User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

Due to a potty-mouth vandal, you will need to have an account to post here.

A black and white rendering of a Red Pen of Doom.

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

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

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) 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

edit count | edit summary usage

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 ^talk 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 ^talk 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully baloney has ceased

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

Notes to self

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

funny exchange

Technical fix

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

Battering of deceased equines

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)

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)

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)

IP

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)

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)

Mychal F. Judge

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

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

Your comment

I have removed this because it is unhelpful to divide the discussion across multiple pages. Please make all comments related to the arbitration on the arbitration pages where everyone can see them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indirect DNA damage

Please stop removing chunks of text from Indirect DNA damage because you claim there is no source. Have you discussed this? Have you requested sources? Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then go ahead and revert my edit. Thank you for explaining and not starting an Edit War. Mr. E. Sánchez (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted

Thanks for you message.Gerriet42 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have twenty minutes ...

... could you read over this and make any comment you feel appropriate? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. For a couple of months Jagz has kept repeating that he is taking a year off, yet he continues to edit. As i point out in one of my comments, it is precisely this kind of behavior that I consider an example of what makes him a troll. But don'[t let me influence you. Just believe me: he continues to edit, regardless of his many protestations that he is not. Right now he is arguing that if he is blocked, I, Ramdrake, and Alun should be prohibbited from editing as well - does this sound to you like someone who has voluntarily agreed to stop editing? That is precisely why it is now at AN/I - he said he would stop editing many weeks ago; the AN/I proposal to block him from editing the article is precisely because he continues to edit. So the nature of his contributions, his interactions with other editors, overall patterns of behavior are still very relevant. I would not have asked you to comment if I thought it were a moot issue. People would not have filed the AN/I or the proposal to block him, only a few days ago, if they thought it were a moot issue. The AN/I exists because it is not a moot point. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

He may not have edited the article recently (and so what - since he knows nothing about psychology or genetics, he has never added anything of substance to the article ever - his activities have always been 90% talk page), but if you just look you will see he continues to edit the talk page. And in my opinion this is the real problem because he disrupts any attempt at positive discussion. The so-called ban is a fake - he has not stopped editing in the article, just a couple of days ago he disrupted discussion with more inane comments on the talk page. Now, I just saw his "pledge" not to edit talk pages - but this is in a section where he insists that Alun, Ramdrake and I cease editing these articles too. This is not a solution. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the Talk pages of the articles that I mentioned. The R&I article was in shambles several months ago so an expert was not needed to make vast improvements. I'm an engineer who is good at science. I would urge you to stop using Talk pages to bad mouth people. --Jagz (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference

Apparently no longer needed, but I will stash this here. I support a topic ban. It is very hard for me to believe that X is participating in the article in good faith. Back in March, X was involved with a number of editors who were at loggerheads. At that time, all parties except X agreed to participate in a mediation process to find a way to work together to improve the article. X refused to pariticpate in the mediation process, and so the request was closed because without participation of such a major party in the dispute, the mediation would be pointless. Later, when editors suggested that refusal to participate in mediation was an indication of bad faith editing presence X claimed that his refusal was because he was going on vacation and would not be able to participate in the process. A review of his edit log shows that he has been able to edit nearly every day from Feb., seems even more valid evidence that his presence is not in good faith and Slr has clear reason to name a disruptive editor a "XXX" on the ___ articles. I have not been paying much attention to the article in the recent past because of X stated intent to be done with the article for a year and I assumed the other editors would be able to use that time to work together constructively to improve a very flawed article. I am sorry that X did not fulfil his promise on his own and that we are now bringing this to forum. (diffs available on request)-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Innovative warning

Made my day! [2] Regards!--Ramdrake (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Staticj

Don't exert too much effort repairing Staticj's edits, like you did on Nicole Wray. It's probably just Soccermeko. I submitted a checkuser case, and when it comes back, I'll just roll back his edits and submit all of his articles for deletion.Kww (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

72.22.6.209

Please read Wikipedia's guidelines for external links -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What should be linked

  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work 
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,
amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks)
or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

72.22.6.209 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)72.22.6.209

Noam Chomsky

Right back at you. Io (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not disruptive...

... and who are you to decide? Io (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

...and in addition, I refer you to your own first admonishment listed under Ahem above. Io (talk)

about that talk page

Have a look at this. (I hope you don't mind me taking your name in vain!) :~) Pinkville (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration RFA

I'm not calling for it to be closed--rather the reverse. I've tweaked my comment to clarify that. [3] --Jenny 03:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your voice

You obviously like the sound of it. Giano (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When I think I have interesting things for people to consider, yep. And people are responding so they aparently are interested in discussing those topics as well.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good, that's nice to hear because as Sir Fozzie and the Arbcom's supporters are now examining my edits [4] I have decided to take a look at their's. You see I have never heard of you, which is odd, as I know most editors by reputation, so I was taking a look at your edits, in fact I am taking a look at many people's - to see what useful purpose, if any, they serve. Giano (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A lack of trust in the ArbCom's ability to consistantly produce sound judgments is a position I think we both share. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please outline for me your most recent edits in content and the pages you have written and created. These things are of huge interest to some people [5]. A percentage would be helpful. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• You can view my contributions to see where i have been, or click the edit count button up above. I am afraid I don't keep track of those percentages myself. Perhaps you could ask Dave what tool he used?-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no problem, just an idle enquiry that was all. Allthough, obviously these things matter to some. While I am here though, which pages that you have started are you most proud of? I am sure you did not just arrive here to give an opinion. Your first momentous edit us here [6] you sit at the top of this page scribing away, what have you written? Giano (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, such sweet memories! Some people write, some people edit and some people help maintain what has been created from going downhill. Some people like pictures of big black quill pens cause they couldn't find any pictures of red pens they liked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In support of Giano II's protest. The ArbCom seems to be careening out of control and taking action after action that undermines the community's trust in their ability to professionally perform their job.

Worrisome edits

This series of edits was clearly meant to remove any links which contained the word lesbian and given your comments on the talk page along with your misleading edit summaries, was not only pointy, but as close to vandalism as one can get. It was certainly disruptive. Please don't do this again, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All that Gwen Gale has said also applies to your three edits at Dir en grey. Well, except for the Lesbian thing. Please do not remove more external links until you fully understand WP:EL. Thank you, Victor Lopes (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen was wrong, and so are you, except about that Lesbian thing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you were right in some cases, but don't go simply deleting any type of link you see only because it's been cited at WP:EL. If you read WP:EL, you'll see that those links may be acceptale under certain circumstances, as it is stated here: "Except for a link to a page that is [...] an official page of the article subject". Also, you may start an edit war with many people, because I'm sure more people will dislike all this, even though you were right in some cases (as I stated at Gackt's talk page). If you take a look at "Weird Al" Yankovic, for example, you'll see that even a Featured Article on a musician has MySpace links on the External Links section. MySpace links sometimes may bring more info for the reader, like music samples and etc. I'm starting to think of Requesting a third opinion or Requesting a comment on this issue, because if you are totally right...then we'll have to cleanup thousands of articles. Anyway, sorry for any too quick judgement of mine. As I said, you were not totally wrong. Victor Lopes (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mousesports

You were obviously under the mistaken impression that I am a member of Mousesports. I am not. Also, Wikipedia has the eSports team template available for pages that are for professional gaming organizations. If you really think you have the jurisdiction to delete the Mousesports/Nihilum page that has been looked over and approved by the administrators, then I suggest you alert them to the SK Gaming, fnatic and all those other pro-gaming organizations that you feel don't belong on Wikipedia. DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gackt link reverts

You either misunderstand the artist or the WP guidelines- after I reverted your edit and you went and changed it back, yet another person corrected your work. I reverted it originally out of good faith, but if you can't understand the implications of WP:EL, especially with pages on foreign celebrities where multiple official links are available and closely linked with the artist, it might start to be considered vandalism due to the amount of it we get on that page. Gackt's community site is officially run by his own people where exclusive information from him and his staff are shared. Each of the links listed are Official and offer unique information, therefore fully complying with wikipedia's policy. I'd like to please ask you to refrain from further link editing on that page. Thanks! (Tsukiakari (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Call centre tags

I just saw your latest load of tags on that page. I don't really care personally about the content of the paragraphs that you tagged. I looked at your talk page though. Tagging, deleting and anonymity appear to be the majority of your work here, as your handle also indicates, which fits a pattern that I recognise from others who do that. I don't get it. What is the appeal in these sorts of disruptions? You are certainly not alone in focusing on those sorts of edits. I just don't understand the motive. I don't buy for one microsecond that it's some altruistic deal about making sure wiki policies and procedures are followed chapter and verse. In our latest exchanges, all content survived on merit. You had nothing left to offer that would conceivably have survived scrutiny, let alone mediation or arbitration. And this time I won't challenge your tags, again, because I don't care about the specific content. You can tangle with whoever does care about that stuff. What I would like to know though is the motive behind wrecking good work (especially instead of expending a bit of effort on google to find remedies). The net effect is actually that I am sure there is a growing number of those who know wikipedia and the little power struggles on here, who understand that the more tags, likely the more truth. Inconvenient truth perhaps. That's the pattern I have picked out, apart from articles all done by one person with a special interest axe to grind. I figure you must get your jollies with what I believe to be interruptions for the purpose of interrupting. I don't get where the kicks are in that though. What gives? --Achim (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributions

Hi, I just wanted to thank you so much for your contributions to the Partridge Family article. It is often the case that saboteurs and control freaks rear their ugly heads there, so it was very refreshing to read contributions that really improved the article. I personally want to thank you, and encourage you to stick around, as we sometimes get attacked by editors with less than noble interests. I am looking for editors who genuinely want to make the article a better one. Thanks so much dear!ShirleyPartridge (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How exactly...

...is this source "unreliable"? There's nothing wrong with this edit, and you know it. I'd advise you to get a life, but when you're dealing with someone who calls themselves "The Red pen of Doom" (and has a pageful of complaints from other users), you quickly realize that, for wikijerks like yourself, this is their life.RMc (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over 867-5309/Jenny. If you feel thqat you are in the right, ask for outside help rather than warring which isn't allowed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

You should create a userpage. It makes it a bit easier to know something about you (keep in mind I forwent one for about 8 months as a statement of rebellion as well). The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. I like my 'no page'-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jason Lee's Stupid Fucking TV Show

I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert said it in a thing, sry I forgot 2 cite. :-) 12:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)SStapleton (talk)

Email me?

Need to ask you a question. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearing things out

Alright, I'm tire, I admit, I'm tired! We need to make peace, sir. We've been picking away about this Mousesports article for such a long time that I feel we need to meet an agreeable resolution. It never helps to have people against eachother and Wikipedia is, afterall, a large and general movement to gather up as much information as possible which is encyclopedia content. I feel that I was aggressive and inconsiderate and downright biased with all the talking. I should not have taken it so personal, it's just that I'm friends with Morris Wink and didn't want to see his page deleted. I still don't want the page deleted and will try my best to piece together the missing history and achievements that are currently unavailable to me. Hope you take my apology well and best regards. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:OWN case

I just wanted to let you know that while I believe the edits you're reverting to Pearls Before Swine (comics) are in somewhat good faith, you are reverting nearly every edit anyone makes. It's getting really close to WP:OWN, and I'm asking you to scale back. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

867-5309/Jenny

My edit is souced. In it I have included the episode in which it happened. That is the source. Also, if you go to the episode's article, you will see the song name in the "Cultural References" section.

So stop reveting my edits. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and YOU will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SidekickJermaine (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

I'm going to revert some of your recent edits per the discussion on the talk page. While I'd like better sources than what I've found, what I'm adding back is sourced. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question

I would start by redirecting the article you created to the existing article, which has a more accurate name. I think the name you chose is not appropriate for an article that only covers U.S. politicians. You can do this by replacing the text with #REDIRECT[[Party switching in the United States]] . You would also want to make sure that all of the people covered by your article are included in the existing article. To deal with the problems you have identified, you can raise your concerns about POV-pushing on its talk page, or go ahead and make the changes that you feel are necessary, and explain why on the talk page. There is already an "unsourced" tag on the article indicating that another user has identified this problem. Regards, Ground Zero | t 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"talk discussion" topic on kathleen batle

Thanks for stepping into mediate. This particular dispute between us began [[7]] and you can also see editing history around July 2008 just excalated. Anyway...

• At the top of this page is a notice that DISCUSSION has been redirected to BLP noticeboards.
• Then the next topic a bolded "decision to withdraw" , not a question, where the editor proceeds to 'explain' why he is withdrawing. Do you feel this really an appropriate topic of discussion? He clearly has a problem with working with me, and yet, isn't there another forum where persons can do this?
• Can this "discussion" be retained, but moved to what I imagine a more appropriate place, say that those who want to discuss the article truly can? Thanks? Hrannar (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Talk:Sandra Lee

I hope you don't mind that I've removed your comments along with the entire section. The other editors involved, other than you and I, all appear to be just sockpuppets of a blocked editor. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sandra_Lee_.28cook.29 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Biff714. --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Socarides article and related issues

TheRedOfDoom, I've recently proposed to remove the 'Medical view of conversion therapy' section from the Charles Socarides article. I've started a discussion about this and related issues on JaGa's talk page; I'd appreciate it if you would comment. Skoojal (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_McKenna&action=history

The phrasing I used in the McKenna piece is based on this article yet you seem to have made up your mind that my wording is down to some supposed affiliation to McKenna.

Phrases like oh please leave the megaphone at home and just the facts, not the hype are not deemed appropriate comments if you familiarise yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith with particular reference to the following paragraph: Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

Ultimately if I've got things wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected but as a journalist of 25 year's standing I resent my integrity being questioned in such a manner. KenelmJames (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article in the Guardian is obviously just a regurgitation of a press release by McKenna /TLC. I will stand by my identification of that language as hype that has no place in an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

OK, someone here was replacing their IP address with my name. Who was it?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

PPG

• List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls

I've reverted one of your edits due to miscategorisation. List pages shouldn't be categorised that way.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to ask. - jc37 03:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The List of characters in The Powerpuff Girls is a "list" article in name only and has much more content (albeit currently not properly sourced) than many "regular" articles. and categories such as "Child superheroes" clearly are more appropriately tied to the characters present in the "list" article than to the media franchise discussed in the main article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First, take a moment and read over WP:LIST. You may find that there are several types of lists. And this is clearly one of those kinds.

(As an aside, a quick read on primary sources at WP:OR, might be helpful.)

Second, the main article covers both the franchise and the titular characters. This is done in actually quite a few comics and cartoon-related articles. To do otherwise would actually hinder navigation (the main purpose for categories) than help. - jc37 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cattle Hauler

A recent history of the cattle hauler link is as follows. The editor who first added data about the auto ad linked cattle hauler to Cowboy. His/her original edit constituted POV and original research. The contribution, including the link, turned out to be a bit of a slur, meant to suggest that hockey mom denotes someone somewhat less than feminine. I ignored the original research violatioin and left most of the passage in, but at least made sure that the link was gender-appropriate.

Your concern that the link was off-topic is reasonable, but the term, cattle hauler, is novel enough that it does need to be connected to its meaning. If you think about it, the whole section about a car commercial is rather off-topic and represents original research. The way to enter that info in a Wikipedia article would technically be to cite it from a published source, such as a newspaper article about hockey moms that mentions the ad. Then it would be legitimate for use in the Wikipedia the article. It is not, but if we leave the stuff there at all, it makes sense to properly link cattle hauler.

Maybe the whole original research infraction should be excised. 129.49.251.174 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Errata--The NYT instance is not so much an ad as a promotional review or editorial. The original research problem remains, nevertheless.129.49.251.174 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Do you want me to request your talk page to be protected?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Space.com not a reliable source?

Hi, I was wondering why you deemed space.com to not be a reliable source. It's owned and operated by Imaginova, which you can read about here: http://www.imaginova.com/company/ When talking about a fictional brand of cigarettes mostly featured in science fiction I think it's a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGilbert (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Game

Just a friendly reminder to please be careful of 3RR. — Satori Son 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I semi-protect your page.

Due to the vandalism/impersonation.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) 

If it is becoming an issue for you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

IMDB is an unreliable source? If the producer of a film has confirmed a film on his/her official website, it is unreliable? Please visit the forthcoming section on Dharma Productions' official website at http://www3.dharmaproduction.com/forthcoming.html. I will not tolerate nonsense -- Amol1186 (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me one instance where a source has been mentioned when the Filmography section has been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amol1186 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article of a Film itself is to be used as a citation, why is Billo Barber being removed from Filmography?

Amol1186 (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, you are trying to enforce each and every wikipedia principle, and on the other you are thanking a user like Florateju1405 for his/her "She is a stupid idiot who just want to have sex and fun." contribution(???) to the article. *Applause* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amol1186 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, you win

OK, we'll just keep The Game at the present page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not Wiktionary

This is not Wiktionary, therefore our lead paragraphs should not simply give definitions, but also explain the term in its social, political, linguistic, and historical contexts. Therefore I think we should put back into Political correctness the lead I wrote (which you changed greatly). Here is mine:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term with contradictory and controversial uses. On its face, it implies politics with which the speaker agrees, though especially since the 1990s it also has been used to mock others' attempts at correctness. Usually the aspect of politics refered to is language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups.

You might think it can be improved, and if so, please do without taking out all those important contexts. If this were Wiktionary, I don't agree with your definition, anyway. For the term to focus on gender, race, etc. is only a recent phenomenon. I'll wait for your reply before changing it back. Can you remind me on my talk page? Korky Day (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)