User talk:Rittmeister

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Nico Haupt. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Onorem ♠Dil 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nico Haupt

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nico Haupt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico Haupt. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CyberGhostface (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J/w, do you know where that video from the main pic of Nico breathing on someone is? I tried looking on youtube but I couldn't find it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, I think I found it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the video below the image. It's also linked from the remote "PrisonPlanet" article. --Rittmeister (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States as a corporation

Interesting, but this would be considered a fringe theory which is against wikipedia policy for inclusion in an article, especially the introduction. If you want to try and add it to the article again, I shan't revert it, but I doubt any other editor would allow it in the article. You can always take it to the talk page to see what others think, but I highly doubt that anyone would agree that it belongs in the article. Kman543210 (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello Rittmeister, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Take a look at my rewrite. Also, calling this a hoax would be a WP:BLP violation - if a reliable source calls it a hoax, we could quote them (and we'd have to name them saying x said y). Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nice rewrite. yes I know I should have done it myself, I was too lazy, might have done a rewrite later. I also expected that my "hoax" tag was too premature and would be replaced. good job. but seriously it WILL be labeled a hoax pretty soon, i am quite sure. you just can do what this woman did. DNA test some fingernails and hair that random people sent her, not have a body!!!, start your own journal to self-peer-review your own stuff. it's ludicrous - even to me (as a Coast to Coast fan). have a nice day. Rittmeister (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!