User talk:Rcarey1979

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Rcarey1979, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist (talk · contribs)

Sid Haig

Stop adding unencyclopediac information. An offhand comment made by Sid Haig is NOT relevant to an ancyclopedia article. So he made a mistake about Night of the Living Dead. Big deal. And saying that because of that he's no longer an expert on the genre is original research; making one mistake doesn't take away from everything he else he does know.--CyberGhostface 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unencyclopediac POV original research despite comments from other editors? If it was relevant you would have supported why you believe it should stay, but you haven't.--CyberGhostface 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off I have no affiliation with Sid Haig or his website. Nada. I liked two of his films and thats pretty much it. I posted for one week on his forum and I haven't been there since. I do consider myself a fan of his, I won't deny that, but I'm not hired by Sid Haig to remove any unnecessary information.

Sid Haig getting zombie mythology is irrelevant to the article. If it was a major incident, something that was reported by several websites and gave Sid some notoriety, I would agree that it had a place. But all it was was a throwaway line about zombies eating brains. Its a fairly common mistake. If Sid had said, "Oh Ken Foree did a great job in it" that would probably be worth noting as its a fairly huge error. You writing "he revealed that he was no expert on the genre" is a pretty biased slant as well. Not an expert on zombies, perhaps, but on the horror genre as a whole? It was one isolated incident that no one else besides you has commented on and really does nothing to improve the article.

I guess if you stripped it of its jargon and stated the facts as it is, that Sid made reference to zombies eating brains when in fact that mythology wasn't introduced until later WITHOUT the whole bit about being "no expert on the genre" people might not have a problem. I think that it'd be better suited for the NotlD article instead, but I wouldn't attempt to remove it.--CyberGhostface 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 5 2007 to Sid Haig

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Glen 05:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that User:Spirot is not me despite what you may think so please stop making that accusation. If you want proof, request a checkuser. Glen 07:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse/Slander From User Spirot

Glen, look at Spirot's comments here. He continues to be extremely insultive and continues to accuse me and (and many others) of vandalism. I really do not see how this abusive, angry attitude that does anything to faciliate resolution of this issue. I am getting fed up with being repeatedly accused of "vandalism" and "Stalking Sid" (??!!!) because this person takes issue with a verified, factual item I posted. Does he get warnings about this behavior Glen? Is it perfectly fine to slander other users with baseless accusations of stalking people???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcarey1979 (talk • contribs) March 6, 2007.

Because of this edit warring the Sid Haig article is now fully protected. This is a last resort in disputes and quite frankly, as (in my opinion) your edits are the main cause of the dispute I am now coming straight to the source.

The info you keep adding is completely unacceptable on many levels and you must stop now. The phrase revealed that he was no expert on the genre (an an example) is POV, however ALL of it is unencyclopedic. I'll cut to the chase; If you continue to try to add this to the article, then you will be blocked from editing. If you are unhappy about this, seek dispute resolution - otherwise, this is effective immediately. I am going to unprotect the article. Glen 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mandy Moore, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Acalamari 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mandy Moore, you will be blocked from editing. Acalamari 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Imagination Movers

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Imagination Movers, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from official site, others. See article talk, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Imagination Movers and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Imagination Movers with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and note that you have done so on Talk:Imagination Movers. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Imagination Movers saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]