User talk:2help/Archive 1

Space

Just thought your talk page could use some activity. Reasonable reverts!Jussenadv 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sincere Apology for My Error

Hi 2help,

First of all, I apologize for reverting your User talk: page, I hit "revert" by mistake, so I reset it.

Secondly, the warning note was related to your edit of Collapse of the World Trade Center in which you modified the ==Other buildings== line as:

KUSHAN==Other buildings==

That edit has been reverted.

Thanks for the communication.

Lmcelhiney 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused. I reverted the vandalism to Collapse of the World Trade Center, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&action=history ... what other edits were you considering? 2help 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear 2help,

My most humble and sincere apology to you for confusing you with another editor. Yes, you did, in fact revert the article in question to my previous edit, thank you. I need not to do this late at night after a long, full day of computing--unfortunately, my brain slippage hit you.

I do hope that you understand and can forgive me for my error.

Thank you,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling "corrections"

Hi,

Please see the Wikipedia guidelines on British vs. American usages. There are some cases where it may be appropriate to switch things from one spelling standard to another, but otherwise neither spelling is considered preferable to the other in English Wikipedia, and it's sort of frowned on to make a point of changing from one spelling to another.

Happy editing! Rschmertz 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I didn't notice you had reverted some of your spellings in Albania. I think AdrianDM(?) was not exactly right: American spelling isn't the standard for Wikipedia, but it ends up being the standard for most articles. The article/section I linked to is still a worthwhile read. --Rschmertz 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I took the liberty of removing your userpage from the temporary Wikipedian userpage cat. That way it should be deleted in future. I assume you use the shortcuts in the left column anyway rather than pasting the ones on the right so it should make any difference to how you use the warnings. Feel free to revert or ask me if you have questions.
You might be interested to see that a whole new warning template system now exists. You can find it at WP:UWT... WjBscribe 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 2help 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 2help (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NOT vandalism

The edit I made to the anal sex article was not intended to be vandalism. I didn't think a statement about "the rectum mucosa provides little natural lubrication" is one that needs a "citation needed" tag. Why does it need a citation? The anus was biologically intended to relieve the body of waste product, therefore it would not produce natural lubrication necessary for sexual intercourse. I don't think every little sentence, especially ones that seem to be common sense, need to have a citation. That's why I removed it. You should assume good faith until proven otherwise. Not every edit you don't approve of is vandalism.Nightmareishere (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, my apologies. 2help (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Hey 2help. Thanks for cleaning up the recent vandalism on my user page. Happy editing to you and your kin. FlyingToaster 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem... 2help (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Bias

I included source material to the Susan Roesgen CNN Tea Party coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.193.113 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Attacks by User Wildhartlivie

Thank you thank you thank youThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

re: User:ColScott/User:ThePizzaMakingCaveman

[1] Please, absolutely do not go and make excuses for me or apologize for me in something that you have no absolutely no knowledge about. In case you missed it, this was the very first post made by that account, and it contained a link to the personal blogspot page that is operated by a long-time banned editor, User:ColScott, here, which contained personal attacks upon myself and another editor. That is definitive proof, which has been reported to WP:AN/I. Twice in the past 6 months, I have had to file requests with WP:OVERSIGHT to have my personal information removed from pages posted by various accounts registered by this person, and he has attempted to out various administrators and editors and has posted requests for personal contact information on his private website. It has resulted in police reports filed in more than one state and constitutes a real and imminent threat to the personal safety of more than one editor. The person who does this is not afraid, scared, intimidated or frightened off by anything, he does present a real danger to others when he posts their personal information online for anyone to use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In first place, I apologize if I missed anything. But I hardly see how posting a link is 'definitive proof' of sock puppetry. Perhaps I am being naive. Still, it is not sufficient reason to revert the many legitimate edits by the user. 2help (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When the confirmed sock master account, User:ColScott, has posted a direct attack against Wikipedia editors on his blogspot account, then a new account comes in and makes identical edits to articles that User:ColScott has made, posts a link to the person who was attacked on the blogspot and then makes posts that reflect the history of that editor, there is no doubt that it is the same editor. This is exactly the same thing the editor has done in the past, posts which were considered definitive proof for WP:OVERSIGHT and blocking adminstrators in the past. Guidelines say specifically to revert posts by socks of banned sock masters on sight, legitimate or not, sourced or not. Finally, after trying to garner support, the same account goes to an article and makes a posting that includes mention of that banned sock master's real identity, proof is there. This is a lot more involved and serious than you know. This person's conduct regarding Wikipedia has created untenable situations for multiple editors. There is no persecution, except by the editor to Wikipedia editors in good standing, over and over. Please take a look at the myriad of accounts that are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColScott and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColScott and the cases presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott and allow relevant adminstrators to take care of this without placating a user who is in violation of community bans. And as you can see, he assumes you are an adminstrator, and I am not in violation of anything, I am following guidelines for reverting posts by sock masters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume he is an admin because he acts nicely and has offered help. I assume you are unbalanced because you stalk and attack me and revert legitimated edits/ None of the cases you cite apply to me because I ain't that guy!ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. In first place, no, I am certainly not an administrator and thus cannot block people. I am unsure an administrator would either. I encourage both of you (and myself) to let the sockpuppetry investigation draw its own conclusions. In the meantime, I believe it would be reasonable to allow the constructive edits to remain unreverted. 2help (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Would YOU please look at every edit. If I have made a single act of vandalism ban me with no argument. If every edit is legit and helping the project then please ban this stalker who has violated 3rr many times tonight. Simple. ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

She is at it again- I made a legit post on Susan Atkins and she reverted it. It was cited and accurate - HELP - you said you wouldThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

re Harris Klebold- wow! great!ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

re:your apologies

Never mind. :) --蘇州宇文宙武 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrrrr...

Stop beating me to revrting vandals on my own talk page!!!! :)

		The Anti-harasment Barnstar
		GAHHHH(I made this, so you won't find it anywhere else)HHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!--Abce2|AccessDenied 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the feeling is mutual! I'll be sure to add your talk page to my ignored pages list, if you would prefer. 2help (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not ALWAYS on 25/7.--Abce2|AccessDenied 01:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert Questioned ?

I noticed you reverted a short edit to the Rudolph Valentino page. The riot on Madison Ave. is well documented. I am including several links to research material.

[2]

[3]

[4]

I will edit this page again and include the first link as a ref.

Regards, Northern Thinker Northern Thinker (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I actually don't see any reverts of mine on my page. By looking at the history, I think you might have meant to contact User:Wildhartlivie. Regardless, your new edits seem to be fine. For additional information on the need for sourcing biographical articles, take a look at WP:BLP. Thanks, 2help (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About the mistake on my talk page...

I guess my IP address is way too close to that vandal. I reverted some of that vandal IP's edits. Anyways, thanks for clearing my name before I have to explain the whole confusion. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and I do apologize for the mistake. I will eco what others have said though and, at the risk of annoying you, I will humbly recommend creating an account. 2help (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Slate

Hi, 2help. Regarding this revert, what exactly was "dubious" about the edit? I left your revert in place because Manjoo is already mentioned and linked earlier in the article, making the addition redundant, but I'm curious why you thought it was a dubious addition? Powers ^T 13:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it was a bit of a hawkish move on my part. I saw an IP's single contribution being an addition of a name with no wikilink and assumed the worst. My mistake entirely. 2help (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Three vandals are making a concerted attempt to vandalise the beer pages: + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The420Rabbi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iiiifyouthinkim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wonandonly - - Can you do something to stop them?Patto1ro (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest u read this before u get involved [5] - The420Rabbi

I am not familiar with the issue. However, this does strike me as possible sockpuppetry. I will look into starting an investigation at WP:SPI and allow it to draw its own conclusions. 2help (message me) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoodyhooo There is one or more users that has repeatedly created sockpuppet accounts to vandalise beer articles with inappropriate links. These attacks take place every couple of weeks. Usually the accounts get blocked within a few hours, which is I'm sure what will happen in this case.Patto1ro (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've started the investigation here. I need to get some sleep now, so I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the page if further evidence is requested. All the best, 2help (message me) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

This whole thing is turning out to be silly. I take the time and effort to interview my father, a life-long artist and member of the Chicago art scene, whose work is in the collections of several major galleries--including the Museum of the Art Institute, to look up published material about him, and to write a suitable wikipedia entry for him prior to his death, and that makes my contribution have a conflict of interest? You seem to assume a lot. Way, way, too much. Probably first and foremost that my father is someone close to me and whose interests I put above those of others. This could not be more wrong. I can honestly say I barely knew my father until I was 35 years old. He divorced my mother before I was even old enough to know they'd ever been married. He moved to another city, remarried, and started another family. I would see him for a short period (2 weeks - one month) once, and rarely twice a year, up til I was about 12 years old. Between the ages of 12 and 35 I saw and/or spoke to him probably not more than 10 times--including a period of 7 seven years during which I didn't hear a word from or about him and had no idea whether he was even dead or alive. There is no better word to describe this period than one of estrangement. After age 35 I moved to an area of the country nearer where he lived and it was only after this period that anything resembling a relationship between us began to develop. This is not a close relationship. This is not much more than an acquaintence, as one would be acquainted with a neighbor whom one might see semi-regularly and with whom one might share certain details about one's life. I assure you I can be as dispassionate as any detached observer about John Miller's life: if anything I am more inclined to be critcical of than favorable toward him since my own life has been scarred by his parental negligence and egotism. But I was not overly-critical in this entry, rather offering a fair and brief summary of his life and achievements.

But that's something of a moot point now. I wish to simply remove now all material I contributed to this entry. Last night someone named Zoofari arbitrarily removed some material I had spent some time composing as I tried to bring the article to an interim conclusion. This arbitrary and senseless revision, where he removed the only authoritative print reference from a respected journal relevant to the field (Art in America) I had so far added, and then proceeded to maintain that the article was poorly sourced, made me realize I am wasting my time trying to compose this article. While I am open to constructive criticism and am willing to make modifications to bring the article into closer confomrity with wikipedia's requirements (there is already plenty of evidence I've been doing that), I will not get into petty editing wars with pedants who are aiming to assert their dominance in this forum over people like me who are trying to do a public service and personal favor in adding material. I am not going to spend my time researching, writing, then trying to meet the peculiar standards of this project, only to have portions of my work arbitrarily removed. I do not have that kind of time to waste. And now that I can see this is the way things work here, I wish to simply remove the article and not waste any more of my time on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.247.28 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. I understand your frustration regarding the effort you have put into the article. However, Wikipedia has strict policies regarding original research (such as your interview), notability of people who have articles, and conflict of interest (even saying that your life has been "scarred" by him is enough). I hope that this experience does not alienate you from Wikipedia, and that you continue to contribute in similar areas. Per your request, I will nominate the article for deletion. Let me know if you have any questions, 2help (message me) 15:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Mark Anthony (Imperial cult)

Hi 2help, and thanks for the disambiguation - though actually I misspelled "Anthony"! Too easily done. I've fixed my error. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I was surprised to find what the correct spelling was myself. 2help (message me) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 05:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! 2help (message me) 05:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob

I'm getting a lot of heck for stating the obvious, but you are right that it is best to ref everything up. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

back to Little Richard ...

hello 2help - if you have time to have a look at the last few days' worth of edits to the Little Richard article, i'd be grateful. it would be useful for interested editors to chime in on the talk page to establish consensus regarding that "influence" section; and perhaps some sort of mediation or mentorship or something is called for in addition to that. the pile of testimonials really has gotten out of hand, and one editor seems to view efforts to streamline it as hostility, which is most unfortunate. thanks for any help you could offer Sssoul (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message and sorry for the delay. I am a little busy at the moment, but I can tell you my opinion about this. The additions of this "one editor" are very superfluous; there is no reason to list every important person who has ever spoken about Little Richard. Explaining this to the editor has led to some results, but, apparently, not something that seems satisfactory to either you or me. I am not sure what to do about this. Semi-protecting the page is seemingly too harsh a measure, and blocking a user with changing IP addresses is unfeasible (if it were to come to that). I would simply recommend to continue doing what you have been doing thus far: Trying to reach constructive dialogue with the user, and in the meantime amending his/her edits. If we see that the situation gets out of hand, or continues endlessly, we can post at WP:AN for additional help and advise. Let me know what you think, 2help (message me) 03:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the reply - what i'm requesting is that other editors chime in on the article's talk page to say what they think of the edits in question, so that a consensus is plainly visible there - that could be helpful in a discussion with this editor, and/or if we need to turn to some form of mediation.

the editor is now logging in (and it's not a new account - maybe s/he just forgot the password or was not at his/her own computer for a while or something), so semi-protection isn't a way to take this. efforts to get the editor to discuss the problems are not proving helpful either - please see the very grating edit notice and talk-page post. i do feel like it's already getting out of hand, and want to request help from someone like WP:Mediation Cabal ... but first please say something on the article's talk page about your view of these edits, to establish a visible consensus - thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps, I'll be keeping an eye on the page. 2help (message me) 05:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks ... if i may: starting with "in short" sounds like your post is a summary-type continuation - as if it's part of what i wrote, rather than a new statement. i don't normally make copy-editing-type remarks about talk-page posts, but in this case it does seem important to make it abundantly clear - even at first glance - that we are two different editors who independently feel that the influences section needs editing ... so would you could you possibly remove the "in short"? thanks for considering it, and again sorry to be so nitpicky. Sssoul (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, whatever, no problem. 2help (message me) 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thank you kindly - i also went ahead and asked for some help at that Mediation Cabal page - i hope it's okay that mentioned you as one of the editors involved. Sssoul (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

TORn thanks

I do have a Wiki account but am in the midst of RL changes and can't access it. As I noted, the originator of the TORN article is a newbie and probably tackled it prematurely, so I'm trying to be supportive although my own technical skills are weak. How long is the 'grace period' to establish notability? Is it safe to delete the hangon? I will look for your answers on this page. Thanks for your help - Cwilsym 66.142.67.69 (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. To answer your question, there is no 'grace period' to establish notability. Meaning, that at any point an editor can nominate an article for deletion (probably through the WP:AfD process, if you're interested in looking). The hangon tag is used for very specific cases, when the article is nominated for speedy deletion, which is not the case, so there is no need to maintain the tag.

In my opinion, if the article is nominated for deletion, it will probably be kept, as other articles for similar fansites exist (eg. Lostpedia). However, the article does need to be improved (more outside references and wikified). Finally, for more general help, take a look at WP:My first article. Thanks again, and let me know if I can be of any more help! 2help (message me) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I will endeavour to help her fix everything up. (The article had been marked for speedy deletion in the past.) However, would you mind making one quick change, since I'm not logged in? The title of the article should read TheOneRing.net. As you see, the o and r need to be capitalized. This is a noncontroversial change. Again, many thanks. 66.142.67.69 (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. 2help (message me) 15:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You're right. I shouldn't have made that edit summary. I feel bad about it; I generally try to be kind, I just got angry and acted without thinking. I think I may need to take a break from vandal fighting for the moment. -- Pakaran 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha fair enough; been there myself. 2help (message me) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Turret

Someone put that the pronounciation for Turret was Turrent, when there is CLEARLY no N. I continued to change it to stop someone else changing it, until they dared claim that the Americans owned the english language by calling Turr-it the commonly used incorrect pronounciation. If you could sort this out, I would be most grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.0.168 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That would have been me. It says in my dictionary right here that it's pronounced "turr-ent". - Principle Pertelo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.40.51.71 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... I reverted to a point where there is no mention of pronunciation. You guys should probably sort it out on the talk page if you want, instead of edit warring back and forth. Let me know if I can be of any assistance, 2help (message me) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:67.188.47.4

Hello. You may wish to review your edit at User talk:67.188.47.4, because the template you attempted to substitute did not appear to work. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd. I'll look into it later when I have more time. Thanks for pointing it out, 2help (message me) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have posted it as a bug to Huggle. It attempted to substitute a nonexistent template. 2help (message me) 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear 2help/Archive 1: Hello, my name is MacMed; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here: [[{{{1}}}]] I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards,

Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 01:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits about Tarun Kumar

Hi 2help, I had edited Tarun Kumar and it was reverted by you, and edited again. I see that the current version and the one I edited are exactly same. Any reason, why it was found unconstructive? VegPuff ^poke 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice the apology :) Sorry for that VegPuff ^poke 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I sometimes try editing too late into the night. I probably should have made my apology on your page more visible. Keep up the good work, 2help (message me) 19:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Auburndale High School

Ok, I was watching the page as it was becoming vandalized by an acquaintance of mine, but one little detail got reverted, which I tried changing, but ended up getting told I was "unconstructive". I went to Auburndale High School, I am a graduate of the class of 2009. The NJROTC instructor Michael Mabe served in the US Marine Corps for over 20 years, and is a Master Sergeant (MSGT) and Cdr. Dan Young is actually a Lieutenant Commander, (LCDR). I honestly do not see how I am "unconstructive" by editing mere facts into the article.

(Note, I am not attempting to flame, or show anger, this is just how I talk :) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.35.175 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. My complete apologies, I confused your edit among the confusing vandalism. Please accept my apologies and keep up the good work. 2help (message me) 04:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all good, I guess I would have done the same what with my edit going in minutes after the vandal. It's actually he who drew my attention to the page to make the edit, in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.35.175 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Auburndale High School (2)

Hey 2help the article on Auburndale High School. Any chance you could get a block request on that ip? I don't know how to file them, and that user isn't heeding warnings. Thanks Stee01 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Usually, IPs get 4 warnings for their unconstructive edits before being blocked. As the user already has the 4 warnings, he has been reported at WP:AIV and will be blocked by an administrator soon. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for the message, 2help (message me) 04:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Update" to the Little Richard page

Over the weekend, an anonymous user spent an awful lot of time transposing the contents of some MySpace page into the Little Richard article, adding "tributes" from other musicians into a tedious, not-notable, ugly-looking list.

Since: you appear to be a seasoned Wikian; you've already reverted this content once; and you've written on the contributor's talk page, perhaps you'd care to carry this a step further. Many thanks. Seduisant (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I have removed the notice and commented on it on the article's talk page. For cases which appear to be so clear-cut, feel free to make the edits yourself! Happy editing! 2help (message me) 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who would have the audacity to claim that the quotes from many of the greatest icons in rock 'n' roll history about Little Richard is "not notable" and tedious? Anyone who knows anything about modern music would recognize that these quotes, gathered from the Little Rciahrd Myspace Site www.mypsace.com/littlerichardtribute, are of paramount importance in demonstrating the unparalleled role that Little Richard played in the development of the 20th century's most significant art form - rock 'n' roll. Perhaps the format could, possibly, have been more attractive, although I do not think the list was "ugly" be any means. Rather, it was neat and orderly. I challenge the critic to a debate and would love to find out what his or her credentials are in relation to attempting to edit a section on a rock 'n' roll icon in an unbiased way in the wiki. I may have broken a rule by inserting the quotes under a new section, which I still think is worthy. No other artist can claim this impressive list of quotes. I believe this should be reverted. If not I will begin to insert the quotes in to the texts as recommended. They need to be shown. Far too many people have denied this artist's rightful place in the history of rock 'n' roll and the foul editing/deleting attempts have proven once again that it is not easy to exist as an underdog. I appreciate the suggestion to insert the quotes in the text and will strategically do so, if the separate section cannot exist do the wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I understand your concerns and I appreciate your willingness to debate rather than engage in edit warring. For guidelines on similar 'criticism' sections, take a look at Wikipedia:Criticism. Ideally, I think integrating the criticism into one or two well-written paragraphs (more than just a list of quotes) describing Little Richard's legacy would be perfectly acceptable, similar to has been done in Michael_Jackson#Legacy_and_influence. Keep in mind, however, to source any strong statements individually, to maintain a neutral point of view, and to make sure all criticisms added are worthy of being mentioned. Again, thanks for the message. 2help (message me) 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Segment copied from Little Richard talk page:) Could you also let us know what your opinion is about my comment listed immediately below? Thanks, 2help (message me) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel we should attempt to make this article and section pleasant to read, rather than a tedious list of all the people, notable or otherwise, who have praised Little Richard. I am in favor of condensing the section only to include those we consider "most notable" and worthy of including in the article. 2help (message me) 05:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 2help to fail in responding to your (above) question. I just noticed it now and there was so much commentary following it before I could respond that I did not see it. I am in favor of condensing the section (as it has since occured) only to include those we consider "most notable" and worthy of including. I think that the article is close as it stands right now in mentioning key notable people who borrowed his style of singing, music and performing (with the exception of Otis Redding, Mick Jagger and, perhaps, McCartney or Harrison). I think it fits as it is at present to have James and Elvis in the lead and suggesting that Otis be included in that sentence as well, as very influencial people within the R&B, rock and soul music genres that LR inspired. The influence section is close, as well, although it does not explain what another editor suggested earlier, which is to explain the nature of his influece - what made him so innovative and remarkable as an artist. Although this might be better explained somewhere else in the article.--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your attentiveness. I am very pleased with the improvement to the article from where we started, although there might still be some minor issues/conflicts to sort out. Hopefully we can all be receptive to constructive criticism and together make a great article. Best, 2help (message me) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pikachu

He actually does like ketchup and ice cream please change it back. Also brocks new name is BROCK THE ROCK please help to maintain the standards of wikipidia and pokemon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.182.249 (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the message. If what you added was true then please include a source. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, 2help (message me) 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)