User talk:Robert Warren

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Tom (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Spamming external link
Hi DoomedSoldiers, it appears you are spamming an external link onto a number of articles? Can you please keep this to the one article it is most closely related to? Can you also contribute to that article talk page. You might want to bing this up for discussion at WP:EL.Thank you in advance, Tom (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please enlighten me as to why you consider this spamming? I believe this link is very relevant, as it provides additional information not provided in Wiki articles.  Please advise as my feeble intellect is perhaps incapable of your superior reasoning.  The content provided by the external link is very relevant to the articles in which I attempted to place the link - before it was arbitrarily deleted by you, apparently an "expert" on this very subject matter. Best, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomedSoldiers (talk • contribs)
 * No need for the sarcasim. Your new user name and the web site are the same and you added that link to 7 or 8 pages as your first edits to the project. Anyways, not trying to bite and I could be wrong, anyways, I will try to get other input and see what is what. Also, please use four tildes (~) to "sign" your posts. Cheers, Tom (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please see this report. Tom (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the link is fine, however I hope the editor will add something besides it to Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My name is Robert Warren. Myself, and a small group of volunteers have been translating and editing www.doomedsoldiers.com for style and consistency as well as adding editorial/opinion content, plainly noted as such.  Doomed Soldiers is essentially a translation of http://podziemiezbrojne.blox.pl, created from source documents, and supported by research. We have translated and edited this with permission for distribution to the wider English speaking world.  The www.doomedsoldiers.com is a nonprofit, volunteer-maintained website offering English-speaking readers access to previously unpublished materials in the Polish language.


 * One important stylistic decision was the incorporation of Polish language names, organizations and places. It is as important that public at-large become as familiar with AK/Armia Krajowa/NSZ/WiN as thy are with Wehrmacht; and UB/Urzad Bezpieczenstwa, or SS, Gestapo, and NKVD. These recent names are as important to conversance in the subject matter as are legions, alae, foederati, magister militum, etc. to any capable study of Roman political-military history.


 * As such, www.doomedsoldiers.com follows the important conventions in historical narrative - documentation; terminology; vividness in detail; respect and consideration for colleagues. This makes it an important link off the Wikipedia pages and a pathway through which the reader can obtain still more information. Some content on www.doomedsoldiers.com is indeed editorial/opinion, most notably the page responding to allegations that the Holocaust was some sort of a hoax, which we wanted to mount a vigorous response to. Thus, it is clear that www.doomedsoldiers.com should be added/restated on relevant pages.


 * Best Regards,


 * Robert Warren Doomed Soldiers (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and username policies
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.

WP:U is the username policy. Given your username and editing history, I think you should change it before this account is blocked.

(More comments to follow once I go over all your comments.) --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this can be resolved easily. In addition to changing your username, you need to understand and follow WP:COI.  Instead of adding these links where you have a coi, you simply need to start a discussion on the talk page about the merits of the links on each article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion Ronz. I have requested the account name change as you suggested.  I believe the links have merit and upon consultation with a well regarded IP attorney they do not constitute COI.  I hope you can easily discern that there was no malicious intent on my part at any point and I have been forthright throughout this process by explaining both my motifs for providing links  (nothing to gain from the links), and the reasons for posting them in the first place.  I also didn't hide who I am, or what part if any I have in the Doomed Soldiers project - and that would be hundreds upon hundreds of hours spent on translation and / or editing ...  Many of the articles to which external links were posted offer much more comprehensive and authoritatively cited sources than Wiki itself.  And thus, the reason I perhaps felt attacked.  Once again, thank you for your helpful suggestions.  Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COIN is where conflict of interest issues are worked out. You appear to be confusing Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline with a legal definition of "conflict of interest".  Have you read through the information above and WP:COI? --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for patiently guiding me through this process. Yes, I have read them, and I am familiar with both. In fact, I have sought an opinion of a well esteemed IP attorney who concurs. According to Wiki COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor". The content of the articles and bona fide research papers (many of which are unavailable to the English speaking readership outside of the website) to which I placed links is reliable, neutral, well documented, supported by academic research, is of encyclopedic value and quality, and as such enhances value of the Wiki articles themselves. Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding nothing but external links is in itself of questionable compatibility with the aim of Wikipedia. When they're all to your own site, then you have clearly violated WP:COI (and WP:SPAM and WP:NOTLINK).  If you disagree, take it up at WP:COIN where editors much more familiar with such issues can respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DoomedSoldiers → Robert Warren
Doomed Soldiers (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Current username:
 * Target username:
 * Datestamp: 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For bureaucrat use: SUL report (old &bull; new) | Email target username  ( [ 1 ])  ([ 2 ])

1st Armoured Division (Poland)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning 1st Armoured Division (Poland) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/1st Armoured Division (Poland) and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Chumchum7 (talk)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash
I wanted to take a moment and reach out regarding this article. It is obvious you have a very strong opinion, and I respect that. The reason why your comments are being considered disruptive are twofold: 1)Your proposed edit would delete most of the information in the article 2)You continue to advance your position when other editors have repeatedly expressed disapproval of it. I do agree that some of the information in the article does not belong there. You will probably be better off suggesting individual items or sections for deletion/modification and provide a reason why. If you can find a reliable source to back up your suggestion that will help as well. You will gain much more acceptance that way, and the overall quality of the article will be improved. Thank you. N419BH (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a ref for your latest addition to the article? Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Please remember to be civil to other editors, even if you disagree with them. Saying in edit summaries that "You are as clueless as they come" is not particularly polite. If you think your point of view is correct, explain it politely. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

London Victory Parade
Hi, I've left a message for you on the discussion page for that article. Varsovian (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please cool it?
I noticed this. Per WP:VAND, this is definitely not vandalism but a content dispute. I suggest a calm and reasoned discussion in talk will be more productive than throwing around accusations like this. --John (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Hey, thanks for the welcome back over at Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Since this article was created and both of us became active on the talk page, I've noticed your signature possibly runs afoul of Signatures, specifically, "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." While this sentence does not require your signature to match, it appears yours promotes the website listed on your userpage. Promoting a website on your userpage is a possible violation of WP:UPNOT, specifically, "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)," is not allowed on your userpage.

Please don't feel like I am calling you out on this and demanding you change it. I'm not an admin so it's not like I'm approaching you as an enforcer. I have noticed other editors expressing concern in the past and think it's appropriate to make you aware of the specific guidelines listed above.

If you do decide you want to change it, let me know and I can help you format it. You probably noticed I did some major formatting to mine. Thanks! N419 BH  01:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read the Conflict of Interest issue you had above. I think you can in fact mention the website by name on your userpage as long as you do so as part of a "disclosure of a potential conflict of interest." Basically I would put on your userpage, "I am a major contributer to www.doomedsoldiers.com. If you feel my editing runs afoul of WP:COI with regard to this website, please let me know." I would still change the signature though. It's especially confusing when you forget to sign something and the bot signs it as "Robert Warren". N419  BH  02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I mention you (briefly)...
here.radek (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Word choice
I note that, in some disputes over the precise content of the article on the Smolensk disaster, some editors - including you - have described other editors' contributions as 'vandalism'.

This was not vandalism; it was a content dispute (in particular, the tree-cutting report should have been described in terms of which television news channel had broadcast it, and the description should have said that the report was archived on Youtube).

"Vandalism" means that there is no possible way that the change could have been done with good intentions. It means that it is impossible that this was a sincere disagreement, that it could not have been the result of someone being concerned about the reliability of sources... that it could only have been the result of childish malice.

Consider what that implies about the person you are describing. And consider how they may feel about your implications.

Okay? DS (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Warren for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. noclador (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)