User talk:R00m c/Archive 1

This user is not a sock puppet. It has been determined that the editor who expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet has made this suggestion in error. Actions are currently underway to correct this situation. We are sorry for the inconvenience this has caused you. Please, allow the Wikipedia staff some time to correct this issue.R00m c (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, R00m c! Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Billy Joel Singles

Wikipedia is SO cool! I spotted this error late last night, came back this evening to correct it and saw you had already fixed it. Way to go! I'm a diehard Billy Joel fan! --Vermilion River 04:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Im just glade I could help. Iv never heard his music, I just noticed an error in the pattern. So I looked it up and reported my findings.R00m c 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lowe's

Provided a third opinion at Talk:Lowe's. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 21:10, December 6, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing links from reptile articles

Links that were specifically used as a reference when writing an article are not "unrelated links". What used to be the EMBL Reptile Database is now just the Reptile Database, and is the same content just at a different URL. -Dawson (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When one clicks upon a reference link the link should take the reader to the words at witch are referenced from. While the Reptile Database may be a helpful for finding information about a subject the link http://www.reptile-database.com does not point to a page that contains any useful material worth referencing. We need to link to the pages that contain information related to the subject.R00m c (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilsport

{{no-idea}}

I just wanted to give folks a chance to be honest for a change instead of slapping all those unsuitable tags on other folks articles like they do ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its does not help Wikipedia. And also it does not belong in the Requesting sources section of Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.R00m c (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Halo Burger

Thank You for your wonderful input your effort time on Halo Burger. Why you add "unreferenced" tag? What I have to do before enable to remove "wikified" and "unreferenced"? Anyway you did good job to clarify. Thank you again. CFBancroft (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag is there because the article does not say where the information comes from. Wikipedia:Citing sources is helpful in accomplishing this. For guidance on Wikify I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Wikify means putting [[ and ]] around words to forum internal links.R00m c (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaveau

Hello,

You are the last person having edited article Gaveau. And in a talk on this Blog Miklos says (6 février 2008 @ 16:40) that the foundation by Etienne born only in 1872 is highly unprobable as far back as 1847. This contradicts the French Wikipedia article : fr:Gaveau and other sources. Could you check this and put the article right ? Teofilo talk 14:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the French lang. I used Google to translate this page witch offers that 1847 is the start of the history. Perhaps the founding name should be Joseph Gabriel GAVEAU instead? If we could find an English source of this information that would be great. I don't think that a blog site is enough to be a notable reference(but that too is in French and I can't read it to see what it is.) Feel free to make the changes as need be to any thing that does not have an English reference. Mostly I did my best with what we had.R00m c (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Miklos, who is the manager of the library at IRCAM, uses "dictionnaire Grove de la musique" as a source. There is an other trouble with the statement " is one of the three larger piano makers in France ". It should be changed into "used to be" as the factory closed in 1965, according to fr:Gaveau. Here are : my changes. Teofilo talk 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for pointing that out. R00m c (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --evrik ^(talk) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

evrik: You should review the articles that I changed for your self to see if my edits where in dead constructive. You will notice where I put unreferenced tags there where no references given for the articles. All articles require reliable 3rd party sources for ever fact. I also saw some articles that did have some sources but where only sourcing like one or two things. If the page did not contain a good amount of references I added refimporve tag. I also saw one triva section in one article. Articles need to comply with wikipedia's standers. Also, you should learn to use your tools better. I noticed that when you undid that other dudes edits if some one had made changes since you undid there changes. Once I saw this, I went to check to see if you had accidentally done this to other pages other than the one that was on my watch list. I figured since I found some articles that needed work I would tag them so others would see this.R00m c (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week for abuse of socks and disruptive editing. Dreadstar † 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar:So tagging articles that need work is disruptive? How come the tags exist ne way? I thought they where there so we could point out things that need work. I think you did not even look at what I tagged. R00m c (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

R00m c (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have only ever made constructive edits to wikipedia.(please review my contribs). I am not a sock puppet of said user. My edits are not disruptive. I saw the disagreement between to two noted users and reviwed each ones point of view. I noted that the first editor was doing the wrong thing however the articles where all missing references or needed more. I added the appriate tags where needed. I went down the list that of the user's contribs that had undid ever edit made by said user. I hardly see how tagging a group of articles that need more work is disruptive. I also see this block as a sad day for wikipedia. I could be here improving some of the articles I tagged that needed work. I would also like an appligy from toughs involved in this block for messing up this time. After further review, I see some injustice here. How come I was not allowed to comment on this issue? Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c is archived already. I was away from my computer for less than 7 hours. Why should I stay glued to my pc all day. I can't possibility be here at all times to comment, especially when not much usually happens. I also noticed that the editor who reported me did not remove my changes but rather just moved them to other parts of the page, witch means they agree that my edits where consecutive. I don't understand why I am blocked. I did nothing wrong. I followed the policies. Everything I did is right. Why am I being punished for helping out? Why do I have to be kick out of this community for the actions of other users. I started at John_Work_House_and_Mill_Site Revision history page and noticed that user Evrik had made several edits including edits that undid the edits of other users. I checked this users contribs page to see if this was a pattern and if so to fix any other articles that had been messed up. Though I saw no more I revised all these pages needed more references. Since I had all the pages loaded up I just hit the edit button to each one and added the correct tags that where needed. I was about to vist the user page of ScoutCruft where I had seen Evrik had left a comment and expain what I did, but then I relised I was going to be late for my physics class so I ran out the door, expecting to come back to that as soon as I got home.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have only ever made constructive edits to wikipedia.(please review my contribs). I am not a sock puppet of said user. My edits are not disruptive. I saw the disagreement between to two noted users and reviwed each ones point of view. I noted that the first editor was doing the wrong thing however the articles where all missing references or needed more. I added the appriate tags where needed. I went down the list that of the user's contribs that had undid ever edit made by said user. I hardly see how tagging a group of articles that need more work is disruptive. I also see this block as a sad day for wikipedia. I could be here improving some of the articles I tagged that needed work. I would also like an appligy from toughs involved in this block for messing up this time. After further review, I see some injustice here. How come I was not allowed to comment on this issue? [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c]] is archived already. I was away from my computer for less than 7 hours. Why should I stay glued to my pc all day. I can't possibility be here at all times to comment, especially when not much usually happens. I also noticed that the editor who reported me did not remove my changes but rather just moved them to other parts of the page, witch means they agree that my edits where consecutive. I don't understand why I am blocked. I did nothing wrong. I followed the policies. Everything I did is right. Why am I being punished for helping out? Why do I have to be kick out of this community for the actions of other users. I started at [[John_Work_House_and_Mill_Site]] Revision history page and noticed that user Evrik had made several edits including edits that undid the edits of other users. I checked this users contribs page to see if this was a pattern and if so to fix any other articles that had been messed up. Though I saw no more I revised all these pages needed more references. Since I had all the pages loaded up I just hit the edit button to each one and added the correct tags that where needed. I was about to vist the user page of ScoutCruft where I had seen Evrik had left a comment and expain what I did, but then I relised I was going to be late for my physics class so I ran out the door, expecting to come back to that as soon as I got home.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have only ever made constructive edits to wikipedia.(please review my contribs). I am not a sock puppet of said user. My edits are not disruptive. I saw the disagreement between to two noted users and reviwed each ones point of view. I noted that the first editor was doing the wrong thing however the articles where all missing references or needed more. I added the appriate tags where needed. I went down the list that of the user's contribs that had undid ever edit made by said user. I hardly see how tagging a group of articles that need more work is disruptive. I also see this block as a sad day for wikipedia. I could be here improving some of the articles I tagged that needed work. I would also like an appligy from toughs involved in this block for messing up this time. After further review, I see some injustice here. How come I was not allowed to comment on this issue? [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c]] is archived already. I was away from my computer for less than 7 hours. Why should I stay glued to my pc all day. I can't possibility be here at all times to comment, especially when not much usually happens. I also noticed that the editor who reported me did not remove my changes but rather just moved them to other parts of the page, witch means they agree that my edits where consecutive. I don't understand why I am blocked. I did nothing wrong. I followed the policies. Everything I did is right. Why am I being punished for helping out? Why do I have to be kick out of this community for the actions of other users. I started at [[John_Work_House_and_Mill_Site]] Revision history page and noticed that user Evrik had made several edits including edits that undid the edits of other users. I checked this users contribs page to see if this was a pattern and if so to fix any other articles that had been messed up. Though I saw no more I revised all these pages needed more references. Since I had all the pages loaded up I just hit the edit button to each one and added the correct tags that where needed. I was about to vist the user page of ScoutCruft where I had seen Evrik had left a comment and expain what I did, but then I relised I was going to be late for my physics class so I ran out the door, expecting to come back to that as soon as I got home.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have only ever made constructive edits to wikipedia.(please review my contribs). I am not a sock puppet of said user. My edits are not disruptive. I saw the disagreement between to two noted users and reviwed each ones point of view. I noted that the first editor was doing the wrong thing however the articles where all missing references or needed more. I added the appriate tags where needed. I went down the list that of the user's contribs that had undid ever edit made by said user. I hardly see how tagging a group of articles that need more work is disruptive. I also see this block as a sad day for wikipedia. I could be here improving some of the articles I tagged that needed work. I would also like an appligy from toughs involved in this block for messing up this time. After further review, I see some injustice here. How come I was not allowed to comment on this issue? [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c]] is archived already. I was away from my computer for less than 7 hours. Why should I stay glued to my pc all day. I can't possibility be here at all times to comment, especially when not much usually happens. I also noticed that the editor who reported me did not remove my changes but rather just moved them to other parts of the page, witch means they agree that my edits where consecutive. I don't understand why I am blocked. I did nothing wrong. I followed the policies. Everything I did is right. Why am I being punished for helping out? Why do I have to be kick out of this community for the actions of other users. I started at [[John_Work_House_and_Mill_Site]] Revision history page and noticed that user Evrik had made several edits including edits that undid the edits of other users. I checked this users contribs page to see if this was a pattern and if so to fix any other articles that had been messed up. Though I saw no more I revised all these pages needed more references. Since I had all the pages loaded up I just hit the edit button to each one and added the correct tags that where needed. I was about to vist the user page of ScoutCruft where I had seen Evrik had left a comment and expain what I did, but then I relised I was going to be late for my physics class so I ran out the door, expecting to come back to that as soon as I got home.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

R00m c (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To reviewing admin...the below statement is a declared intent to edit war. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I did not list how to do these things I only listed what to do. As this list was just for me, I already know how to do them. I would never edit war, there are several ways to undo something other than just reverting other editors edits. Once unblocked I plan to comment on to the Evrik user talk page about the articles needing tags. He/she has not offered there opion here and maybe they had a reason for undoing the articles that needed more references. Why do good editors who find them selfs a suspect of something, get treated as if they are guilty? Just because I am blocked does not mean I am not a good editor. With over 1k edits to Wikipedia I thought you would see that with out me telling you.R00m c (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case filed. Along with Rlevse, I would caution you that when your block expires, if your sole purpose is to edit war over maintenance tags, things aren't going to go very well. --B (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No plans to edit war. Only constructive things here.R00m c (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results back -  Unrelated --B (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, The issue here is that the mass tagging of multiple articles was deemed disruptive, and matched a pattern of disruption observed in another user. Your list below indicates that, if unblocked, you intend to resume the activity that was deemed disruptive in the first place. I would strongly recommend that you discuss in particular detail what issues you see with one (and ONLY one) of the below-listed articles, and - rather than just tagging it - actually discuss here what you would do to fix the article. You may have identified some problem articles, and I believe your time would be better spent improving one of them rather than tagging all of them. I am inclined to unblock if you can show me your intent to actually improve one of these articles, rather than resuming your disupte with Evrik. If you are set on your intent to edit war (which is what that would be), then you will unfortunately remain blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some things to do when I get my account back

NOTE:This is all I have, so Im going to be bold and use it.

• undo[1]
• re-wikify[2]
• undo[3]
• add improveref[4]
• undo[5]
• fix with the correct tag[6]
• undo[7]
• undo[8]
• undo[9]
• undo[10]
• undo[11]
• undo[12]
• undo[13]
• undo[14]
• undo[15]
• undo[16]
• undo[17]
• wikify[18]
• fix the ref of[19]