Jump to content

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 17 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

TheRedPenOfDoom

OK I think we are getting closer here. I guess you won't let me print some published assessments of Lee Maye's voice. I apologize for what was uncivil. Nevertheless, I stand by what I think of people who hide behind a net handle. If you are Wiki staff, I must totally defer to your take. If you are a semi-professional writer like myself than you need to identify yourself. I have five-year-old twin boys who watch too many TV cartoons and play too many video games. They could come up with something better than The Red Pen Of Doom. What qualifications do you have? I have an MA from Temple University and have several book and article length writing credits. I also doubled as a combat soldier and public affairs officer as an activated reservist for the 1-12 Cav in Sadr City, Iraq. One kid with a high school diploma took an article I wrote, changed the ordering of two-sentences, and slapped his name (Kyle Cosner)on it as a co-writer. I slapped him so hard that I almost got court martialed. That is not a veiled threat to you BTW. In all honesty, I am always looking to learn and develop into a better writer. I gave you credit in my uncivil reply and I will now. I did learn from some of your changes. I reworded the Lee (Andrew) May remark so that it will not require a citation. That Lee Andrew May was more famous as a player than Arthur Lee Maye is self-evident. I hope we can now lay this think to rest and both be happy that an unheralded, highly talented person has a better wiki entry. As for now, I am working on a Wiki entry on Willie Winfield, lead singer of the Harptones I'm sure I'll see you red pen agin soon.

Gregorty T. Glading swan.knight@yahoo.com

I'm sorry to read such harsh tones on the talk page of an editor who has proven to be diligent in upholding wikipedia's guidelines. Guidelines which are there to help us all create and maintain better articles. Please take on board the polite advice left on your talk page by RedPenOfDoom. Alastairward (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your post on my talk page here, as it's apparently related...

I wondered why he thought I wanted to get him banned. It just seemed to come out of nowhere. Apparently it came from his interaction with you, with which I had nothing to do.

My own contributions to all this have been fairly minimal beyond my original request on the talk page to integrate the block of text added by Mr. Glading into the existing article, and then just going ahead and doing it myself as it appeared it wouldn't be done otherwise. There's a general air of combativeness to his posts, which is unfortunate, but at least now I know a bit of the background. -Dewelar (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical




.

Hi man....I just want to know why you removed omments added in the eric cartman article regarding his compassionate side. Clearly if uve watched the episodes you would have realised the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.80.165 (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Us Now

Thanks for your latest edits. I think I am getting the hang of this. I will be able to improve the Us Now page with more sources, links and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfamatan (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (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 [1] 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



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)


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 [2] 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 [3]. 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 [4] 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)
In support of Giano II's protest. The ArbCom seems to be careening out of control and taking action after action that undermines the community's trust in their ability to professionally perform their job.


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)


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.[5] 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)[6]
  • "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC) [7]
  • "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 [8]
  • "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 [9]
  • "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post [10]
— Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


FYI

Per [11] they are the same individual.

And per WP:DUCK (contribution history), it looks like User talk:121.210.209.237 is also. - jc37 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I deleted and restored your talk page to remove a number. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I deleted your talk page to remove the number again. I also semi-protected it and your user page for a couple of weeks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

I have submitted a COI/N notice regarding user:Jokestress, user:Dicklyon, and me here. I am notifying editors who contribute regularly to the related set of trans pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


request for suggestions

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete the plot for "[[Eyes of War]", please undo the delete.Explain your reasoning.(Aidarhaynes5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidarhaynes5 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Talkback

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Aidarhaynes5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have you read the book, Eyes of War,, if you have please put in the plot,(on the its article) you have deleted, i bet you know that "book story" more then i do. (aidarhaynes5) Aidarhaynes5 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have read and understand the policy, and no where does WP:RS ban blogs outright. They are acceptable as reliable sources in the right contexts. When you're talking about extremely popular industry events that primarily are covered through established technology blogs, then that is such a context. Verification of Burton's new-found proclivity for tech cultural events organized and broadcasted online should be best accomplished with relevant sources, i.e. blogs. The Washington Post isn't going to mention this kind of thing, it's not in their scope. Steven Walling (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy on self published sources seems to suggest caution when using blogs. It also mentioned that if the event is notable, other independent sources will probably have covered it already. Alastairward (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
THis discussion is being consolodated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeVar_Burton#Blogs_as_sources_.3F.3F.3F.3F

Have a look

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

I think you need to bear this in mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That was WP:IGNORE wasn't it? When someone dives straight in with that one, bypassing WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY, it's usually not a good sign. Alastairward (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actully I have a new respect for both WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY, i was just making the point that SUCH strict adherence to the many regulations of wiki could in certain cases be detrimental to the quality of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In my own experience (not speaking for Redpen of course) it usually doesn't. Certain case perhaps, but those are likely few and far between. Alastairward (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you admit it is a possibility though. I bet there are plenty of serious editors who wish that WP:IGNORE was promptly abandoned as it is a straw for IP's such as myself to grab at :-)

Pretty much. Few things are so unlikely as to be absolutely impossible, you can't deny they have a purpose. But by the same measure you can't really say that their use would come before all the other, more useful, guidelines there are. Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have found that in most of the cases where people jump to WP:IAR; when they are asked, are not able to supply an answer to to the second portion of the policy: "So exactly why/how does ignoring the rules in this instance improve the encyclopedia?" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative action in the United States

you should have put citation needed, however the references are now there.--Conor Fallon (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

My trip to McDonald's actually is reliable enough of a source to be true. I saw the menu, the name McDouble on the dollar menu, and my eyesight with glasses on is 20/20. I'm not hallucinating. It is the truth. Bob.--76.224.123.137 (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: your trip to McDonalds: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR.
No. It does not qualify by any of Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Uwishiwazjohng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am a bit baffled at your opinion. You are looking for those who want to keep the legal section to tell you how it supports Wikipedia policy. I'm really not sure what that means. How can inclusion of statement support a wikipedia policy? Can it not simply comply with it? How has the inclusion of these primary sources, numerous as they are, not complied with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia doesn't ban the the use of primary sources. It encourages the use of tertiary sources. In this case, there are no tertiary sources, or even secondary sources. This matter is clearly not significant enough to merit a third party opinion. However, clearly several of these court cases were decided. I am simply pointing out that fact. Why is this any different than noting that Mr. Ferguson's company recorded songs by a particular band? Would you be willing to go over in more detail specifically which parts of the section you think do not comply with Wikipedia policy on the discussion page? I believe that would be useful and enlightening to all the editors involved. There were multiple editors of the section and I agree that some of it was poorly sourced but not all of it. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Uwishiwazjohng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minors

If you don't include birthdays of celeb's kids, then why are they listed on here? You'd better get hopping and delete the dates, from every single celebrity on this site! Chop, chop! 76.68.161.180 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


"Crap"? Nice attitude, should be used somewhere other then Wiki. So when are you removing the kids' birthdays for celebs? 76.68.161.180 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I clean up articles as I run across items that need to be cleaned up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


David Ferguson (Impresario) -- editing complaint against 'uwishiwasjohng'

Red Pen, sorry to bother you as I'm guessing you have a lot of issues on your plate. Today, I placed a complaint against 'uwishiwasjohng' on the Admin page for Bio of Living Persons but I'm hoping something immediate can be done. Having had his Legal History section removed, 'uwishiwasjohng' is now attacking the article through excessive editing. Feel free to review Admin complaint. Thank you. DrJamesX (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Daily Mail Article

Can we please remove the 'homosexuality' section on the DM article. It is clearly just a left-wing attack on the Mail from a very biased source. I feel this information and section has no relevance to the article. The Independent can hardly be called NPOV when commenting on the Mail. I move that this section be deleted. Thank You 77.100.207.175 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

HTML

I know HTML code really well, but the wiki way of editing confuses me. I get the two confused a lot. Is there a way I can just use html? Is that an option in wikipedia? If so, how do I do that? hannah.joy. (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you do it by clicking the "Ignore wiki formatting" button? hannah.joy. (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Johnston

I think you have got confused here. As far as I am concerned I have remained neutral. I have been trimming and restructuring the article. Perhaps you have mistakenly thought that some of the unsatisfactory existing parts that I have moved are my creation? It is down to the wikipedia community to assist me in the work on article. I can not see how reverts will be progress. Clarence Ovalude (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Reliable source question

I sincerely apologize for incorrectly identifying you previously as a Wiki Admin. My oversight. I do have a source / citation question and I hope you'll allow me to call upon your expertise for some guidance.

I've been trying to use the links at the bottom as sources to show which specific bands participated on compilations released as Rat Music for Rat People. This is part of the Wikipedia article for David Ferguson (Impresario)

These links appear completely valid and to legitimately satisfy any request for proof of the bands that appeared on the Rat Music compilations (The NYU link is part of the University radio station's record archive, for ex.) Yet 'DoriSmith' and 'uwishiwasjohng' (who has a self-admitted COI with the Ferguson) have repeatedly challenged these citations, have flagged them as 'unreliable' or have removed them outright with no explanation (as DoriSmith did in her sweeping 2/9 reversion) as to why they are illegitimate.

Is there a problem with using this type of 3rd party source to prove the content of an album?

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~cch223/comps/ratmusic.html
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists___series___rat_music_for_rat_people/rat_music_for_rat_people_vol__3/

Thank you for reviewing and please respond at your convenience. DrJamesX (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Conservative Punk

Conservative Punk is a notable news outlet for the conservative underground. It is no more self published than say Techcrunch or Mashable which are both cited often on Wikipedia. I'll make a comment about it on the discussion page to see what others think.Artblogs (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion debate on CP was non consensus which means you are probably right about the notability of the site.Artblogs (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was obviously not notable it would have been deleted. Ty 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If you comment is to me, I never said it wasnt notable, I said it was a blog and not reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any post by you above to which I could have replied. There are two posts by Artblogs on the topic of notability, to which I thought it would be obvious I was responding. However, we now know that your reasoning was in two parts and the second seems to have implications of notability, but maybe that is not what you intend. Ty 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As you may know, on wikipedia there are conversations going on at multiple locations. You may have been responding to my post at another location and put your reply here so that I would see it. I made that assumption and was incorrect. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive_1&oldid=1088315546"