User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archives2012/May

Notes to self
db-user <- get rid of user page


 * funny exchange

classic 


 * clean this up List_of_Forgotten_Realms_deities

Andrew Lawrence (comedian)
I have removed the prod tag from Andrew Lawrence (comedian), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
I appreciate the welcome, thanks. I am threading very lightly for different reasons, not the least of which is that I am barely recognizing Wikipedia's structure and mechanisms. Someone is ought to write an article about that  : )

Thanks again, feel free to write and I'll see you around Maratz (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"You may find "pies"...
In the middle of a very serious discusion on an even more serious topic, you throw in the above comment. Thank you for a respite from my 'bubbling anger' toward a fellow editor. BTW, cow pies are quite useful. Fuel, weapons, articles of sport, construction, and many more. Your quip adds "dessert" to the list. :~)..```Buster Seven   Talk  14:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I tried to click on your edit diff on my iPod and it made me rollback instead. Sorry, I did not intend to revert. Toa  Nidhiki 05  17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Misclicks happen! -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'll probably make an alternate account with no rollback or Twikle privileges so that this type of thing won't happen again. Toa  Nidhiki 05  17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Image
I didn't add any image there. First check who added the image before coming with your warning and all. What I asked is to go to the image and tag it with appropriate copyright infringement tag and once it is removed from Wikipedia, remove the links wherever used. 11:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, copyright issue is for the image and it should be addressed in that way only, hope you understand that. Simply removing the link from that article can be done by anyone like you, but if you are serious about the copyright you should address the photo and get it removed to have a permanent solution. Anish Viswa  11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleting image links from articles is not the proper method, since the image will still remain un-noticed and people can still reuse it in some article which others may not notice, like other language Wikis. Even now it may be used in Malayalam Wiki, Hindi wiki etc. To really address the issue, we have to target the image, that is what I am saying. Anish Viswa  12:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a better solution or the right way of doing it. Removing image links from certain articles was found not effective before also, since unauthorised use of those images were present in other language wikis having less patrollers. Anish Viswa  12:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

joe the plumber edits
Hi! I noticed you undid the edit I made to Joe the Plumber. My edit was based on mainstream journalistic sources, verified, and documented. So it is a bit unclear in the Undo explanation the rationale for taking exception to the inclusion of factual information.

By undoing the edit you actually put counterfactual information in the entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Dealt with at User talk:Collect. Calabe1992 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Footwiks
Hi there.

I've removed reported him here

I think we should wait for the result before doing any more changes to the article. Per the comments on your talk page, he should instantly be blocked for periodic personal attacks.Curb Chain (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * Hmm, it was archived without a result. I'm not sure what to do now.  The personal attacks against you by him is abhorrent.  If you feel more help with the conduct of this editor, don't hesitate to request my help.Curb Chain (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Usage of 4:20
I think you miss my point for inclusion on the cannabis culture page. I'm not connecting it to the culture, but noting pre-usage on a page that documents the term 4:20. To have contrasting material is paramount to any peer reviewed paper, if you get what I mean. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You and I aren't talking the same language. You insist I make cannabis inferences. If you look at my original edit it says nothing of its connection to cannabis. In fact, I used the qualifying term "PRE-USAGE." Which means, before the term was known as cannabis. Before. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it DOESNT relate to cannabis culture then has no place in the article. If it DOES have a relation to cannabis culture then you need to provide a third party that has made that connetion. Its pretty damn simple. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So you think a new article related to the PREUSAGE of 420 is merited then? If such a page is created, with tons of citations, wouldn't it seem prudent to then merge it with cannabis culture because it's etymologically related? I can so see that happening. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you just did the "whatever" thing I see in so many memes. I guess that means you lost the argument? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

no i didnt lose the argument. i lost patience trying to talk to a rock. and i lost $100 at the casino after dinner, but thats a different story. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history at 420 (cannabis culture) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. 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. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 00:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

edit sum
Hi - in this diff you didn't explain why you removed it - I had a look at the addition and decided not to remove it although I felt there were issues' with the content - anyway - its been replaced so a reason would be benefit - regards -  You  really  can  21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * a few of the many "issues" are now noted --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't attack FC Seoul article / Please Stop editing war
Your mother tongue is English. But my english is poor. Current editing war is very unfair for me. I can't explain and discuss in detail. If you can read korean, I can persuade you and I can give you many reasons. Don't get me wrong. If you discuss in korean. You also can't expalin in detail.

I have a question. You can't read and understand korean at all. How do you judge that korean newspaper is reliable or not? Do you ignore korean newspaper? Only American newspaper is reliable? Are you god? Footwiks (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot read Korean directly, but the translation of the source I looked at was pretty clear that it did not support the content of the article in the way that you were using it. That is why I added the comment that the translation needed to be verified.-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I am in no way "attacking" the article. I am working to bring it into better compliance with Wikiedia's article content policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe google translator? LOL...Honestly, As i said before, Most succesfull club, legend and so on They are common knowledge in Korea. Believe me, I'm korean. I don't lie to you. If you are korean and you are interested in Korean Football. Probabley you don't edit in FC Seoul article.
 * As you have been told MULTIPLE TIMES, your claim that "it is common knowledge in Korea" is not sufficient in itself and needs a reliable source to verify the specific claim. And that the claim must be made by a party not affiliated with the team. --  The Red Pen of Doom  13:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Cla68's page
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cla68#Advertising_paid_editing_on_your_user_page | What you said here] was absolutely correct. I've actually removed his advertisment twice, his pro-advertising buddy has put it back up, against that policy. You're not the lone voice here ! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You have just been slapped by a trout
|A Trout slap for you- intraining  Jack In  05:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: paid editing and "dramatic increase"
FYI, I started a discussion about that "dramatic increase" comment here: . Not sure if Cla has the time or patience to engage with me on the subject, but I hope so. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)