User talk:RasputinJSvengali

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, RasputinJSvengali, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! —Hanuman Das 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries

Please use accurate edit summaries. Saying an edit is for spelling when you are actually making another type of edit is frowned on and could lead to administrative action. —Hanuman Das 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie, poopsie, my biggie mistake! Thanks for the heads up about administrative action. I now know that even tiny little errors could qualify as actionable, especially for a new user? I am just swinging in to this. Is this broadside meant to discourage new users? Calm down, please. Almost everyone is human. I will try much harder in the future to be quite accurate. I suggest you do the same. RasputinJSvengali 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come off it, it clear you are the user who was previously editing from 71.219.x.x. You know the score. I'd suggest that you read the material in the welcome message, make some attempt to understand policy, and conduct yourself in accordance with it. Have a nice day! Oh, and please indent your replies, and refrain from edit warring. —Hanuman Das 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you. Why are you writing to me? Are you following me around? Did I make another mistake? Previously editing from what? What does that number mean? What do you mean, edit war? Am I not allowed to edit? I am doing the best I can. I am editing everything I can, all day long, every day, as far as using words I like, without changing the meaning of the sentences. I have ALOT of free time. I like it when things are clear, crisp, and readable. That was my intention. Did i do something wrong? Again?

RasputinJSvengali 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not improving the articles. In some cases the meaning is being changed in a way that is less accurate. You will get yourself in a lot of trouble if you stalk other users or violate WP:POINT. Cheerio. —Hanuman Das 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

   If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

This looks more and more like I am being stalked. Do you claim ownership on the page or something? I think I am doing a tremendous job.

Should I metion you following me around nit-picking.

RasputinJSvengali 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not following you around, honey, ever hear of a watchlist? Inserting unneeded words or changing past to present tense isn't useful, nor is it a good job. But no worries, I'm sure you'll soon be annoying other editors, so carry on! —Hanuman Das 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RasputinJSvengali 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Please don't call me names. You are certainly folling me around. I don't even know you. Why are you doing this. Leave me alone.[reply]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. This is your talk page, it's for communicating with you. You've edited several articles on my watchlist, I don't have to "follow" you to notice that. Please assume good faith about other editors or you won't last long around here. —Hanuman Das 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still here. You sound threatening. What is a watchlist? Why are you stalking me. Leave me alone. RasputinJSvengali 21:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here because you are asking me questions. Stop asking me questions and I won't need to answer them, will I? I advised that you read the info in your welcome message. If you had, you'd know what a watchlist is. —21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Please stop editing content for "grammer". The fact that you are incapable of spelling the word grammar automatically disqualifies you from making useful corrections. Nphase 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RasputinJSvengali 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will spell check every word for now on. Many articles in wikipedia need deep style corrections. This is my field of expertise. Thank you kindly for the spellin` heads up.

Trash wallow

Hi, the lack of links to trash wallow was not an expression of desire for name calling for prime time soap operas. If there is a factualy basis for linking to trash wallow, then that is appropriate. I've removed the links to trash wallow in those two articles. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I find the citations first? There are numerous citations of prominent movie critics calling those programs trash wallows, see tv guide, ect.

As trash wallow iseems like a perjoritive, should i use stellar sources? Where wouold I put them? Thanks in advance. RasputinJSvengali 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaq Hawkins / Goblin Films

Yes, personal and company sites may be used as sources of information about the person or company, so long as they are cited as the source for the information. However, personal or company sites may not be used for information about third parties. Frater Xyzzy 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is an independent reference to the film. Frater Xyzzy 19:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of material at Starwood Festival

You recently deleted material at the Starwood Festival article. Although the article needs improvement, I don't believe that wholesale removal of sections is the appropriate approach. Please also note that the article is currently the subject of both a mediation and an arbitration case. If you wish to edit Starwood Festival or related articles, you may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate for you to participate as a party to either of these efforts. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refrain from adding potentially provocative and controversial material, particularly to such a contested article as the Starwood article, without sourcing them. The claim that Starwood is popular among, for instance, Satanists would require sourcing. - Che Nuevara 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Festival

Greetings. I notice you added a reference to this article indicating that Satanists attended Starwood. Can you document this?
Thanks.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your hit and run addition to Starwood Festival. Diff Last time you made this addition, there was a discussion on the talk page about the facts of this, and you were unable or unwilling to participate. Don't expect such controversial edits to go unscrutinized, let alone when they are marked 'minor' with no edit summary. - WeniWidiWiki 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppet: Mattisse (4th) case

I have opened this case, having seen too little real action taken on this situation, and not wishing to be told once again that it is too late to investigate the issue. [1] Rosencomet 21:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked your account. Based on checkuser results, you are part of a group of sockpuppets that have been targeting the edits of User:Jefferson Anderson. Harassment of this sort is not tolerated on wikipedia. Thatcher131 14:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]