User talk:Robin Redford

Welcome!

Hello, Robin Redford, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! DES ^(talk) 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:DSC01736.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DSC01736.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Hamilton[edit]

There were some serious problems with the Nathan Hamilton article both in terms of formatting and in terms of uncited but allegedly factual statements. Please read our Biographies of Living people policy, as well as our policy on reliable sources and our guideline on citation. I have rewritten the article, cutting it down to what could be reasonably well sourced. Please discuss the matter on Talk:Nathan Hamilton before trying to re-expand the article. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you persist in reverting to the unsourced version, the article is very apt to get deleted entirely -- in the version to which you edited it it is subject to speedy deletion. Please discuss this matter with me. If there are reliable sources for the accounts you have posted, they can be cited and then the information can perhaps be used. DES ^(talk) 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this with me, either here, or on Talk:Nathan Hamilton, or on my talk page. Please do not revert again. the Three-revert rule prohibits reverting too many times on a single article in a single day, and you are approching the limit. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you once more, please discuss this with me. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nathan Hamilton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit summary was: "If you give me a change to document all the sources an dreferences this is the story that should stand otherwise I will provide you a list of over 700 other stories with problems that I will legally h". Please understand that in a case like this the sources must coem first, or at the same time as, the story, it can not be a case of story first, sources later. Each fact you add must have a citation to a reliable source so that others can easily verify the cited facts. Please do not simply add the whole story and then plan to add the citations later. also note that this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper or celebrity magazine. The articel must have an encyclopedic tone, and adhere to the neutral point of view. Please read some of the links i have given on this page. In particualr, please read our Biographies of Living persons policy -- it is vital in a case like this. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the end of your summary (which was cut off by the charactr limit) sounted rather like a legal threat, but I hope that I have misuderstood. Please be aware that making legal threats while editing Wikipedia is striactly agaisnt our policy. DES ^(talk) 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just keep reverting, you need to actually discuss this on a tak page, either here or on Talk:Nathan Hamilton. You are way over the three-revert limit. Please don't try to revert again, you are very likely to be bocked from editing for a time if you do. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to edit warring you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. You are welcome to return to editing Wikipedia after you block expires but please bear WP policy in mind. Regards, Signature ^brendel 19:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian language[edit]

Please do not add tags to the top of this or other articles without a clear reason expressed on the talk page or in an edit summary. The tags you have added seem to be innapropriate. The addition of inappropriate tags is considered to be vandalism. Persistent vandalism may lead to your account being blocked. — Gareth Hughes 14:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six month block[edit]

Per WP:SOCK and other policies as described here. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for this block per Durova are not listed anywhere on the link provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyred (talk • contribs) 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to block the user too - for threats and stalking - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]