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

Hello TheRedPenOfDoom! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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^Woohoo! 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I love your username! Aleta ^Sing 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. The writer Vichenzo is unknown. But Asimov's story can be found in Asimov's story and even there is an article about What_If. So I will put it again. Do not delete it, please. First find out about What_If. David (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know much about how to grow Bonsai plants, and I'm getting ready for a wikibreak. I edited "Bonsai" based on: avoid saying "we" or "you" and not giving advice as "do this to get that" but focus on descriptions, not teaching steps. Perhaps the gardening wikiprojects will have someone who can help. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article is a constant target for vandalism when open; it's currently indefinitely semiprotected. I would be open to the possibility of unprotecting it at some point. Why don't you contact me again when the improvement effort is over, and we'll see then? GlassCobra 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

funny exchange

As you know, this user is accusing myself of being a sock of you. I am sorry to have caused you problems. I would like to welcome a checkuser to check this out. Apparently he thinks if someone else thinks policy applies in this situation they are a sock of you or I. Once again, sorry for causing you problems. Landon1980 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure what he is trying to do. He has accused me of multiple things, not sure why, none of them are true. Landon1980 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now if you want to do something useful for the article, please come up with a replacement for the paragraph you just deleted:
"The cause or causes of group IQ gaps are not known. Many theories have been proposed, but none are generally accepted. Most of the theories are supported by only indirect evidence. The cause of the IQ gaps may be identical to the cause of IQ differences between all individuals, or it may represent a race-specific effect."
There is supposed to be text in between section headings. --Jagz (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have shown by your refusal to participate in the mediation for the article that your presence in the article is not a good faith attempt to improve the article, your concerns are not something that I have any concern about. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your going to take your ball and go home. LOL! --Jagz (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is Chomsky beyond reproach - criticism? here If the article State terrorism and the United States is to be NPOV his accusations and analysis need to be criticized, or it just looks like he is the Law! So we need both sides. That is how authoritative historical documents are written. Igor Berger (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I noticed some of your edits to Talk:State terrorism and the United States, such as this one seemed a little disruptive and incivil to me. Please be sure to keep even the most heated discussion civil so as to better facilitate constructive editing. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 13:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no need. Whether or not the person was actually beating a dead horse isn't the issue; it's more flooding the talk page by repeating the same phrase excessively, the end result of which is to make it look like you're causing trouble— even if it's actually someone else. A good place to point people instead of doing that would be WP:STICK. :) --slakr^\ talk / 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is me again. Read Alternate History and you can find "What if" short story there. I even have the book! If you do not believe it yet, then delete it from there too, to be consistent. I will not reupload the content, I am not so dumb. But you should read "Alternate History" article, really.

And if you want too, delete What_If— article. Maybe it is "unsourced" too.

Check, I pasted this entire paragraph from there. Delete from there too, Mr. Skeptical:

There is also a short story by Isaac Asimov titled "What if" found in "Asimov. The Complete Stories. Volume I". The plot is about a couple which are able to access another universes of possibilities. This is a topic not easily found in Science Fiction.

Anyway, I know you will never accept that paragraph, even if Asimov woke up from his grave and put that content there. But, why? If it is unsourced, then What_If-- article and Alternate History are unsourced too. As well as every article about short stories.

David (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you.Supergreenred (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I wanted to mention that the The Drapier's Letters page has been significantly updated and there is further mention of moving the name on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss various grammar issues, please feel free to mention them on the talk page or my talk page. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deletion on Mychal F. Judge. I believe the information you deleted is true, even though I didn't enter it originally. Do you believe it to be untrue? Why didn't you use a {{fact}} or {{dubious}} template? patsw (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the duty of the editor who wishes to include information to provide the reliable source. {fact} tags are an option, but are not a necessary step.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe the deleted material to be untrue, or are you indifferent to its truth or falsity? patsw (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime any semi-famous catholic dies, there are some who want to make them a saint. The question is whether the number / 'status' of those involved in this instance are of a notable threshhold. Keeping and tagging speculation did not seem necessary based on the overall content of this article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that the cause for the canonization of Mychal F. Judge is more than worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia based on the amount of coverage it has received both controversial and non-controversial. see Google I agree that the article can be helped by citing some of this coverage in the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing sources! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I've watched the latter's page as well. The amount of vandalism and utterly inane commentary on hip-hop related articles is just ridiculous. I'm a huge hip-hop head and I have a few things watchlisted as a result (even Ras Kass, who is relatively obscure, gets vandalized all the time), but often I hesitate to do too much more than that because I fear I'd spend all of my time on Wikipedia reverting "fiddy is gay!" comments. One can only take so much of that, on the other hand hip-hop pages need all the good editors they can get, so really I should spend more time on them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.html[reply]

Hey Pen, I'm the dude who SEMINGLY never has sorces on Family force 5 or anything. I just wanted to tell you that I do research and check interviews and everything and I get sorces. I just don't know how to post links but I promise not to edit anything without researching it thuroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.161.30 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to add material without citing the source within the article. I will keep removing it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not trying to be rude, and I do appreciate your interest in forcing folks to cite things (I hate seeing uncited information as well), but do you really think simply reverting things repeatedly is the way to go? First and foremost, it just seems like a bit of a rude way to go. If you really cared about the conduct of the editors, perhaps you could be a bit more helpful than reverting it and just pointing them to a policy page? And actually, there already was a reference on the page citing them as Crunk Rock, in the very first sentence of the lead. All they had to do was cite it in the infobox to appease you. Could you try to be a bit nicer? -- PEPSI2786^talk 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Thanks for all your hard work. -- PEPSI2786^talk 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...you call yourself "The Red Pen Of Doom", you repeatedly undo my changes (while leaving all the others alone), you have a pageful of torked-off people who you've done this to in the past...and I'm the one who's not "civil"? Right. Get a freakin' life.

No need to "welcome" me to Wikipedia, champ. I've been here for years...long enough to know a prissy, self-important editor when I see one. Now please leave me alone. RMc (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from posting on your talk page if it will help you refrain from making more uncivil comments. Have a good day. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link regarding citations in leads. Please explain your concern about the statement that 'multicultural' refers to a defacto state of cultural diversity - and why you think this needs a reference, whereas the rest of the lead doesn't? I have explained that because 'multicultural' directs to this page, then the lead needs to explain the difference between the ideology/philosophy of multiculturalism and the condition of being culturally diverse (i.e. multicultural) - and that there is not necessarily a link between the two. Perhaps there is something controversial that I can't see about these statements, and if so, I'd be grateful for some enlightenment. I do think that at present the lead is rather weak and needs to deal with the fact that 'multicultural' directs to this article. Perhaps you have some suggestions? Eyedubya (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]