User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

3RR Notice

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)

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

Your comment on my merger proposal of David Ferguson and CD Presents

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)

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

Inappropriate, Unauthorized Merger Citing Red Pen of Doom Edit

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)DrJamesX

Walter Panas Edit

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)

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)

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)

Uncited

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 [1]. 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)

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

Uncited (2)

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)

Your removal of material from the lede of Ocean's Three and a Half

[2], [3] - 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)

New Tags

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)

Why the Unprovoked Rudeness on the Talk page?

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)

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)

Louie Louie - Version by The Kingsmen

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)

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)

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)

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

Gopher

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)

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)

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)

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)

re : article "Cogender"

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)

AfD nomination of Us Now

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)

Change has arrived

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)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Back at you

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)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Perhaps this will do! Alastairward (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pasternak Article

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)

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)

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)

Check out my input.

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

Re

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)

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

Energy vampire and Vampire lifestyle

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

there are good sockpuppets... and then those perceived as bad sockpuppets...

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)

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)

Policy on removing entire sections

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 [5]). 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)

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. You have new messages at Gman124's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

multiple watchlists

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)

Actually, since there are "List of" articles for the things you are interested in, you might not even have to set them up. This is what you get when clicking "Related changes" on List of South Park episodes and this is for List of Family Guy episodes. The problem with using the list articles is that they get polluted by explanatory links, which you may or may not find too distracting.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

/CulturalReferences

SIGnature color

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)

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)

Fantastic Easter Special

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)

Lol, this one too Pandemic (South Park), after a hefty debate on the talk page some trivia is creeping back in. Alastairward (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

3 rr

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)

Tim Hasselbeck

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)

Some advice

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)

Yeah, I didnt handle that well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my warning above, in hindsight I handled that pretty poorly and too quickly. I agree that the IP's edits are a BLP problem, but was mainly responding to your edits on Elisabeth Hasselback, which it appeared was minor enough to not need an edit war over. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I only removed the content 1 time this week at Elizabeth. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind then, again I'm sorry for the warn. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)