list has odd formatting that stretches off the screen (at least on my computer.) It would be great if you could revisit that. Thanks. Rhoark (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Benedict

FYI. Huon (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty terry

Dear Sir How do I or what is it they want links to proof? Wikipedia site links don't work A lot of the records I sang on are on wikipedia Those links won't do? Where else what sources do they approve? For documentation Discogs has my records for sale with all info Sites that list all my movie projects I worked on have crew lists posted I found links on eBay to albums I sang on I am confused I keep missing people off I don't mean to If you could help I have a lot of good videos on YouTube Kitty Terry 270,000 hits I need to add Star Search would I add the link to YouTube for verification I really need your help Why is everyone so grouchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry (talk • contribs)

Clear Demonstration of Bias

You are clearly unfit to be contributing to the gamergate article. You have repeatedly shut down and dismissed productive conversations on the talk page and have consistently made non-constructive contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightened editor (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have a bias to represent the mainstream sources and not a harassment group's lame cover story. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting at User_talk:MarkBernstein#Apparent_conflict_of_interest

That conversation has run its course, but I invite you to write a less inflammatory closing statement. Rhoark (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that discussion. While it could be less inflammatory, I doubt it could be less accurate. Chillum 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


List of Comedy Nights with Kapil episodes

Why are you unnecessarily undoing in this article....? Techiereader (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Games and flag icons

RPOD, you need to read MOS:ICON in full: flag icons are expressly permitted to be used in international sports results tables to represent the sporting nationality of athletes:

"They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationality). Example: List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions."

The Diamond Games results may be an overuse of flags [1], and there may be a more efficient way to use fewer icons, but the use does not violate MOS:ICON. In fact, the use in the Diamond games article is extremely similar to that in the WPA World Champions list provided as an example by MOS:ICON of a permitted use. Please take your issues to the MOS:ICON talk page, where other knowledgeable editors who understand MOS:ICON will be able to discuss this with you, rather than edit-warring.

Also, please be aware of recent changes to MOS:ICON that have clarified that a single flag in an athlete infobox to represent the national team or sporting nationality of an international athlete is permitted. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft Article

Hi TRPoD, I have a small request, if you have a spare few minutes. In response to the challenge set on Jimbo's Talk page, I undertook to create a draft Article on Bonnie Ross, Head of 343 Industries, a notable woman in the video games industry. I have completed a rough draft, and am now seeking advice from experienced Wikipedians on potential improvements. It is only short at this stage, and will not be the best Wikipedia article, but neither do I think it the worst. If you have time, could you please look it over here. Any advice is greatly appreciated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: Thanks for taking the initiative to start the article and thanks for inviting me, but bios about modern corporate america are not an area i have a particularly great interest in nor do i have access to any particularly useful sources. Good Luck! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRPoD, Understood & thanks for the reply. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dog meat article

Please note you have made 2 reversions on Dog meat. I'm sure you are well aware of WP:3RR. Please go to the talk page and let's get consensus on this rather than edit warring.DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Scientists Supporting Parapsychology

Hi there, I could help but notice your comment in the history of edits to the parapsychology page asking for a single mainstream scientist who would not regard parapsychology as pseudoscience. Right here we have 100 as published in this mainstream journal: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full. I'd like to call particular attention to the signings by Robert Rosenthal and Huston Smith - big names in academia whom (to my knowledge) have never done psi reseach. Jessica Utts also happens to be the current president of the American Statistical Association. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 17:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that even though the Parapsychology Association is a member of AAAS, they didn't manage to get this screed published in Science (magazine). I wonder why that is. jps (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Hydra effect

This article has been marked with the refimprove and notable templates, but no reason is given. There are 4 references, one of them is to the Harvard National Security Journal. The references include, 3 separate disciplines, 1 peer reviewed journal, 1 non peer reviewed but reputable science magazine. I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the markings. If the markings are not clarified, I'm going to leave them for a week before removing them. Please leave your comments on Talk:Hydra_effect. BFG (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom&oldid=668626311"