User talk:Robotman1974: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:06, 3 March 2007

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom and start with an appropriate heading, for better formatting. You can just press the plus sign (+) on the top of this page to do that. Don't forget to sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Archives

Archive 1 - Sept 2006 to Jan 2007

Comments? Questions? Issues?

Please leave recent comments at the bottom of my talk page.

After your last warning

Another two - to my revert at History - what do you say AIV sooner than later? SatuSuro 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity

The gallery is not a good idea. I mean no offense, and your edits are well meaning, I have no doubt.

But, if you do that, then a few other people will add any nude image they find there, and the whole gallery will be deleted bases on the rationale (correct) that the article is not a collection of nude images, and images that do not illustrate specific content should be removed. Thanks! Atom 02:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

At what stage do we ask for protection ( i cannot remember if I have already asked ) ? Satu Suro 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 12:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate response was Siapa itu? - indonesian for who is that? Satu Suro 12:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont ever ask my my attitude to us media, but that is dumb - is he from the mid-west, or texas? Satu Suro 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well - the rate that you , I and others are reverting rubbish from history and history portal is beyond the joke - regardless... I might just take it off my watch list - as I am losing my sense of humour with either the obscenities or childish mess... Satu Suro 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if youre correct - I'll keep it on - you seem to do about 5 reverts to one of mine... :) but if it is noticeable that there are more than so many a day >. well that time it will be for the blunderbuss I say! cheers! Satu Suro 13:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikification

Wiktionary is not a dumping ground. It is a dictionary, that takes words and idioms. It does not take encyclopaedia articles with non-idiomatic titles. Please do not mark encyclopaedia articles for transwikification. Uncle G 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report in respect of User:Saminferno on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 08:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, administrators may block vandalism-only accounts. However, blocks are preventative, not punitive. If somebody receives a final warning (in this case, by you on 07:34, 11 February 2007) and does not vandalise afterwards, the blocking policy does not allow us to block them even though they have disregarded a previous warning. Again, thanks for your vandal-fighting work. Sandstein 17:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Basie

That's okay. If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't need the help... It's been 4 months since I've screencapped for Wikipedia, and I'm very rusty. --SeanO 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'll take care of it.--Isotope23 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna know...

=What do you like robot sex so much. No offense at all. I'm just curious. By the way. Sorry for my vandalism :(.-historywiz123 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historywiz123 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 February 2007.

I too would like to know what is so good about robot sex. And i too am sorry for vandalism. Helper55 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. I don't know why I have a fembot fetish... I think fetishes are to be enjoyed rather than understood. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio warning tags

Sure is! They sequence 1 through 4, just like all the warning tags do, in this format: {{subst:uw-copyright1|Articlename}} Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I didn't even realize that it had been vandalized. I was actually in the process of reporting that guy when he vandalized my page. Anyway, thanks for helping me out. PAK Man 03:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that BBB guy is gone now. Thanks for backing me up back there. --Addict 2006 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked the IP as well

I blocked the IP that seems to be User:Bbb00723 also, since all its edits seem to be the same kind of vandalism; thanks for pointing it out. --Delirium 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't vandalize anything. Kgb23 threw a NON-SUBST'ED vandalism 4 warning on you. Did that to me too.

--Addict 2006 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:On Tour MCMXCIII.png

Thanks for uploading Image:On Tour MCMXCIII.png. 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. 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now, you ever-vigilant bot! Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Discography

Sorry if my edits were overbearing. I'm new to this.

Here's my concern: If you've been to my site, you've seen the detail in the album release information I keep there. I also keep it regularly (as in daily) updated as I find new information through my research. I added the additional links at the various wiki album entries because there are errors and omissions in those listings. But I have enough to do to keep my own site current and edited to also think about trying to do the same on wikipedia.

Personally, I find the haphazard listings on wikipedia to be more damaging than helpful; someone sees the wikipedia entry thinks that's what the releases are and moves off, actually mis-informed rather than the reverse.

by the by... why is the Edsel release so prominently featured on the From Genesis To Revelation album entry? That it has a different track listing is insufficient cause, IMO, there are about 50 different re-releases of that album and most have a different track listing. I was going to contact you about deleting the Edsel entry altogether and perhaps just mention that there are numerous other re-releases with different track listings.Mpoloukhine 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that one can arrive at the albums without having passed through the main site discography section or the discography entry, and be oblivious to the site link I have there. So no. I disagree with you. The links to my discography site at each album entry "Release" heading are useful and I think should remain. To delete it is to leave some albums with no knowledge of my site's resource and others with that AND misinformation. How is that helpful?Mpoloukhine 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I disagree, but don't have the time. For instance, the majority of the albums have NO Release entry. Adding the heading and my link was at least a start in the direction you are saying I should take it. But like I said before and in my comments adding the link, that listing the releases I have on my site in the entry page would overwhelm the entry page. Plus... sorry wiki is nice, but no way I'm maintaining two sites of the same information AND relinquishing my copyrights on my site in doing so.

As far as the FGTR Edsel... look at my site. There are, I kid you not at least 40 if not 50 uniqe re-releases, and I'd say half of those are a different track listing in some way. I'm not going to write an article about how they all differ. Its hard enough just to list them accurately let alone discuss them

This is all why I felt a link was the simplest and most expedient way to add information to the wikipedia entries. Yes... in a wikiworld all the information would be in the entry. But is not a wikiworld.

I really think the Release sections of the first four albums should have the link embedded in the listing, and the rest of the ablums to have the added Release heading and the link. Its an increase in accurate information.. why is that a problem just because its an external link? Mpoloukhine 04:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what else to say. I took the time to add the links to each album (almost, you started deleting before I was done) thinking that at least I was providing a source for information where there was none and where people would expect to see it. Because I don't have the time to re-create my entire site's information here on wiki means that the entries here remain without ANY information, even a link to my site? For some reason you feel the link is worse than no information at all? I guess I just don't get it.

Please. Restore the links, and at least there will be some direction to greater information. And if someday someone wants to take the time to expand the wiki album listings, great. But at least until then, the link will fill the void. Mpoloukhine 05:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

Why did you remove what I previously put on your talk page?05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)historywiz123

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 == talk page ==
-Why did you remove what I previously put on your talk page?
+Why did you remove what I previously put on your talk page?05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)historywiz123
-[[User:71.204.89.104|71.204.89.104]] 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)historywiz123