User talk:R00m c/Archive 1

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
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. Citing sources is helpful in accomplishing this. For guidance on Wikify I would suggest reading 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 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)


 * 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 - ❌ --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)


 * 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  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.   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)