This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedderPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 3 December 2008 (→Just some thoughts: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:06, 3 December 2008 by TheRedderPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) (→Just some thoughts: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff).png)
The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Deletion review for Marriage Privatization
Dear Red Pen of Doom, You showed some interest in an article of mine (Marriage Privatization Model) that has been deleted. I appreciate your constructive feedback! I accept the deletion of that article. I wrote a second article, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages’s 5th pillar of boldness, on the same topic merging the first short article into a greatly expanded longer article. The second article covered multiple views on the topic from notable writers covering a decade of work. It was written in good faith to address some of the concerns that were raised during the deletion discussion of “Marriage Privatization Model.” The second article titled Marriage Privatization was also deleted but with no AFD discussion and without being marked for speedy deletion. The AFD discussion linked with the second deletion is actually the discussion that took place around the first article. The deletions were handled by two separate administrators. Granting, I am new and don’t necessarily understand all the procedures regarding Misplaced Pages yet, but from what I can gather on my own this seems to be a procedurally unjustified deletion. Since, the proscribed deletion steps were not taken for the second article. Am I wrong about this? On the 25th of November I brought this issue up for deletion review, but so far only one administrator has endorsed deletion in a way that I believe has unfairly suppressed any further review. The administrator “Stifle” has stated that the second article seems to him a copy-paste of the first with a few additional details. All I ask of you is that you give the second article a read and chime in. I find it extremely difficult to fathom that anyone who has honestly read both articles can, with intellectual integrity, suggest that the second article (Marriage Privatization) is merely a copy-paste of the first. All that I am asking of you is that you actually read the second article and contribute to the review discussion. I am assuming administrators have access to deleted articles. I will accept whatever judgment you make. I simply want an appropriate review based on actual Misplaced Pages standards that can be referenced with actual supporting reasons. Thank you for your assistance to new editors! Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage
Thanks, Much! I have been assuming that administrators have access to deleted articles. I have been very frustrated because it seems to me as if no one has actually read the second article. If administrative reviewers don't generally have access to deleted articles then it explains a lot to me! Still, isn't an article supposed to be marked as an afd or for speedy deletion before it is actually deleted? I have taken your advice and created the following page. User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization I look forward to any further advice you may have regarding this article. Thanks! Hermesmessage (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage
WOW, I'm SO SCARED
HA HA, you lost. The Call of Duty: World At War link will remain in the South Park article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.51.95 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yay REDPEN lost- I hate that guy with a passion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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[REDACTED] 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)
Email me?
Need to ask you a question. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 24 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)
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)
Semi-Protect
Do you want me to request your talk page to be protected?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:42, 19 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
- If that blog gets added again, you wanna start a talk page section? I'm off for about 45-60 minutes. Thanks! CTJF83Talk 23:18, 1 November 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)
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.
Will you PLEASE stop undiding my edits?
I'm NOT vandalizing. I'm just DOING good edits, and that's all. Also, you have to stop saying that Misplaced Pages wasn't a fan site. Nate Speed (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Reliable Souces
- What you're saying sounds reasonable and fair, but it will not be applied fairly. If I cite a HarperCollins book, they'll say "primary sources, delete." If I cite a little-known British publisher like Continuum or Wallflower, they'll either say "vanity press, delete" or come up with some third rule I haven't foreseen in order to justify deletion.
- It's all a game that I can't win no matter what I do. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My Opinion
Ok, I am not a vandal, but I want to say to you- you are without a doubt the most over the top wiki obsesed loser I have ever seen. Yoe write like you have a divine mission to defend Misplaced Pages, you chant over and over again things like 'wikipedia is not a fan site' etc etc. Get over yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC) In the words of living legend Alan ah ha Partridge- 'who the hell do you think you are?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Per 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)
Sourced Now
You just deleted a piece I had written on the page of the Family Guy episode I Dream of Jesus because it was unsourced. I've added sourcing now, and put the piece back in. Hope it's alright now. Hope you can help me if it isn't. Greetings, Feestverp. Feestverp (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you have included what appear to be primary sources. Misplaced Pages is different from writing themes for school or opinion pieces for newspapers. In those cases, it is important to take information from primary sources and come to conclusions and analysis on your own. In Misplaced Pages, editors taking primary source evidence and coming to conclusions/analysing material is considered original research and not allowed. For Misplaced Pages articles we need to find the analysis and comparisons that have already been published by other reliable sources, not Misplaced Pages editors. So if we find an article in say Slate.com or the DVD commentary etc. that makes the analysis/comparison about how the scene in Family Guy is a parody of a scene in Annie Hall, then we can use that as a source. A[REDACTED] editor describing the scene from Family Guy (using the episode as a source) and saying - hey look how similar it is to the scene from Annie Hall (using the scene from Annie Hall as a source) is not allowed.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Feestverp"
Hello, thanks for the critism, makes sense. I've now added a source that also makes the same comparison (there are a lot of them, I'm not sure which is most reliable). I've kept the reference to the exact time of the descript scene in the references box, seems handy for people wanting to check it or look it up, though as you can propably see, I know very little of the regulations here, so I'm not really sure if I should have. If you're not happy about the source could you maybe put in in stead of deleting the piece, since there are a lot of possible sources for the validity of this comparison, and I'm sure someone will put in a decent one over time. It would seem a bit strange too me if a far more farfetched alleged reference to Pulp Fiction would be in the article and such a obvious one wouldn't. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and your time. Greetings, Feestverp (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
While using {fact} tags is an option and one that I frequently use, I have found that in certain situations, Family Guy Cultural Reference sections being one of them, the {fact} tagged materials do not get sourced and frequently the tags themselves get removed. In those situations, I have become an aggresive applier of WP:V "Editors should provide a reliable source ... or the material may be removed." -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting to know there is an history on this topic, something I hadn't realised. Wonder what it is that makes people not fix these things in this particular situation. I hope the sourcing is good already know, otherwise I might try to find a better one myself. BTW I now use the episode itself only to source the dialog, not the fact that the scene is a parody. While I totally see how this later thing should be sourced elsewhere (which I have) because it would otherwise be original research, I would argue that just citing dialog is something different than drawing conclusions wheter a text is a parody or not and in my opininon shouldn't be seen as research. Ofcourse you could also source some fan site, but the episode itself seems to be way more reliable. Well, that's my argumentation, greetings, Feestverp (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Calamato
okay. it is called clammato in the episode. it says tomato drink on the can in the episode. the south park site uses the word "Clamato" as a tag for the episode. What do we do with that? Since Clammato is a fake version of a brand name that has went through genericide it seems like it needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Useless disambig link? How so? It avoids OR and yet provides in-wiki navigation. Grsz 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you acting like such a douche on the South Park entries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.104.74 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ungroundable
I am going to revert your changes from The Ungroundable because of several reasons. One, you are in obvious violation of the 3W rule (and since you seem to have such an unhealthy and creepy passion for Misplaced Pages, you would be aware of that). Two, the information you have removed is relevant and shouldn't be removed. There, there's no consensus or attempt at a consensus. You simply run in and make your changes as if you owned the place. You may have sexual thoughts about Misplaced Pages but you don't own the site. --166.102.104.62 (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Tairy Goodkind
Hi RPOD,
I hate Tairy Goodkind, but the info you removed is actually verifiable - . I can't replace it, I'm banned by an arb outcome. WLU (t) (c) 00:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it. This guy really annoys me. Any opportunity to revert his changes is a good one. --Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Stay away from my talk page
You are hearby notified, provided information, allowed to ingest and peruse the following statement: Stay off of my talk page. You have accused me of encouraging a user to continue vandalism. I did no such thing. I merely informed them that you are incapable of banning them -- an impression, I may add, that you seemed to want to provide to that user. You are lying to that user. You have violated the 3RR. You should stop before you are banned again. --Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since you do not want me to respond on your talk page: There were no threats involved - the user refused to acknowledge our standard warning templates and was subsequently blocked . -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- You gave the impression that you could ban him. To me that's lying. --Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I gave him the standard warning templates which he ignored and suffered the appropriate consequenses. No lying at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see you did it again, . You may want to re-think your on-Wiki presence. Being seen as someone who encourages vandalism "because Red Pen cannot block you" is ill advised. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I gave him the standard warning templates which he ignored and suffered the appropriate consequenses. No lying at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- You gave the impression that you could ban him. To me that's lying. --Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Ungroundable. 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. Cirt (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ungroundable
Why won't you and/or Alastairward show me where I expressed my opinion and/or advanced anything that's not a cold fact (I believe counting still falls under that category). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Semi-Protect
Do you want your page semi-protected? (The various IP's attacking you)--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
All right. Even though some (not all) of your edits are slightly aggressive (no offense-I KNOW your trying to make Misplaced Pages accurate), I can't just sit back and watch anonymous IP's attack this page. Let me know if there's more trouble.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- If it takes aggressive edits and being the target of childish IP edits and name calling to get the Family Guy and South Park articles turned into respectable encyclopedia entries, so be it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Do whatever it takes to keep[REDACTED] respectful.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Might I suggest an alternate dimension and/or universe in which this has occured? Because that's the only way I could see that ever happening. --67.141.182.129 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: The Ungroundable
Just wondering if you'd like a hand clearing up the fancruft from the plot summary (and also keeping the IPs at bay). Just let me know. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The definition of fancruft is loose and can't be applied here, as both "trivia" facts are closely related to the article. Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style - notice that I'm not committing WP:SYNTH here in any way, but "let the reader draw their own conclusions" by putting the two facts together. As for Butters being referred to as gay - it's part of what this episode contributes as far as continuity goes. Please don't mutilate articles just for the sake of following rules - eventually, WP is there for the reader and not for the editor. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is mutilating articles, don't use weasel words. The rules are there to stop Misplaced Pages from turning into another fan site or fan wiki. There is great benefit to the reader to be able to verify what we say. If you would like to simply throw facts or speculation at the screen, then use one of those fan sites (southparkstuff.com for example.) If not, then follow the guidelines here to make the articles a bit more worthy.
- Any amount of trivia might closely relate to the episode script, but we run the risk of simply repeating what is said on the script, which was why we ask about relevance. Alastairward (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yet again you're forcing me to repeat myself. Please read my previous comment and find all the answers to your queries. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lets continue at the article talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yet again you're forcing me to repeat myself. Please read my previous comment and find all the answers to your queries. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Because...
I was in a hurry RC patrolling. Sorry about that. Jonathan321 (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Trivia etc in Southpark articles and beyond
Please don't feel you're being too aggressive scrubbing that OR, trivia, speculation. I did the same for the previous eleven seasons, they've turned out nicely when they're pared down somewhat. Keep up the good work!Alastairward (talk) 12:32, 26 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)
Article - Ray Joseph Cormier
You took only minutes to undo a very minor typo correction in the old version of my biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243.
Power, politics, religion
Late at night on August 23rd 1978, he happened to be near the Langevin Block as Pierre Trudeau's limousine and RCMP Security detail pulled up. As Trudeau got out of the car, Cormier said, "Peter, feed the sheep." Passing by, he shrugged his shoulders and replied, "Alright! Alright! I'll feed the sheep" and rushed up the stairs to his Office. Three days later Pope Paul VI, successor to the Apostle Peter, to whom Jesus first spoke those words in John 21:15 , died.
The correct date was actually August 3rd, 1978 and if you looked before you leaped you would have seen how minor the correction is. In undoing my correction you wrote:
12:56, 28 November 2008 TheRedPenOfDoom (Talk | contribs) (7,146 bytes) (Undid revision 254597651 by DoDaCanaDa (talk) no - pls discuss changes on talk page WP:COI, WP:SOAP etc.) (undo)
The change is so minor there really is not much to discuss.
DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
MOVING TO ARTICLE TALK PAGE
Kollywood stuff
As I understand it, A1 is coherently written stuff you can't figure out what the hell it is and you couldn't research it or verify it was true. This did not meet that criterion, but i have prodded it since there are no sources. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom
Just curious but were you aware that an IP vandal is making a series of edits, with what appears to be the intention of, harrasing you. Most of the edits consist of making the page very large by dumping the smae text in over and over. The text is what I would assume they consider obscene and derogatory. That is followed by a phone number, the IP's signature and date time group and "THEREDPENOFDOOM". Because of the phone number all the edits have been deleted. Do you have any idea if there is someone from The Ungroundable that may be upset with you as the have also targeted that page? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Strange. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Blue Mountains panther
The article contains multiple reliable third party sources, and links to many other reliable third party sources - all of which support the article content, and all of which are readily citable. Repeated blanking of article content, on the other hand, may be construed as vandalism and may result in your account being blocked. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I further note your deletion of the link to the list of citable sources in this edit, prior to your blanking of content within the article. It is disingenuous - to put it mildly - to first delete a link to a website listing multiple citable sources - and immediately follow it up by blanking article content while claiming that the blanked content is "unsourced". I strongly suggest you not attempt to do so again. Please also be aware that the use of sockpuppets or anonymous IP's to subvert the WP:3RR is entirely inappropriate, and may also result in an account block. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Removing sources and then blanking content claiming that the blanked content is unsourced is vandalism. Don't do it. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- You should familiarise yourself with Source_needed#Unsourced_material, specifically:
- Removing sources and then blanking content claiming that the blanked content is unsourced is vandalism. Don't do it. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- "If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself , you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}, so long as the article is not nonsensical... If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing it. This will add a citation needed label.
- 1. If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Misplaced Pages, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time."
- There is no WP policy which states that it is appropriate to delete links to as-yet uncited sources then immediately blank article content, without either prior talk page discussion or appropriate tagging. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you wish to attempt to argue that WP:VANDAL is acceptable because it complies with WP:V, be my guest. Just don't expect to be a WP contributor for very long. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
David Blaine
I notice you check the "David Blaine" article from time to time. A year ago, the book description was shorter, leaving the reader to click through to the "Mysterious Stranger" article for more information. And here are the sources, too. If you agree, you could makes these changes. Thefool (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question: can a book serve as a reference? For instance, books are noted as references for articles on Pablo Picasso and Monty Python and many others. Thefool (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The answers you requested are on my talk page. Thefool (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Links to articles
Hello, Can you please tell me why you are accusing me of spamming? I have read the guidelines to linking and as my site is an information only Non Commercial site with Articles and reviews of books and authors, then this would be appropriate. Can you tell me how my link differs from those information sites already present.
Thankyou.
(Antsplace (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
Phantom cat
Hi, I've replied to your query on my talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just some thoughts
You are more anal retentive than supermodel Tyra Banks, you are disliked and even hated by other Misplaced Pages users and you have such an unhealthy relationship with Misplaced Pages one would wonder if you weren't the evil twin of Jimbo Wales. You should take a vacation -- a long one. For Christmas I think I'll get you something you seem to need. A power outage to keep you off Misplaced Pages for the day! --TheRedderPenOfDoom (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)