This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 18 March 2008 (→R&I article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:13, 18 March 2008 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) (→R&I article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) edit count | edit summary usage.png)
The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
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
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)