User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

Zombies and brains

I'm sure it's acceptable to make the occasional wiseass comment at an AfD, but doing so in this edit summary in an article is over the top. The AfD result was keep TWICE. Accept it and move on. Taroaldo (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a wise ass comment. I fully stand by the assessment that that is not an encyclopedic article but an embarrassment to Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Azaria Chamberlain

Would you mind taking a look at the matter of the hatnote and redirect in this article? The matter is being discussed on two pages.

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

Dingoes Ate My Baby

NOTE: I find this "an embarrassment to Wikipedia" (see comment above).

Amandajm (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the hatnote from the article, as BLP would suggest that until there is a consensus otherwise, contested material should NOT remain in article space.

You may wish to review WP:CANVASS, so I am not going to participate in the actual deletion discussions that I have not previously been participating in. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to that! Amandajm (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Amandajm (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

Your studied ownership behavior at Talk:Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is not appreciated. Someone with a redlink username commanding editors to cut the crap out of an article raises suspicions. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. Your making assumptions about other editors based on the fact that they do not have a user page is also noted. The lack of responses on the article talk page that address my policy based questions is also noted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Do be aware you have reverted this article three times today, and your last revert was rather hasty given the tox report. In response to your note above about AGF, I read your edit history, and your first edit with this account implies it is not your first. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

so when we have BLATANT evidence that unsourced claims in the article are WRONG we should wait? Bah.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Medeis_.28Result:_.29

+tag spamming

• Post an +afd, just don't +tag spam! JunoBeach (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to +tag spam articles you may be blocked from editing. JunoBeach (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

when there is a shitload of issues with an article, slopping on a shitload of tags to identify the issues is entirely appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your cleanup tag on Zombie (fictional)

where do you feel the citations are most needed? Could you add some cn tags? Serendi^podous 19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that the sources used are not reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy or are analysis based on primary sources. But in addition, there are many unsource analytical claims like "After the mid-1980s, the subgenre was mostly relegated to the underground." and "a mind-altering pathogen, making them more commonly known as the Infected (as in 28 Days Later, Zombieland and Left 4 Dead)—instead of re-animated corpses—to avoid the "slow death walk" of Romero's variety of zombies." which contains two unsourced claims (that they are called infected, and that the pathogen premise was used for a specific reason). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for defending Wikipedia against endless zombie hysteria! SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter

Since there was a 66% opinion that supported a merger, I have proposed more specifically this second time around a stronger push to merge or redirect, although I maintain that it should be deleted in its current form, accepting that some of it is salvageable makes me believe consensus can be reached, furthermore it is not very much a WP:BADIDEA as it stands and this needs to be corrected as its part of what what Wikipedia is WP:NOT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Salmone Williams

While functioning merely as a disinterested observer, I think it's reasonable to assume that User:69.207.3.57 and User:Salmone_williams are identical, and that the individual responsible likely possesses the copyright for the material: [1]. If this assumption is reasonable, then I'd suggest that supplementing the existing final warnings regarding vandalism is inappropriate and that the user actually requires further explanation on how to donate copyrighted material. Thanks. Meph^talk 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012

An article that you have been involved in editing, Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

requesting confirmed rights and uploading pic

pls can you help me in uploading darshan ( actor ) pic but it is copy righted some one have removed pic in page darshan ( actor ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

how to confirm my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

pls tell how to confirm my account. for example like mobile number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatla (talk • contribs) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tilting at windmills

Why not just let Middle Eastern people go through the AFD process. Why waste your energy trying to improve an article that is most likely going to be deleted anyway, and engage in what is dangerously close to an edit war in the process? Just let it lie. If the article survives AFD (unlikely), we can fix it then. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Webonautics

Webonautics is the name of an Indian web design and public-image-management firm. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

learn some manners

LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Response

dear sir did not change because of my personal views Mr. Cathy only said he supported traditional marriage never spoke out against gay marriage it is spin to say he opposes gay-marriage while he clearly views himself as a traditional marriage supporter the same way someone who is pro- same sex marriage do not refer to themselves as opponents to traditional marriage but simply supporters of same-sex marriage the article was clearly has pov which i eliminated and you reinserted and I submit to you that an encyclopedia should report what the man said which is referanced in the article but does not and cannot include the articles obivious pov anyway I'll talkpage it before rv your edit as I think you should have done

That is not how the reliable sources are covering it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again just because they are legtimate news organizations does not mean they are not capable of bias that this enclyopedia is leave out fox news and Msnbc are great examples would we just ref one of their articles without clearly filtering the bias out of it when we add it to wikipedia. also random IP adress recently rv my huck edit saying it was not a pure source thinking he was just making things up I rv his edit since I thought he was just making excuses also that edit was mostly quotes and reporting the companies new official position so it would seem like copy and paste but I pretty it does not violate the copy right Algonquin7 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

someone just added Ed Helms a simple celebrity opinions about chick-fila yet no one is doing anything about it because it is a negative take on Mr. Cathy's pro-family view while Huckabee is being discluded because he gives positive take on it unless something is done to correct this clear bias I will be reinserting Mr. Huckabee in immediatly Algonquin7 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind someone took it outAlgonquin7 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RedPen I never thanked you for the welcome wagon you offered me it was a very nice and appreciated gesture thank you Algonquin7 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes‎

I have undone your edit. It was much too bold. There is a discussion taking place on the talk page and there are a significant number of editors who think your belief is incorrect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

the change is not in any way bold - it is straightforward application of the BLP principal - the exact situations for which it was designed to be applied. Regardless of whether there is an ongoing discussion, it needs to stay hidden during the discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at James Eagan Holmes‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RedPen, you must stop battling. Continue the discussion at ANI. Otherwise, you risk a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let me be clearer. One more edit to the article, and I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've fully protected the page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 01:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Red Pen, I'm not arguing for or against you here, but at the end of the day Wikipedia is a collaborative project. A discussion to merge is ongoing on the talk page. You are free to hold any opinion you choose, but it is pretty simple that a consensus thinks your edits do not qualify as an exemption. Currently, your reverting is disruptive, even though I believe it is in the best of faith. I don't want to change your mind, I only want you to simply say you will stop reverting. That is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, committing 4 reverts over 24 hours and 10 minutes is gaming the system. If I see continued gaming of the system and unrepentant edit warring on Chick-Fil-A from you, I will block your account. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

James2

Can I close the ANI? Arcandam (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A‎

Like say, I dunno, an article featuring the picture of a sign inside that one company's store saying that another company is putting out products hazardous to children? Good idea, wish I'd thought of that! --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)