User talk:The Red/Archive 1

Christopher Hitchens and talkpage
The material I removed from the article on Christopher Hitchens was stolen from: as I explained in my edit summaries. You need to be a little more hesitant before you revert. Also, it's generally considered bad form to delete the comments on your talkpage. If you want, you can archive them with a link on your talkpage. 96.241.20.150 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted and the warning has been removed from your talk page (if not done so already.) Also, it is complete within my rights to remove any and all comments (except for blocks of course) from my own talk page.  talk  P ro S pider  03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Woolooware High School
Why did you undo your removal of vandalism to this article? Drmies (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it was a Huggle error as I remember incorrectly reverting mistaken vandalism on another article, I might have hit that article in mistake. I see now that it is true vandalism, thanks for your undo. prospider  ‡  05:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. There's more problems than that with that article anyway. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Danny Gokey
Hey Spider, after you warned this IP, sternly and solemnly, they vandalized the page again, here and here. Do you carry the big administrator's stick? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not. If you want to report an IP for vandalism, use WP:AIV or you can contact an administator such as Mentifisto. prospider  ‡  18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. I'll drop them a line, thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Award for being swell

 * Thank you, I will continue to do my part. Keep on trucking! The Red  ╬  21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Super Audio CD
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Super Audio CD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the exceptions to the 3RR. The lack of citations towards the content and the user's history of vandalism constituted persistent reversion. I tried to open discussion with him on the subject, but he refused to reply and continued to revert my rollbacks. The Red  ╬  02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit has been identified as an imposter warning, and should not be taken as truth. User copied and pasted their own warning from their own talk page and edited mine. Please disregard. The Red  ╬  03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

xD
Thanks for the Barnstar, it's fun XD David0811 (Talk) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

hi
i just want talk with Laurent1979, why are you undo me
 * Your edits are personal attacks on that user. If you would like to speak to them, please make your edits more civil. The Red  ╬  18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation edit for ACC creation
I, The Red, have created an account on the ACC Account Creation Interface in order to better serve Wikipedia by bringing more registered contributors in. Thanks for your time! The Red ╬  05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodego  talk  14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Crunchy barnstar
Thank you. :-) -- T'Shael  MindMeld  05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page
If someone vandalizes my talk page, will you please revert it?  WAYNE  SLAM 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm currently using Huggle to pick up on Vandalism, so I might not see it if it doesn't show up in filtered edits. However I will check your talk page manually for you. The Red  ╬  01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and how come you took a couple of months off from Huggle before you came back to it?  WAYNE  SLAM 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia for vandalism is little more than a pastime for me- if I don't have time, I will stop for a while. I am currently in University and that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for anything else. The Red  ╬  01:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should stop because you're a pretty good user, but you don't have to edit Wikipedia during the weekdays, but you could still Huggle on the weekends or non-school days such as Christmas break if you want.  WAYNE  SLAM 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but my schedule is erratic. The Red  ╬  01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, but I hope to see you edit Wikipedia again as soon as you can.  WAYNE  SLAM 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wicky Tees
A final and only warning is a little harsh for misplacing a hangon rationale on the article page, don't you think? Gigs (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It came up flagged as 4 on Huggle for some reason. I see you removed it however- thank you. But the validity of an account called ilovetees creating an article about a small company is suspect in itself. The Red  ╬  02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they probably do have a COI. I wonder if it has to do with that new-ish business warning I left for them.  Does huggle read that as a level 3 maybe?  It's actually a single issue warning. Gigs (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, you're right it would be level 3 since it didn't report. Odd. Programs aren't perfect. Thanks for the heads up. The Red  ╬  02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Music speedies
Hi. WP:CSD doesn't apply to albums and songs, so the tag you put on Dark Ages (Embers and Ash album) just now wasn't the right one. However, in this case the band do not have an article, so WP:CSD does apply. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Speedy Deletions always confuse me, I find a lot of the categories overlap. I looked for the band on Google, came up with practically nothing, so I filed it under band. Thank you for the heads up. The Red  ╬  17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do New Page Patrol, which is a very good and useful thing to do, it is worth reading WP:CSD carefully. If you can't find an appropriate speedy tag, it often means the page is not actually speediable, and you will have to consider PROD or AfD. There is good advice for taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fact template
How is requesting a citation vandalism? I was reading the article, and found that it had a serious POV, that was uncited. Now deleting the passage, would be vandalism, but how is my action anywhere near it? Instead you are bombing me with warnings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.165.74.240 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I mistakenly counted your citation needed edit as vandalism, but it has been reverted to your edit and your talk page has been cleared of warnings. Sorry about the mix-up. The Red  ╬  19:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusations
I'd like to kindly remind you that false accusations of personal attacks are as bad as a personal attack itself. There clearly is nothing (except in your rather inexplicable imagination) in this edit that could even remotely be construed as a personal attack. If you had taken just a moment to look at the sources cited for the sentence, it would have been more than a little clear that the sources are religious sources, and identifying the reviewers as religious is simply a clarification of the sentence, adding an important detail in identifying "some reviewers" and adding accurate information to inform the reader. So, I'll assume you had a momentary lapse in judgment rather than an overzealous knee-jerk reaction by someone who fancies himself the Wikipedia police. That having been said, I thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia and hope we have satisfactorily resolved this misunderstanding. Otherwise if you disagree, please take it to the article's talk page in accordance with standard procedures on Wikipedia. Have a good day! 75.177.156.16 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've edited Wikipedia some 2400 times, and I edit roughly 100 times a session. I am bound to make a few mistakes, and upon reviewing your sources for the section in question, it shows that the clarification is justified (if it's importance is still somewhat in question). My dispute would have been better resolved by discussing on the talk page. However, in your dispute of my Personal Attack vandalism reversion, you came into my talk page and personally attacked me. Reverting vandalism on Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and the amount of vandalism and hoax edits are massively in odds against us. So even though you happened to fall into a false positive, I'd appreciate if you'd throw us a bone and be a little more polite next time. The Red  ╬  22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again you falsely accused me of a personal attack for simply pointing out your error which you yourself admit. How many edits you have made is entirely irrelevant here. I've edited Wikipedia for seven years and made thousands and thousands of edits, but that is completely irrelevant. Now, once again, I will assume you had a lapse in judgment because I suspect you're about 17 years old and don't have the experience to reflect for a few seconds before making an accusation. From the comments on your talk page, it seems to be a pattern for you. But your youth will only get you so much leeway; this is the last time I make such the assumption that your intentions are better than your judgment. I'd strongly suggest just letting this particular issue drop, and if you do no harm done. Have a good day. 75.177.156.16 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly question your history of edits to Wikipedia and their neutrality if this is the way you treat other editors. Calling me inexperienced and "17 years old" because of a mistake that I made (and was humble enough to admit) is not the sign of a good editor, nor the sign of a respectful, understanding person. I truly hope that the next time you experience an issue similar to this, you respect everyone who desires to contribute. I feel I do a good job here on Wikipedia, and others obviously do as well, so it saddens me to see that such a small disagreement is met with such malicious and arrogant rebuttals. Please do not think that because I have admitted a mistake I am condoning your behaviour. The Red  ╬  00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)