Revision as of 04:29, 31 October 2008 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →holding tank: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:41, 31 October 2008 edit undoVictorcoutin (talk | contribs)655 edits Joe the Plumber Talk Page - Hey! What Gives? - Deleting and Refactoring Talk Page EntriesNext edit → | ||
Line 488: | Line 488: | ||
: Replied again. OK with compromise, but I'm surprised by your analysis ] (]) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | : Replied again. OK with compromise, but I'm surprised by your analysis ] (]) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
::FYI, D&B is not a publically published source. It's a private, pay for view. Reporting in NY Times and other outlets are published and verfiable. Why do you are you giving it equal weight to more current information?] (]) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | ::FYI, D&B is not a publically published source. It's a private, pay for view. Reporting in NY Times and other outlets are published and verfiable. Why do you are you giving it equal weight to more current information?] (]) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Joe the Plumber Talk Page - Hey! What Gives? == | |||
I see, you took my comment (along with the other editor's reply), ERASED it from the page, and moved it to my talk page? What gives? You might be out of line here. What could possibly have made you want to edit out a TALK page??? Are you aware this is a talk page you just edited out two other persons opinions and remarks on those opinions???? I do not understand what is going on here. Let's bring this to light, ok? | |||
:See your talk page. But in short ] - tangential conversations not allowed on article talk pages. -- ] 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The section in the talk page as you are well aware was headed under 'Qualifications', as they pertained to political office. My comment wasn't irrelevant. I brought up intelligence, education and literacy. Those are legitimate and relevant parts of qualifications for any profession or office, and especially for a political position. Please explain how you stipulate that this is irrelevant. Additionally, even if another editor's comment was irrelevant, from my reading of the link you provided, I believe the correct procedure isn't to edit the other editor's entry. It's discussion that's the correct procedure. --] (]) 22:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Your notation doesn't apply here at all. You have modified another user's talk comments which are relevent to the topic, pertain to the article, and without permission. When asked for an explaination, you intimated this somehow is personal (it's not) and seem to indicate that you somehow disagree with the entire premise of the heading (as if that has anything to do with whether or not people should comment under it). | |||
:::Therefore, you either should ask my permission to modify my entries, or undo your modification. --] (]) 04:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::You seem to have refactored more talk entries. Additionally you seem to have sanitized any discussion on whether your refactoring is or isn't justified. I'm very impressed as to your zealousness, but it frightens me. Also, you ignore direct attempts at communication, but find it simpler to just edit and delete the entries of other editors. I'm confused. Why are you doing this? We are here to improve articles. We are not here to mess around with talk pages and move other people's sincere contributions away from the discussions just because we disagree that they make any sense. If you disagree with something on a talk page, you ought say so. What you are doing isn't fair to me and to the discussion. You have interfered with the discussion on Joe the Plumber's qualifications to run for a political office, and the discussion on how to accurately describe Joe the Plumber's professional status. You weren't justified in your actions. When I tried to discuss it with you, you erased the discussion. Why? I'm sorry if this confuses you. I know it's difficult to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles, but refactoring the entries of other contributors isn't going to ease the situation. If anything, you are making it harder for me, you, and for other contributors. --] (]) 14:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
== holding tank == | == holding tank == |
Revision as of 14:41, 31 October 2008
Due to a potty-mouth vandal, you will need to have an account to post here.
The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
3RR
This is a very casual warning, but you seem to be in violation of the 3-revert rule on the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States article. I don't see any evidence of edit warring but you are definitely in violation of the letter of the law in this case. I'm not very vested in this article, but if I was very interested in the topic, and I disagreed with you, I would definitely have a case against you per policy. Just some food for thought! Thanks, CredoFromStart 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that reverting the vandalism of the banned disruptive account(s) ultrastoopid/___maroon would actually constitute a violation. But thank you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're quite correct, and I withdraw my previous statement. I didn't look very far into it and the lengthy edit summaries led me to think it was more content dispute than sockpuppet cleanup. My apologies! CredoFromStart 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully baloney has ceased
Notes to self
{{db-user}} <- get rid of user page
Technical fix
Battering of deceased equines
Hiya. I noticed some of your edits to Talk:State terrorism and the United States, such as this one seemed a little disruptive and incivil to me. Please be sure to keep even the most heated discussion civil so as to better facilitate constructive editing. Cheers =) --slakr 13:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, no need. Whether or not the person was actually beating a dead horse isn't the issue; it's more flooding the talk page by repeating the same phrase excessively, the end result of which is to make it look like you're causing trouble— even if it's actually someone else. A good place to point people instead of doing that would be WP:STICK. :) --slakr 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
See ANI report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute
Please comment. Thank you.Supergreenred (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
IP
Could you confirm whether you sometimes forget to log on and edit under 144.15.255.227 ? No big deal but it helps to understand.--BozMo talk 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons for wanting to hide discussion which you regard as off topic on ANI but I think by the time someone has re-instated them once you need to think carefully before hiding them again. --BozMo talk 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mychal F. Judge
Regarding your deletion on Mychal F. Judge. I believe the information you deleted is true, even though I didn't enter it originally. Do you believe it to be untrue? Why didn't you use a {{fact}} or {{dubious}} template? patsw (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the editor who wishes to include information to provide the reliable source. {fact} tags are an option, but are not a necessary step.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you believe the deleted material to be untrue, or are you indifferent to its truth or falsity? patsw (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anytime any semi-famous catholic dies, there are some who want to make them a saint. The question is whether the number / 'status' of those involved in this instance are of a notable threshhold. Keeping and tagging speculation did not seem necessary based on the overall content of this article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you believe the deleted material to be untrue, or are you indifferent to its truth or falsity? patsw (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can assure you that the cause for the canonization of Mychal F. Judge is more than worthy of inclusion in the Misplaced Pages based on the amount of coverage it has received both controversial and non-controversial. see Google I agree that the article can be helped by citing some of this coverage in the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing sources! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the editor who wishes to include information to provide the reliable source. {fact} tags are an option, but are not a necessary step.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/how_does_evolut.html
Your comment
I have removed this because it is unhelpful to divide the discussion across multiple pages. Please make all comments related to the arbitration on the arbitration pages where everyone can see them. Jehochman 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Indirect DNA damage
Please stop removing chunks of text from Indirect DNA damage because you claim there is no source. Have you discussed this? Have you requested sources? Corvus cornixtalk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, then go ahead and revert my edit. Thank you for explaining and not starting an Edit War. Mr. E. Sánchez (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted
Thanks for you message.Gerriet42 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have twenty minutes ...
... could you read over this and make any comment you feel appropriate? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are mistaken. For a couple of months Jagz has kept repeating that he is taking a year off, yet he continues to edit. As i point out in one of my comments, it is precisely this kind of behavior that I consider an example of what makes him a troll. But don'
- He may not have edited the article recently (and so what - since he knows nothing about psychology or genetics, he has never added anything of substance to the article ever - his activities have always been 90% talk page), but if you just look you will see he continues to edit the talk page. And in my opinion this is the real problem because he disrupts any attempt at positive discussion. The so-called ban is a fake - he has not stopped editing in the article, just a couple of days ago he disrupted discussion with more inane comments on the talk page. Now, I just saw his "pledge" not to edit talk pages - but this is in a section where he insists that Alun, Ramdrake and I cease editing these articles too. This is not a solution. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to edit the Talk pages of the articles that I mentioned. The R&I article was in shambles several months ago so an expert was not needed to make vast improvements. I'm an engineer who is good at science. I would urge you to stop using Talk pages to bad mouth people. --Jagz (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- He may not have edited the article recently (and so what - since he knows nothing about psychology or genetics, he has never added anything of substance to the article ever - his activities have always been 90% talk page), but if you just look you will see he continues to edit the talk page. And in my opinion this is the real problem because he disrupts any attempt at positive discussion. The so-called ban is a fake - he has not stopped editing in the article, just a couple of days ago he disrupted discussion with more inane comments on the talk page. Now, I just saw his "pledge" not to edit talk pages - but this is in a section where he insists that Alun, Ramdrake and I cease editing these articles too. This is not a solution. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For future reference
Apparently no longer needed, but I will stash this here. I support a topic ban. It is very hard for me to believe that X is participating in the article in good faith. Back in March, X was involved with a number of editors who were at loggerheads. At that time, all parties except X agreed to participate in a mediation process to find a way to work together to improve the article. X refused to pariticpate in the mediation process, and so the request was closed because without participation of such a major party in the dispute, the mediation would be pointless. Later, when editors suggested that refusal to participate in mediation was an indication of bad faith editing presence X claimed that his refusal was because he was going on vacation and would not be able to participate in the process. A review of his edit log shows that he has been able to edit nearly every day from Feb., seems even more valid evidence that his presence is not in good faith and Slr has clear reason to name a disruptive editor a "XXX" on the ___ articles. I have not been paying much attention to the article in the recent past because of X stated intent to be done with the article for a year and I assumed the other editors would be able to use that time to work together constructively to improve a very flawed article. I am sorry that X did not fulfil his promise on his own and that we are now bringing this to forum. (diffs available on request)-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Innovative warning
Made my day! Regards!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Staticj
Don't exert too much effort repairing Staticj's edits, like you did on Nicole Wray. It's probably just Soccermeko. I submitted a checkuser case, and when it comes back, I'll just roll back his edits and submit all of his articles for deletion.Kww (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
72.22.6.209
Please read Misplaced Pages's guidelines for external links -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What should be linked
1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
72.22.6.209 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)72.22.6.209
Noam Chomsky
Right back at you. Io (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
They are not disruptive...
... and who are you to decide? Io (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
about that talk page
Have a look at this. (I hope you don't mind me taking your name in vain!) :~) Pinkville (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration RFA
I'm not calling for it to be closed--rather the reverse. I've tweaked my comment to clarify that. --Jenny 03:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Your voice
You obviously like the sound of it. Giano (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- When I think I have interesting things for people to consider, yep. And people are responding so they aparently are interested in discussing those topics as well.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good, that's nice to hear because as Sir Fozzie and the Arbcom's supporters are now examining my edits I have decided to take a look at their's. You see I have never heard of you, which is odd, as I know most editors by reputation, so I was taking a look at your edits, in fact I am taking a look at many people's - to see what useful purpose, if any, they serve. Giano (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- A lack of trust in the ArbCom's ability to consistantly produce sound judgments is a position I think we both share. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please outline for me your most recent edits in content and the pages you have written and created. These things are of huge interest to some people . A percentage would be helpful. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- You can view my contributions to see where i have been, or click the edit count button up above. I am afraid I don't keep track of those percentages myself. Perhaps you could ask Dave what tool he used?-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, no problem, just an idle enquiry that was all. Allthough, obviously these things matter to some. While I am here though, which pages that you have started are you most proud of? I am sure you did not just arrive here to give an opinion. Your first momentous edit us here you sit at the top of this page scribing away, what have you written? Giano (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhhh, such sweet memories! Some people write, some people edit and some people help maintain what has been created from going downhill. Some people like pictures of big black quill pens cause they couldn't find any pictures of red pens they liked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Worrisome edits
This series of edits was clearly meant to remove any links which contained the word lesbian and given your comments on the talk page along with your misleading edit summaries, was not only pointy, but as close to vandalism as one can get. It was certainly disruptive. Please don't do this again, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- All that Gwen Gale has said also applies to your three edits at Dir en grey. Well, except for the Lesbian thing. Please do not remove more external links until you fully understand WP:EL. Thank you, Victor Lopes (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen was wrong, and so are you, except about that Lesbian thing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see you were right in some cases, but don't go simply deleting any type of link you see only because it's been cited at WP:EL. If you read WP:EL, you'll see that those links may be acceptale under certain circumstances, as it is stated here: "Except for a link to a page that is an official page of the article subject". Also, you may start an edit war with many people, because I'm sure more people will dislike all this, even though you were right in some cases (as I stated at Gackt's talk page). If you take a look at "Weird Al" Yankovic, for example, you'll see that even a Featured Article on a musician has MySpace links on the External Links section. MySpace links sometimes may bring more info for the reader, like music samples and etc. I'm starting to think of Requesting a third opinion or Requesting a comment on this issue, because if you are totally right...then we'll have to cleanup thousands of articles. Anyway, sorry for any too quick judgement of mine. As I said, you were not totally wrong. Victor Lopes (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Gwen was wrong, and so are you, except about that Lesbian thing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Mousesports
You were obviously under the mistaken impression that I am a member of Mousesports. I am not. Also, Misplaced Pages has the eSports team template available for pages that are for professional gaming organizations. If you really think you have the jurisdiction to delete the Mousesports/Nihilum page that has been looked over and approved by the administrators, then I suggest you alert them to the SK Gaming, fnatic and all those other pro-gaming organizations that you feel don't belong on Misplaced Pages. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Gackt link reverts
You either misunderstand the artist or the WP guidelines- after I reverted your edit and you went and changed it back, yet another person corrected your work. I reverted it originally out of good faith, but if you can't understand the implications of WP:EL, especially with pages on foreign celebrities where multiple official links are available and closely linked with the artist, it might start to be considered vandalism due to the amount of it we get on that page. Gackt's community site is officially run by his own people where exclusive information from him and his staff are shared. Each of the links listed are Official and offer unique information, therefore fully complying with wikipedia's policy. I'd like to please ask you to refrain from further link editing on that page. Thanks! (Tsukiakari (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC))
Call centre tags
I just saw your latest load of tags on that page. I don't really care personally about the content of the paragraphs that you tagged. I looked at your talk page though. Tagging, deleting and anonymity appear to be the majority of your work here, as your handle also indicates, which fits a pattern that I recognise from others who do that. I don't get it. What is the appeal in these sorts of disruptions? You are certainly not alone in focusing on those sorts of edits. I just don't understand the motive. I don't buy for one microsecond that it's some altruistic deal about making sure wiki policies and procedures are followed chapter and verse. In our latest exchanges, all content survived on merit. You had nothing left to offer that would conceivably have survived scrutiny, let alone mediation or arbitration. And this time I won't challenge your tags, again, because I don't care about the specific content. You can tangle with whoever does care about that stuff. What I would like to know though is the motive behind wrecking good work (especially instead of expending a bit of effort on google to find remedies). The net effect is actually that I am sure there is a growing number of those who know wikipedia and the little power struggles on here, who understand that the more tags, likely the more truth. Inconvenient truth perhaps. That's the pattern I have picked out, apart from articles all done by one person with a special interest axe to grind. I figure you must get your jollies with what I believe to be interruptions for the purpose of interrupting. I don't get where the kicks are in that though. What gives? --Achim (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Contributions
Hi, I just wanted to thank you so much for your contributions to the Partridge Family article. It is often the case that saboteurs and control freaks rear their ugly heads there, so it was very refreshing to read contributions that really improved the article. I personally want to thank you, and encourage you to stick around, as we sometimes get attacked by editors with less than noble interests. I am looking for editors who genuinely want to make the article a better one. Thanks so much dear!ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
How exactly...
...is this source "unreliable"? There's nothing wrong with this edit, and you know it. I'd advise you to get a life, but when you're dealing with someone who calls themselves "The Red pen of Doom" (and has a pageful of complaints from other users), you quickly realize that, for wikijerks like yourself, this is their life.RMc (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don't edit war over 867-5309/Jenny. If you feel thqat you are in the right, ask for outside help rather than warring which isn't allowed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Userpage
You should create a userpage. It makes it a bit easier to know something about you (keep in mind I forwent one for about 8 months as a statement of rebellion as well). The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks but no thanks. I like my 'no page'-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jason Lee's Stupid Fucking TV Show
I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert said it in a thing, sry I forgot 2 cite. :-) 12:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)SStapleton (talk)
Email me?
Need to ask you a question. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearing things out
Alright, I'm tire, I admit, I'm tired! We need to make peace, sir. We've been picking away about this Mousesports article for such a long time that I feel we need to meet an agreeable resolution. It never helps to have people against eachother and Misplaced Pages is, afterall, a large and general movement to gather up as much information as possible which is encyclopedia content. I feel that I was aggressive and inconsiderate and downright biased with all the talking. I should not have taken it so personal, it's just that I'm friends with Morris Wink and didn't want to see his page deleted. I still don't want the page deleted and will try my best to piece together the missing history and achievements that are currently unavailable to me. Hope you take my apology well and best regards. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Possible WP:OWN case
I just wanted to let you know that while I believe the edits you're reverting to Pearls Before Swine (comics) are in somewhat good faith, you are reverting nearly every edit anyone makes. It's getting really close to WP:OWN, and I'm asking you to scale back. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
867-5309/Jenny
My edit is souced. In it I have included the episode in which it happened. That is the source. Also, if you go to the episode's article, you will see the song name in the "Cultural References" section.
So stop reveting my edits. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and YOU will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. SidekickJermaine (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandra Lee (cook)
I'm going to revert some of your recent edits per the discussion on the talk page. While I'd like better sources than what I've found, what I'm adding back is sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Your question
I would start by redirecting the article you created to the existing article, which has a more accurate name. I think the name you chose is not appropriate for an article that only covers U.S. politicians. You can do this by replacing the text with #REDIRECT] . You would also want to make sure that all of the people covered by your article are included in the existing article. To deal with the problems you have identified, you can raise your concerns about POV-pushing on its talk page, or go ahead and make the changes that you feel are necessary, and explain why on the talk page. There is already an "unsourced" tag on the article indicating that another user has identified this problem. Regards, Ground Zero | t 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
"talk discussion" topic on kathleen batle
Thanks for stepping into mediate. This particular dispute between us began ] and you can also see editing history around July 2008 just excalated. Anyway...
- At the top of this page is a notice that DISCUSSION has been redirected to BLP noticeboards.
- Then the next topic a bolded "decision to withdraw" , not a question, where the editor proceeds to 'explain' why he is withdrawing. Do you feel this really an appropriate topic of discussion? He clearly has a problem with working with me, and yet, isn't there another forum where persons can do this?
- Can this "discussion" be retained, but moved to what I imagine a more appropriate place, say that those who want to discuss the article truly can? Thanks? Hrannar (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
Talk:Sandra Lee
I hope you don't mind that I've removed your comments along with the entire section. The other editors involved, other than you and I, all appear to be just sockpuppets of a blocked editor. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sandra_Lee_.28cook.29 and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Biff714. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Socarides article and related issues
TheRedOfDoom, I've recently proposed to remove the 'Medical view of conversion therapy' section from the Charles Socarides article. I've started a discussion about this and related issues on JaGa's talk page; I'd appreciate it if you would comment. Skoojal (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Good Faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_McKenna&action=history
The phrasing I used in the McKenna piece is based on this article yet you seem to have made up your mind that my wording is down to some supposed affiliation to McKenna.
Phrases like oh please leave the megaphone at home and just the facts, not the hype are not deemed appropriate comments if you familiarise yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith with particular reference to the following paragraph: Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.
Ultimately if I've got things wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected but as a journalist of 25 year's standing I resent my integrity being questioned in such a manner. KenelmJames (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article in the Guardian is obviously just a regurgitation of a press release by McKenna /TLC. I will stand by my identification of that language as hype that has no place in an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Fraud
OK, someone here was replacing their IP address with my name. Who was it?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
PPG
I've reverted one of your edits due to miscategorisation. List pages shouldn't be categorised that way.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to ask. - jc37 03:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- The List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls is a "list" article in name only and has much more content (albeit currently not properly sourced) than many "regular" articles. and categories such as "Child superheroes" clearly are more appropriately tied to the characters present in the "list" article than to the media franchise discussed in the main article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- First, take a moment and read over WP:LIST. You may find that there are several types of lists. And this is clearly one of those kinds.
- (As an aside, a quick read on primary sources at WP:OR, might be helpful.)
- Second, the main article covers both the franchise and the titular characters. This is done in actually quite a few comics and cartoon-related articles. To do otherwise would actually hinder navigation (the main purpose for categories) than help. - jc37 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Cattle Hauler
A recent history of the cattle hauler link is as follows. The editor who first added data about the auto ad linked cattle hauler to Cowboy. His/her original edit constituted POV and original research. The contribution, including the link, turned out to be a bit of a slur, meant to suggest that hockey mom denotes someone somewhat less than feminine. I ignored the original research violatioin and left most of the passage in, but at least made sure that the link was gender-appropriate.
Your concern that the link was off-topic is reasonable, but the term, cattle hauler, is novel enough that it does need to be connected to its meaning. If you think about it, the whole section about a car commercial is rather off-topic and represents original research. The way to enter that info in a Misplaced Pages article would technically be to cite it from a published source, such as a newspaper article about hockey moms that mentions the ad. Then it would be legitimate for use in the Misplaced Pages the article. It is not, but if we leave the stuff there at all, it makes sense to properly link cattle hauler.
Maybe the whole original research infraction should be excised. 129.49.251.174 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Errata--The NYT instance is not so much an ad as a promotional review or editorial. The original research problem remains, nevertheless.129.49.251.174 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-Protect
Do you want me to request your talk page to be protected?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Space.com not a reliable source?
Hi, I was wondering why you deemed space.com to not be a reliable source. It's owned and operated by Imaginova, which you can read about here: http://www.imaginova.com/company/ When talking about a fictional brand of cigarettes mostly featured in science fiction I think it's a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGilbert (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The Game
Just a friendly reminder to please be careful of 3RR. — Satori Son 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I semi-protect your page.
Due to the vandalism/impersonation.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- If it is becoming an issue for you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Kareena Kapoor
IMDB is an unreliable source? If the producer of a film has confirmed a film on his/her official website, it is unreliable? Please visit the forthcoming section on Dharma Productions' official website at http://www3.dharmaproduction.com/forthcoming.html. I will not tolerate nonsense -- Amol1186 (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Show me one instance where a source has been mentioned when the Filmography section has been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amol1186 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- If the article of a Film itself is to be used as a citation, why is Billo Barber being removed from Filmography?
Amol1186 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- On one hand, you are trying to enforce each and every wikipedia principle, and on the other you are thanking a user like Florateju1405 for his/her "She is a stupid idiot who just want to have sex and fun." contribution(???) to the article. *Applause* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amol1186 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, you win
OK, we'll just keep The Game at the present page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not Wiktionary
This is not Wiktionary, therefore our lead paragraphs should not simply give definitions, but also explain the term in its social, political, linguistic, and historical contexts. Therefore I think we should put back into Political correctness the lead I wrote (which you changed greatly). Here is mine:
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term with contradictory and controversial uses. On its face, it implies politics with which the speaker agrees, though especially since the 1990s it also has been used to mock others' attempts at correctness. Usually the aspect of politics refered to is language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups.
You might think it can be improved, and if so, please do without taking out all those important contexts. If this were Wiktionary, I don't agree with your definition, anyway. For the term to focus on gender, race, etc. is only a recent phenomenon. I'll wait for your reply before changing it back. Can you remind me on my talk page? Korky Day (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiculturalism
Regarding your entirely valid objections to the revisionist edits of propagandist Atomicdor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here and here , he came right back and put the garbage in . I removed it, of course, but perhaps a regular editor needs to monitor such egregious POV pushing.72.179.59.89 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
75.177.116.140
S/He's at it again on Evan Harris Biscit (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Cyndi lauper
Just curious why you felt it necessary to remove a section in the Lauper Page about her apearance on the Super mario Brothers Cartoon Series. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oozing Goo, The Lava Lamp Syndicate
I just wanted to let you know the background of OG in relation to the lava lamp page here. OG has been the primary lava lamp website dating back to '96 or '97. When it was started there was virtually no lava lamp information on the web. Actually, much of its content was used in the original lava lamp page here. After reviewing the WP:EL page, I think the external link is completely valid. OG is longstanding and noteworthy - with subject-specific content. It is recognized as the leading lava lamp website with tens of thousands of users and over 400 community members. Please reconsider its relevance for the article and its helpfulness to article readers. Thank you, fleabitten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleabitten (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the warm welcome!! :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AryanK 90 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Bloody Mary
Hey. I saw you were getting into a discussion with another editor who was attempting to add Universal's use of the character for its Halloween Horror Nights event in Florida this year. I agree that internal linking isn't the best way to handle such things, but I do have a newspaper article that discusses the character and how Universal crafted this year's event around her, and I think it can be written such that the Bloody Mary legend inspired the event. I would like to hear what you think. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll make the edit shortly; feel free to let me know what you think, on my talk page or in the article itself. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced
It's better to use for non-controversial issues rather than just delete. Grsz 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
re:Road to Germany
i have reverted your deletion of the Cultural References section you removed per WP:PROVEIT
from WP:PROVEIT
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.
seeing as the show just aired earlier today, please let users have time to work on the article before deleting sections. Thanks for your help keeping Misplaced Pages reliable. -TinGrin 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- i hold issue with the deletion of the data, but commenting it out or moving to the talk page would be an acceptable medium. Alternately, you might be able to help cite the material, as a page with little or no information is just as bad as a page with wrong information -TinGrin 11:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
RedPen, I've responded at my talk page. Thanks, Grsz 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You cant edit war, even if it's adding and removing unsourced references. Grsz 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Road to Germany. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Jude the Apostle
I thought referencing the Howard Stern Show would be sufficient, since it is an internationally syndicated radio talk show. Would a specific episode be more appropriate?
Frida Kahlo
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Modernist (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
We are both on the brink with 3 each.....Modernist (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion here: Modernist (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Road to Germany
Do you agree with me, in removing all unsourced CRs, or no? CTJF83Talk 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, right now I have an admin looking at the page, for possible protection for a while, till the newness of the episode dies down....we have to do this all the time for new The Simpsons episodes. CTJF83Talk 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dude. You are over the top. Just because you disagree with several points, you feel it is your sworn duty to uphold wikipedia. I wish there was a Wikicop badge we could pin on your private school tunic or something to that extent. Seriously. RSW-red sox win (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Self-Replicating Machine and Computational Ontogeny
Now that the paper is released (See the website www.mitpress.com/biot for the current issue), I expect that my claims regarding vandalism of my additions to the article Self-Replicating Machine will be addressed, and the offending deletions reverted. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Inclusionist (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
BLP privacy policy for limited public figures
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Template Substitution
Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks ·Add§hore· /Cont 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
RE: Joe the Plumber workshop page
Thank you for inviting me to participate on your workshop page for Joe the Plumber, and I would like to contribute. Would you prefer that I make edits directly on your material or should I add suggested changes in a comments section? Actually, how should we go about commenting, since the workshop page is a talk page? --Amwestover (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar of peace
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
I award this Barnstar of peace to TheRedPenOfDoom, for his willingness to compromise and be a strong force towards peace. Thank you. |
Compromise mentioned Inclusionist (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiculturalism
Hello. Since you seem to have expressed interest in keeping the article free of synthesis, I request monitoring the racist synthesis of User:Atomicdor to this article (who, I suspect, is the racist sockpuppet of User:Wahrhaft) regarding the section on India. Thanks. Usedholding (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
NOR
I have made some proposals to the policy, perhaps you would comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
D&B
See reply on my talk page. Mattnad (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Replied again. OK with compromise, but I'm surprised by your analysis Mattnad (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, D&B is not a publically published source. It's a private, pay for view. Reporting in NY Times and other outlets are published and verfiable. Why do you are you giving it equal weight to more current information?Mattnad (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Joe the Plumber Talk Page - Hey! What Gives?
I see, you took my comment (along with the other editor's reply), ERASED it from the page, and moved it to my talk page? What gives? You might be out of line here. What could possibly have made you want to edit out a TALK page??? Are you aware this is a talk page you just edited out two other persons opinions and remarks on those opinions???? I do not understand what is going on here. Let's bring this to light, ok?
- See your talk page. But in short WP:TPG - tangential conversations not allowed on article talk pages. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The section in the talk page as you are well aware was headed under 'Qualifications', as they pertained to political office. My comment wasn't irrelevant. I brought up intelligence, education and literacy. Those are legitimate and relevant parts of qualifications for any profession or office, and especially for a political position. Please explain how you stipulate that this is irrelevant. Additionally, even if another editor's comment was irrelevant, from my reading of the link you provided, I believe the correct procedure isn't to edit the other editor's entry. It's discussion that's the correct procedure. --VictorC (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your notation doesn't apply here at all. You have modified another user's talk comments which are relevent to the topic, pertain to the article, and without permission. When asked for an explaination, you intimated this somehow is personal (it's not) and seem to indicate that you somehow disagree with the entire premise of the heading (as if that has anything to do with whether or not people should comment under it).
- Therefore, you either should ask my permission to modify my entries, or undo your modification. --VictorC (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have refactored more talk entries. Additionally you seem to have sanitized any discussion on whether your refactoring is or isn't justified. I'm very impressed as to your zealousness, but it frightens me. Also, you ignore direct attempts at communication, but find it simpler to just edit and delete the entries of other editors. I'm confused. Why are you doing this? We are here to improve articles. We are not here to mess around with talk pages and move other people's sincere contributions away from the discussions just because we disagree that they make any sense. If you disagree with something on a talk page, you ought say so. What you are doing isn't fair to me and to the discussion. You have interfered with the discussion on Joe the Plumber's qualifications to run for a political office, and the discussion on how to accurately describe Joe the Plumber's professional status. You weren't justified in your actions. When I tried to discuss it with you, you erased the discussion. Why? I'm sorry if this confuses you. I know it's difficult to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles, but refactoring the entries of other contributors isn't going to ease the situation. If anything, you are making it harder for me, you, and for other contributors. --VictorC (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
holding tank
- No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida. Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.
- "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)
- "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC)
- "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." and "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade
- "Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." and "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times
- "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post
- — Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida. Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.