User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Thank you for your efforts

Just wanted to thank you for your efforts in regards to the this disruptive IP. I hate to admit it, but I usually don't file warnings and reports ect., against folks like this because that usually doesn't stop them and others will eventually jump in and block ect. Also, never forget that no good deed goes unpunished. I know this is lazy and defers "grunt" work to others but what can I say :) Anyways, if I can help in turn please advise. Thank you again, --Tom (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Block disruptive IP

Can we do something about 168.171.214.44 ? This IP seems to be the source of a very disruptive "editor". Don't the rules allow for the blocking of the IP for a while? Rapparee71 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights opposition

Hi, just so you know, I informed Ejnogarb of 3RR on March 5, so he's aware that discussion->dispute resolution is the right course. —EqualRights (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hasselbeck March 2009

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tim Hasselbeck. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All that I added is sourced and Im adding it back! Did u read the talk page. Remove the parts you say are wrong. U remove everything which is wrong. That which I added is sourced. 70.108.74.81 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Billy Gilman

Intros don't need citations, as they're only supposed to summarize the article. Even so, I'll dig up sources to cite some of the facts. That whole article needs a steamroller, as do… well, 99% of the country music articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

response to your response

No I was not looking for TV guide. I was looking for a useful list of South Park episodes. The best one used to be here on Wikipedia. If you are gonna be so strict about this "being an encyclopedia" then why have the article at all? In fact, why not delete the hundreds of pages dedicated to TV shows and individual episodes. None of them are very encylopedic in the traditional sense, and are usually written by fans and bored teenagers rather than academics or experts. In my opinion, if you're going to have the article, it might as well be useful!122.108.12.220 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Girlfriends

The Girlfriends gallery has been in the article for almost a year and now its considered to be copyrighted because of the gallery? I think its very useful to the article. --Ceddy 06 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I ask mods to help me on the sistuation when uploading images to Wikipedia (they normally do before they just remove the information). In my mind, I thought I finally got it because I recieved no more messages about the image copyright. However, TheRedPenOfDoom is the right name for you. All of a sudden a hell delete in the Girlfriends article and other articles for that matter. I don't know if that's understandable or too overcontrolling. Ceddy 06 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes to IPs

He is entitled to remove it, please don't revert like that again Mayalld (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I had clicked "save" before i reliased that it wasnt the sockpuppet info that I thought it was. The IP removed it again before I could fix it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CHARMED

I did not put trivia on there I put what is widely known by fans & what actually is the truth regarding the show. You are removing info that is important to the show in terms of what people may not have known. Like Shannen auditioned for the role Holly got & vice versa.

I have put a link for the information regarding this, it is in this book about this information. I am not doing it to be difficult but it is a FACT this is what happened as said in this book.

So you take that out but you leave in this - "Combs hadn't wanted to come back to television, wanting a break after five years of playing Kimberly Brock, but because of Shannen's involvement, she came back, and she loved it. Having an actress of such fame was a key factor in the series' success" yet that is not sourced at all and atleast the role reversal issue is true and in print in an official book you say that the source is not reliable so you removed it?

Maybe another editor should be editing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.127.202 (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That is still in there because I had just spent an hour and a half removing other crap and I got tired and stopped editing for a bit. You new inclusion popped up on my watchlist and so I removed it now so that I would not have to remove it later when I got to the Production section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tara Correa-McMullen

YOU added Cindy O [1] so dont blame me. This is y u need to STOP FOLLOWING ME ON WIKI. STOP STALKING ME! 70.108.102.252 (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

An outside opinion — If the entire world is not on your side, then perhaps, just perhaps you might be wrong? To not consider this possibility is either insane or plain stupid. 99.147.0.22 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andrea Anders (actress). 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. Fastily (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are doing well, don't let it get to you! The key to winning an edit war is to (1) make sure you don't violate 3RR first, (2) properly use the edit summary (which you do very well), (3) be the first to bring the discussion to the talk page (which you do well), and (4) have other editors working on your side (which you generally have). If you are near the 3RR limit, ask for help from a like-minded admin or another editor. Again, keep up the good work. You are doing great things for WP by removing non-WP:RS, checking facts, and standing your ground. There is a great essay on "how to win an edit war", I will see if I can find it. 99.147.0.22 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than "winning" an edit war, it would have been much more satisfying if the IP would have learned much earlier that s/he is responsible for all of the content that gets into an article when s/he does a revert and that we must have reliable sources to back material added to the article. Hopefully during the time of the block this learning will occur. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, User:Unidyne has brought it to my attention that Andrea Anders (actress) is not the only article you have been provoking edit wars on. I would like to remind you, in a friendly manner, that such edits are not only a violation of the three revert rule but also damaging to the integrity of the project. Please Assume good faith, that other editors are here to help the project - not harm it. - Fastily (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of link to http://louielouieweb.tripod.com/pharaoh.htm

I am the one who added this link although I can't remmeber whether I did it as Soap or as an anonymous IP. I found that you removed it on August 8 for not being a reliable source as per WP:RS. I would like to get the link back into the page because I think that it's quite well known to anyone who's ever attended Sunday School at least in America. Perhaps the tripod site isn't reliable in all the claims it makes, but I would hope that it could be reliable just to show that the song exists. Would linking to a Christian and/or children's music publisher which has the song lyrics listed, perhaps with a song clip, be better? Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Regarding your comments on User talk:212.45.52.248: I'd like to invite you tot re-respond on my comment there. One other thing, using a heading "March 2009" is supergay and so is this 'info' image. I'd understand if you don't appreciate this on your talkpage and neither do I. Regards, Jan via account:Matthias92 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:South Park articles

lol Thank you for the salute, sir! Incidentally, I'd love to hear your feedback on my Season 2 task force proposal I just brought up over at the talk page! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.108.118.234

I managed to get his talk page protected since he won't give up his little tyrade. He even blanked out what you had said but I managed to get it reverted. His block ends on the 7th of April. I gave him a speech in a new section too. Momusufan (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Sebelius

It is not appropriate to just revert whole sections. Please use the talk section.--InaMaka (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is ALWAYS inappropriate to removed reliably sourced, notable information in an article in good faith. You need to assume good faith. Also, please do not engage in an edit war concerning the Kathleen Sebelius article. The information that I added was fully and completely reliably sourced and notable, considering how much coverage the issue is receiving in the media and how many of Obama's other nominees have had tax issues. Please use the talk page and cease immediately your inappropriate behavior.--InaMaka (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If a section gives undue weight to a particular topic, it is clearly appropriate to remove the section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. But in this specific instance there is a disagreement and therefore you and I need to discuss on the talk page. That is what the talk page is for, to discuss disagreements on how to develop the article. When you merely delete whole sections that I put in the article without discussing it then you are violating the basic principle of Wikipedia which is assume good faith and treat each other with respect. So I will repeat again. Do not engage in an edit war and use the talk page to discuss the reliably sourced, notable information that I placed in the Sebelius article concerning her tax issues. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who is wholesale reverting. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That comment is flat out wrong. I placed the reliably sourced, notable information in the article in the first place. You are the one deleting it. I am adding and you are eliminating and now you claim that I am deleting your work? That is backward and wrong. You have not placed any information in the article. You just eliminating it.--InaMaka (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversation continued at Talk:Kathleen Sebelius -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The White Flag of Surrender

I concede the edit war, but have you read Wikipedia's War Drobe article? I thought when Tumnus mistook "wardrobe" for War Drobe it was a good example of a mondegreen. If you have time, perhaps you can explain where I went wrong. If not, don't worry about it. I don't intend to revert your reversion again. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, Ed, where you went wrong was in your second sentence, above. "I thought..." do you have a source for War Drobe as a Mondegreen? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that I can't count on one Wikipedia article as a source for another, then I agree. My reference to the C.S. Lewis book is no better referenced than theirs. You want to help me find a usable reference? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If by "theirs" you mean War Drobe, it has two books listed as sources, and does not mention mondegreen. I cannot verify their sourcing as I have neither of the books. Good luck on your search for sourcing for your desired edits. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Spark Notes says, "The faun introduces himself as Tumnus, and asks Lucy how she has arrived in Narnia. Narnia, it turns out, is the name of this strange land that Lucy has entered. Lucy is confused and replies that she has come in through the wardrobe in the spare room. Tumnus misunderstands this, and thinks that Lucy comes from a city called War Drobe and a country called Spare Oom." [2]

Is this the sort of sourcing which suffices? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Game

Even though that source isn't 3rd party, you can't deny the information's correct. I'm not reverting back because I'll be violating the 3 revert rule.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How to catch active vandals?

Where are the active vandals? They all seem to have been blocked indefinitely, with nary an active disruptor in sight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms dos mode (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Magical negro‎

Hello again, TheRedPenOfDoom ... I just noticed your most recent "unsourced" revert to the Examples section of this article … ah, well … "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!" :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)}

Kathleen Battle

Hi. I wonder if you can explain your edits on the Kathleen Battle talk page? I've had a look at the series and I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do. As you know, other editors are observing a moratorium on editing. Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think my edits are pretty will explained in the edit summaries. I removed unsourced content/opinions, puffery, and a credit in a caption. If you have a specific question, please provide specifics.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Kathleen_Battle#Deletions_on_9_April. Perhaps you'd like to respond? --Kleinzach 23:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

grindcore

I reverted you edit. Please explain your reasons on the talkpage. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any verification for your claims about wikipolicy. Please take your time and answer my questions or I'll revert your edit. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again. You didn't show which policy was violated and didn't take your time to answer the occuring questions. That's rather arrogant. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to be the arrogant prick. Not every youtube video is a copyright violation. Feel free to expand your argument about copyright violation. Deleting material during an ongoing discussion is extremely rude. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your exhaustive reply. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Thank you for the welcome on my talk page. MarkChase (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with Michelle Belanger and her sock puppets

I have voted long ago in this deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Belanger. Now when checking on this situation, I removed a few references to that same self-promotion tones, things like entitling herself "notable occultist" and such, that are used only to bring up a false sense of notability on Wikipedia. Immediately after having this done, Michelle Belanger (alias SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy‎, Sethanikeem, etc) undid all my edits bringing back her content again. Also, in the Vampire Lifestyle article, where I see you have contributed as well, you can easily check her edits and comments trying to remove a reference to another work entitled Asetian Bible, and push her own work instead. When checking her own arguments in the article talk page, I see that an admin proposed an edit using both books, in a way not to create further hassle. Belanger agreed with it and added herself that proposed text, only to weeks later going again on the article to specifically remove the part that mentioned the Asetian Bible (that herself agreed to keep, in order to have her book back up in the article) and keeping her own work alone, when herself and her stuff was already decided to be removed by admins long ago. It sounds like she is trying to make a fool out of the admins and users involved in this, thinking that people are stupid enough not to notice these actions. This situation is going on for far too long and should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I ask for your help in dealing with this, since I am sure this obsessive person will not stop with her spam and manipulation. Thank you for your time and help. MarkChase (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I'll take it in consideration. Though after some research, evidence does point out to the referred path concerning the sp's. MarkChase (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Than please report it rather than continuing to leaving false accusations in discussion pages. Though personally, I think you might want to be aware of the contribution similarities between yourself and GustavusPrimus before you start accusing anyone with similar interests and community involvements as being puppets.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Miyavi external links

Hello there. I'll start off by saying thanks for the heads up about not adding MySpace links. This must be a more recent revision within the ELNO policy, or something that was overlooked often in the past. It seems to be common practice to add MySpace links these days, but hopefully that can be swiftly eliminated. Secondly, the removal of the secondary official site seems a bit brash at the moment. The site isn't "dead", it's just only consisting of a splash page for the time being. I can understand if you want to argue that it doesn't contain any information outside of what can already be found on the page, but as of now, there is no mention of the website shifting, and as it seems to be heavily tied to the shift from a major label to independence, it would be somewhat useful to those researching the subject to know that O-re-sa-ma will, within a matter of less than two weeks, be rendered obsolete by a new site. This second site will overtake the position as the official site. If you don't think the information fits, it is perhaps not harmful to wait thirteen more days for the site to become fully functional, but I think it is something to consider. Cheers, and happy editing! --Jacob ^Talk 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

And your point is exactly what? Many IPs belong to shared computers. If a kid uses it to be disruptive a dozen times and then someone (a different individual) makes a good faith edit with the same connection, you automatically assume it's disruptive? What about DSL connections that don't always get the same IP? It could not even be the same machine! Look at each and every edit and judge it on its own merit. (copy from my talk page) Rapparee71 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I was initially merely responding to an unsolicited message from you. Perhaps you originally confused me with someone else?Rapparee71 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

About my recent ban: A request for clarification

I am starting this discussion on the talk pages of the three administrators involve with my recent ban: I wante to talk to the three editors/administrators I see as having the most understanding of the dynamics surrounding my recent ban: PeterSymonds, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom. I am not sure the most efficient method of doing this, so I will post it to each of your talk pages, as well as my own talk page. I if this is the incorrect procedure or if this is too long.

I do this as an effort to better understand where the dividing line lies between promotion and inclusion of legitimate inclusion of material, to better understand the dynamics of my recent ban further, and so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. And because I am really confused.

What I am lost with is how can it be considered promotion when including a individual in a wiki page when they actually are notable individuals in relation to those entries? I'll talk about specifics in this case:

Michelle Belanger in relation to the topics of DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Urn_(band), Vampire_lifestyle, Vampire_Secrets. Belanger has a notable part in these topics. She has been and continues to be a recurring presenter for the Dragon Con. she did appear in an Urn video with Don Henrie. She was the first third party published author to discuss psychic vampirism and the in a non hostile manner. And she was in fact one of the authors who appeared on the show Vampire Secrets. Additionally, with the exception of the Vampire_lifestyle page, she was listed in conjunction with with other individuals, and Belanger's inclusion in those entires was was done by third parties.

What I might be guilty of in those cases, and I will admit to this, is blindly undoing a series of deletes performed by another editor who might not have been aware of her involvement, when I probably should have more selective in my actions and what I chose to reinstate.

As for the Vampire_lifestyle page, I did seek to include the writers Raven Kaldera, and Lady CG, but since their works were self published, those references were removed. My choice to remove the references Asetian Bible from the Vampire_lifestyle entry came about only after a discussion I participated in on the Ankh page clarified to me that it was considered self published, and therefore did not meet the criteria of a reliable source.

Could I be considered a Belanger fangirl? Likely. But I would would doubt any entry that references notable individuals are free from input from those persons' fans.

But I am also a participant in the vampire community. A community I feel very strongly about, and one that I do want to see properly discussed in the wiki entries, especially with the sort of attention we have been getting because of Twilight, True Blood and all the other vampire related topics out there. And this includes being aware of the activities of one of our more prominent members – one who has even appeared on Fox news on December 8th as "an expert on the vampire community".

And if I were really out to be promotional of Belanger, I would have sough to include her on the Don_Henrie entry (a person she has had repeated contact with) and the Paranormal_State entry (a show where she is a recurring psychic consultant for). Instead, I've chosen to not involve myself in those entires, respecting the fact that if it is considered notable to other editor, she will be added. I've also not attempted to create a page for Belanger. Again, I leave that to come about on it's own from the collaboration of other editors.

What I feel I see happening with here is struggle I suspect occurs with an individual in the process of actually gaining notoriety. It might appear that the inclusion of Belanger on these topics is promotional attempts, but, like it or not, the reality is that she is indeed an author, presenter, singer, and television personality at this point. And the editors adding her to these entries are aware of this.

Now, if it will help, I will dig through and cite every single possible appearance of Michelle Belanger I can find in media that is not from a vanity or self-published source.

Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide on this matter. And I hope that simply asking for and attempting to give clarification doesn't get me banned again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not now (and unlikely to ever be) an administrator. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: April 2009

BS, it's all over the beeping news in case you haven't heard, or are you in denial that Al Franken was just declared Senator-elect by the Minnesota Election Court? 12.203.0.250 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And regardless of appeal, the decision that Franken won stands, you want proof, here it is:

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090414/pl_bloomberg/abyzub4fomsc_1
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/minnesota_senate

The decision stands regardless of appeal, and the outcome is not changed unless something in future happens to change it. As of right now, Franken is Senator-elect. Or are you another of the Republican hacks that's trying to deny us our second Senator too? You do realize we'll never elect another Republican after this fiasco don't you? What with all the obstructionism and dragging our state through the mud, the Republicans have shown themselves to be nothing but a bunch of opportunists. We're tired of this race, and finally we have a declared winner. 12.203.0.250 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)