Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 29 March 2008

The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Ahem

I suggest you not jump the gun and report anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. Jtrainor 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear young man, the fact that the admin missed the copyright issues amongst your edit war reverts, does not mean that it is not vandalism to remove copyright tags without addessing the issues.TheRedPenOfDoom 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Glock 37

I am too busy to do the research that I had wanted to, so I took tag down because i'm now creating fuss over nothing. - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...I missed that edit you floated on the talk page. All the back-and-forth, i just skipped right past it.

But it was quite good work. I agree that your edit is much better -- the same intent of the original wording but presented in a properly NPOV and concise way. Thanks/congratulations -- whichever you find more suitable. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Related?

I wondered for a moment if you were related to Giovanni given you both involve yourselves in others' discussions, but I'm sure you thought you were being helpful. But sometimes when users have a misunderstanding the worst thing another can do is wade in to the discussion. If Sky was upset/needed your support I'm sure he would have blanked my comments or ended the discussion, rather than suggest he'd talk to me later. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your talkpage message:

After he said that he was too busy to carry on the conversation, I offered for him to contact me at his leisure - I would have said the same had he done so earlier. I also didn't keep pushing the original question, rather tried to understand why he had reacted somewhat sharply. So I don't see that as provocation. John Smith's (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

edit

Hi there friend. Im here just to ask you to reconsider your reversion on the allegations page. If you look at the actual content, you will see that what you reverted actually leaves in UltraMarine's contentious additions that were added without consensus. His additions has several problems as discussed on the talk page. I know you were probably undoing the edit warring of that dupious (and now banned account), but despite this, the actual content now, in my view, degraded. Could you revert back to the status quo version while discussion continues? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 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

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

Temp: Irrel

That's rather odd math. Below is just the delete votes. And I was wrong. it's actually 10 plus the nomination. As for your statement about 1 disagreeing editor equaling a consensus, it can happen. I just don't see that here. In the comments and the votes, I hear very strong arguments. Here are the votes...

This template looks horrible on the articles. I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant. The way we are linking makes it appear factually irrelevant. The preferred method to fix an article with an irrelevant fact is to boldly remove that fact, or start discussion. This is not like a MERGETO tag, it just has no place, given our way of making and proposing article changes. Its a bit weighty. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill it - this belongs on the talk page. Conducting editorial combat in the article text itself is silly when we HAVE a talk page for precisely that - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this tells a reader much. It seems to be mostly a way to tag that a section is being fought over. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really helpful. Delete it.--Docg 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete This doesn't tell the reader much, and if people are edit warring over particular statements then there are ways of dealing with edit warring besides cluttering the page. Why would they be less likely to edit war over the inclusion of the tag anyway? If something is irrelevant, either rewrite the section to work without the statement or bring it up on the talk page.--Dycedarg ж 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete- As nominatior pointed out, "I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant." For this reason, I think it should be deleted, as we don't need a template that could be used to try dictating what is relevant and what is not. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Steve Crossin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - too problematic and vague. If something's irrelevant, well, we're a wiki, you know what to do. :p krimpet✽ 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - way too vague to be useful, really. Crufty and likely to appear more and more as a band-aid in contentious articles. Ugly - Alison ❤ 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per alison et al - less tag.s and more communication please! Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone slapped one of these tags on an article I'd recently worked on, I'd be rather miffed. It seems a value judgement. "citation needed" on the other hand is a note that there is a place for improvement in the article... I don't think this is a good idea at all. delete ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--Woohookitty 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

R&I article

I see you have added tags to the article. You should initiate discussions about the tags on the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears the tags have been removed, however reasons were given in each edit history. If you have particular edits you wish to discuss, feel free to bring them up on the talk page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

White privilege

I think you miss the point of the White privilege article. The article should not be an essay to prove or defend the concept of White privilege. It should instead be an article describing the concept of white privilege, who holds the concept to be true? why? who opposes the concept? why?

If you read the talk page carefully, there is an active discussion on NOT allowing this page to be an essay on white privilege. WP has articles on Nazism, Socialism, Objectivism as well as most major and minor religions. That does not mean WP holds the ideas to be fact. But the history of the belief systems, causes and effects, can be documented. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think my comment "This article represents a fairly accurate accounting of a widely known concept in sociological studies. " says anything different that what you suggest in your first paragraph. If it comes off that way, it was not meant to. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the rant that was removed by user:cheeser; I see now that you were actually responding to the unsigned rant, and both were removed. I apologize. Have a nice day! --Knulclunk (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

R&I article RfC

Please specify your reason in the RfC section. --Jagz (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow Your Own Advice

By "crusade" you mean what? Going through and checking to see if the term is used properly? Could you please be a little less condescending, actually follow Wiki rules, and stop putting forth a dictionary that is incorrect? Or, you would notice that I have been editing on quite a lot beyond the above things, and that you are editing warring and causing problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Must tell you...

I love your username! Aleta 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Race and IQ

THANKS! For what it is worth, I have raised something like it in the past and have met rsistance. And, I am not in the strongest position because work demands right now are very heavy for me and I won't actually have tim to write the kinds of articles I envisage.

On the bright side, the article seems to be attracting new blood, including you, and perhaps there are now enough people who take serious research seriously to make some progress. I hope so! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Confederate

In this case, please, just ignore him. This is one case where the "give 'em enough rope" will actually work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On Race and Intelligence

Just wanted to say thanks for striking out your comment. I think that refusing to lower the debate to personal issues and keeping to content is the way to eventually sort this mess out. Again, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

trolls at Race and Intelligence?

RedP, I just left this message on Brusegadi and Wobbl's talk pages. I share it with you because I think if there is any serious progress with this article you will be part of it, so I wanted to shar emy concern with you:

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith.

I know you have not been feeding trolls but I am concerned that a constructive discussion you were prominent in has been or seems to be in the process of being derailed, and hope you can help. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to User:Ottava Rima

You seem still not to have actually read WP:RRR from which I qoute (again) "In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence"".

Wow! do you attempt to twist clear intent of items. If you are trying to claim that the statement: "Rather than maintaining two parallel conversations, I would recommend that all new comments on this topic now be made at Misplaced Pages talk:No legal threats#"On wikipedia"" as a comment that should be characterized as somehow stifling discussion "especially with users claiming that the discussion doesn't belong there"

Wow ...just wow.

Confused...

Hi there! You left an unsigned comment on my IP's talk page (was operating from a university proxy) stating: Thank you for retracting most of your inflamatory comments from Image talk:AverageIQ-Map-World.png‎;

I'm unsure what statements you meant specifically, but I .. tend to avoid MAKING inflammatory statements to begin with, thus have no need to retract them. The reason I thought I'd chase this up is on the off chance you think that I'm one of the named editors of the article or commentors on the talk page, I'm a walk in operating under whatever IP account I'm given at the time due for the last few years (primarily due to the fact logging in at various workstations throughout the day at university gets tedious as all hell :P) and have only just decided to join the discussion.  :)

Hope that clears things up, but if you feel I left any inflammatory comments at all, please don't hesitate to point them out. I never intend any disrespect or offence to anyone.  :) 122.107.42.146 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)