User talk:RRWM

January 2013
Hello, I'm Arctic Kangaroo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Robby Robinson because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Hop n hop (on the arctic ice) 14:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why have you deleted it? --User:RRWM

Restore title
Hi, I didn't see it was a request to revert an undiscussed move. I have put in technical restore request per WP:BRD. However, since you have declared to be connected with the subject you should read carefully WP:COI and carefully follow guidance given there. Best of luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Robby Robinson (bodybuilder). If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder) for more related to this.

I notice also that this edit seems to indicate that this is a shared user account. I must point out that this is not permitted.

By now you are probably thinking that contributing to Wikipedia is a lot more complicated than you thought. And that is probably true. But I hope you will bear with us. 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. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RRWM. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Robby Robinson (bodybuilder), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''Please stop sending out spam to other editors to help you out with your opinion of an article. This is against guidelines per Canvassing. Please don't send anymore messages, especially multiply messages to the same person. '' Bgwhite (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your request for help...
You asked for help on my talk page a couple of days ago. A quick glance shows me a couple of things: (1) this is a very debated and heated issue; and (2) that you are becoming involved in an edit war. I highly recommend you stop making direct edits to the page for now. I would suggest that you simply walk-away from the page for a week or so, and get some perspective. Sometimes we just need some distance to gain some perspective. In that time, I should be able to take a look at the page and offer you some advise. But if you continue to edit you will likely find yourself blocked for disruptive editing, and I don't want to see that happen. I have worked with a lot of dispute resolutions and conflict of interest issues, such as what you're encountering, and when an edit war is taking place, one of the best things we can do is back off for a little while. In the grand scheme of things, even if the page is horrifically bad, it will not do much damage, and it will reset the stage to have a more constructive set of edits moving forward. There are some specific things we're concerned about fixing on biographies of living persons], so if you feel like something may be personally damaging if not immediately correct (disclosure of personal information, posting about false crimes, etc) let me know and we can go about correcting those in the short term. But if they are just factually incorrect times, BIAS, or just a negative point of view, lets leave those for now. Thanks. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tiggerjay, I also think that for a while there is no need for me to edit there until I find interesting biographical facts with source links. I do not know when you checked the article, maybe already after some most disastrous contributions by Brocach were removed by other experienced editors/admins who checked the text after my appeal, but if you look into some previous versions of yessterday, you will see, it was very grobe misinterpretation of facts and a realt attempt to put the person down. Now there are still some questionable infos in the text, but not that much maleficent. So thank you very much for response, glad to know to have here somebody to apply for question in such difficult situations, although I hope they will not repeat. Have a nice day.RRWM (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Please help
You requested my help on the article Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder). It looks as if there is already a competent admin involved. I read you edits and they were rightfully changed as you style of writing has too much puffery and very few references to support what you are saying. Very little in this article is verifiable with the sources cited and I don't know that a couple of those sources are that reliable. Andrewa seems to be doing a fine job mediating. I'll stay out of this one. Regards Nv8200p talk 22:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You requested help from 25 other users including Nv8200p and myself. Some of us were involved already in the discussion, others were not as far as I can see.

Please read WP:canvassing, which reads in part When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral....

Nv8200p has been very flattering to me above, but several of the others involved are old hands here too and well respected, and we are trying to help you. And you need to heed our warnings. Please stop editing the article. Please notify us on the article talk page of specific changes you would like to make.

Make them as neutral and encyclopedia-sounding as you can, and provide references to reliable sources. Depending on how well you manage to do this, one of three things will happen. I'm sorry if that isn't what you want, but I can't see another way. You seem to have some problems with English, and you have admitted a conflict of interest. This is the normal way of overcoming such conflict of interest problems, and will address the language problem too.
 * 1) If it's neutral, relevant, and well sourced, it will go in. I or another editor will do it.
 * 2) If it has some value but isn't quite right, for example is well sourced and relevant but needs rephrasing, we'll fix it and add it, and provide comments as to why we've changed your text, which can be discussed there.
 * 3) If we don't think it adds anything at all to the article, we'll try to tell you why.

Similarly, it's unlikely that the resulting article will be everything you want. But we'll do our best. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A reply to some of your remarks
FYI, a reply to some of your remarks can be found at User talk:In ictu oculi. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)