User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] 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 Image:Wikisigbutton.png 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
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


[edit] Ahem

I suggest you not jump the gun and report anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. Jtrainor 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My dear young man, the fact that the admin missed the copyright issues amongst your edit war reverts, does not mean that it is not vandalism to remove copyright tags without addessing the issues.TheRedPenOfDoom 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 37

I am too busy to do the research that I had wanted to, so I took tag down because i'm now creating fuss over nothing. - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to say...

...I missed that edit you floated on the talk page. All the back-and-forth, i just skipped right past it.

But it was quite good work. I agree that your edit is much better -- the same intent of the original wording but presented in a properly NPOV and concise way. Thanks/congratulations -- whichever you find more suitable. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related?

I wondered for a moment if you were related to Giovanni given you both involve yourselves in others' discussions, but I'm sure you thought you were being helpful. But sometimes when users have a misunderstanding the worst thing another can do is wade in to the discussion. If Sky was upset/needed your support I'm sure he would have blanked my comments or ended the discussion, rather than suggest he'd talk to me later. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your talkpage message:

After he said that he was too busy to carry on the conversation, I offered for him to contact me at his leisure - I would have said the same had he done so earlier. I also didn't keep pushing the original question, rather tried to understand why he had reacted somewhat sharply. So I don't see that as provocation. John Smith's (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit

Hi there friend. Im here just to ask you to reconsider your reversion on the allegations page. If you look at the actual content, you will see that what you reverted actually leaves in UltraMarine's contentious additions that were added without consensus. His additions has several problems as discussed on the talk page. I know you were probably undoing the edit warring of that dupious (and now banned account), but despite this, the actual content now, in my view, degraded. Could you revert back to the status quo version while discussion continues? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hopefully baloney has ceased

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

[edit] Temp: Irrel

That's rather odd math. Below is just the delete votes. And I was wrong. it's actually 10 plus the nomination. As for your statement about 1 disagreeing editor equaling a consensus, it can happen. I just don't see that here. In the comments and the votes, I hear very strong arguments. Here are the votes...


This template looks horrible on the articles. I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant. The way we are linking makes it appear factually irrelevant. The preferred method to fix an article with an irrelevant fact is to boldly remove that fact, or start discussion. This is not like a MERGETO tag, it just has no place, given our way of making and proposing article changes. Its a bit weighty. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill it - this belongs on the talk page. Conducting editorial combat in the article text itself is silly when we HAVE a talk page for precisely that - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this tells a reader much. It seems to be mostly a way to tag that a section is being fought over. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really helpful. Delete it.--Docg 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete This doesn't tell the reader much, and if people are edit warring over particular statements then there are ways of dealing with edit warring besides cluttering the page. Why would they be less likely to edit war over the inclusion of the tag anyway? If something is irrelevant, either rewrite the section to work without the statement or bring it up on the talk page.--Dycedarg ж 06:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete- As nominatior pointed out, "I believe it will give the reader undue impression on what is relevant, and what is irrelevant." For this reason, I think it should be deleted, as we don't need a template that could be used to try dictating what is relevant and what is not. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Steve Crossin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - too problematic and vague. If something's irrelevant, well, we're a wiki, you know what to do. :p krimpet✽ 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - way too vague to be useful, really. Crufty and likely to appear more and more as a band-aid in contentious articles. Ugly - Alison ❤ 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per alison et al - less tag.s and more communication please! Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone slapped one of these tags on an article I'd recently worked on, I'd be rather miffed. It seems a value judgement. "citation needed" on the other hand is a note that there is a place for improvement in the article... I don't think this is a good idea at all. delete ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

--WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I article

I see you have added tags to the article. You should initiate discussions about the tags on the Talk page. --Jagz (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears the tags have been removed, however reasons were given in each edit history. If you have particular edits you wish to discuss, feel free to bring them up on the talk page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White privilege

I think you miss the point of the White privilege article. The article should not be an essay to prove or defend the concept of White privilege. It should instead be an article describing the concept of white privilege, who holds the concept to be true? why? who opposes the concept? why?

If you read the talk page carefully, there is an active discussion on NOT allowing this page to be an essay on white privilege. WP has articles on Nazism, Socialism, Objectivism as well as most major and minor religions. That does not mean WP holds the ideas to be fact. But the history of the belief systems, causes and effects, can be documented. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think my comment "This article represents a fairly accurate accounting of a widely known concept in sociological studies. " says anything different that what you suggest in your first paragraph. If it comes off that way, it was not meant to. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the rant that was removed by user:cheeser; I see now that you were actually responding to the unsigned rant, and both were removed. I apologize. Have a nice day! --Knulclunk (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I article RfC

Please specify your reason in the RfC section. --Jagz (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow Your Own Advice

By "crusade" you mean what? Going through and checking to see if the term is used properly? Could you please be a little less condescending, actually follow Wiki rules, and stop putting forth a dictionary that is incorrect? Or, you would notice that I have been editing on quite a lot beyond the above things, and that you are editing warring and causing problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Must tell you...

I love your username! Aleta Sing 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race and IQ

THANKS! For what it is worth, I have raised something like it in the past and have met rsistance. And, I am not in the strongest position because work demands right now are very heavy for me and I won't actually have tim to write the kinds of articles I envisage.

On the bright side, the article seems to be attracting new blood, including you, and perhaps there are now enough people who take serious research seriously to make some progress. I hope so! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Confederate

In this case, please, just ignore him. This is one case where the "give 'em enough rope" will actually work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Race and Intelligence

Just wanted to say thanks for striking out your comment. I think that refusing to lower the debate to personal issues and keeping to content is the way to eventually sort this mess out. Again, thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] trolls at Race and Intelligence?

RedP, I just left this message on Brusegadi and Wobbl's talk pages. I share it with you because I think if there is any serious progress with this article you will be part of it, so I wanted to shar emy concern with you:

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith.

I know you have not been feeding trolls but I am concerned that a constructive discussion you were prominent in has been or seems to be in the process of being derailed, and hope you can help. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Confused...

Hi there! You left an unsigned comment on my IP's talk page (was operating from a university proxy) stating: Thank you for retracting most of your inflamatory comments from Image talk:AverageIQ-Map-World.png‎;

I'm unsure what statements you meant specifically, but I .. tend to avoid MAKING inflammatory statements to begin with, thus have no need to retract them. The reason I thought I'd chase this up is on the off chance you think that I'm one of the named editors of the article or commentors on the talk page, I'm a walk in operating under whatever IP account I'm given at the time due for the last few years (primarily due to the fact logging in at various workstations throughout the day at university gets tedious as all hell :P) and have only just decided to join the discussion.  :)

Hope that clears things up, but if you feel I left any inflammatory comments at all, please don't hesitate to point them out. I never intend any disrespect or offence to anyone.  :) 122.107.42.146 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMHO, you should have not deleted all

OK. The writer Vichenzo is unknown. But Asimov's story can be found in Asimov's story and even there is an article about What_If. So I will put it again. Do not delete it, please. First find out about What_If. David (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't help on Bonsai how-to

I really don't know much about how to grow Bonsai plants, and I'm getting ready for a wikibreak. I edited "Bonsai" based on: avoid saying "we" or "you" and not giving advice as "do this to get that" but focus on descriptions, not teaching steps. Perhaps the gardening wikiprojects will have someone who can help. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Lil Wayne

Unfortunately, the article is a constant target for vandalism when open; it's currently indefinitely semiprotected. I would be open to the possibility of unprotecting it at some point. Why don't you contact me again when the improvement effort is over, and we'll see then? GlassCobra 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes to self

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

funny exchange

[edit] User:Ironcrow

As you know, this user is accusing myself of being a sock of you. I am sorry to have caused you problems. I would like to welcome a checkuser to check this out. Apparently he thinks if someone else thinks policy applies in this situation they are a sock of you or I. Once again, sorry for causing you problems. Landon1980 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


OK, thanks for the heads-up. I'm not sure what he is trying to do. He has accused me of multiple things, not sure why, none of them are true. Landon1980 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] R&I article

Okay, so now if you want to do something useful for the article, please come up with a replacement for the paragraph you just deleted:
"The cause or causes of group IQ gaps are not known. Many theories have been proposed, but none are generally accepted. Most of the theories are supported by only indirect evidence. The cause of the IQ gaps may be identical to the cause of IQ differences between all individuals, or it may represent a race-specific effect."
There is supposed to be text in between section headings. --Jagz (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have shown by your refusal to participate in the mediation for the article that your presence in the article is not a good faith attempt to improve the article, your concerns are not something that I have any concern about. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So, your going to take your ball and go home. LOL! --Jagz (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical fix

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

[edit] Chomsky

Is Chomsky beyond reproach - criticism? here If the article State terrorism and the United States is to be NPOV his accusations and analysis need to be criticized, or it just looks like he is the Law! So we need both sides. That is how authoritative historical documents are written. Igor Berger (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Please read "Alternate History" before reverting

Yes. It is me again. Read Alternate History and you can find "What if" short story there. I even have the book! If you do not believe it yet, then delete it from there too, to be consistent. I will not reupload the content, I am not so dumb. But you should read "Alternate History" article, really.

And if you want too, delete What_If— article. Maybe it is "unsourced" too.

Check, I pasted this entire paragraph from there. Delete from there too, Mr. Skeptical:

There is also a short story by Isaac Asimov titled "What if" found in "Asimov. The Complete Stories. Volume I". The plot is about a couple which are able to access another universes of possibilities. This is a topic not easily found in Science Fiction.

Anyway, I know you will never accept that paragraph, even if Asimov woke up from his grave and put that content there. But, why? If it is unsourced, then What_If-- article and Alternate History are unsourced too. As well as every article about short stories.

David (talk) 16:54, 13 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] DL

I wanted to mention that the The Drapier's Letters page has been significantly updated and there is further mention of moving the name on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss various grammar issues, please feel free to mention them on the talk page or my talk page. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Weezy and Birdman

Good call, I've watched the latter's page as well. The amount of vandalism and utterly inane commentary on hip-hop related articles is just ridiculous. I'm a huge hip-hop head and I have a few things watchlisted as a result (even Ras Kass, who is relatively obscure, gets vandalized all the time), but often I hesitate to do too much more than that because I fear I'd spend all of my time on Wikipedia reverting "fiddy is gay!" comments. One can only take so much of that, on the other hand hip-hop pages need all the good editors they can get, so really I should spend more time on them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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


[edit] References concerning Family Force 5

Hey Pen, I'm the dude who SEMINGLY never has sorces on Family force 5 or anything. I just wanted to tell you that I do research and check interviews and everything and I get sorces. I just don't know how to post links but I promise not to edit anything without researching it thuroughly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.161.30 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You continue to add material without citing the source within the article. I will keep removing it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to be rude, and I do appreciate your interest in forcing folks to cite things (I hate seeing uncited information as well), but do you really think simply reverting things repeatedly is the way to go? First and foremost, it just seems like a bit of a rude way to go. If you really cared about the conduct of the editors, perhaps you could be a bit more helpful than reverting it and just pointing them to a policy page? And actually, there already was a reference on the page citing them as Crunk Rock, in the very first sentence of the lead. All they had to do was cite it in the infobox to appease you. Could you try to be a bit nicer? -- PEPSI2786talk 02:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Thanks for all your hard work. -- PEPSI2786talk 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil?

Let's see...you call yourself "The Red Pen Of Doom", you repeatedly undo my changes (while leaving all the others alone), you have a pageful of torked-off people who you've done this to in the past...and I'm the one who's not "civil"? Right. Get a freakin' life.

No need to "welcome" me to Wikipedia, champ. I've been here for years...long enough to know a prissy, self-important editor when I see one. Now please leave me alone. RMc (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I will refrain from posting on your talk page if it will help you refrain from making more uncivil comments. Have a good day. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiculturalism

Thanks for the link regarding citations in leads. Please explain your concern about the statement that 'multicultural' refers to a defacto state of cultural diversity - and why you think this needs a reference, whereas the rest of the lead doesn't? I have explained that because 'multicultural' directs to this page, then the lead needs to explain the difference between the ideology/philosophy of multiculturalism and the condition of being culturally diverse (i.e. multicultural) - and that there is not necessarily a link between the two. Perhaps there is something controversial that I can't see about these statements, and if so, I'd be grateful for some enlightenment. I do think that at present the lead is rather weak and needs to deal with the fact that 'multicultural' directs to this article. Perhaps you have some suggestions? Eyedubya (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 cornixtalk 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)

[edit] Apology accepted

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

[edit] Art. Lebedev

Please stop removing information from Art. Lebedev Studio saying that it's "unsourced". Sources for it are very easy to find. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Per, wikipedia's policy on verifiability, the editor wishing to include material must provide a reliable source that corroborates the material, (preferably through an inline citation ) and that any unsourced material can be "challenged and removed". Also, reliance on primary sources is discouraged because it leads to original reserach. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I can cite policy, too: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is bound to removed if unsourced. Removing half an article with a one-word explanation is not "challenging" and it is insulting. Primary sources is an even weaker reason to remove so much info without proper explanation.
That article did have some redundant and hard to prove info, which i removed, but now it has info which is relevant and easy to prove. If you have concrete problems with it, please discuss them on the article's talk page. Feel free to tag it with {{primarysources}}. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] techniques is not a proper noun

Neither is bonsai. [2] TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Apologies for my oversight. I'll fix the move to Deadwood bonsai techniques. Thanks. --Rkitko (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Construction

You deleted a section of the article *Self-replicating machine* respecting the mechanism of *Partial construction* when you have no knowledge respecting the development of this mechanism. The mechanism is referenced to its source, the journal Biological Theory. This paper is to appear in volume 3, issue 1 of this journal. As this work is formally presented and accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, your deletion of this work constitutes vandalism. Please revert your deletion of this section. Failure to do so will bring complaint, which I will file with Wikipedia administrators. William R. Buckley (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your ignorance of the facts (a reasonable condition, assuming that you have not actually read the paper) is not a sufficient basis for removing content that is cited by a peer reviewed journal. However, to assuage this condition (and your not unreasonable concerns), do consider this excerpt:

"One may find interest in the comparison of this formal analysis with the empirical facts of biological ontogeny. The simplest new organisms start either as a zygote (sexual reproduction) or as an unfertilized egg (asexual reproduction). In either case, the first cell of a new individual contains a full complement of the hereditary material (the tape), a suite of cellular components which are able to process hereditary instructions (read and process the tape) and a set of so-called maternal effects-gene products from the mother that play an important role in determining the early stages of ontogeny (coordinate initial machine state of the daughter). These elements (a proto-constructor) then build (i) the necessary components of the organism, generating a constructor, (ii) all other necessary component parts (like the non-constructor portions of the self-replicator), and finally (iii) the copy of the hereditary material to build the next generation (which occurs during construction of the daughter proto-constructor)."

Hence, there is a direct correlation between the model *partial construction* and the processes of biological development, vis-à-vis the zygote. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So, do you agree or not, that the link has been, at least with you, properly established? William R. Buckley (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote I gave is, like all quotes (less than that which meets the definition is not a quote), verbatim from the paper, as it was accepted by Biological Theory. I work very hard to not introduce my personal opinion respecting the topics about which I edit, and I would ask that you first enquire with me regarding my edits before opting to alter them. I believe that no other editor is even as well equipped as I respecting the topic of self-replication. After all, I have built such a self-replicator, one which is a seed, which must develop before it can replicate, and which replicates by means of such seeds. You may find additional detail regarding partial construction within the paper Signal Crossing Solutions within von Neumann Self-replicating Cellular Automata, page 453 of the proceedings volume for the conference Automata 2008. The volume is searchable on Amazon. In this paper, I give a challenge respecting all published self-replicating cellular automata and partial construction. The challenge is in the Comments section, on page 500.

Can you do better than reviewers? William R. Buckley (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither is the simple removal of edits without first enquiring with the responsible editor. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As you placed the citation flag on original research, it is perhaps best that you be the editor who removes same. Removal by me would likely seem self-serving.  :) William R. Buckley (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] R&I

Hi RPOD, you may or may not be aware that there is a new attempt at mediation for the R&I article. You were interested in the previous failed mediation attempt, but the only editor who refused mediation previously was Jagz, and he's agreed to withdraw from the article. Are you interested? Alun (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)