User talk:RedRollerskate/Archive2

user:Tudur

Please join the free Tudur campain, one of many innocent users to suffer from blocking. In order to help free Tudur and users you may know send your thoughts to user:Winhunter's discussion page.Oogieboogie 20:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do that. Sorry. After reading over Tudur's contributions, it became clear to me that he was only using that account for vandalism and deserved to be blocked. If Tudur wants to make constructive edits, s/he can sign up for a new account. RedRollerskate 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright then :v)

Thx for the initiation. Cheers! Potatoswatter 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (nee 74.134.236.69)[reply]

Removing vandalism

You removed vandalism right before I did...TWICE. I am not the quickest at removing vandalism and I dont know many short cuts, but good job. --Eiyuu Kou 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! RedRollerskate 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Hi. How do you get such cute userboxes on the home page?? tx.--Darrendeng 05:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head over to WP:UBX, which has an explanation of how to use userboxes and where to find them. RedRollerskate 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Express

Thank you! ;) Fraslet 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mayer - Book blurbs

Thanks for the heads up on this article. I was under the impression that if you quoted a source and then gave the attribution to the source that it was okay to include it in an article. I.e., I quoted a review from Bookwire, put it in quotes and then said it was from Bookwire. Is this never acceptable? What more would be needed to make it acceptable (date, issue, vol?)? Also, at least one of the summaries that you removed I wrote from reading the book. Are we not supposed to do that either? --Tinned Elk 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I removed something you wrote - it's definitely OK to add your own words to the article. To answer your other question, no, you cannot use copyrighted material without permission, even if you list the source. If the publisher gives you permission to use the blurbs, then repost them. Otherwise, just write your own. For more on this, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. RedRollerskate 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just to clarify, are you saying that you can never quote an article or source? Or you can't quote a review or what? Your link to the copyright pages has lead me on a merry hunt through various ways to r3efer to copyrighted material, to cite, when to use quotations, etc. In fact there is a very similar question on the Helpdesk right now where someone quoted an article with attributions and the admin answering that says that quotes are okay (in moderation) and not a copyright violation. So I am confused. The point of the quotations was to show that Booklist (or whomever) thought the book was in a particular genre or to show someone's opinion about the book (other than mine). Also, to show notability, there should be review sources included in the article. So, I am wondering how to include those reviews, just a link? Thanks again.--Tinned Elk 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say include links to the reviews in the external links section (or in the references section, if you found info about the book there). Reviews, by definition, have a point of view in them. Since Wikipedia wants to espouse a neutral point of view, quoting the review exactly might make somebody think that Wikipedia agrees with the reviewer's opinion of the book. RedRollerskate 05:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65.42.206.189

Good job removing the vandalism on Bullet for My Valentine as quickly as you did. I was just about to do it myself when I saw you did so. Question though, what is "popups"? I could probably use an easier way of reverting vandalism. Anyway... Kudos. ^_^ Bill Shillito 20:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! To use popups, head over to Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. They explain it better than I can. RedRollerskate 21:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude!

Just droppin the thanks on ya, buddyroe. Cowabunga!MY USERNAME IS ACCEPTABLE!! 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Thanks for your kind comment. I'd like to take you up on your offer, but I am busy for the next week or so. I will get back to you though. Best wishes --Guinnog 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also acknowledge the good work of User:Tyrenius, who did a lot of the work too. --Guinnog 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Counts

You marked Clayton Counts' article for deletion, although he is notable. You didn't allow the article to be expanded. Instead, you just redirected his page. Mr. Counts has been featured in American Songwriter Magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, the Boston Herald, the Chicago Reader, the Austin Chronicle, Rolling Stone, E! Online, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today, and he's been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, radio shows, and blogs all over the world for the last four months. I am reinstating his article, and will expand the piece. Sorry for addressing this here, but I have no way of contacting you. And if Mr. Counts' article is ineligible, then so is djBC's. It contains even less information about the artist, and he has fewer mentions in the mainstream press. Also, as I mentioned on the talk page in Counts' article, the initial proposal for deletion was made by Kurt Benbenek, a troll who has posted as Irwin Chusid, Otis Fodder, and Clayton Counts, on several forums and on talk pages on Wikipedia. He posted his proposal using the name April Winchell, another person he's impersonated for years. Mr. Benbenek's own Wikipedia article was deleted for lack of notability, and for the fact that he wrote and maintained it himself, using only references from websites he owned. Additionally, he has attacked several Wikipedia entries before. -- TrevorPearce

See the top notices on WP:AN for where to report different forms of abuse by users. Also Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Notability (people), Afd Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Tyrenius 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if April Winchell (who is not really Ms. Winchell, I can promise you that) is already guilty of vandalism, why does she have to do it again before being banned from Wikipedia. It would seem to me that using another person's name and repeatedly vandalizing articles should be enough. The same person posing as Ms. Winchell has also posted to Wikipedia using the name Otis Fodder. Most recently, he posted as Otis Fodder to the debate page of his own article, which has since been deleted: Kurt Benbenek. TrevorPearce 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice to give people three or four warnings before they get blocked. We like to give people a few chances to reform before we smack them down. Most vandals do stop after one or two warnings, and sometimes people (especially children) post nonsense just to see if they really can edit the site. However, it sounds like vandalism isn't the only thing this user is guilty of, so I suggest you go to WP:AN and see if there's anything else that can be done about him. RedRollerskate 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. I'm glad he finally got banned, but I can almost guarantee that he'll be back to cause more trouble. He's been impersonating Ms. Winchell and other DJs for years. So, another question might be, can we assume that if he returns to vandalize Mr. Counts' article or my talk page, that it is the same person and delete him more quickly? TrevorPearce 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikify

Thanks for the invite. I do a fair amount of this anyway! RL is pressing at the moment, so I'm afraid I won't be enrolling for anything further quite yet. Tyrenius 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bellinghaus

Hi, I don't perceive that you are starting a "fight" at Mark Bellinghaus. It's good to get some dialog going. I agree that the article is vanity spam, and that his acting portfolio is unimpressive. I find that he is interesting (notable) for the Monroe issue only. I wrote a substantially new and shorter article at the talk page, rather than overwrite the existing article. Does that seem better? I don't think this is a big deal, but I do think he makes the cut.

Thanks.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Richard Schreder bio!

Thanks much for your work on cleaning up the Richard E. Schreder bio!

Bob "BoKu" K. BoKu 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting prod of Coney Island Hospital

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Coney Island Hospital, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that, "Coney Island Hospital, the largest medical facility in the southern Brooklyn area". Brooklyn is a fairly notable area, and if claims are true, may be a notable hospital. At least deserves an afd if it is going to be deleted. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod Removed

I have removed your {{prod}} from Bible Missionary Church. You prod'ed as a non-notable congregation, referencing WP:CONG. The article is instead about a denomination, and articles on them are almost always kept for comprehensive coverage. GRBerry 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. From reading the article I thought it was about an individual church. RedRollerskate 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Talk:Washington University in St. Louis

Could you please explain why you changed the page Talk:Washington University in St. Louis? You removed a template that makes maintenance of the WUSTL series easier. Was there a violation of Wikipedia terms of use? Thanks, --Lmbstl 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankns for the quick response! Kindly, Lmbstl 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]