Jump to content

User talk:Robroams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robroams (talk | contribs) at 14:43, 27 October 2009 (→‎Your credibility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome from Vatsan34

Welcome, Robroams!

Hello, Robroams, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Vatsan34, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Introduction
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help
How to write a great article
Manual of Style


Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia, it has helped make wikipedia a better encyclopedia.


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 username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Vatsan34 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I signed at least one of my posts Rob Stedelin. Read more carefully, Mensa member.

I'm working with Sophia Ziburtovics who is, in fact, a recent, later in life addition to Mensa. She took her test and was accepted sometime in the past few weeks. Someone else who works with us posted her name on the Mensa list as kind of a surprise for her. For whatever reason, after this was done, this person was suspended from editing for a week. AFTER this suspension, he noticed the warnings he received not to continue adding Sophia's name. Since he'd never gotten messages in a wikipedia E-Mail box before, and didn't even know that he could be E-Mailed through wikipedia, it didn't occur to him to look for these messages, before. If he'd have seen the first warning, he wouldn't have done it again.

He tried to write to appeal his suspension but none of the links seemed to work.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.