User talk:R00m c/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, R00m c!
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

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's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

Decline reason:

Your edits very closely match those of another blocked user. As explained below and at User talk:ScoutCruft, those edits are considered disruptive. Many of the tagged pages have been through a deletion discussion previously, or very clearly demonstrate notability (for example, those on the National Register of Historic Places). Your statements below indicate that you have no intention to stop the behavior that was found to be disruptive, so we have no reason to unblock you. It is the responsibility of all editors to improve articles they find problems with - cleanup tags exist to highlight these problems, however they generally should be applied when someone does not have the time to do it themselves or needs help with it. Tagging articles for the sake of tagging articles, without even bothering to check yourself (and I can tell you didn't, as many of your edits are less than a minute apart or otherwise don't leave enough time for you to read, understand, do a brief check on the article, open the edit page, add the tag, then save it), does not help to solve the problem and is disruptive. If you really feel they need help, please elaborate on what specifically needs improving in one of the articles you tagged, try to find some sources to improve it, and them put up another unblock request so we can review your work. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 - Red X 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)

The responsibility of adding references is on the person that added the content not the person reading the article. I can do my best to search for 3rd party reliable sources but if I can't find any then the page will still need to be taged as needing more references, so that editors who know more about the subject can work on that. As for now wikipedia has run out of time to use my help, I have to go to work. What a waist of a night.R00m c (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I am not going to attempt this challenge. I no longer wish to edit any of the camp pages any more. I still believe they need references however I am sick of dealing with this subject I just want to do other wiki articles. This group of articles will just have to go unfixed. Chances are some one else will come along and notice the same thing and they will add the tag back up there of fix the problem them selfs. I would rather work in project wikify than worry about some 30 or so articles about some camps.R00m c (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|::A. So here is what your doing wrong, you assume first that I am ScoutCruft. Well don't, assume first that I am r00m_c and look at what I did.

B.
1. Yes, half of my edits where undone, but what about the other half? The changes to all the articles that I tagged as needing references are still there. This means these edits where helpful and not disruptive.
2. As for the bad half, I said we needed more references, maybe one could say I don't know the need for the refimprove tag, however blocking me from editing is not the way to tell me this is wrong. It would be better if we discussed this in my user talk page. I have never read any wiki policy about that tag. Is there any? Whats more, I said nothing about the notability of the articles. Why would I care if these articles had made it through AfD? The problem is these articles are unreferenced or only have one or two references.
3. I did check for myself every article. It takes only minutes to read, see its missing references, open the edit page, add the tag, then save it, especially when some one has already created a list of article that may need help. Since I really feel they need help, I will elaborate on what specifically needs improving in some of the articles I tagged.>> They all need more sources to improve them.
C. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Have you ever read this before? Why is it wrong? What do we need to change to make this correct?
D. In these examples you will need to look before the edit I made to see what I am saying:
I could do this for all the articles I tagged, However I hope you see the point.
E. Now as for the other user that you all think I am.
1. I agree, his edits where about notability. I never looked to see if the articles where or where not notable.
2. I have found that anything could be notable to someone. Weather or not it is notable to be in wikipida, I don't know. I don't ever tag articles with that tag, in my resent editing. If you review my edits in the past you will see that I don't tuch that kinda thing anymore. You should also note that Afd notice, that was on my talk page(I have deleted it). Was about a subject that was not notable. I could have voted, but since I don't know what is notable or not, I kept silent. I uslly go to the wikify page and pick random articles and look to see what I can do to fix them. Some times I rearrange the references with ref tags. Some times I wikify things. Often I look for copy-vio. I figure while Im in there I look for other things. The one I never look for is notability. It could be about a certion tree stump in some ones back yard. I figure some one else will come along and fix this up. I also agree that it takes time to know if they are notable. You can't mass tag for notability.
3. Please stop arguing the subject of notability with me. ScoutCruft is not me. I only edited the same list of articles. Please move your discussion about the notability of the articles to User:ScoutCruft's talk page.
F. Furthermore,
1.I vow to never tag another article again for any thing except db-copyvio, seeing how much trouble I can get into. I am a follower not a leader, you give me rules I will follow them. I was very much unaware about these rules about tagging articles and now that I know that only admin can tag things I will never do it again.
2. I also have no more plans to do any thing with the articles I tagged. I still believe they need the tags however it would prolly be in the best interest of everyone involved to just forget this happened. I now want to get back to what I usally do, Fighting vandals and wikifying pages. I have already removed all the camp articles from my watch list.
G. If you deny my request once again, please explain what I, r00m_c, did wrong and explain how I can avoid all this drama in the future. What can I do to prevent you all from accusing me of a sock again? How can I protect my self? How should I react should I be falsely accosted again?R00m c (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)}}
I dunno about this. It doesn't seem to fit under the usual sockpuppetry fingerprint given the edits of the two users. The newer account tends to do the "bad things" after the older account does them. R00m c seems to have also been around for quite a while, with no other activity on the scout pages. Furthermore, the older account seems to do a lot of recent changes patrol given its edit history; so, it would also be plausible that he might have seen one of the alleged sock's edits and also noted that the articles were poorly sourced, which is correct. The ScoutCruft (talk · contribs) dude is a pretty clear SPA, but probably not of this user.
  Even if one actually was a sock puppet, neither is really disrupting things too horribly, since both have relatively valid concerns and don't appear to be edit warring. The method of applying the tags is also fairly dissimilar. ScoutCruft (talk · contribs) chose to add tags with date= template arguments and almost never uses an edit summary, while the former always seems to use edit summaries religiously (and humorously, I might add). Lemme ask the blocking admin about this. Sit tight for a bit. --slakr\ talk / 01:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot but speculate on why no other administrator has responded to this unblock request in several days. However, as an admin myself I have not responded. Quite frankly, it is far too long to weed through your rationale for requesting an unblock. I or someone else may be able to understand your position if we could actually wrap our heads around it. Since I cannot understand what your point is in the rambling diatribe above, I cannot act intelligently on it. Try starting a new unblock request, and be concise. Make your case and provide evidence, but try to keep it short. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I.Response to above.
A. My first request. - I did not understand how this process worked or what types of reactions people would have. I tried my best then to sort all this out. When I re-read my first request, I do see that it sounds incoherent in logical flow.
B. My Second request. - Is a direct response to the deny reason of the first, however a change has occurred; I no long wish to edit these articles thus removing any chances of edit warring(under any definition).
II. A summary of my 2nd request.
A. Don't assume first that I am him when you discuses my edits and his edits.
B. My edits.
1.Some of my edits where good.
2.Some may be bad(idk, why though, I have not heard from evrik), but should not constitute a block, rather mention on my talk page.
3.Editing Wikipedia is not as hard as you make it.(when we only consider looking for references, rather than looking for notability.)
C. What does wikipedia policy say?
D. Via a few examples, I followed policy.
E. Notability.
1. The other guy tagged for notability.
2. I am not him because I don't know what is notable to be on Wikipedia.
3. Don't deny my request because he tagged for notability.
F. I won't tag things any more.
1. It appearers that it is agents the rules, and I follow rules.
2. I no longer care about these articles and I would rather do other things.
G. If you deny this request, help me to prevent this honorable situation from ever happing again.

I hope this summary helps to figure out what I am saying. I tried to list the points. I wish you would have said my request needs something more(or less) 2 days ago. I don't talk to admin much so I don't know what you all are thinking, assuming or already know. R00m c (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am a regular editor here at Wikipedia, and I will try to help you get this block lifted. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

After reading your comments above, I've gone ahead and lifted the block on your promise that you won't start tag bombing or edit warring. Dreadstar † 06:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. Can you help me to avoid all this in the future? R00m c (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that I am free again, im going to bed. All the drama has made me sick.R00m c (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The main thing that caused this problem was the fact that you began tag bombing immediately following the mass reversion of another editor's tag bombing of the very same long list of articles. Unfortunately, that editor was an obvious sockpuppet of another editor, and the timing certainly made it look like it was you. I'm sure that you can see how jumping right into a hot area like that, with actions so very similar to another editor who was just reverted and warned, can be very problematic. It would have been best to discuss tagging those articles on their talk pages before making those mass additions. One should really explain tags on the article talk pages in any case.
Then, after you were blocked, you seemed very combative, going back and forth on the issue, one minute saying that you'll continue adding the tags then saying you wouldn't do it...then justifying the addition of the tags. That you appeared to want to continue the mass tagging and edit warring over them was concerning to the admins responding to your unblock request. This was obviously frustrating to you, but it's always best to step back from a frustrating situation and not let it get the best of you. Dreadstar † 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So telling me what happened from your point of view is how we can prevent this from happing again? I already know what happened, and I wanted your point of view while it was happing,not now that it is over. I could offer counter points to many of the arguments you bring forth here however I don't want to waist my time talking to you any more. You tried at least and thanks for that. R00m c (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R00m_c/Archive_1&oldid=208689396"