User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

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)

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paddington (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history at Paddington (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You may be in the right but don't go about it the wrong way. Oosh (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shahrukh Bola "Khoobsurat Hai Tu" may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what hapPeckered, 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:

• '''''Shahrukh Bola "Khoobsurat Hai Tu"''''' ({{English:'' Shahrukh said "You are Beautiful"'') is a 2010 [[Hindi]] film directed by [[Makrand

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mammootty

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).

Complaint of edit warring at Nayantara

Do you want to reply to WP:AN3#User:Veera Dheera Sooran and User:TheRedPeckerOfDoom reported by User:Amortias (Result: )? It is a claim of edit warring at Nayantara. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that User:TheRedPeckerOfDoom is engaging in repeated editing wars across a variety of articles and must be stopped asap. See his actions on [[Marilou McPhedran}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachey Deen (talk • contribs) 08:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A proposed compromise for the ACIM article

Hi Red-Pecker, If I were to accept your two "negatively phrased" points in the last sentence of the lead for the A Course in Miracles article, could you allow me to add one more "positively phrased" point there, such that it would read something like:

"The book has been called everything from "New Age psychobabble"[5] and "a Satanic seduction"[1] to the "Third Testament",[7] and "The New Age Bible". [6]"

Would this be acceptable to you? Hoping we might be able to settle this thing directly between us. Scott P. (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: it would probably be better to beef up the reception section and once that is more fully reflective of the views that are out there, adjust the lead to match. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom

The book is clearly a somewhat "controversial" book, with very strong opinions on both sides. "Christians" and athiests on the one side considering it as pure rubbish at best, or satanic at worst, while the millions who study it, obviously consider it to be of considerable value. You would appear to me to fall into the "anti-camp" while I admittedly fall into the "pro-camp". With controversial topics, it is my understanding that Wikipedia generally attempts to suitably represent both sides of any such "conversation", no? Scott P. (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

nope Wikipedia presents the mainstream academic assessment which per Miller is "Christians think it is non-Christian at best and Satanic at worst, Academia considers it pure psychobabble, its promoters see it as a financial cash cow, and its adherents love it." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are then saying that the reports of its adherents cannot be represented in Wikipedia, per Wikipedia policy?Scott P. (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

reports of its adherents are only appropriate when filtered through a third party expert who evaluates their representation and value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So then, all articles on Christianity cannot allow for any "Christian" authors to be directly represented? Is that what you are saying? Same would go for athiests, birthers, etc. etc. I have not heard that rule before. Scott P. (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

sure we do. we dont include "John Doe Christian believes/do/are considered X" we have "Theologian John Doe says Christians believe/do/are considered X" and when it is clear that Theologian John Doe's views represent a majority of the experts on the subject, we simply say "Christians believe/do/are considered X" but its based on the third party expert.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the readers of an article about a book that has sold into the millions deserve to hear directly from experts such as Dyer, Winfrey, and Tolle about what makes the book "tick", as well as hearing from expert Theologians and folks akin to yourself as to why it is nothing more than "Satanic psychobabble". Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1) please stop making assertions about who i am and what i believe. WP:NPA

2) we are an encyclopedia and we present the subject as an encyclopedia would. if people come here expecting something else, they will still find an encyclopedia. if they are disappointed because they wanted something other than an encyclopedia when they came to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, oh well, hopefully they know how to google. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have insisted on including the terms "psychbabble" and "Satanic" in the article's lead. That is a mere point of fact, and not meant to be an attack. Wikipedia, by its nature, is far more than Britannica ever was. Britannica only treated nearly all subjects very "sparsley", if for no other reason, simply due to lack of space. One definition of an encyclopedia is "a well-rounded view". Not only an "academic-mainstream view". It seems to me that Wikipedia has enough room to represent more views than Britannica ever did. So are you going to attempt to delete the views of the experts I listed then? Scott P. (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"psychbabble" and "Satanic" are sourced by third party Miller as significant views of the book by major populations. thats what we present.

wikipedia is NOT a promotional platform for adherents to spread their views or have their views presented as they wish to have them presented.

If your involvement in with the subject creates aw conflict of interest that prevents you from editing appropriately you should seek out other subjects where you do not have the conflict. Wikipedia is big and there are lots of articles that need help where you can edit all day long without worrying touching subjects that you cannot approach with the required perspective.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you would prefer to only represent the "critical" view in the article and no other. That is apparently your take on what a "well rounded view" should be, one that is entirely critical in this case, no? You would censor out the experts who are not critical, is that correct? And you would attempt to drive away anyone who did not agree with you, no? On the one hand you say you want "experts" to be represented, but then you are apparently saying that only critical experts may be represented, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

if the mainstream sources only give out negative reviews, then yes that is what we present as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean "that is what we only present", not "what we present as well", no? Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think so.

• Mainstream reliable sources present the topic as : AAA BB C D
• Our article presents the topic as: AAA BB C D

Given the paucity of third party coverage given and used in the article, we have to make some estimates, but roughly seems to me that the coverage is 1) popular with the New Age masses, 2) rejected by Christians as anti-biblical at best and satanic at worst 3) dismissed by academics as psychobabble, 4) New age speaker home industry cash cow (see 1) 5) long-running litigious copyright fight (see 4) 6) splintering into "just unique enough" derivatives or MyTakeOnACIM to keep 4 in business.

What am I missing?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 22:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, in your view, Wikipedia is supposed to be the "arbiter of the correct, supposedly mainstream academic view". A place where only the majority voice is heard, and all others censored. If for example, it were one century ago, when the mainstream view was that outer space is filled with a material called "ether", and anyone published a theory that outer space was pure vacuum, then a Wikipedia of that day would have refused to let the "vacuum scientist" be heard directly, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not my view, it is policy: WP:BALASPS. So yes we present the current mainstream academic views and as they change, if they do, the article content changes to reflect them. we are not here to present new and breaking views or a platform for the poor frontline warriors fighting for The TRUTH^TM-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 22:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you believe that it would have been "correct" Wikipedia policy to "censor out the vacuum scientist." What about WP:RS which states that, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.", and on the same page that you referred to: WP:NPOV? Would the views of the adherents of a New Religious Movement such as ACIM, not represent a significant minority view in an article about that movement's primary study book? Scott P. (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, until the vacuum scientist had published his papers and convinced a significant portion of the mainstream scientists that he was on the right track and not a looney, he would not be covered as anything other than a curiosity. We dont make any effort to predict what is going to turn out to be true and what is going to turn out pure crap, we just follow what the mainstream has agreed has actually been convincingly demonstrated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 23:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing I can say with fair certainty, Britannica's tone was always "respectful" (read NPOV) towards all subject matters. You will never find a Britannica article with loaded words like "Psychobabble" in the leads of any of their articles. Scott P. (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

britanica had better things to do than cover anything that it might have called "psychobabble" in the lead.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 23:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that even in a Wikipedia article specifically about a given New Religious Movement (NRM), the Wikipedia readership ought to be "protected" (by editors such as yourself) from actually getting to read the uncensored views of that NRM's adherents, even if such adherents have published reliable sources on these views? 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If people want to find out what a new religious movement has to say about themselves, they should google the new religious movement's home page. If they come to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, they should find encyclopedic coverage dont you think? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 23:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For the last 10 years (since the article was first created), this article has stood with both the critical and the adherent's views being presented, side by side, as many other such articles in Wikipedia are still written to this day. Apparently you are of the opinion that this was 10 years of "error". Since you arrived at the article last summer, you have apparently intended to rewrite the article so that it explained primarily your view (which you believe is the "mainstream-academic" view), that ACIM is essentially nothing but "psychobabble", and would be slanted heavily against, if even permitting, any other views. If these are the new policies in Wikipedia, then I stand humbly corrected. If not, then it is my aim to seek out a consultation from a mutually respected neutral third party on this question. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What third party sources haven't been included? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are quite sincere in your belief that such is Wikipedia policy. I too feel sincere in my understanding of Wikipedia policy. It would seem to me that one (or perhaps both) of us may need a little "tweaking" of our understanding of Wikipedia policy. As such, it is my aim to ask for a comment on these questions from a mutually respected third-party person from Wikipedia. (Good night from America) Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite sincere that there are policies that we present what the reliable third parties say: WP:V / WP:PSTS / WP:OR / WP:NOTADVERT / WP:UNDUE / WP:RS. I am not sure where you got the idea that there are policies that say otherwise.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

relating conspiracies

how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:

   Alleged UFO-related entities
   Energy beings
   Grey aliens
   Insectoids
   Little green men
   Nordic aliens
   Reptilians

Projects has a list:

   Project Sign (1948)
   Estimate of the Situation
   Project Grudge (1949)
   Flying Saucer Working Party (1950)
   Project Magnet (1950–1962)
   Project Blue Book (1952–1970)
   Robertson Panel (1953)
   Condon Report (1966–1968)
   Institute 22 (1978–?)
   Project Condign (1997–2000)
   Identification studies of UFOs
   List of notable studies in ufology

Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere if these are as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"how many of relating conspiracies have credible sources for aliens:" uh none. ever. anywhere.

"Thus the documents themselves should be included somewhere" you must have mistaken Wikipedia for a webhosting service. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 04:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"uh none. ever. anywhere." Tripod? They sell them in the Los Angeles Times in the Pasadena are near Jet Propulsion Labratories. Highlights of the advertisement include the cyrogenics for freezing. So you are not credible or the Los Angeles Times isnt. I personally choose them over you.

Heres webhosting that you say ive mistaben wikipedia for (anyone can create an incident : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

Maybe the CIA pays you to remove such documentation that maybe seen as "neutral" and for your to maintain an opinionated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"boy, do I need to buy stock in tinfoil!" Cell phones don't need tinfoil. Get a new IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC) So you admit you're a spirit using a cellphone Haha Don't sPeckerd all your time editing wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40Committee (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverred changes in Pavitra Rishta

Hello, I am User:Noormohammed satya who recently expanded the page Pavitra Rishta by editing various contents and expanded the page through various sources.

I am unable to get as to why have you revered the entire edit as it contained all the sourced information in the edited in the page. So I would kindly request you to explain me the reason as to why have you revered the entire edit which contained the sourced facts in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noormohammed satya (talk • contribs) 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

M. Frost

Why did you remove this reference? L'Express is a reliable source, is it not? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

meat puppet accusation

You accused me of being a meat puppet here. Please strike it. That is way over the top. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you start putting forth positions that show indePeckerdent basis for thought and not just that we should succumb and acquiesce to the paid PR's desires, then I will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will ask you one more time. Then I will take you to ANI. This is offensive. I am nobody's fucking tool. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So here is the one more time - please strike your comment. It is very offensive to me and you have no evidence that i am a meatpuppet. If your accusation is in good faith then take me to WP:SPI. Otherwise, withdraw it. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

if you dont want to be accused of carrying on the same crusade as chopra's paid PR flacky then you shouldnt specifically identify your goal as promoting the same crusade as chopras PR flacky.[1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 02:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior is ugly but I decided not to bother the community with this. 11:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

PEAR Lab

Hi: When you get a chance, could you help follow up on the notes at Talk:Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab? I absolutely agree that this stuff ain't science, but is rather more of an academic/cultural curiosity. I'd like to get the background/funding into the same tone/style as many of the other parapsychology entries, like Perrott-Warrick Fund for example. Per yr comment, it doesn't have to be in the lede of course. We should also try to deal with the WP:BLP and WP:SCAREQUOTES item, in the absence of evidence of actual malicious intent. Tnx! jxm (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

addition to Osgoode Hall Law School

Hi, I re-added Jean-Gabriel Castel with more links to provide evidence for the claims. All the claims are available in the links. Alcoxnow (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Alcoxnow

October 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I'm Veera Dheera Sooran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Bobby Simha without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you should first of all read what trivia means. Nothing about the article is trivia. You however did remove sourced content, so it was not a false warning. And you should seriously stop this one-click reverting? You don't own any article here. Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I do know trivia and blathering. But this discussion should continue in a centralized location: Talk:Bobby_Simha#Descriptions-- TRPoD aka The Red Pecker of Doom 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)