Hello Redddogg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Smee 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On 25 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama Muslim rumor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget _talk 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That rocks! Redddogg (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Barack Obama Muslim rumor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. Thank you. --HailFire (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Redddogg (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Barack Obama media controversy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redd Dogg. I liked your copy edits - and your comment - here. Keep up the good work! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. Redddogg (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar. My first. I've not given up on Barack Obama media controversy yet, though. The closing admin has admitted, in essence, that he closed the AfD on the basis of nosecount without considering the strength of argument, which is contrary to policy. [1]. If I can't get him to reverse his decision I think there are grounds for a deletion review in that admission. And the subject continues to get attention. Daniel Pipes has written a column on the subject,[2] MediaMatters has authored a response,[3] and Pipes another article[4] that I haven't looked at yet but I assume is a futher response. And the media performance has continued to be abysmal. MSNBC quoted Obama saying "My mother was a Christian from Kansas"[5] while reassuring some lady in a South Carolina coffee shop about his own Christianity, and not a single RS has picked up on the fact that this is a howler. As an atheist myself, I don't have a problem with Obama's mother being one (iaw "best friend")[6] or an "agnostic" (Obama's half sister)[7] or a "professed secular[ist]" (Obama himself, before he was running),[8] but shouldn't the newsmen trailing him around the country have pricked up their ears when they heard him fib? Andyvphil (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another factor might be that the mainstream does not want to admit that many sincere Christians are political liberals, favoring a more socialistic economic and social system for instance. Then there is a desire not to make Hillary look bad. I am keeping an eye on the Obama campaign article to make sure some of the info stays there. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Redddogg (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly media bias in favor of Obama vs Clinton (the period between Iowa and New Hampshire was particularly revealing), but I don't think it's policy-based. They are simply fully embedded in a political and quasi-religious culture where the race issue has a saliency that trumps even feminism. My favorite example of this is how Ken Burns made "Baseball" into nine "innings" about race, rather than just one, but this has not gone unremarked by others. (My favorite example of that being a collection of joke "headlines" about a meteor hitting the earth, each illustrating the peculiar interests of it's source: e.g., WSJ "Meteor hits Detroit: Market Falls", and most memorably, NPR: "Meteor hits Detroit: Minorities disproportionately affected"). Anyway, an alternative to simply undeleting Barack Obama media controversy is to use it as a basis for an article with a more comprehensive title. I think the real subject is how his religion and religious connections has been represented falsely by all sides, and what effects it has nonetheless had, and what comments have been made about the significance of this. I mean, it's a lie to to say he is a Muslim, stupid to think that his exposure to Islam is going to make him disloyal, but true that he and his campaign have been misleading about his past. And that the media have been oblivious or complicit in the last, which must mean something. And there may have been electoral effects, though teasing this apart from race questions may be difficult. Anyway, this is clearly a serious and encylopedic subject with numerous "reliable sources" for its aspects... Can't say I have a title, yet, though. Andyvphil (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm still working on the article in userspace: "At the end of January, 2008, after Obama won the South Carolina primary but captured only a quarter of white Democratic voters, CBSNews.com's Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs was still pointing to the Iowa emails and Kerry's statement as 'stok[ing] the racial fires'. [9]" Andyvphil (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I filed for a deletion review on this a few days ago. [10] Andyvphil (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what happens. Redddogg (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redddogg -- Just wanted to let you know that I've removed Robert Parry from the list of people who have endorsed Barack Obama. I'm rather perplexed by your addition of his name to the list, because the article you cited, "Obama, Clinton & GOP Attack Machine", is merely an assessment of their relative strengths & weaknesses that doesn't come anywhere near being an endorsement. If you've got another source that does verify an endorsement by Parry, please let me know (though I must say, I would be a quite surprised to see him make an outright endorsement of anybody). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like an endosement to me. I could be wrong about that however. Redddogg (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing in some pretty controversial areas, sometimes I'm a little testy when I run into the resistance, and (without recalling anything specific) I hope I haven't gotten sideways with you somewhere along the way. I've noticed that you make some pretty fine edits, and also have a generally good relationship with conflicting editor POV's. I'm still pretty new here and could use some objective input from your (more experienced) POV.

Feel free to comment on my talk page or send me an e-mail if you want to be really candid.

Also, if you have time/interest, can you look in on the situation here and either comment there or offer some personal guidance?

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redddogg, thanks for the note on my talk page. Will you be enabling e-mail any time soon? WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I will go ahead and do that. Redddogg (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Be bold.

WNDL42 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Love bombing, Henson keep adding a section about his own article which presents a theory full of gaping holes. It's no wonder - he has no psychology research training. He just keeps adding the section, no matter what. I appreciate the fact that you have paid some attention to the article recently, and reverted his addition. I though you might like to know that he just keeps adding it. I guess for him it's just a matter of a brute force power struggle. -Exucmember (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed Image:Jack Chick frame.png from Jack Chick with the edit summary "copyrighted image removed". Please be aware that Wikipedia's image use policy does allow limited use of copyrighted images, provided they have a valid fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used. As the above image has a valid fair use rationale for the article, I have restored it. If you feel the fair use rationale is not valid, the appropriate response would be to nominate the image for deletion. Natalie (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will do that. Redddogg (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even think to check the categories on Jack Chick. Good catch! Natalie (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated United States journalism scandals, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rielle Hunter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The edit warring also appears to be ocuring on John Edwards extramarital affair and possibly other related articles, which is an aggravating factor - discuss and solve it at one of the talk pages and then it should be easier to solve at the other. GRBerry 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking me off of WP might be the best solution all around. :-) Redddogg (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say that, even with a smily face after it? Your concern wasn't irrational; the way in which you were expressing your concern via repeated reversion was the problem. Go use the talk page(s) and/or noticeboards to work together with the other editors to find the right answer. GRBerry 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just kidding. I am in the process of discussion right now. Redddogg (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated American Freedom Coalition and World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Redddogg (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Committee on National Policy, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 05:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please give me a little time to find out more information. Redddogg (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the other article? Flatterworld (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States journalism scandals. Sorry I left it out of the message. It's mentioned on the AfD. Redddogg (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, why did you give me a notice of the AfD? Thanks! Fin©™ 22:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must have been one of the editors on one of the related articles. Redddogg (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'd an edit to one of them alright. Cool. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of your comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Martin_.28U.S._politician.29, the Obama comments had no bearing on the discussion, and seemed like a BLP violation themselves. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However it was intended as a "word to the wise." :-) Redddogg (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reddogg, Thanks for your help with this article. I just know that someone would have had a problem with me and my views editing that one. I agree with your assessments on the article's WP:NOT, but I still think the mention of her daughter's name should be removed. (Note: Her daughter, not her step-daughter, who someone else believes to be notable for her own page for some reason...) To me, this violates WP:BLP and opens the person mentioned to the risks of having their real name known on wikipedia during their lifetime. Thanks for the note on my talk page. BTW, any reason you know of that would cause me to get a "sinebot warning" for not using the four "~" tildings to sign a post with? I use them all the time, but here lately it seems that the bot warns me anyway... Regards, radiooperator 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiooperator (talk • contribs)

Did you get a new computer or something. Maybe the site is reading your tiddles wrong. Redddogg (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how to merge the other part into the main page, go ahead..I also removed "probably not true" because I persoanally checked those facts last summer, and supplied the reference. There is some material in the Clinton section that may not check out, that may have been altered by Brown himself, but the RNC stuff checks out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebe13 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sources and an argument which demonstrate notability for Mark W. Smith and for the Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I would like to invite you to consider whether your opinion has changed based on this new information. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Keller (televangelist). I suggest you read my reply and reconsider your input. --Chimro (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I updated myself from Delete to Keep. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but to just review the new sources. It could still go either way, and I have no preference in any event. It's a fairly big shift in material for an article of the size, so I just want to make sure you see it. I don't know if it's a shift in value, and am up in the air on that (like you can see from my comment). rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amanda Riska, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Riska. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we can remain civil and respectfully disagree but respect each others' opinions, fine by me. :) Which other articles in particular? Cirt (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a message on your talk page about some other questionable articles. Redddogg (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one is a bit abstract and open-ended - I was thinking I might next work on Ticket to Heaven. Care to help with research? Cirt (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it and the sources I found are already in the article. Mainly reviews in Time and the NYT. The article seems fairly complete as it is but more info would always be interesting. Redddogg (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had commented earlier on the talk page, so you may wish to comment in this ongoing Request for comment: Talk:Hak_Ja_Han#RfC:_Sentence_about_marriage_to_Sun_Myung_Moon. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have worked on Unification Church articles you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just proposed merging Unification Church and antisemitism (which you worked on) into Divine Principle. Please join in the discussion, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redddogg. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Borock (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested renaming Template:Sun Myung Moon to Template:Unification Church. Since you contributed to the template you might want to express your opinion at Template talk:Sun Myung Moon. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested renaming Unification Church antisemitism controversy to "Divine Principle antisemitism controversy." Please give you opinion on the talk page if you like.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dan Fefferman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, News World Communications, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News World Communications. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Peace Festival since you contributed to the article. Borock (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination). BigJim707 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]