User talk:Scottymoze

Suri Cruise

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Suri Cruise article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! --Yamla 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for Sculpture

Special thanks, this park is the most unique of what I saw, lets expand the article by our words and my photos. I love the Grounds for Sculpture GK tramrunner 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers Stadium

I could care less. Tonight's game will probably not be notable 5 years from now. Neither is calling a play-by-play encyclopedic. Think about it. Instead of throwing accusations of bias around or making baseless presumptions, stop being a dick and think about it. WP has policies for a reason. —ExplorerCDT 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do not vandalize the Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 article. By vandalizing, I mean recklessly putting wiki hyperlink tags over random words that do not need tagging, such as "Fuck it". By tagging "Fuck it", you caused the colloquial expression to be linked to a MUSIC ALBUM. Lesson learned: Do not recklessly hyper-link words. If you feel you must, at least CHECK what you're linking to first.

This is your first warning. Neil the Cellist (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: By tagging the word "operative", you led the link to "Political Campaign Staff." Another example of vandalizing.

This is your second warning. Neil the Cellist (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, you might be incorrect. I wrote you a message on your talk page. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism."--Scottymoze (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil the Cellist /message start

Sorry then. You're right, it's not vandalism. I just got a little carried away as I was editing. FYI I warned you as a user unofficially (as in I warned you person-to-person via your talk page), so there shouldn't be any bad-ness on your Wikipedia record (for official vandalism, one goes to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Anyway, yeah, my apologies. Peace treaty?

By the way, if you're wondering about the previous "talk war" I had with Nimitize, it's because s/he was clearly/blatantly/completely denying the fact that s/he made a bad edit on the Vegas 2 page, despite me citing clearly from his/her edit history. Neil the Cellist (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil the Cellist /message end

Neil the Cellist /message start

Sure then. You can delete whatever you see fit in our communications. Neil the Cellist (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil the Cellist /message end