User talk:Robroams
![]() | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Welcome from Vatsan34
|
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your credibility
Hello, Robroams …
Your blatant failure to respect the Policies and guidelines here, such as Assume good faith and Sign your posts, are only hurting your case in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar … instead of maligning the other editors, you should do something constructive, like adding Reliable sources to cite as links to the article, but for some reason, you refuse to learn how things are done around here, or to even click the links that are provided, as demonstrated by this post:
Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) …
All you had to do was click the link provided (sock/meatpuppets), but you do not appear to be as smart as the 12-year olds who use this site.
At first, I thought that your references to "a photographer and computer programmer" were directed at me, but then I realized that you weren't smart enough to follow the bread crumbs and find my Web pages, because you haven't figured out that you should click the text that is highlighted in blue.
Upon further reflection, you couldn't be Sophia Ziburtovicz as I at first suspected, because she claims to be a member of Mensa … that is, unless they've lowered their standards since I joined over 30 years ago … and yes, I can document my membership through having been one of the subjects of an article on Blacks in Mensa in the Oct'84 issue of Ebony … that's an example of the kind of WP:RS documentation that Eric Zaccar's article is lacking.
Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Contacting me
LEARN TO CLICK THE LINKS!!! All you have to do is look at User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome and there is a link to email me (that's why I have a {{User Alternate Acct}} userbox on both my User and Talk pages) … I only use that account to create pages or make changes to semi-protected pages … it also has a link to my primary website, if you're not too mentally challenged to find it (it's between the {{User:UBX/Cat owner}} and {{user current age}} userboxes.)
And links to audio files are prohibited by WP:ELNO, in case you hadn't noticed … as for being anal retentive, I guess you still haven't read Wikipedia:Verifiability either, so here's the CliffsNotes version:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
This is a Wikipedia:POLICY, and as such it is not subject to debate. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Repost of Eric Zaccar
A tag has been placed on Eric Zaccar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
How? I tried repeatedly to contact the editor who deleted the page, but I couldn't find any links. As far as reposting Eric's article: What's the point, if it's going to cause another debate where your self proclaimed editors find reasons to bash him? Again, that's totally detrimental, and extremely costly to our project.
And I used the term "anal retentive" twelve messages ago.