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)

Controversy regarding foundation's beneficiaries This is a most excellent suggestion. Belchfire (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt, but I've posted about a half dozen reliable source citations that call Chick-fil-a "anti-gay". This is more than enough of a basis for us to do the same. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Chickfila, Winshape". Thank you. --216.81.94.73 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagging of articles

Good afternoon RedPenOfDoom. I see that you have tagged another article that I have created for content. I am trying to be nice, and I don't know of any other way to say it. The content that I am adding is meant to be seed content for contributors to expand on. Also, unfortunately, the alternate title you suggested is almost exactly the same as it is now. We are putting the word out to the main scientists and researchers in this field AS WE SPEAK to make changes. Please leave them alone for a longer period of time and wait for these subject matter experts make their contributions. Also, please remove your tags...tags such as these may act as a deterrent from making these contributions.

Like I said, I do not know of any other words to say the following: This is meant to be seed material to be expanded on. Unfortunately, radiation carcinogenesis will read like an essay to non-interested parties no matter what way you write it. Please stop tagging my articles and let me get the people who research this stuff on a daily basis on here and making contributions.Jssteil (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ziya Songülen

Why Ziya Songülen is claimed he wasnt a noble Peson?

Strange...This Information in Turkish Wikipedia is wellknown, that he was a descendant of Saliha Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Amuca tribe

Why you can delete my Article Amuca Tribe?

Why you are made false statemant of this Tribe?

The sources are in Turkish, there is no any in eglish.

you delete the persons, the meaning of the word, descentants...

why? I never delete any article from you...

so if you deleted it...than removed all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Turkish Link: they explain about the name Amuca...

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amuca_Kabilesi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Shah Süleyman

Why you delete the truth story and sons?

This names who are just listed is not hin son.

Look please the Turkish Category...

I have not wrote any wrong about his sons and descendant.

Please see the name of his sons in the Turkish Article from Wikipedia.

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCleyman_%C5%9Eah

Under Ogullari:...

you see the name of his sons...

Süleyman Şah'ın Sungur Tekin, Gündoğdu, Dündar Bey ve Ertuğrul Bey adında dört oğlu vardı.

It means: Süleyman shahs sons are: Sungur Tekin, Gündogdu, Dündar Bey and Ertugrul Bey, four sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So what I have done wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.140.111 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanky.

July 2012

You appear to be involved in an edit war over the redirection status of Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons), Adherer, and Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). As you said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Next step regarding non-notable creatures "If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles." If it wasn't obvious that I objected by undoing the redirects, I'm making it explicit now: please return the articles to their un-redirected state, and start a discussion or discussions on one or all of them if you believe they should be redirected. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note ""If anyone objects to a redirect we can have another AFD with a list of articles." - not my statement. and as of the time of this "warning" about edit warring, I had edited the article all of 3 times. Two were to fiddle with tags, and one was to implement the consensus of the afd to redirect content that trivial in game mentions in ToH, Pathfinder etc were not sufficient to meet WP:N and the apparent agreement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Next_step_regarding_non-notable_creatures) that other articles with similar non-notworthy sourcing should follow the direction of the AfD. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that you've done this again without responding here. Please stop. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

TRPOD, maybe we should wait a bit and then take the articles to AfD as SudoGhost suggested at the D&D Project[2]. That would be seen as a constructive behavior, and I don't think there could be an end to the edit war otherwise... Jclemens, though you have agressively expressed an objection by reverting, I haven't seen you taking part in any discussion regarding the articles, despite the existence of a thread about the issue:Talk:Adherer#redirecting_this_article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thefunnyjill

Thanks for reporting this problem. I have declined to block this person for now. Technically the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard is for clear-cut vandalism, not editorial disputes and edit-warring, which is what you have here. Having said that, I left a note on the user's talk page telling them to get consensus on the article talk page before editing the article; if they fail to do this, get me or another administrator to block them. They've had sufficient warnings. Feel free to reference this discussion and my warning on the person's talk page.

Thanks for watching over our articles! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, TheRedPenOfDoom. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Cannibalistic attacks in 2012

Feel free to discuss the list items separately. Simply removing the section wholesale amounts to vandalism. μηδείς (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The dukes of hazzard

You sent me a message, claiming I edited the dukes of hazzard page. I did not edit this. Also, this IP can be used by upward of 2500 people in our company. I noticed an awful lot of comments and criticism on your page. Looks like possibly whatever change was made, that you "fixed", may have been correct to begin with. Sorry, just calling it as I see it. You certainly appear as the type who over-analyzes everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.222.195 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dave Benson Phillips

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Benson Phillips
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#This is horrible

You've no doubt seen the first from patrolling the noticeboard. You might not know that attention is coming to the article from the second. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jumping on graves

This user ignored my polite notice not to post rubbish on my user talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt_me&diff=481560040&oldid=472886545

and one person's "rubbish" is another person's "WHY THE HELL DIDNT YOU TELL ME YOU WERE GOING TO TRY TO DELETE MY MOST EXCELLENT ARTICLE ON FOO!!!!" -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for removing that comment from my talk page. I don't get to check my account that much because of my job so I appreciate that it was already taken care of. LlamaDude78 (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, too

Like LlamaDude78, I would like to thank you as well for reverting 98.246.66.123's personal attack on my talk page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

John Sullivan

Thanks for working on the John Sullivan page this week, I appreciate you taking the time. I have posted another comment about the material related to his police record on his discussion page (here). I am concerned the current material is misleading and doesn't have sources, so I've written a possible replacement. Thanks in advance if you can look again. --EdwardDC (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Chavis Carter

I was wondering if you would consider reviewing your !Vote on the Chavis Carter article. obviously the article is in a poor state and needs improvement, but I am loath to take the time if it is all just going to be deleted shortly. In the time since your !vote, there has been a lot of further coverage, across the country, and in several international locataions as well (Canada, 2xUK, Australia, etc) Thanks for your time. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Although we obviously disagree in this case, I do thank you for taking the time to review. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom

Just to bring you up to speed - I believe that Capena is a sockpuppet of a banned user DeFacto. I have already reported him on the SPI noticeboard, but things are moving slowly. (S)he is hounding me, then their involvement in the Michael/Mike Shrimpton article.

As regards the article, if it is the view that the article Mike Shrimpton (New Zealand cricketer) should be moved to Michael Shrimpton, replacing an article about about an English barrister, then it is improper to add banners to the article. I have not had anything to do with the cricketer article, but Canepa seems intent on causing as much trouble as he can before an Admin banns him for being a sockpuppet. Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And you appear intent on creating the maximum amount of opportunity to allow him to cause you the greatest amount of grief possible. Let it go. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Post on KB

Did you not read the post, it said common knowledge!! If you look at football blogs and boards you will find that he is up there as the worst player quite easily!! So you do your research!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckb10157 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for revert on Yasin al-Qadi page?

Hi Red Pen, thanks for keeping a close eye on the Qadi page. What was your reason for the last revert? No edit summary given. Please explain, or I will repost in 24 hours. Thanks.Markshern7 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Markshern7

2012 phenomenon

You seem to have a better grasp of what constitutes a bad external link than me so could you please lend your opinion to the budding edit war on this page? Serendi^podous 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag discussion

Could you please initiate a discussion of your NPOV tag at Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy. It's unclear what your tag refers to specifically. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Biography citation

Thank you very much for helping me with editing this article. I'll be looking very carefully over everything and amend language to state only facts and any qualitative language will be from cited, third party sources. I appreciate your help and patience and will make the changes by the end of this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcr9336 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Amsterdam Magazine AfD

Hi, thanks for your participation in this AfD. I was just wondering: although you seem to have a clear opinion, you have not formally !voted. Is that an oversight or is it intentional? Just curious. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: dead link

regarding your edit [3].

When I clicked the link, it went to a live EB radio page, but just the general home landing page, not a transcript of the program or media file of the recording. Were you able to verify the article content the source is supposed to support? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

nevermind - there is a link to a file. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a very substantial one but it's there and, at least within that region, it's reliable. Through archives, it will remain accessible for those who take the time to search even after the link dies. Take care, DocTree (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism of William E. "Billy" Nelson

Hello - I grinned at your Wikipedia handle, but did not smile at the way you handled my contribution to Cannibalism and necro-cannibalism. While you explained your rationale in your Edit summary, instead of removing the entire entry, I respectfully submit that it would have been more appropriate for you to either edit the entry to your specifications, or to leave me a message indicating that I should! (If you did leave such a message, but it didn't yet register so that it becomes visible in my account, then thank you.) I'm replacing the original item with a pared-down version. If you further object to it, then I would appreciate your courtesy of handling it as I have asked. Thank you in advance! - Froid 10:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've pared down the article, which I agree was overly detailed. I believe it is now more suitable (so thank you for your intervention!). If you believe it needs further revision, I would appreciate it if you would please either refine the entry yourself or leave a message on my Talk page asking me to do so. Thank you. - Froid 11:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yo-yo

To verify the content of Adam Park's merit, here is an email of a trusted yoyo judge: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.3.245 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D monsters...again

Hello ! I just wanted to tell you that it seems we are under another "attack" of IPs (99.102.236.90, 70.166.140.88, 75.149.195.214, 173.165.104.250, possibly iterations of 99.126.204.164 or 129.33.19.254) trying to turn new D&D monsters redirects into articles (without any consideration for our notability and sourcing guidelines, that goes without saying)...

I've already redirect a bunch of these articles, I guess it is enough to stop the flood for now, but what can we do about these IPs in general to prevent further "attacks" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would help matters considerably if IP editors were treated with some basic respect and consideration, and the creation of new articles were not referred to as "attacks". Let's avoid the battleground mentality, shall we? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of these editors have been told several times to have a more community-based approach when dealing with D&D, ie to actually consider policies, guidelines and consensuses (AfDs) before rushing to turn as much redirects into articles as possible. So far this has not proved effective. I think it would also help if the person behind all these IPs agreed to have a single account, which would certainly lift some concerns that this multiplicity of IPs, added to a complete absence of communication, is preventing others to keep track of what is redirected or not (or what shouldn't be unredirected), and by whom.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll CU all those IP addresses for you if you want, to make sure they're not being used by any other participant in the discussions. I've done one on my own initiative, because Sockpuppets are bad in any consensus-building discussion, but haven't found anything. The IP I did look at was an SPI, but no other wikipedia editor appeared to have used that IP address. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help

Hello there, Im sorry but i really dont understand how things work here.... im trying to recover my page Orly Ben Garti which was deleted ages ago and since then i couldn't recover it which i believe was because i really dont know how to do so.... I have wrote several times on the "talk" of the person who deleted it but i dont really know how to follow it up from there.. Please help

Thank you Orly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbg (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects without consensus.

Please stop reinstituting redirects without any discussion or consensus. WP:Fait accompli applies to your edits. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But there WAS buttloads of talk and the only "non consensus" is backed only by positions that are completely contrary to Policy. And restoring mass loads of articles as you did without consensus OR policy is the disruptive act. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles are not the same as each other, neither in terms of primary sourcing, nor in terms of a search for secondary sources. By all means, take them to AfD if you want the redirect enforced, but edit warring over it is inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, to reiterate what I said on Folken's page: WP:OTHERSTUFF works both ways, in that you can't claim that consensus in one AfD mandates a redirect outcome in these cases, just as no advocate of keeping them can say that because another AfD was closed as keep, that all of these must therefore be kept. Each is appropriately discussed individually. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding or restoring content to provide appropriate sourcing, and the sources in these articles have all been shown in multiple venues to be insufficient. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sources exist in every one of these I've looked at--That is, at the very least every one has self published sources that verify the article content. There is no "speedy perma-redirect" criterion for articles that don't meet one editor's interpretation of what sourcing is appropriate. That is what AfD is for. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

PRIMARY sources that are completely insufficient for meeting the "substantial coverage by independent reliable sources" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Each article is a separate topic. Each may have differing coverage, and AfD is the place to send articles where editors disagree about the adequacy of coverage for meeting notability. Again, no speedy-perma-redirect exists. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are incapable of seeing that the same primary sources are the same primary sources, well I think that is your problem. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Each may have differing coverage not currently present in the respective articles which could be elicited by a detailed and specific search. A perfunctory search is expected per WP:BEFORE, should you or anyone desire to nominate these for AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens and BOZ have proved their intention to edit war, I guess the only way to cut it short is to go to AfD (grouped nominations are welcome) when redirects don't stick, since BOZ also refuse to discuss the issues on article talk pages. I've started the process by nominating the 3 articles that escaped the "death watch bettle" AfD because BOZ's reverting spree also touched your redirects on Adherer, Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons). If you want to start other AfDs, you're welcome to do so.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Street food

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with this article. Do you know about http://reftag.appspot.com/ ? It's a very useful tool if you are using sources from google books as it creates references for you from the URL. SmartSE (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The clean up of the refs is on my to do list and that tool will be of help. Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nae probs. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)