User talk:Redrocket

Alge Crumpler

See my note on Talk:Alge Crumpler that I left after I finished the milk...don't want any one-armed men teaching me a lesson. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:3RR

Not sure what you are talking about. I certainly have not done it in the past few days. Perhaps you could be more specific? Kborer (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your talk page. [1] Redrocket (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Farve

Sorry I was off on a rant about having something removed and here it was in 2 places on the discussion page and I was looking on the wrong section for my comments. MEA CULPA friend, pretend it never happened, eh? Thanks.i4 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course! It'll be easy, since I actually don't have any idea what we're talking about. Redrocket (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thank you for the brace of reverts on my userpage. _GB^T/C 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the extra one on my talk page! _GB^T/C 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Channing Tatum's Official Site

To reiterate, Channing Tatum Unwrapped is the official site of this actor since August 16, 2007. Therefore I am allowed to link to and explain what this site is, especially since it provides more information than is deemed appropriate on a Wikipedia page. It is my understanding that prior to becoming his official site, Wikipedia did not allow a link or mention. Now that the site is official, that is no longer true and you and everyone else should research the topic before removing the information. Channing Tatum Unwrapped is not a fan site trying to get publicity. It is an official site that cannot be vandalized by Wikipedia members entering incorrect information and is directly associated with Channing Tatum and his management team.

This is what I don't understand about Wikipedia. Having accurate information is so important to everyone, but you allow people to vandalize pages. But you treat me like a vandal because I am explaining and linking to a reliable source for the actor that is actually associated with the actor. Wikipedia has no association with the actor at all. Channing Tatum Unwrapped and the coorresponding MySpace page are 100% associated with the actor and his management team, therefore they have a right to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

I had to tolerate this type of bullying when Channing Tatum Unwrapped was not official. It has been official for months now and I will not allow you or anyone else bully me now. It is unnecessary and uncalled for. I am not a vandal or a spammer and should not be treated like one.

Wcfirm —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with you about that statement not being a fact. There is nothing in that statement is that not true. Daily Channing Tatum Unwrapped gets 3000 - 7000 visitors that utilize the features of the site I mentioned above to learn accurate information about the actor. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement and it is your opinion that it is not accurate. The readers of the site can verify it. The site is more accurate and up-to-date than Wikipedia because it is directly associated with the actor and his projects on a daily basis.

Why can't you all just focus on the vandals and leave the legitimate links alone? Channing Tatum Unwrapped became a part of Channing Tatum's history on August 16, 2007 and thus deserves an explanation and does not deserve people disrespecting that fact when they know nothing about the website. That type of attitude really gets out of hand here. Wcfirm —Preceding comment was added at 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy question

Re your message: Sorry. =) The generic {{db-a7}} would be fine. You could also use {{db}} and then fill in something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from myself also. :) -- Longhair\^talk 09:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

They'll run out of pc's at their local pre-school soon enough :) -- Longhair\^talk 09:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

There use to be a warning here reguarding your 3RR, the user apparently forgot to read the history of the article, as it clearly shows you were reverting vandalism. I am therefore removing this warning, as it is unwarrented. Daedalus (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Just for future reference, the warning was for my edits to Ohio State University. However, WP:3RR does not apply in cases of "reverts to undo actions performed by banned users or currently blocked users evading their block," which is the case here. The article is under attack by sockpuppets of User:Fiesta bowl, who has already been also banned tonight as User:Sebastiantheibis, User:130.17.46.81, and User:96.232.122.183. All of his edits are to reinstate the same WP:NPOV edit that got him banned in his original identity. My actions tonight were in reverting the edits of a banned user, and I have also been in contact with administrator User:Gogo Dodo, who has blocked the user. I appreciate the editor's attention to the matter, but I am aware of the definition of WP:3RR and feel I have not violated the policy. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note, the warning was not for Ohio State University, it was for Ohio State Buckeyes football, and the reason I issued a 3RR warning is because there was no explanation of the revert. You are quite correct, the 3RR rule does not apply with vandalism/people evading blocks/violation of ArbCom decisions. I just think that you should have provided a more explanative edit summary. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you check. . .

. . .the contrib history of contributions, I noticed that you reverted one of his edits, and this same edit is sprinkled throughout multiple articles at this point. There is also a relevant page at WP:RFPP here and at ANI here. I'm going to have to recuse myself from getting involved for reasons I'd rather not disclose. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right

I have deleted the comment. Take careThright (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

No problem, good luck in the future. I hope you won't let one bad experience get you down. Redrocket (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from user on eve of WP:3RR blocking

Who are you? Why are you commenting on this article? Is this a warning? Did you also warn others who've been making changes to the article, e.g. Fleetcaptain? He's made some 200 edits over the past three weeks, which is far more than I've made, and over an extended period. I probably did not mean to check minor edit--i may have checked the box, then made further changes and forgot to uncheck it. Usually i'm careful about that. Give me a break. Please reply (if you want) to my tlk page as i won't be checking yours. Thanks. (Tortugadillo (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Responded to your talk page, it was a good faith warning. Good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I read your "good faith warning" (on my talk page) about my edits to the Hoofer page. Did you also--as i asked you above--warn others who've been making a flurry of changes in recent weeks, e.g. Fleetcaptain and others who do it using anonymous IP's..?

I'm looking at the "Edit War" page right now, and i've read it before too. It really refers to reversions, not edits or additions. If i'm working on a page, i periodically save it--resulting in an edit--incase my computer crashes, or incase i click on the wrong button and my typing is lost, or incase i drop dead. Lots of small edits may not be as ideal as a few big edits, but that's life.

Again, "Fleetcaptin" has made some 200 edits since mid-February. Have you warned him "in good faith"..? If not, and if i find out that you know him, or that you work for the State of Wisconsin as he does, well, I caution you: censorship, collusion, and conspiracy are very serious matters. I smell more governmental abuse, and that's not okay. (Tortugadillo (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

You are truly paranoid, aren't you? I just left a message on your talk page correcting myself about your WP:3RR warning. Do not come here and threaten me again. What you smell is your own business, so good luck with all that. Redrocket (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you're still at it. Give me a chance to add some more references to the Hoofer article. If you continue to vandalise it by removing valid criticisms, I'll have you blocked from making further changes. Your removal of valid criticisms violates NPOV. Btw, a Lord of the Flies analogy, in addition to being extremely apropos, is not original research. It's just good writing, which God knows most Wiki articles are in desperate need of. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

It is original research, and so it's not allowed on wikipedia. And generally speaking, if you have to tell someone how good something is, it's not. Good luck in the future when you return from your 24 hour block for edit warring. Redrocket (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your reply. It was really, really kind and thoughtful. Wikipedia needs more people like you. Thank you.Thright (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hey, thanks for constantly reverting the vandalism I'm receiving. It's hard to mediate a dispute when you're being vandalised. Thanks again. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Redrocket. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Clearing

We are in.

You hopefully catch my drift. I don't think he will be the wrench in our gears again.

Besides that, how are things? And since you have one, what might you suggest I do so that I may gain a barnstar of some type?— Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your intervention against vandalism by User:Pgp688 -Ravichandar 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaving A Note

Just leaving a note here on your page to ask you to look at my talk page.

CubBC (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RE

I'm aware of that, thanks, but his removal of my comments is disruptive, look at the history. I haven't made any personal attacks, just trying to give advice, I have asked Thright to archive his page rather than delete the comments he doesn't like. In this case, deletion doesn't necessarily mean acknowledgment if you read the edit summaries, it's just deletion because he doesn't like me. The Dominator (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

true, but asking me to "stay of my talk page" is unacceptable. The Dominator (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As I replied on your talk page, he can delete messages from his own talk page at will. Redrocket (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have a troll, it is user Dominik92 from yesterday. I have tried to ignor him but he keeps writing on my talk page and once again sending me warnings. How do I counter act a troll? Thanks for your help.Thright (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. Is wiki always this way? Do people get upset when you try to edit something? Thright (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)