Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Robby Robinson (bodybuilder) → Robby Robinson – The limitation "bodybuilder" does not match the full range of professional activities of Mr. Robinson. (Web-Administrators of Mr. Robinson) relisted Tiggerjay (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) RRWM (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 *  Oppose  it doesn't have to, see WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Also Robbie Robinson is too close. Btw - if you are the webmaster for Mr. Robinson, can you supply a source for date and place of birth? Currently it appears to be unsourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The text of RR's biography and links will be edited and fulfilled these days/ weeks. We are working on it. But before it could be done, the name of the article must be returned to the original - ROBBY ROBINSON. No one bodybuilder has such a limitation after his name, no matter how similar his name is to any other one. Besides this, there is no any other Robby Robinson on the en.wikipedia so we do not see any problems with disambiguation and there is no any reason to put the limitation "bodybuilder" behind his scene name. It is a discrimination. Mr. Robinson does not accept such a limitation and demands the change of the name of the article about him to the previous one. You should also consider that there are different sources proving that he was also called Robbie Robinson or Robin etc. so it is not wrong as well, but Mr. Robinson insists that his name should be written on Wikipedia as Robby Robinson. RRWM (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Sorry, I didn't see it was a WP:BRD (cur | prev) 10:35, 1 April 2013‎ E-Kartoffel (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (107 bytes) (0)‎ . . (E-Kartoffel moved page Talk:Robby Robinson to Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder): not audible difference to "Robbie") (undo) This should be an automatic technical request. However please don't say "must", "insist" see WP:COI. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tech move request. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. When could we expect the promised move back to the original name of the page?RRWM (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: There seems to be a clear conflict of interest here, and while the above stops short of making an explicit legal threat and I am not a lawyer its phrasing concerns me a great deal. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there is a clear risk of this Robby Robinson being confused with the many Robbie Robinsons listed at the disambiguation page. The title, which links to the one thing (bodybuilding) for which this individual is known (among those who know about the US bodybuilding industry), is a reasonable effort to avoid confusion with the various Robbies. Brocach (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: while the initial move was done improperly, and probably with WP:BIAS it doesn't change the fact that Robbie and Robby are pronounced the same, and clearly open to confusion and spelling errors. As such it would be reasonable to expect that we need to disambiguate these as the same "name". While I respect that the subject of this article would like this changed, I am not certain there is anything to establish him as the PRIMARY TOPIC of "Robby/Robbie" Robinson. As such, disambiguation is necessary. It is also inappropriate for the requester to use such demanding tone which suggests ownership of the page which he does not have. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: A quick Google of Wilbert Robby Robinson -Wikipedia gave me 1.8 million ghits (your results may vary) and all of the first few clearly associated the name Robby Robinson spelled that way with baseballer Wilbert Robinson. But no vote from me as yet. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose the baseball player would be very likely. If you don't like the current disambiguator, you can use Robby Robinson (born 1946) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Interesting proposal regarding the alternative disambiguator. The proposer has gone quiet, and while your proposal would address some of their concerns it's a long way short of meeting the demands above. Andrewa (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The limitation "bodybuilder" is not correct anyway because there are also other bodybuilders with names Robby or Robbie Robinson.RRWM (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As nominator you don't actually need to vote here, but it doesn't hurt. See also discussion below. Still no vote from me. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name seems sufficiently 'common' to not warrant a disambiguator, as many people surnamed 'Robertson' or 'Robinson' are nicknamed 'Robbie'. Although the 'bodybuilder' description may be a bid 'reductive' of Robinson's current disposition, it is clearly an appropriate description of what the subject is best known for. The previous move was not out of process, for page moves under RM are not mandatory. I'd say that the move was a rather 'sensible' one. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 09:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

From the survey above:

''Thank you very much. When could we expect the promised move back to the original name of the page?''

Our objective is to resolve most move requests within about a week, but controversial requests can take far longer, and it seems possible that this one will be such a case.

Thank you for clearly identifying your interest in this matter. That clarifies things a great deal. But I'm afraid that your claiming a promised move back to the original name just risks raising opposition to the very thing that you are seeking.

Your input on talk pages and in discussions such as this is valued, and in no way contravenes WP:COI as I hope you appreciate, and information from your web page (RR's biography above) will I'm sure be added to the article as it becomes available. But I'd suggest that you refrain from further edits to the article yourself. I note that you have edited no other articles to date, and that several of your edits have appeared to be promotional (this one for example} and quickly reverted. The article as it stands is probably still a bit too promotional in nature.

http://www.robbyrobinson.net/bio.php seems to be the URL to which you refer, can you confirm this? And are there other sources of such information that you can suggest?

See also User talk:RRWM. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources of information come from Mr Robinson. At the moment a big part of the text comes from websites of Mr Robinson, but will be reviewed and updated in the next future. RRWM (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, NO ANY ONE of the correctors here besides RRWM has ever added any materials; everybody was only deleting text and links, although they were factually correct and did not care any advertising appeal, only factual description. RRWM (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Other bodybuilders named Robby Robinson
From the survey above:

The limitation "bodybuilder" is not correct anyway because there are also other bodybuilders with names Robby or Robbie Robinson

Can you be specific? This only becomes a problem if one of them is sufficiently notable to get a Wikipedia article of their own (and even then may not be a problem, but choosing the best disambiguator in those circumstances is quite involved and even a bit controversial so let's cross that bridge when we come to it). Do any of these others have articles already? Are there others for whom we should create stubs?

If it is a problem, then there's a suggestion above about an alternative disambiguator. Your thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factual vs advertising
From the RM above:

By the way, NO ANY ONE of the correctors here besides RRWM has ever added any materials; everybody was only deleting text and links, although they were factually correct and did not care any advertising appeal, only factual description.

If you think that encyclopedic material has been removed, please give specific diffs and we will discuss them here. But the diff I gave above is an uncited opinion, reads like an advertisement, and ignores our Manual of Style (which links to External links, also worth a read). It was reverted with the edit summary ''Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. These websites are (at present) included elsewhere in this article; they do not need to appear in the main text.'' This is entirely reasonable and helpful IMO. I also draw attention to my comment on your talk page: ''Even if your interest is limited to getting this one article into the best possible shape, your input is still valued. But we also have many, many standards and principles, and procedures to protect them. You're not expected to know them all before editing, see WP:be bold, but you are expected to abide by them when relevant ones are pointed out to you by more experienced hands.''

It's true that nobody else has edited the article to add material, but it's also true that you haven't requested it. This talk page is the place to do so.

Many people have put a great deal of time into trying to help you with this article, and we'll continue to do so. We've given you the benefit of the doubt, for example as an administrator I would have been quite justified in blocking your account as a shared userid, but instead just pointed you to the relevant policy. Any editor at all would have been justified in reducing the article to a stub with a warning to you that you should not edit it further under our conflict of interest guideline. We have not done any of that, and I hope it will not be necessary. But our patience is finite. We are volunteers, and we have many articles to work on, not just this one.
 * It is not a shared account. I really do not understand why after all the explanations and facts I put here on talk page one of you deletes even more factual material once again and even inserts back wrong information (the only one film etc.) Why do you demand from me to be attentive and respectful to the work of others? I have not deleted any single sentence written by you, but you have deleted a third part of text, without adding or exchanging anything. Where is respect to my work? You are many and only delete a half of the article without adding any single word, but why? Why do you want to delete almost all the information concerning Robinson? Why did your User:Brocach third time insert wrong information that Robinson was only in one film and nobody of you reacts to it? It is just not true, it's a lie. But you support him and forbid me to make corrections. Every even not so huge fan of bodybuilding knows it is not true. Why do you let unknowing people insert lies into wikipedia without any previous discussion on talk page and give them full support?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you will notify us here of edits you think should be made. I strongly suggest that you have two choices: Contribute by discussion here rather than by editing the article, or read and abide by all of the policies and guidelines that have been brought to your attention, and even then be cautious.

So far as I am concerned, the alternative is to stubify the article to remove its promotional content. Which I think would be a shame. It's a good topic, and deserves a good article, and will eventually get one. And the sooner the better of course. Please help us to do this. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for so much interest on this article, although I personally do not understand why I should invite somebody to add materials to the article if I am not the original author and not the owner of this topic. Trying to keep some factual material the following parts were inserted back:

- Robinson gave an exclusive "Legends of Bodybuilding" interview conducted by Rod Labbe in mid-2010. The interview, which included current photographs of Robinson, ran in the January 2011 edition of Iron Man magazine. "A masterful piece of work," Robinson said. "I don't think I've ever done a better interview." (why was this text of one of the previous authors deleted? only because he primarly used words combination "set for" ?)


 * I think it was right to remove this. Not every fact is encyclopedic. What evidence is there that this opinion of Robinson of his own interview is notable?
 * It is just a gesture of respect to the very first author of this article, where as what do you expect encyclopedic-scientifical about artistic sport icon? Their special professional and life experience makes them to the special persons deserving to have an article at Wikipedia.

- Robinson's first film appearance was in 1975 (not the only one, it is factually wrong)


 * That should be fixed... is there a source we can cite? Where does this information come from?
 * Well, he was for sure in two further films with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lou Ferrigno and other golden age bodybuilders as well in many semi-documentary productions. Robinson's assistants are working at the moment on more detailed text of the article, with links to flimographies, other wiki-pages and other general sources on internet etc. Not to forget about his latest project - bodybuilding TV reality show "Kings of Iron".


 * Please provide sources. This material cannot be used without them; It will just be removed, sooner or later.
 * You have sources in the article itself - movie database, casting lists of the movies themselves, RR's website, facebook and blog, they are full of stories about the movies and his lates project. I can also provide additional information later.

(Well, everywhere where I insert sources you delete all - both text and sources calling it advertisement).
 * Besides Pumping Iron, in old days Robinson was in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Hungry and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_tall, and some semi-documentary productions. Well, these wiki-pages of films even have internal back-links to RR's wiki-page. Why doesn't any of you care to check at least on Wikipedia? Where is help? It is just one click... Why are you only interested to delete all? At the moment he is the main star in "kings of Iron" https://www.facebook.com/KingsofIron

I am not here to fight with you, i wanted to do something good and applied for help to you as more experienced authors. Instead I only get a feeling of being mocked. Nobody has helped. I provided here some opinion from RR's assistants, because I got in touch with them for information, but I am independent. I really do not understand why do you so assault me that much for such a small article. I do not understand how can people here make decisions what is right or wrong if nobody here seems to know anything abouth the person at all, judging by their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And note again the conflict of interest restrictions. Neither you nor Robinson's asistants should update the Wikipedia article. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why am I not allowed to work on Wikipedia? I am not anyone's assistant. I thought Wikipedia is a free open project,as it is stated here everywhere. Why do you always restrict me in my rights insted of to help to formulate / arrange the text of the article properly and fulfill the information. i try my best. You have not helped with any one insert, you only delete everything what i try to make better. It is against rules of Wikipedia to not support and not collaborate, especially to provide wrong information, as many here do. You never said a word to them. What do you have against me? I do not put here any lies.

- Now, at 60+ back in Venice, Robby still trains with an intensity that’s clearly evident in his DVD “Built.” His website and blog encourage a healthy approach to the practice of bodybuilding. His message steers people back to bodybuilding’s original intent: creating the ultimate art through proper training and nutrition. His Master Class and Consultation Services provide a wealth of experience and information about healthy lifestyle and longevity = text from Robinson's website, and even if it sounds not scientifically dry, it is a good description of his activitis, similar to Wikipedia articles about other former sports and bodybuilding legends who live active life, train people and write books till now and describe their todays activities. There is no any advertising appeal like "visit" or "join" etc. It is a real description of his activities.


 * To me the first sentence reads exactly like an advertisement for the DVD. Not to you?


 * No, absolutely, because in his case it is exactly true description of the fact. You must have seen him in real life. He really not only trains like 30-years old, but also looks not older then 35 and full of youthful energy. Hardly any one else of his age and from golden era of bodybuilding still looks like him, with his almost 70.
 * If I personally had never seen him, I would also say, the text is too magnifying, but in his case it describes exactly what Robinson makes. You can check out his recent photos and videos on his facebook page and blog, with his training partner Michael O'Hearn, who also has a page here. Besides this, Robinson really helps very many people from all over the world. People with cancer come to him and remain his clients and friends for life. He puts them back to life, so their doctors wonder. One of his recent clients reduced his weight from over 185 kgs to 90 kgs or less and become a trained athletic man under guidance of Robinson (check out RR`s blog).
 * Even if this text sounds strange, it is not exagerration at all. More of that, it just mentions a bit the directions Robinson is working on, without describing the full range of his activities. His DVD really won the award at an International Film Festival, and his first book also recently won a Writers Digest awasrd etc. So I do not see tbis text as an advertisement at all, so as it is, and there are no any advertising elements / appeals like - join, visit, you must, you should, don't miss / you will be glad etc. It is up to readers if they click and learn more about Robinson on his website or facebook pages or not, if they are interested in longevity and their own health. Not to say about a huge fan society who daily check his blog and facebook for daily motivation and support.


 * If you compare this article with the articles about other sports people, here is not so much material at all, and still since 4 months regularly somebody permanently deletes a piece of text without adding any new material.


 * I've no doubt that many other articles are worse. But that's not the point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hopefully we'll get to those others in time, but meantime, we want this article to conform to encyclopedic style and content.
 * Absolutely, but for me it looks like nobody cares about any other bodybuilding articles on wiki (we check them regularly too, and prepare materials on expample of some of them), but Robinson's article got a super-special attention over 6 persons came in the last 4 months, added nothing, but only permanently delete something, with every their visit a bit - this is bad and that is bad, only criticism. Robinson is a famous person in sports, but also a writer and an artist, so how can you scientifically precise describe an artists work? Do you also delete all the description of the books and artistic works from the articles about other writers and artists here, leaving only birth and death dates? Well, I understand that at the moment it looks a bit disbalanced, because here is still no so much factual biographic information, so when it will be added the description of his work will not look so defiantly.

Could you please help us understand the sense of such amendments? Please, help to understand where do you see advertisement? It is pure description of facts and his activities what he really works at the moment.


 * I'm afraid that, if you still can't see why the material in the diff I've now quoted twice is objectionable, you're just going to have to take our word for it.

If you still find these parts inappropriate, please describe Robinson's activities, past and present in a more appropriate way but do not reduce informational value of the content.


 * Working on it. Andrewa (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Solong you are working on it, why has your contributor User:Brocach once again just removed the description of Robinson's todays activites without any editing as you have promised here that you exchange it with adjusted text. He also inserted back that RR was ONLY IN ONE FILM that is an absolute lie, as you see above - it is even mentioned in other Wikipedia articles that RR was actor in several other films and documentations. You have also promised to fix it, but instead just removed the information without editing. Why don't you ban / warn this User:Brocach from amendments on this page? He has not made any positive contribution, only deleted and even more - spreads wrong information and obviously lies? Is it a serious approach? Does it conform to the terms and rules of Wikipedia? Besides this, such a statement of contributor User:Brocach:


 * "The title, which links to the one thing (bodybuilding) for which this individual is known (among those who know about the US bodybuilding industry), is a reasonable effort to avoid confusion with the various Robbies." - shows clearly his neglecting position towards "this individual" and sarcastic desire to limit RR's achievements and activities, and even Robinson's huge fan base to "US bodybuilding industry", that is not true at all.


 * It is exactly the opposite, the fact is that "this individual" was banned from US bodybuilding industry "for 2 life-times" as it was announced by IFBB - because he always stand for health and fairness, against corruption in BB sport and for true information for all the people about drug-free building of a healthy body and generally healthy lifestyle.


 * Robinson's another well-known nick-name is "The Bad Boy of Bodybuilding" due to his upright position, despite of all threats and restrictive measures against him not only during his professional career but and even now. Robinson was forced to leave US and lived many years in European and other countries all over the world, working as trainer and lifestyle coach and helping people to obtain and keep health.
 * It was also the main idea while to apply here for deletion of restriction "bodybuilder" to Robby Robinson's name because his main contribution is to provide people with knowledge about possible healthiest lifestyle, be the living proof of it and to share his rich experience.


 * It is also a well-known fact that the iconic bust of Joe Weider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Weider) that is the logo of IFBB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_BodyBuilders) is actually Robinson's body with the Weider's head on it.


 * A problem, or rather an inconvinience with provision of internet links to the sources about many details of Robinson's biography is that very many of them were published in printed media that in the meantime became antiquarian and most of the texts are prohibited from free public view on internet. Even many of the newest articles about Robby Robinson and his interviews in modern magazines like Flex or Iron Man etc. are prohibited from free view, only for paying subscribers. The same is with the above (now deleted again) abstract from an articile describing Robinson's interview with Rod Labbe who regularly provides interviews with bodybuilding icons under the general line "Legends of Bodybuilding" for Iron Man Mag, but not all of them are free for public view, only for paying subscribers. So, if we place here a link to the Interviews' page that is absolutely conform to the Wikipedia's terms BUT it will be maybe automatically re-directed then to subscription page and this probably will be considered again as an attempt to advertise here something - well, it is a visious circle here, the same as with links to Robinson's activities and achievements, so that the whole abstract gets deleted again, leaving the readers of Wikipedia with no information at all.
 * Nevertheless, I hope a solution can be found soon.


 * For sure, biographical information here is not yet complete but why should it mean that contributors with profane or absolutely no any knowledge about the subject of the article they correct have more rights to provide here information as "small" contributors like RRWM? Not to mention the terms of Wikipedia about mutual support and respect to all the contributors, even small ones. Besides this, it is obvious that the contributions of User:Brocach on this article have negative emotional background but still no one of administrators here has ever warned him, you only support his false contributions and obviously neglecting actions towards "this individual" Robby Robinson, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWM (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much in advance RRWM (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * RRWM, it would help if you added comments in sequence. And steer clear of attacking my "negative emotional background" - assume good faith. Thanks for drawing attention to the lifetime IFBB suspension, now reflected in the article. Can you provide a source for Robinson having been forced to leave the United States? And was he also forced to work in apartheid South Africa? Brocach (talk)


 * Dear Brocach, I can only hope that in the future you will provide objective contributions to the article about Robby Robinson, since as your latest contribution shows, you know some sources and facts. To my opinion, your introduction to the chosen citations is difficult to call objective since it emphasized the extensive use of steroids by RR as the reason for his being banned and having problems with Weiders, where as in reality. as this article you refer to and many other materials prove, the real situation was the opposite - Robinson was banned because he stand against corruption and against any use of steroids, not only extensive in any sport, not only bodybuilding. If you have really read the article or other materials on this subject you must know this. So my personal conclusion from your actions is that if you continuously try to present information half-way true (as insert about Robin, so what about his other names?) or even as an absolutely wrong commentar/ description, it means you definetly have negative personal issues with Mr Robinson, or with bodybuilding in general, or you support somebody who has personal issues with Mr Robinson and his upright position, and this makes you logically to a person who should not make here contributions or provide any amendments to this article. If you are just a neutral contributor, as I am, I hope in the future you can provide a wealth of information on Robinson's biography. By the way, the two inserts that you've deleted so eagerly (the interview and description of his todays activities) originally were not from me, but I personally found it extremely unfair and probably with personal back-ground on your side, such your behaviour towards fans of Robinson and previous contributors. RRWM (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is time for a topic ban for this obviously non-neutral, and barely literate, editor. Brocach (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A fair comment I think. Thanks for your efforts.


 * I will support a topic ban, but if and only if they persist in updating the article, as I note they are still doing. We should post a formal warning on their talk page, I'm not sure exactly what the form is.


 * The problem is I'd like them still to be able to edit the talk page here, and a topic ban doesn't normally allow that as far as I can see.


 * I agree that there is a language problem but it's not necessarily what you think, see below. Andrewa (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Some replies
Much of the above from RRWM is already answered. Here are some issues that I think need further clarification. I'm going to sign a little more frequently than I would normally, to encourage RRWM to do the same. It's harmless and far better than leaving unsigned comments. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a shared account. Thank you for clarifying that. The diff I posted above indicated that it was, apparently this was not the intended meaning. I will assume you have read the policy to which I linked, and that you will try to avoid making any more statements that indicate that it is shared.

I'm guessing that part of the problem is that English is not your first language. Wikipedia is international, and we won't discriminate against you for this. But please appreciate that if my guess is true and this language problem results in your make statements that don't mean quite what you intend, or you misunderstand what you read here, that poses a problem which is not our fault. We are doing our best. Is there another language in which you are more comfortable? Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''I have not deleted any single sentence written by you, but you have deleted a third part of text, without adding or exchanging anything. Where is respect to my work? You are many and only delete a half of the article without adding any single word, but why? Why do you want to delete almost all the information concerning Robinson?'' I think your work is being treated with a great deal of respect. Please reply to the specific criticisms of it, which you have repeatedly failed to do, and progress will be much faster.

It is very likely that some information concerning Robinson has been temporarily removed, but as far as I can see that's because you have added text which was promotional, or violated some other guideline. It will take time to sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''Why did your User:Brocach third time insert wrong information that Robinson was only in one film and nobody of you reacts to it? It is just not true, it's a lie.'' Please assume good faith on the part of other contributors, as we are doing for you. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But you support him and forbid me to make corrections. Yes, they have done nothing wrong that I can see. You are not forbidden from suggesting corrections here on the talk page, but yes I have suggested that you do not update the article directly. There are many reasons for this, and one is that I'm convinced that it will be by far the fastest way of getting the article into a form that contains all the accurate information that you wish to add, without compromising the quality of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you let unknowing people insert lies into wikipedia without any previous discussion on talk page and give them full support? I know it can be frustrating, but such allegations will not help, believe me. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is just a gesture of respect to the very first author of this article, where as what do you expect encyclopedic-scientifical about artistic sport icon? I think you have been treated with respect. Not sure what other point you are trying to make. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Their special professional and life experience makes them to the special persons deserving to have an article at Wikipedia. Agree. I have already said that too, and nobody has questioned it as far as I can see. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''Besides Pumping Iron, in old days Robinson was in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Hungry and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_tall, and some semi-documentary productions. Well, these wiki-pages of films even have internal back-links to RR's wiki-page. Why doesn't any of you care to check at least on Wikipedia? Where is help? It is just one click... Why are you only interested to delete all? At the moment he is the main star in "kings of Iron" https://www.facebook.com/KingsofIron'' Thank you! What would be more helpful is links to sources such as these ]. IMDB is not the best source but it's far better than nothing.

The more you help us, the faster we can fix things like that. The more you criticise us when we are doing our best, the less likely others are to help at all, and the more I answer such criticism the less time I have to do it. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

''Why am I not allowed to work on Wikipedia? I am not anyone's assistant. I thought Wikipedia is a free open project,as it is stated here everywhere. Why do you always restrict me in my rights insted of to help to formulate / arrange the text of the article properly and fulfill the information. i try my best. You have not helped with any one insert, you only delete everything what i try to make better. It is against rules of Wikipedia to not support and not collaborate, especially to provide wrong information, as many here do. You never said a word to them. What do you have against me? I do not put here any lies.'' I know it can be frustrating. See above. I don't see any other rules that have been broken, but none of us are perfect. Please respect our efforts, as we are respecting yours. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely, because in his case it is exactly true description of the fact. Then I think you are just going to have to accept the opinions of other editors (such as myself) that there is a problem with it, even if you do not understand the problem yourself. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply, I "undid" the latest correction of myself and would like to apply here for your help.
 * By the way, I could not find amoung Wikipedia rules that links to external pages run by the persons are fobidden. So why were links to youtube, facebook and other pages removed? Is it general forbidden on Wikipedia or only on this article of Robby Robinson?


 * Please see the part "Biography points to be clarified" on the top of the talk page. (unsigned comment added by User:RRWM)


 * Please sign your comments (by typing ~ at the end). Please also indent your comments by adding colons (e.g. :::) at the start of each paragraph. Wikipedia policy on external links for biographies of living persons (BLP) articles is given at the link I already provided for you, WP:BLPEL. Links to self-published sources are not absolutely prohibited but strongly discouraged; I made an exception for the Robinson website, since it describes his business activities and spares the article the previous infestation of advertising links, and for his blog. It would be excessive to link to Twitter feeds, Facebook accounts, Google+ pages etc. and if you look around Wikipedia you will see that few if any other BLP articles link to such trivial and ephemeral self-published sources. Repeatedly reverting edits that are reliably sourced and/or implementing Wikipedia style and policies, while displaying a highly pro-Robinson outlook, and making personal attacks on those who make edits that you do not like, will not get you anywhere; I and, especially, Andrewa have been very patient with you but if you continue aggressively reverting you are likely to be blocked from editing. If you have constructive, well-sourced material and are able to present it in a neutral way, you can try adding it directly to the page. It may be rewritten or removed. To have a better chance of it remaining, you could take it to this page first. Brocach (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the material that you added at the top of the talk page to the bottom. Please always add below the existing text and sign your edits. Brocach (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Biography facts to be clarified
Please, help to restore the truth.

The latest contributions by user Brocach:

Robby Robinson''' (born May 24, 1946) is an American former professional bodybuilder. Known early in his career as Robin Robinson, (ref. to Gene Mozer, "The 1975 A.A.B.A..) he is also known as The Black Prince and Mr Lifestyle.'''
 * 1
 * Incorrect/ misinterpreted fact: It was a one-time modificaion of his name in one of the first publications about Robinson, more often appeared other interpretations or even misspelling of his name such as Robertson or Robbie. Anyway it was not his official nick-name such as Black Prince or Mr Lifestyle later, or even Bad Boy of Bodybuilding.

Suggestion:

Robby Robinson (born May 24, 1946) is an American former professional [bodybuilding|bodybuilder]]. Also known as The Black Prince and Mr Lifestyle, early in his career Robinson was also called Robbie Robinson, Robby Robertson or Robin Robinson,

'''He has been given a double lifetime ban by the International Federation of BodyBuilding (IFBB) and has acknowledged extensive use of anabolic steroids. '''
 * 2

Misinterpretation of facts: First of all, are Weiders internal political intrigues and misinterpreted excert of Robinson's interview more important than listing of Robinson's main achievements in his professional career and after it? Is Robinson famous for being banned and steroids and not his enumerous wins and even Mr Olympia - the very first Mr Masters Olympia in 1994? It is respect to Mr Robinson? compare to one of the previous versions:
 * Robby Robinson (born May 24, 1946) is an American former bodybuilder who won the IFBB Mr. America, Mr. World and Mr. Universe titles. He was the Masters Olympia overall champion the first year that the event was held in 1994 and then went on to win the 50+ division at that same contest in both 1997 and 2000. His nickname is The Black Prince.

Besides this, the peace of text thrown out of content of the interview and matched together with the story about the banning provides wrong information for the readers. The reason why Robinson was banned by Weiders was his upright position against corruption in bodybuilding and AGAINST ANY USE OF STEROIDS.

My suggestion deleted by Brocach is:

Robinson has been given a double lifetime ban by the International Federation of BodyBuilding (IFBB) because already in the early 80s he advocated for drug-free development of the sport of bodybuilding after he experienced himself and was evident of many accidents in bodybuilding scene probably related to the extensive use of anabolic steroids.

Here are Robinson's personal comments to the above mentioned interview with Colucci: '''THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS I WANT TO SHARE WITH THOSE THAT LOVE THE SPORT AS MUCH AS I DO. THROUGH THIS INTERVIEW AND MY BLOG AND RR PAGE I AM ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHAT HARDCORE BODYBUILDING IS ALL ABOUT. YOU NEED THE PASSION FOR THE BASIC EXERCISES. THIS INTERVIEW DOES JUST THAT. BEING BRASH? BACK IN THE DAY, THE PROS OF TODAY WOULD HAVE BEEN RUN OUT OF GOLD'S BY THE LEGENDS.''' (Colucci Interview)
 * 3

Once again he emphasizes the real value of basic training and stands against extended drug use so spread today in all the sports. I hope you will correct the conclusions to the citation by Brocach. Brocach has also deleted my corrections, saying it is not prove that the initial use was not under patronage of Joe Weider, but you can see yourself that it contradicts to Brocach's own statement "He stated that he started taking steroids two weeks before his first Mr World win..." - it was exactly that period of time, short after Robinson got under patronage of Joe Weider in 1975, not to mention many of Robinson's interviews and especially his book where he describes the situation more detailed.

To exclude the misunderstanding my suggestion was to edit the contribution of Brocach as follows:

Speaking in 2008 about the widespread use of steroids in bodybuilding of 70s, Robinson described as he was introduced into the use of steroids under patronage of Joe Weider as he was training in the Mecca of bodybuilding with Arnold Schwarzenegger and other famous bodybuilders of the "Golden Era of Bodybuilding": "We used Deca back in those days [the 1970s and '80s]... Everybody was basically on the same anabolics. You would take Deca and a capsule of B-12 intravenously every two weeks. That was the normal way of doing things... I took one shot of Primobolan Depot or Durabolin-50 — I remember the guy saying it was one of the two — and I won the Mr World and all the body parts. So that tells me how potent that stuff is." He stated that he started taking steroids two weeks before his first Mr World win, and continued until his retirement.

The "ban" by Weiders did not mean that Robinson stopped competing, he just leaved US and came back occasionally to participate in some chosen competitions. The "ban" was literate, for his open upright position against corruption in Weiders imperium and against misuse of drugs. So that insert by user Brocach also should be corrected. If you compare any data base with more detialed listings of competitions where Robinson participated you will see there was no any interruption at all; for example as listed here http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/robbyrobinson.html So this part by Brocach is also factually absolutely wrong.
 * 4

My suggestion deleted by Brocach was:

For his open opposition agains corruption and increased steroid use in the sport of bodybuilding Robinson was also known as "The Bad Boy of Bodybuilding" and was banned by by the International Federation of BodyBuilding (IFBB) for two life-times.

To prove the story with the Weiders Bust you only have to take a look at the picture of Robinson and Weider's bust in the same pose. Robinson's desciption of the situation from his book can be added. Robinson's book
 * 5

Why are links to the Robinson's works, books and DVDs are forbidden (Brocach has deleted them all, from everywhere), whereas such links are always inserted on other Wiki-pages of other famous people? Does Wikipedia support discriminating policy?
 * 6

Robinson briefly appeared as himself in the 1977 part-scripted, part-documentary film on bodybuilding, Pumping Iron.[3] He also appeared in a 1989 TV documentary, in the 1997 documentary Stand Tall, and (uncredited) in the 1976 film comedy Stay Hungry. All four titles featured Schwarzenegger.
 * 7


 * It is not really true, since the Schwarzenegger did not really feature in them all, especially in that semi-documentation where actually Lou Ferrigno featured, and by the way Schwarzenegger was not the only one - quite a log of other famous bodybuilders of the Golden Era participated in all these films as well.

My suggestion deleted by Brocach was:

Robinson appeared as himself in the 1977 part-scripted, part-documentary film on bodybuilding, Pumping Iron. He also appeared in a 1989 TV documentary, in the 1997 documentary Stand Tall, and (uncredited) in the 1976 film comedy Stay Hungry.

Negative content
I also hope very much, Andrewa, that you are not the Brocach himself. And I personally will never believe that user Brocach does not have any personal issues with Mr Robinson. What he makes with the article about Mr Robinson is pure intentional misinterpretation and even direct insult - my personal opinion. There is hardly another biography on wikipedia so full of negative content and lies. All facts turned upside down, and all possible positive facts deleted. On Robinson's blog and different sites (links to which Brocach consistently deletes) Robinson FOR FREE provides information about healthy lifestyle, gives training and nutritional tips and daily motivations. He also tells a lot of other interesting episodes about old time training and people, There is no any sales or advertisement as you always emphasize at all. Such a pity. (unsigned comments added by User:RRWM)


 * Noting the extensive personal attacks on me above I do not intend to reply in much detail. However:
 * Name: the 1975 source given in the article shows his name as "Robin", while IMdB has him appearing "as Robin Robinson" in a 1977 film. The official IBBF newsletter has him winning his first title as Robin.
 * Actually, having just noticed yet another revert by RRWM, again taking him over WP:3RR, I'm not going to bother answering any more of his points here. It really is time for a block. Brocach (talk)
 * Unfortunately the 3RR cuts both ways. You probably need to involve another editor, which I'm happy to do (otherwise you risk violating 3RR yourself). That would then mean I can't do the block myself. There would probably be no trouble finding another admin to do it. If you're sure that they already have violated 3RR (and you haven't) then we'll need to display evidence of that.


 * Agree we have been patient enough. There may be useful material in their latest post, when I have time to look for it, or not. Suspect a topic ban is the best answer, but it's a bit more involved, and as they're a single issue account it amounts to the same thing.


 * The unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegation above is another concern, and the continued failure to sign their posts is looking increasingly like disruption as well. Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing the previous posts, I just forget it (It is unusial, in e-mail or in chat, a user's name is inserted automatically). I am not so experienced on wikipedia, but I see, you are glad to use it against me.

Nevertheless I apply for fairness and hope some of other persons will read this discussion and help to restore the truth. I do not attack user Brocach personally, in no any sentence, I do not know him and do not have any opinion about him. I prove the falsity of the facts he writes on Wikipedia, even based on true sources, I provide facts for obvious misinterpretations of the factual material about Robinson here, following your demand to not edit the article.

The last my edition was to insert back the links to Robinson's pages on Facebook. Youtube etc. after I checked enumerous articles here and ALL OF THEM had such links, well, if this person runs such pages. More of that, many articles have also links to separate videos and facebook / blog articles additionally. Wikipedia was established several years ago, and since that time the situation and development of social networks has changed. It became the same mass media source as magazines or TV etc.

Please, believe me, for Mr Robinson personally the placement of these linksit does not bring anything, since he puts his information on blog and facebook and youtube etc. for free, but some people who are looking for information about health and possibilities healthy aging will miss their chance. You are probably young and do not have severe deceases that's why you will hardly understand it, I think.

Anyway, back to factual misinterpretation by Brocach: To my opinion, there is a difference between misspelling of the names, such as Robin (Mr Robinson mentioned in his interviews several times, Robin was an occasional misspelling of his name) or Robertson (he was also called so in several sources) and between given professional nick-names well-known in rather big professional and fan circles. So if the header of an encyclopedic article containes the words "also known as" usually after them are expected some artistic names or given professional nick-names like "Black Prince" here, but never any lists of possible misspelled modificaitions of the person's  name, even if such misspelled names appeared more than once in magazine articles or in other publications. Am I wrong? RRWM (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This does seem to need to be toned-down. The ban should be mentioned, but would more normally be further down the article, unless it is prominently mentioned first as main notability in book biographies. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with In ictu oculi. The recent edits have removed all of Robinson's awards and achievements from the lead section and left only nicknames and an out-of-context statement about banning and steroids. It's also important to remember that the attitude about steroids was different in the '70s and '80s than in more recent times. Contrast this article with the one about Arnold Schwarzenegger. That article doesn't even mention steroids in the lead section. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest you reinstate the content that you feel needs reinstating, BarrelProof. That's exactly what the article needs. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day IIO! See comment to BarrelProof... what we need is for some experienced editors to set an example of how the article can be improved. Andrewa (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day Andrewa. Yes this looks like a hatchet job on one side and a promo on the other. I have asked for new faces on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard following your comment above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, I should have done that. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see some other editors contributing here, but I resent the suggestion that my contributions amounted only to a "hatchet job". I had never heard of the subject until my attention was drawn to the article by a pompously-worded rename proposal a couple of weeks ago; that caused me to visit the page, and anyone comparing the state of it then with how I left it at my last edit will, I think, note something of an improvement. Take a look at the edit history and you will see how much effort I, and Andrewa, have put into trying to turn this promotional dross into something approaching a good Wikipedia article. Brocach (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Having had time to plough through more of RRWM's rants, I will now offer a few replies, but hoping that the attention the article is now getting from other editors will protect it from further edit warring.
 * I was especially amused by his insistence that "Robinson has been given a double lifetime ban by the International Federation of BodyBuilding (IFBB) because already in the early 80s he advocated for drug-free development of the sport of bodybuilding"; "The 'ban' was literate, for his open upright position against corruption in Weiders imperium and against misuse of drugs"; he was banned "for his open opposition agains corruption and increased steroid use"; "The reason why Robinson was banned by Weiders was his upright position against corruption in bodybuilding and AGAINST ANY USE OF STEROIDS"; "Robinson was banned because he stand against corruption and against any use of steroids"; the ban was "because he always stand... for true information for all the people about drug-free building of a healthy body and generally healthy lifestyle". But the text includes Robinson's own admission (sourced to an interview with him) that he was taking steroids from 1975 until his retirement. That's 26 years of chronic hard-core doping.
 * I note that someone has deleted my statement that "All four titles featured Schwarzenegger." According to IMdB, they did, in at least three cases as one of the top billings; I think that this fact is worth mentioning and I believe that RRMW's objection to it is because Robinson appears to have some animosity towards Schwarzenegger.
 * [Some further remarks redacted]
 * Brocach (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've further reviewed some of the recent edit history, and I generally don't have a problem with Brocach's edits. They are mostly removals of obvious bias and inappropriate promotional tone. The article needs to be objective and properly sourced. At the point where I joined the conversation, I saw some aspects that didn't look right to me, but now I think that was just a transitional state. We may have some differences in style, but that looks like good-faith editing to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * However, although I generally don't have a problem with Brocach's edits to the article, I do have a problem with some comments made here on the Talk page. I redacted those comments and have requested admin assistance to have them removed from the record. Let's try to maintain a civil tone here. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you any "problem" with RRWM's multiple, unfounded and evidence-free accusations against me? While I acknowledge that I should not have disclosed information about why I suspect that RRWM has an undisclosed conflict of interest, I find it difficult to "maintain a civil tone" in dealing with an unregistered, blatantly partial user who is here for the sole purpose of promoting this Robinson person and posts lies about me here and on the pages of any editor who shows an interest. RRWM is a menace and should be topic-banned forthwith. Brocach (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, frankly, I do have a problem with various edits by RRWM. I think that problem is reasonably self-evident in the history. However, I'm trying to continue to assume good faith and constructively engage with RRWM, based on the understanding that RRWM is not familiar with Wikipedia practices and policies, and I am hoping to avoid the (false) impression that Wikipedia is a hostile place where Mr Robinson is not being adequately appreciated or treated fairly. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think both of you show commendable patience, but that is exactly what is needed here. If our patience and the assumption of good faith runs out then the solution is a polite block, not angst, and we're probably getting close to that. And thank you Brocach for the compliment you paid me in the now-suppressed edit, I was very sorry to lose that. Hang in there (both), and thanks (both) for your hard work. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

One biceps bigger than the other
To me it seems completely unimportant (at least at the level of a brief summary BLP article) to discuss whether Mr Robinson's biceps are symmetric (or were symmetric, at some point in time). I plan to remove the related sentence from the article unless someone quickly expresses a different opinion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged award
The claim by User:RRWM that Robinson's self-published memoir won some sort of prize is untrue. See here for the evidence that he entered for something called the "Writers' Digest 20th Annual Self-Published Book Awards", paying $100 to have his book considered; see here for a list of the winners, conspicuously omitting R. Robinson. Brocach (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Other award (Remi Award)
I looked up the Remi Award info. Apparently, the Built DVD did receive one – a "Silver Remi" award in 2007. I don't really know whether this award is generally accepted as noteworthy, but I do notice that the award does not seem exceptionally exclusive. In that year, there were more than 700 such awards given at the Silver level or above (and more than 900 total). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You were right to delete that. Basically, any promotional claim made by RRWM needs to be looked at very carefully. This article is now beginning to look like a Wikipedia biography. Having stumbled on this topic only because of RRWM's misguided attempt to rename, I do wonder how many other crap bios are out there. Brocach (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a large number makes the award non-discriminatory, I would argue that tends to devalue it strongly. Under the circumstances, that removal was a good call. I'm sure there is much more in Robby's illustrious career to dwell upon on in the biography, but to pin one's reputation on the Remi (and by extension to scream out against removing its mention from the bio) would seem like an extreme over-reaction. And yes, I don't doubt there are plenty of crap bios in WP. I've had deleted quite a few blatant spams and copyvios that had survived for years. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of crap bios in WP - Yes, it's a perennial problem. We can only fix them one at a time. But personally, I'm surprised at how few there seem to be, considering the combination of opportunity and temptation that we present. Andrewa (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks go to the many WP editors who exhibit eternal vigilance. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed soft topic ban
It's now a few days since RRWM edited the article. As I write, their last edit was reverted in full and there have been several edits from others since then. They have appealed to three other editors for help, only , and in much the same text, but this borderline canvassing is a great improvement on their last attempt. So perhaps the message has finally got through to them.

If they continue to edit the article, I propose what I call a soft topic ban. That would be a community ban that stops short of the normal topic ban in that it would allow them to continue to propose and discuss changes on this talk page. It would purely be a ban on editing articles concerning Robby Robinson. Just the article namespace, and just that topic.

In that event I would also propose semi-protection of the page to proactively remove the temptation to simply edit as an IP. Such edits would be contrary to policy of course but remember that they are still relatively new here, and (for whatever reason) have been a bit slow to recognise other policies even when they are explicitly pointed out to them.

We have spent a lot of time on this and need to move on. Other editors are working hard to get this article up to scratch and need to be given a fair go.

Comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that RRWM is a novice at WP who may be closely related to or affiliated with the subject. Apart from engaging in possible canvassing, they have made no edits other than to the Robinson bio. They should be reminded strongly of WP:COI, and that canvassing is not appropriate. Whilst I don't rule out a topic ban if problems continue, I am hopeful that they will learn through interaction with fellow WP editors the standards a BLP need to adhere to, and desist from edit warring without any sort of ban. --  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That, and their cooperation in answering questions and proposing changes to the article here on its talk page, would be the best possible outcome IMO. It's in the hope of encouraging this that I'm foreshadowing an alternative! Also agree that they are a novice and with an affiliation with the subject. The username appears to stand for Robby Robinson Web Master(s), and so far it's a single purpose account making only contributions to or related to this article. The provisions of WP:COI have been pointed out at length, and so far the main response from RRWM has been to challenge the validity of this rule . Meantime, requests for specific information have been left unanswered. But they still have not edited the article since the last edits by others, so perhaps we are making progress of sorts. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A soft ban is hardly enough. While Andrewa above notes appeals to three other editors, RRWM has actually vigorously canvassed some 26 editors, accusing other editors, principally me, of posting "misleading" material, the great majority of which has withstood peer review and remains in the article. I was severely scolded here for a posting that (without naming anyone) alluded to my suspicion about who this poster is, so I will say only that I do not think that RRWM is ever going to provide neutral information about Robinson. However his recent silence perhaps indicates that he has realised that Wikipedia has some standards. Brocach (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was surprised at the action taken against you, I thought it was borderline, but outing is taken very seriously here, and the benefit of the doubt evidently goes against the poster. But you alluded to some controversy within bodybuilding, and the whole subject area seems to need a lot of work, see Talk:Bodybuilding.
 * MAD Magazine once published a Guide to Political Types which said in part Liberals... try to see the other guy's point of view while being mugged. I sometimes think I'm dangerously close to that mindset. (At least it's better than being a Leftist, who allegedly shoplift, illustrated by an awesome drawing of a hippie about to half-inch some cosmetics into a bag blazoned with a Bella for Congress slogan. Hmmm, I've only just noticed that the hippie in question bears a strong resemblance to Bella herself! But I digress.) I'm still wanting to give RRWM a chance. They have modified their behaviour somewhat, and they often seem to struggle with English. And they do have a point that many other articles in the field of body building seem at first sight to be far, far worse (I don't think they've said this exactly but they've said something similar about Wikipedia generally, and it's my observation that this restricted claim is correct while their more general claims about Wikipedia generally hopefully are not correct). Two wrongs don't make a right of course, the point is that they perhaps had some justification in being bold and trying the same things here that seemed to be tolerated elsewhere in Wikipedia, and their disappointment and even resentment at not being allowed to do so is quite understandable. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)