User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Glenn Beck

The ref does not have to mention Beck directly. He was one of many calling for Jones to go, and the sentence preceding mine talks about Beck ragging on Jones. Give it a rest. There is no need to remove this sourced statement from the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making an analysis. I'm merely stating that Jones resigned under pressure. It was not just Beck by any means, though he was one of the loudest critics. Yo ucan remove the part about "under pressure" if you want, but it certainly merits mention that he did resign, especially when it's already mentioned that Beck went after him. Let the reader determine cause and effect on their own. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brian Connolly image

I noticed that you moved the album cover from the infobox to the article body with the rationale "improper use of copyright image of album- move to location where it could meet our guidelines". Not so sure about that. WP:NFCC criterion #1 clearly says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis added). Since Connolly is deceased, obviously it is not possible to create a free alternative. hence it is acceptable to use a non-free image like an album cover to describe what the subject (i.e. B.C.) looked like. On the other hand, each time I have seen an album cover used in the article about its artist, it has been deleted by reference to the same NFCC policy. So I believe that the best chances to keep this image is by using it in the infobox. – IbLeo (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Bucket bong

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bucket bong has been removed. It was removed by Youngamerican with the following edit summary '(deprod, a moderately-notable method of marijuana consumption, restore graphic)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Youngamerican before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Magical negro oversight

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom … I noticed that you (and Ghostexorcist (talk · contribs)) have been monitoring Magical negro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for unsourced references … we've reverted about the same number. :-)

I also notice that, like me, you don't bother to comment on the talk page of anons when it's their first or only edit … I chalk that up to WP:AGF, and they can be dealt with politely if they try inserting the material a second time … anywho, just wanted to give you an "Attaboy!" for your due diligence. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{22:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)}

Please stop your editing of Teabagger for 5 minutes

We are both trying to edit the article simultaneously. Please let me finish first — Mike :  tlk  03:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, done. I am just trying to remove redundant content, not definitions themselves. The references for each definition are in their respective articles. — Mike :  tlk  04:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Portmanteau

What is the procedure for getting some form of protection on Portmanteau - it's a page that is given frequent inappropriate edits. The most recent set seem mainly to concern Luggage, which I think would be better placed on Portmanteau (suitcase). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

... is heating up again. Do I recall correctly that you have in the past made constructive comments on the talk page? If so I'd ask you to check out the current discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I've long appreciate the work you do here. I wish we had more editors like you covering articles such as this ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice on the Daily Mail

Hi, I apologise for the speculative nature of the message. It's just I've seen your name popping up quite a lot on a subject I am quite passionate about, and you really seem to know what you are talking about, so I hope we could maybe discuss something.

The Daily Mail page. It's a very controversial newspaper, that has had numerous charges by the Press Complaints commission, in regards to homophobia, and stoking racial tension. The latest example being the Steven Gately incident.

I'm a casual user, who just pops on now and then, but I've noticed a very worrying trend on the page. I've made a few edits (maybe 3 or 4) in the past, usually detailing press complaints commision charges and the outcome. Really just to demonstrate, the controversy that has surrounded the paper.

All of these edits have been deleted within minutes of them going up, by the same users. Usually the reasoning being "not reliable sources".

The sources I provided, in general, were the original article, other newspapers coverage of the charge, and the PCC's own press releases on the cases. Are these actually unreliable? I can't see how.

And it's not a one off thing. The discussion page is littered with complaints about edit deletions. With the same sort of response- "Sourcing issues"- from the same people.

Personally, I think people are using false reasoning to change edits, in order to protect the reputation of the title. Constantly using the "source" excuse, in order to get these negative facts off of the page.

In the discussions I've had, I've been told, by these people that using newspapers as a "source" is not acceptable, because they could be biased. Even though nearly every source on wikipedia is news coverage!?

Anyway, I am at the end of my tether. I firmly believe that the page is being politically censored. In one discussion on the subject, I was told by one of the serial editors "If you put up controversial stories on the mail, we will do it with the guardian". As in, implying some sort of left/right wing battle? Near as damn-it admitting that the deletions are political.

I go onto their talk pages, and read constant discussion between deleters, on the page, and some sort of war between the left and right. You have "collect" (who's been banned for 6 months for deletions and edits on political pages) discussing the article, in very close terms with the article author. The conversation, basically praising each other for controlling undesirable edits.

When you try and discuss the subject with these people, you get little more than denials, and threats of legal action, and "reporting" to wikipedia.

I'd really appreciate it if you could look at the page, and as an experienced editor, offer an insight into what's going on, and what to do about it. Even if it's telling me that I'm totally wrong.

I am not a hater of the paper, but a total advocate to freedom of media and press. Both of which seem to being broken.

I find it totally unacceptable that pages are being edited politically. And HUNDREDS of fair, sourced edits have been deleted. I'm really not knowledgable enough to deal with it myself.

Thanks

Cjmooney9 (talk) Cjmooney9 (talk)

AfD nomination of Angry white male

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Angry white male. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry white male (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Help

Hello, Red Pen of Doom. I'm asking for your help because of your deletion of an article I created for Mark Albert, a fictional character in Ally McBeal. You deleted the article because of a lack of third-party sources. I think that help from either you or someone else with the references would be more constructive than an all-out deletion of the material. I actually used two third-party sources, but my failure to cite sources has always been one of my biggest problems as a Wikipedia editor. It's not out of laziness, it's just that the reference-citing process has always confused the heck out of me for some reason. Could you please either help me cite my sources or direct me to someone / somewhere that would help me? The books I used for the Mark Albert article, as well as editing other articles related to the same series, are Beautiful TV by Greg M. Smith and Searching the Soul of Ally McBeal edited by Elwood Watson. I also used the show itself as a primary source, which, despite popular misconception, is allowed under certain conditions of the no original research (WP:NOR) policy -- but again, I need help with referencing. Minaker (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Mohanlal Exclusive.jpg

I got the original photo that is too large with many other photos in one poster from the original person who took the photo. So i cut it and provide more lights and works in different parts. So i upload it as entirely my own work. If such type of photos are there how should i upload it. Please help me. Like this one that i upload the photo File:Lt Col Mohanlal. Please help me that u told that some copyright issues are there. Thank u ---> User_talk:Saj2009 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Help- Uploading

Hi, you have warned me for uploading some images. Please help me that how can i upload images under what rights like images saved from internet, screenshots, capture from powerdvd & the images that i don't know the correct sources etc. I have many images that i would like to upload in wikipedia fo several articles. Thank you. Saj2009 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Mohanlal Websites

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank u for the Information. But www.thecompleteactor.com is not a fan site. It is Mohanlal's official website containg his blog with his own handwrite. can i add it. Thank u Adgr8 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it allowed?

Pls see the External Links of the article Prithviraj Sukumaran. Is such kinds of links are needed in wikipedia articles? Before when i added suchlinks in Mohanlal article u delete it. Pls consider my request - Talk2me' 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Afd

You registered a weak delete in a previous Afd on the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier. It has a third Afd tag. Would you care to comment? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison Sweeney

Thanks for all your help on Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in particular the "non-notable minors" issue. If you have a moment, could you have a look at Alison Sweeney. I could keep reverting the additions, but it would be great if I could avoid violating 3RR. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tara Correa-McMullen

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tara Correa-McMullen. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Correa-McMullen. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Teabagger

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Teabagger. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabagger. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents of Bonsai article

I note that you have kept a close eye on the Bonsai article in the past and would like to ask for advice. There's a request on the Bonsai talk page to merge the Wikipedia (EN) articles on Bonsai and Penjing. I've already given my response, but when I was drafting it I began to wonder whether in fact the historical and cultural material for Bonsai constitutes a focused, Japan-oriented article (which would remain under Bonsai), while the relatively culture-free information on cultivation, care, tools, and perhaps display (each of which has a section in the current Bonsai article) might best be split out into one or more separate articles, which could be referenced by the Penjing article and by other articles about similar practices or art forms (e.g. Hòn Non Bô).

The reason for doing so is that there seems to be a continuing confusion over whether the Bonsai article refers specifically to the Japanese tradition in artful cultivation of trees in containers, or whether it is a generic term for potted plants that can be expanded to cover other similar practices. It's clear that the Japanese history of bonsai is unique to Japan, as is the Japanese tradition in bonsai aesthetics (already split into its own article). The Japanese terms for bonsai styles and sizes would also belong in a Japan-oriented Bonsai article, even though they are used by a wide range of non-Japanese practitioners. But cultivation practices, the unique care requirements for potted trees, display techniques, and probably the tools used by bonsai practitioners are likely to appear the same for a penjing enthusiast - hence the potential for confusion in the aim of the Bonsai article.

Unfortunately there is no other encyclopedic term in English for "the artful cultivation of small trees in containers", so labeling new articles without using the word "bonsai" could be problematic. It would be a shame to move material out of the Bonsai article only to render it difficult to find because of neologisms or other forms of unclear titling.

I do believe that the current care, cultivation, tools, and display sections are encyclopedic and should remain in Wikipedia. But I am not sure whether they should continue in the Bonsai article itself now. If these topics are to be moved out, I am not sure what the new articles would best be called.

If you have time to look into this dilemma, I would appreciate your comments. Sahara110 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I recently requested for a user name change on Wiki and got it approved; from Sreejith Kumar to SreejithInfo. But even now, my old username appears at the top of the page, near the links "my talk", "my preferences" etc. Also, when I click "my watchlist", a message appears stating that there is nothing in my watch list. Any idea how I should get it rectified? I tried in different browsers and also by using the new and old versions of Wiki. -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bother looking into this further! It was my mistake. I logged in with the old username and password! It was a good learning anyway! Thanks! -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Response

I read what you wrote on my talk page, and I carried it over to where it belongs (although this was my first time in that page) namely Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. This was my first time using that page, and so please correct me if I did anything wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not certain that you have followed the suggested "pre-requisites" such as "Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor, usually on their talk page." and "You have not followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes; politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor - emphasise the desire to move forward constructively and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues while assuming good faith." and ":*Remember that the aim of this page is to request assistance in moving disputes towards resolution, not to punish misbehaviour - users can seek assistance regarding impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors."

but you most certainly need to notify the other user that you have initiated a discussion on the WQA. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me explain something. I was very worried that Roux was going to respond before someone else does. I felt very sure that had I put the info on Roux's talk page, Roux would have reacted before anyone else responded. Georgia guy (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If your intent is to be able to come to a resolution about your differences with Roux, it would seem to be essential that Roux responds. As quoted above, if your intent is to punish Roux, you have again selected the wrong forum. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the right forum?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To punish other users? I dont think that exists. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But the biggest challenge is that Roux just follows me around all the time. I need a lot of help from different Wikipedians who understand the storyline carefully, knowing how much sense Roux actually makes. Georgia guy (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a lie and you will retract it immediately. To the best of my knowledge, the sum total of interactions I have had with you were 1) when you showed up out of nowhere to remove some weird spam from my talkpage, and 2) this nonsense shite. I have not ever 'followed' you around and you will retract that bullshit right now. → ROUX ₪ 08:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Its only Wikipedia. Turn off your computer. Go for a walk. Spend a long weekend having fun with your friends and family. And when you decide to return, Wikipedia will still be here and I bet you will be able to put this into a proper perspective.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is entirely irrelevant. You are required to notify other users when you mention them on such noticeboards, period. There is no leeway. There is no equivocation. You. Are. Required. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm very sorry to continue, but please listen. A few times, on my talk page, Wikipedians have been teaching me a little about vandalism. I know an important fact. (I've calmed down, seriously.)

Vandalism edits are always bad, but sometimes edits are not really vandalism even if they are bad. I know this very well; and I want you to study all edits I've made in Wikipedia within the past month unrelated to the village pump discussion I had today. I make mostly good edits. I know the encyclopedia well. I know what edits are good and what edits are bad; the only thing I have trouble with is knowing what edits to call vandalism. Do you understand all this?? (No, this is unrelated to Roux's edits; it's merely related to understanding the truth about my edits. Thus, this is actually a new discussion whose subject is me understanding what is vandalism.)

I especially remember from 2006 when I had an edit war with someone named Macaw 54. Although his edits were on the bad side, I was the one who got the blame initially. It took a while, but by September 2006, it was known that Macaw 54 was a sockpuppet of PrimeTime and was blocked indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)