User talk:I am Rorschach
Re:Barnstar
[edit]Thanks, but I believe I haven't acquianted you anywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Legolas (talktome) 04:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- No probs. Always welcome to ask for help. --Legolas (talktome) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Fame Part One - Video / Chat
[edit]- The Fame Part One - Video
I am well aware of "The Fame Part One" video. It's amazing don't you think?
If we have enough sources and information for a whole article, then we shall create one. Unfortunately, I don't think we will though :O
Not to worry though because if not possible, then perhaps we could add a new section to The Fame article regarding the video.
I'd be happy to help out!
- Private Chat
Since whatever you wish to say to me may result in yourself receiving a WP:BLOCK, then yes by all means we can use another internet service for discussion. Do you have msn messenger? That would be the easiest way, if not then we can discuss on using another service.
childfunkchat 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, do you have a regular email account that you use? childfunkchat 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, are you trying to tell me that you are User:"you know who" that was blocked in February and have created a new account? childfunkchat 06:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its just a video. There is no real world scenario, no receptions, no video release information for it. Absolutely donot try to attempt to create it. It will burn at Articles for deletion. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, do you have a regular email account that you use? childfunkchat 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (I think I'm a bit late. But anyway, here's my reply at my talk page) Hi. Any subject could have articles in wikipedia as long as its notable. Has the video received third-party coverage? Or if it fails to meet the criteria, which of the gaga articles can we possibly merge the info? --Efe (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have it your way. Better to merge it with the album page. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- (I think I'm a bit late. But anyway, here's my reply at my talk page) Hi. Any subject could have articles in wikipedia as long as its notable. Has the video received third-party coverage? Or if it fails to meet the criteria, which of the gaga articles can we possibly merge the info? --Efe (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Civility
[edit]Hello, I would just like to remind you to please stay civil and keep a cool head in discussions. Messages like the one you placed on this discussion page are very uncivil, and are bordering on a personal attack. Happy editing. CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- How was I being rude? Telling someone to "shut up" and calling them "annoying" is not an ideal way of being civil. Also, neither is calling me a "rude little child," because for one, I may in fact be older than you, and that itself is also bordering on incivility. Please see WP:CIVIL for more information. CarpetCrawlermessage me 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- "I have never wanted to... but..." is no excuse for incivility. Trust me, I have oftentimes been tempted to be uncivil to someone else, because they did something that I didn't like, but that doesn't mean that I did. One of the rules of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and another is to remain civil in all discussions and debates. And if you are not a sock of "Dance-pop", then why do you get so worked up about it? What's wrong with calmly stating that you are not this user? Also, you ask me to mind my own business, but then tell me to leave you a message on your talkpage when a situation with Legolas comes up. So what do you want me to do, then? I was not coming up to you like a "child." Just because I was telling you the rules of Wikipedia doesn't mean I was looking at you like a child. That's not assuming good faith. If you want to edit this encyclopedia, you have to learn that there are going to be users who disagree with you, and that there will be times when you will be wrong in a discussion or debate. Being un-civil won't solve the problem. That never does. All it does is cause more drama. CarpetCrawlermessage me 04:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Told you before also to look into WP:NPA deeply and directing you there again. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- "I have never wanted to... but..." is no excuse for incivility. Trust me, I have oftentimes been tempted to be uncivil to someone else, because they did something that I didn't like, but that doesn't mean that I did. One of the rules of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, and another is to remain civil in all discussions and debates. And if you are not a sock of "Dance-pop", then why do you get so worked up about it? What's wrong with calmly stating that you are not this user? Also, you ask me to mind my own business, but then tell me to leave you a message on your talkpage when a situation with Legolas comes up. So what do you want me to do, then? I was not coming up to you like a "child." Just because I was telling you the rules of Wikipedia doesn't mean I was looking at you like a child. That's not assuming good faith. If you want to edit this encyclopedia, you have to learn that there are going to be users who disagree with you, and that there will be times when you will be wrong in a discussion or debate. Being un-civil won't solve the problem. That never does. All it does is cause more drama. CarpetCrawlermessage me 04:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reblocked Indefinitely
[edit]
 | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dance-pop (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. |
This block is based on Checkuser evidence. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Paparazzi Vandalism
[edit]The music video section was removed as according to Smanu as it did not meet the criteria for WP:RS
It still remains in the article, I have just encoding it so that it does not appear on the article untill we find better sources!
It's a shame to see you blocked again Dance-pop sigh..
Next time you comeback, please don't do this to yourself again!
childfunk.chatdawgz 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)