TheRedPenOfDoom

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

Gregorty T. Glading swan.knight@yahoo.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_terrorism_and_the_United_States&diff=195801334&oldid=195780422

{{db-user}} <- get rid of user page

funny exchange

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&diff=204348234&oldid=204346190

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/how_does_evolut.htmlReply

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)Reply

You obviously like the sound of it. Giano (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Good, that's nice to hear because as Sir Fozzie and the Arbcom's supporters are now examining my edits [2] I have decided to take a look at their's. You see I have never heard of you, which is odd, as I know most editors by reputation, so I was taking a look at your edits, in fact I am taking a look at many people's - to see what useful purpose, if any, they serve. Giano (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Could you please outline for me your most recent edits in content and the pages you have written and created. These things are of huge interest to some people [3]. A percentage would be helpful. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

No, no, no problem, just an idle enquiry that was all. Allthough, obviously these things matter to some. While I am here though, which pages that you have started are you most proud of? I am sure you did not just arrive here to give an opinion. Your first momentous edit us here [4] you sit at the top of this page scribing away, what have you written? Giano (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

OK, someone here was replacing their IP address with my name. Who was it?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

No one is suggesting that anything about Joe W's future recognition factor as a person be included in the article, since it obviously is a speculative opinion. However, Joe the Plumber as a symbol or icon is sourced. I might also point out that McCain is not taking the "Joe Wurzelbacher Tour" on the road, he's taking the "Joe the Plumber Tour" on the campaign road as a bus tour in Florida.[5] Here are some sources referring to Joe the Plumber as a symbol/metaphor/icon/proxy.

• "When McCain mentioned him in the final debate, the man became an icon..." -- Daily News (NYC)[6]
• "This is the symbolic hero of the McCain-Palin ticket." -- The Observer (NYC) [7]
• "No one asked plumber to be the symbol of average Joes." and "But here we are this week with the newly iconic Everyman still very much discussed." -- Toledo Blade [8]
• "Mr. McCain seized on that encounter in Wednesday night’s debate, citing “Joe the Plumber” as a symbol of how Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses." and "...both candidates referred to Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio plumber, as a kind of proxy for all of the country’s working people." - New York Times [9]
• "Meet Joe the Plumber, the latest political symbol." -- Denver Post [10]

— Becksguy (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• User talk:210.49.251.226
• User talk:AKR619

Per [11] they are the same individual.

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

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

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

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

I have submitted the request we have been discussing on COI/N to ArbCom here.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

The policy on self published sources seems to suggest caution when using blogs. It also mentioned that if the event is notable, other independent sources will probably have covered it already. Alastairward (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

THis discussion is being consolodated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeVar_Burton#Blogs_as_sources_.3F.3F.3F.3F

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty much. Few things are so unlikely as to be absolutely impossible, you can't deny they have a purpose. But by the same measure you can't really say that their use would come before all the other, more useful, guidelines there are. Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have found that in most of the cases where people jump to WP:IAR; when they are asked, are not able to supply an answer to to the second portion of the policy: "So exactly why/how does ignoring the rules in this instance improve the encyclopedia?" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i was wondering how to became a admin? aidar24 (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Re: your trip to McDonalds: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR.

No. It does not qualify by any of Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~cch223/comps/ratmusic.html

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/various_artists___series___rat_music_for_rat_people/rat_music_for_rat_people_vol__3/

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

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

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

If it was obviously not notable it would have been deleted. Ty 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you comment is to me, I never said it wasnt notable, I said it was a blog and not reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't see any post by you above to which I could have replied. There are two posts by Artblogs on the topic of notability, to which I thought it would be obvious I was responding. However, we now know that your reasoning was in two parts and the second seems to have implications of notability, but maybe that is not what you intend. Ty 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you may know, on wikipedia there are conversations going on at multiple locations. You may have been responding to my post at another location and put your reply here so that I would see it. I made that assumption and was incorrect. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Our Lady of America. 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. (Sorry for the warning message if you're a regular). Dusti^SPEAK!! 07:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have replied on my talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you feel, looking at both articles, that I was trying to be disruptive by suggesting the David Ferguson page by merged with the CD Presents page. I wasn't. In the real world, people have actually heard of CD Presents. Many fans of punk music would know that they released Rat Music For Rat People. Few people outside of San Francisco actually know who David Ferguson is. That is what my point is. There is one article of any substance and it is an interview that appeared in the Entertainment section and was written by someone who wasn't on staff. The remaining articles are alternative news weeklies and Mr. Ferguson is actually not the primary subject of any of the articles. It is surprising to me that despite my best efforts to bring quality to Wikipedia that people continue to side with the person who has contributed the most unreliable sources. -- 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs)

The Red Pen of Doom, I do not wish to involve you anymore than necessary, but since 'uwishiwasijohng' is pressuring you consider his merger, I am compelled to respond until a formal complaint about his COI is again submitted.

From David Ferguson discussion page, please refer to the number of national sources that refer to Ferguson and the IFUC. CD Presents is not even mentioned in these sources. Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario)#KEEP David Ferguson (Impresario) article. Article should not be merged

'uwishiwasjohng' continues to challenge the validity weekly newspapers for sourcing, even after other WP users have validated these sources, including one who did so in a direct exchange with 'uwishiwasjohng' Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Alternative New Weeklies.

'uwishiwasjohng' is the last person who should have any say about what happens to any articles associated with David Ferguson. He has twice admitted to COI with Ferguson. First in November 2008:

Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario)/Archive_1#November 2008 -- If you search for the phrase 'despite the COI' you'll see his admission.

Rather than refraining from interfering with the David Ferguson article, as he promised in November, he did the opposite (you may remember he installed a potentially harmful and controversial Legal History section). In a rather stunning manner, he again recently admitted a COI in a posting on the talk page of 'orderinchaos' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOrderinchaos&diff=271238662&oldid=271238317). NOTE: Orderinchaos has not yet archived his exchange with 'uwishiwasjohng'. So, I am copying from 'Orderinchaos' Discussion page history.

I'd like to speak up here for myself because it appears that I'm being lumped in with a soapbox campaign. I, like Dori, have actually been attempting to validate these citations and even went to the public library to find some of the harder to find stuff. I put in the legal cites with copious sites based on feedback I got from a neutral review from another Wikipedian. I clearly misunderstood the "precendent" around WP:PRIMARY but as soon as User:Orderinchaos gave me what I thought was the first reasoned argument I heard, I backed down. Yes, I'm passionate. Yes, I have WP:COI because I personally know David Ferguson and quite frankly dislike him. I'm willing to just stop, but I figured anyone going up against User:DrJamesX needs help. But if you all think I'm just hurting the cause, let me know. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

DrJamesX (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesXReply

Red Pen of Doom, again I apologize for asking you to review the David Ferguson (impresario) article. Without WP consensus, user 'uwishiwasjohng' acted alone on his merger of the David Ferguson and CD Presents articles.

In so doing, he cited your Feb 18 edit at the David Ferguson (impresario) article. See here:

Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario)#Done

I believe he misrepresented your explanation when he executed the merger. I challenged the merger and no other WP user / editor weighed in on the matter. Before I lodge a complaint, I simply wanted to alert you to his activity and his use of your edit to justify his merger.

Thank you again. DrJamesX (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesXReply

Can you please specfily tell me about what a added to the article refers to wp:not adding proper information that reguards sports to the school is nothing refred to wp:not.Please let me know Thanks :)

Take care

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the two you said are mentioned about the article it is being true and accelerate facts about the school and there is not tribute going towards anyone in the school in that article.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's fine how its re writing i think it still needs to be expanded but i don't know what to add.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 22:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is on the Hulu website.- JustPhil  17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Howdy, I reverted your change to the white pride article; you indicated the section removed was uncited, but part of what you removed was a citation [12]. It seems to have a brief mention on the talk page as well. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks for the note and explanation. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the message and help. You just undid my add to 420 (cannabis culture) again, but this time I cited a source. Why? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treadwellbo (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

[13], [14] - Please do not remove material from the lede of this article. Per WP:LEAD, the lede of the article should be able to stand alone as a summary of the entire article itself. There is also an ongoing WP:RfC about this matter on the talk page, where there is currently consensus among previously uninvolved editors to keep the longer lede. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Red Pen, thank you for the tags placed in Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier. Let me say from my POV, this is the first improvement you made to the Article that I have noticed. Much Appreciated. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like the article to be improved by mentioning that the book has at least one variant edition. So far, we've confirmed there are in fact two different publishing dates, and that they each have different hardcopy cover photos.

I am also interested in hearing if the new version has changes in the text from the old version. Hopefully others on the Talk page might have either or both copies and can chime in on the topic? The article's accuracy would be greatly improved if this turns out to be the case. 63.226.221.169 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Red Pen, I question your tone on the Talk page of the article. It seems presumptious, harsh, and off-putting, rather than welcoming and open-minded. 63.226.220.24 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was disappointed that you removed my transcript of the lyrics for this version. While I appreciate there was no citation, it was stated that they were a transcription and this was achieved after many hours of patient listening and referring to various sources, none of which contained lyrics that were any more verifiable than my own. They are also different to the original version by Richard Berry and so cannot be subject to copyright. I feel the lyrics are a useful and important resource to have on this popular site, especially as they were the subject of much controversy, and therefore would be grateful if you would reconsider your decision. 86.10.185.143 (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response on my Talk page. I have read the page on Original Research you refer to and understand its principles; however, I don’t see how a transcript of lyrics can be considered any more original research than the plot synopses of movies or television programmes, both of which appear to be quite acceptable. Please can you explain? 86.10.185.143 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The plot summaries in articles have not been described by reliable sources as "unintelligable at any speed" and do not require "many hours of patient listening". And in addition, per WP:NOT and our general practice, we do not put lyrics into articles about songs. If you have a reliable source that talks about specific portions of the lyrics, we may add what those sources say about the lyrics. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If the FBI had had access to modern hi-fi quality in 1965 and the lyrics “according To Richard Berry” that appeared in versions prior to 23 January 2009 under the heading “Original version”, as a guide, then they might have found them intelligible, as I did. If you have access to the record (if not, there are several copies on YouTube), you might like to try this for yourself. The "many hours of patient listening" were spent in an effort to uphold the highest standards of this website, standards which I believe are diminished by the distinction between lyrics and plot summaries. 86.10.185.143 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP:OR and not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you seriously have some sort of alternate interpretation for what the Gopher is supposed to be? I don't see what's so controversial about this. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because it is an interpretation, it doesnt belong in the article without a source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not any more of an interpretation than linking chocolate rain is. How do we know they didn't mean some other sort of chocolate rain? We don't. But we're reasonable. Also, I recall a guideline somewhere saying sources are for controversial statements. Whether or not you believe this needs a citation, I think we can agree that they did mean to reference CollegeHumor's dramatic chipmunk and that there is no controversy over this fact. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it is indeed another Chocolate Rain they are referring to. You can remove the link if you think so, but that link does not require creative piping and so does not involve as much interpretation as calling gophers chipmunks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have added a reference to a "reliable, secondary source" (encyclopedia) citing use of this term in this context.0XQ (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Us Now, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Us Now. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Times, circumstances, and most people change. With this latest challenge, I just want to let you know I have changed. I can honestly say I now AGF with your latest contribution. :) Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a "got your back" barn star that I can return the favour with. Thanks for the support and other edits you've made to date. Alastairward (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on this article. This user had created variations of this article about 3 or 4 times, and when I found it new it had a hangon tag already on it (nothing screams credibility like a premptive hangon). I don't know if this user's notable or not, although he has been mentioned in the financial press to some degree. But this user (and an IP that seems to be the same) is a nightmare. I tried to provide constructive advice, but he continues to do the same sort of edits, puts external links into the main body of the text, and generally screws up the formatting of the article while introducing very little new. He did take my advice of using references (apparently), although it could use some work as well. I'm hoping he'll cool down, but extra eyes on the article are very helpful. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That "henry ford" quote wasn't from his lawyers, but was from a seeking alpha post. But it was from a blog post, albeit a very well known financial blog. The law firm press release was in relation to the SEC matter. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was agreeing with your removal, so you don't have to justify it to me, but you're still wrong about who the source was from. It wasn't from his lawyers. It was from seeking alpha, and you summarized the edit as "After Knight Trading: a press release from Pasternak's lawyers is not valid source for WP:PEACOCK language". I think you just didn't notice the reference with the seeking alpha site before the reference with the law firm site.

Also, it is not an explicit policy to remove all sources that come from a client's law firm, particularly when they state facts about the disposition of a case. WP:RS does not indicate party-affiliated sources cannot be moved. In fact, it provides explicit guidelines for when its inclusion is appropriate (WP:SELFPUB). Also, the WP:BLP policy has two parts for removal of facts from a BLP: 1) the fact has to be unsourced or poorly sourced, and 2) the source must not be "written by the subject of the BLP". In this case, it was written by [presumably] his lawyers. Either his lawyers stand in his shoes, and so it fails #1 (because it's poorly sourced by virtue of not being sufficiently second-party, a contention which isn't cut and dried) but meets #2 (because it's written by his represenatatives), or it doesn't fail #1 but does fail #2 (a strange place to be). Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The thing is the block log says they've already been blocked so the helper bot removes him/her from the AIV page, but I've reported them directly to an admin.... - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Ah yes.... I guess a page protection is in order then? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your input in this thread on Talk:Vampire lifestyle would be appreciated. Thanks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 13:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

In studying the "legitimate uses of alternate accounts", one must remember that if both accounts have edited the same pages and can be seen as creating a false sense of consensus, that is in violation. Such an account should be closed immediately per

8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter

A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door

A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks

And_the_Wiener_Is...

Baby_Not_On_Board

Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)

Boys_Do_Cry

Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog

Brian_Does_Hollywood

Brian_Goes_Back_to_College

Brian_in_Love

Chick_Cancer

Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang

Da_Boom

Dammit_Janet!

Death_Has_a_Shadow

Death_Is_a_Bitch

Death_Lives

Deep_Throats

Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)

E._Peterbus_Unum

Eek,_a_Penis!

Family_Gay

Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High

Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame

Ginger_Kids

He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat

Holy_Crap

I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man

If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'

Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)

Let's_Go_to_the_Hop

Long_John_Peter

Love_Thy_Trophy

Meet_the_Quagmires

Mind_Over_Murder

Model_Misbehavior

No_Chris_Left_Behind

No_Meals_on_Wheels

North_by_North_Quahog

One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea

PTV_(Family_Guy)

Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)

Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling

Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)

Perfect_Castaway

Peter's_Daughter

Peter's_Got_Woods

Peter's_Two_Dads

Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater

Petergeist

Play_It_Again,_Brian

Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)

Saving_Private_Brian

Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story

Stewie_Kills_Lois

The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father

The_Fat_Guy_Strangler

The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz

The_Former_Life_of_Brian

The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)

The_Man_with_Two_Brians

The_Passion_of_the_Jew

The_Son_Also_Draws

There's_Something_About_Paulie

Wasted_Talent

Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes

User talk:Notnotkenny

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

or else a perception of abuse of multiple accounts might easily be seen, resulting in the indef block of master and puppet. Since abuse is not what is intended, a second account editing the same pages as the first is not a wise idea. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have asked for clarification of this use of multiple accounts at on the talk page of WP:SPI diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, one of your recent edits made to Freida Pinto, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted (see here [16]). You have also completely ignored my warning here. Once again, whether you agree with it or not, the deletion of entire sections, especially when they are cited or linked to references, is construed as vandalism (see Wikipedia_vandalism#Types_of_vandalism). If you feel that content is not accurate or would like to make significant changes to an article, please discuss on the talk page first.Thank you. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Reply

A close substitute for multiple watchlists: create an article in your user space with links to the articles you want to watch. Go to that page, and click "Related changes" in the toolbox. You'll get a time-sorted list of recent changes to the articles that are linked to. It's a pain to set it up manually, but once done, it works fine.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

/CulturalReferences

how do you change the color or font of a signature? i've been trying to find out for a while.Haseo445 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

i know where to do it, but i dont know how to change the color is what i meant to ask.SHINIGAMI*LOVE (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind passing an eye over this episode article, seems to be some recurring synthesis going on and I don't want to edit war over it. Another opinion would be welcome. Alastairward (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tim Hasselbeck‎ and Elizabeth Hasselbeck. 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. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

[thoughtless comment removed by author]

  This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Tim Hasselbeck, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Best to seek outside help early, in the future; I suspect a lot of admins with views of WP:BLP less expansive than mine would have blocked you both for 3RR. I think that would have been the wrong call, but it's still best to seek help before things get to that point. Thanks for the work you're doing enforcing BLP. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)

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