User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2011/October

Ibn Saba artilce
Would you please comment on Abdullah Ibn Saba article. You previously commented on Wiqi55 edits. He almost reverts every single edits of me and made tens of reverts within last few days. Maybe a second comment will be helpeful. I have tried to resolve the issue by discussion but It was unsuccessful. He does not let me and others to do any single edits on the article. --Penom (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests for adoption
Hi RobertMfromLI

I'm interested in being adopted (sorry if this is in the wrong place!) I've been a user for a short while and quickly ended up at the deep end by starting WP:GLAM/MonmouthpediA Please let me know if you are interested in adopting me, need help in many areas, including extensions, formatting, working with other users, etc.

Many thanks for your time

Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi John, sure. I'll write more in a little bit. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 17:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Siba
Regarding the Ibn Siba issue, its useful to know that Ibn Siba allegations are usually directed towards Shias by Sunnis who consider Shia Islam to be a fraudulent cult. In order to disdain Shias these Sunnis allege that Shiaism was initiated by a jew rather than by Ali. Pass a Method talk  12:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have collapsed and archived the discussion on Talk:Muhammad
Please keep in mind, this does not in any way preclude you or prevent you from raising points on how to fix the issues you perceive with the article, but:
 * Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to (or issues with) the content of the article - that includes indicating which sections and how you perceive they can be improved (with relevant suggestions).
 * Article talk pages are not for discussing changing policies, including policies related to article talk pages. You may wish to visit the Village Pump or elsewhere to discuss that.
 * Continued off-topic and irrelevant discussions are not permitted on article talk pages.
 * Disruption of article talk pages and articles is against policies and guidelines - such discussions will continue to be closed.

With that said, you may, if you are willing to, start a new section on the biases you perceive, if you are now ready to discuss specifically where you perceive such biases to be and how they can be fixed. This is assuming such issues are not related to changing policies to push your point of view, in which case, again, Village Pump or similar would be the proper venue - and not the article's talk page. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * well I notice your post on user:Qwyrxian talk page asking if it was to his satifaction it's obvious who you side with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Though it may not have been clear to you, I know it was to Qwyrxian. I was discussing the method I used - not whether Q was happy with me doing it. I closed it because *I* deemed it unproductive and disruptive. My message on your talk page should have indicated that very clearly, as well as my closing message on the article talk page. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * not incorrect it's just too much of a coincidence that it was user:Qwyrxian for your claim to be taken seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian is an experienced editor and an admin familiar with using various tools and templates. Thus, you are indeed incorrect. Re-hashing your unwillingness to believe such and to try to discredit my motives here is useless. Concentrate on coming up with ideas on how to improve the article instead. If you do so, and can indeed point out issues we can resolve, and offer suggestion on how to, you will find you have my support. But I will not support you in improperly using the article's talk page - as I already indicated in detail on your page (which you have copied here). R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Daylight saving time
Oops, I just realised that you weren't the creator; I thought you were thanking me for agreeing with your please-don't-delete rationale. I believe that these are useful pages; they're definitely valid article topics, and the around-the-world page might well be better with a set of links to the country pages instead of blurbs about all of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but not as a dozen copy/paste dupes with no additional content. I only tagged 5 of the dupes-no-added-content - not the expanded articles. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Short Break (3 days)
Film shoot (150 miles away) all day tomorrow, two onsites the next 2 days. Be back in a few (or perhaps for a few minutes one of the next nights when I finish up for the day - if I'm not exhausted). R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 04:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

CONTENT FROM THE ARTICLE Time in Portugal BEFORE User:RobertMfromLI PROPOSED SPEEDY DELETION
copy adjustments for use here: headlines changed in level, category turned into pure link -START OF COPY --- Portugal uses two UTC offsets during winter and two during summer.

There are two time zones:
 * Continental Portugal and Madeira using UTC+00:00/UTC+01:00
 * Azores using UTC-01:00/UTC+00:00

Tz database
The tz database contains 3 zones for Portugal. Columns marked with * are from the file zone.tab from the tz database.

Daylight saving time
Portugal observes EU DST rules.

Time in Portugal
You claimed on my talk: "... the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Time_zones." But that pages does not mention the tz database zones.
 * I would say one of the mistakes was that CSD A10 did not apply while you claimed it. It was not about what I try to do - I am happy you like the general idea. :-) But the article contained stuff not in time zones. I would appreciate if you could post your vote for undeletion to Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20. Yes, let's move on. Best regards TZ master (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can look at the UTC+01:30 section on the same page. The simple thing is that CSD A10 is not met. Whether wants the page is another topic. For Time in Portugal I made a comment on your comment on the review page. Maybe you now understand my reasoning all the time? tzdb has three zones, it's another system of zoning. These zones and the related details are not contained in time zones. TZ master (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking into it. Word of advice though, Fastily does nothing as retaliatory. So, nothing he did was personal. Fastily is one of a small handful of people who handles the deletion queues - if you check the deletion logs, you'll see it's only a few who do. He's also very approachable... so, I wouldn't be so attack-ish of his actions. Many people have had dealings with Fastily (as you're noticing) and think him a very fair-handed admin. That's why your comments aren't being perceived well. I definitely understand how all of these actions (his, mine, those of others) make it look like you and the articles you are creating are being attacked, but it's not the case. A better route may be leaving that road you're travelling, and ask Fastily for help. An apology for misunderstanding his intent (as you received for me misunderstanding yours) may go a long way too... he's not the type to be retaliatory because of your remarks, but those who've worked with him in the past may feel a bit better about things after reading such.
 * Anyway, I strongly suggest making use of the tag to help avoid at least some of these issue. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen no single hint that he understood his false application of CSD A10. He didn't even bother to comment on the talk page where I contested the speedy proposal. Do you see any sign? I personally like to judge by what I see and not to copy other peoples judgments. There are other people handling contested speedy deletion proposals differently, as you can see from your deletion proposals on my talk page that have been declined. Sometimes people seem to read the contest reasons. No indication of that in the case of Fastily. TZ master (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but you started being accusatory before fully analyzing the situation. Had you done so (for instance, checking the deletion logs, which are available for everyone to review), you'd have noted that Fastily is simply one of a small handful of people who handles those queues. In doing so, you wouldn't have been accusatory to him and demanding him to be de-sysopped, as you would not have thought this was simply solely targeted at you. After such accusations, which you never apologized to him for, what expectation did you have for his assistance? Furthermore, did you even stop to (though I'd suggest after an apology for your false accusations) ask him to comment on the deletion discussion? You talk about judging by his actions - that's all I can ask for. Go and read his talk page and it's archives. You'll note where others have approached him, calming and without accusations and demands for sanctions, that he's bent over backwards to help the person; whether it's explaining policy, undeleting an article or userfying something not yet ready for mainspace. You'll also note that if someone points out he's made a mistake, he apologizes and fixes it. And finally you'll note that when someone comes to his talk page, and spends the majority of their post being accusatory and demanding sanctions, that he tends to try to stay out of such frays. Something to give some thought to.
 * Another thing to consider... there are (in this type of matter) many types of camps on Wikipedia... ranging from deletionists to inclusionists. What you may consider not A10 worthy, others may consider clearly A10 worthy. And vice-versa. That's where calm, rational discussion comes in hand, sans accusations. I think you can note the difference in the two deletion discussions... the 2nd one of which is going much better because the tone of which is much calmer and the discussion is focused on the article itself. Gotta remember, it's other human beings on the other end of the keyboard. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention
I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. -- Ludwigs 2 03:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Montauk Highway
I didn't remove any wording, just the shields and the infobox sitting there that was absolutely useless. I also had to break up the long lead into its own separate section (only a temporary fix). DanTD, unfortunately, as much as he's contributing his best, leaves numerous spacing problems, unsourced material, and other minor changes that are needed. If you check my contributions, I'm removing a lot of stuff, which is why my edit summaries are beginning to get sarcastic. A lot of his articles need reworking, and as a result, yes there is information, but 99% of it is unsourced. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 16:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response, I'm still changing stuff everywhere. The part west of Exit 40 or 41 is the Heckscher State according to the NYSDOT. Google is known, well known for poor cartography. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

adoption
Hey mate

I'm new to wikipedia and was wondering if you would adopt me?

cheers

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavBar1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! I responded on your talk page in more detail. Also, don't forget to sign your posts on all talkpages by putting ~ at the end of them. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

Would you be willing to adopt me

cheers

Sportslegend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslegend (talk • contribs) 08:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Hey there Robert, i see you met my cousin User:Sportslegend, and i noticed the message you posted on his talk page concerning sockpupptery (and rightfully so) However, as you pointed out  it would be legit under Compromised accounts as he genuinelly created User:DavBar1 first off, but unfortunately forgot to put a password and an email; and thus created the User:Sportslegend account, which not only sounds better i believe is going to be his main account. Thanks :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Goldblooded, thanks for the explanation. As long as he knows not to use that account (and stick with the new one) in the event he remembers his login information, all should be well. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ID
Regarding the edits on intelligent design, im not getting it, Farsight gives no reason for his revert of edits, edits which are well referenced and edits that he has not even read, he still gives no reason even after comments on the talk page, from the looks of it he has no interest in discussing the actual edits. I am not edit warring, it makes no sense hes reverted my edits, but no reason at all is given even after I explained on the talk page. From what I have seen, maybe his own personal beliefs do not like the edits and that is why he is deleting it. It's been along time and he still avoids the question of what his actual problem with the info is, he clearly has no valid reason. This is all rather crazy, I am not getting this. If I am doing wrong then sorry, but this is all very weird, I do not understand the reverts and no answer is given why. Gutterpunks (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read your edits and I don't understand in what world you think you can assume I haven't. That's not the problem.  It is your responsibility to justify your edits to other users after being reverted.  And then we discuss the issue, which is often quite lengthy, and then, AFTER coming to an agreement, are the changes made.  Continuing to re-add your information like this is a violation of about half a dozen different wikipedia policies and will quickly result in a block of your editing privileges if it continues.Farsight001 (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have explained why I made the edits, I have explained that quite a few times now even on the talk page but you choose to ignore that. You still do reverts and you have not given your reason why. If the discussion is to go forward you need to explain your problem with the edits, I have already explained why I put the information in the article many times. Listen if there was a random user abusing the page then go and revert it, but I have added well referenced material and explained my edits, you revert it many times and after loads of reverts you do not put why in any of your edit summaries - you seem to have no reason, and you still do not wish to explain yourself on the talk page. You then leave a comment on the talk page saying it will take months to actually get the information on the talk page? We are talking here about three referenced sentences?? It now takes months to add a couple of well referenced sentences to wikipedia? Gutterpunks (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, let's all move to that talk page then, so other editors can be involved as well if they like, and I'll try to help you all out there. Give me a little bit to look at both of your edits, if you wouldn't mind? Perhaps there's something from both of your edits that we can put together to come up with a compromise that supports both of your edit positions? See you both over there in a little bit. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Re
If you're familiar with any of these topics, or the content-related issues in question, you are more than welcome to contribute to the pages and their relevant talk pages, which is a more effective method than WP:LAWYERING on my talk page. The page was subject of a long edit-war, and obviously disputed, so that's not a "drive-by tagging", there is an obvious ongoing dispute, the details of which can be found on the talk page. The dispute tag is placed there to attract wider attention to the article, so that the expert editors can be directed to the article's talk page, to further study and examine the various issues that have been raised about the article, in order to find a resolution to the ongoing disputes there. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... perhaps then you may actually wish to review the talk page in question, where you will note that I am already involved, and that Penom and Wiqi55 are already working out the content issues. I've got no objections to tagging the article, but there are better tags, such as one that would get assistance from those involved in the proper WikiProject. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been, but your signature/username looks different and confusing, and somehow I didn't recognize/remember you. But anyways, I've listed some of my objections on the talk page now. I strongly believe that the tag will help get more expert editors involved. But your idea of canvassing expert opinions on the related WikiProjects is also a great way of getting wider community input. Thanks. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)