User talk:Robotman1974/Archive 1

paraphilia template
why did u remove the descriptions and variations in parenthases, i think that they were very useful and i worked hard to put them in as i made the templateQrc2006 03:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the extra descriptions and variations because I don't believe that information belongs in a template. I left a comment about my edit here. In this concise form, the template might even be welcome now on the Sadism and masochism page. We have to realise that even though we may put a lot of work into something on Wikipedia, if it doesn't belong, it doesn't belong. Robotman1974 08:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Erotic lactation:Sorry, I didn't see that You changed Erotic lactation to Milk fetishism - because I changed again Milk fetishism to Erotic lactation. ;-) BTW: After request I now get a lot of accordance for term and article. Might be sometimes pain is necessary to activate people... --Fritz Bollmann 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 14:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Link on robot fetishism
I'd be interested to know why you think that link is apprpriate to Wiki bearing in mind WP:EL. Many thanks --Nigel (Talk) 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK just seen the talk page bit - will look at it and get back to you - --Nigel (Talk) 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex Doll - image removed
Message was received from Crispytd13 via email (Robotman1974 10:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)): I do not believe that my addition to your "sex doll" page was unconstructive. Whether you like it or not, sex dolls are used as pranks at large public events. To call my addition to the page unconstructive is to prevent further understanding of the topic. Perhaps you should reconsider your decision to remove my picture. With all due respect, your beliefs about the sanctity of sex dolls should have no bearing on the content of this wikipedia page. I suggest you be more open-minded in the future.
 * My response is on Crispytd13's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotman1974 (talk • contribs)

Sex doll link removed
I posted a link to an article that someone wrote on Love Dolls. Yes, the article is posted on one of my domains, sextoytalk.com. However, everything posted on that domain is written by regular people, not employees, trying to inform others about toys. It's a consumer guide written by consumers. Is the information provided by the author less valid because I own the domain? Would it be better if he posted it on some free webhost and then I linked to it? I was only trying to help the author disseminate the information. Sorry if I am commenting on the wrong page, but it seems from the message I got that you are the person who removed the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftballoons (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 October 2006
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about a link that I posted? Dr. Darwinc From Darwin
http://www.blowmeupsexdolls.com/ I posted this link sometime ago and it was removed. If someone can take the time and review this website you will find that this website is truly unique. This website is not a commercial page, you can only view the dolls, you cannot purchase anything from this website. This site contains images of the dolls all blown up and extensive descriptions of them. These contents are very good for reference and helpful to people that are doing research on adult dolls. I haven't seen any other site that is like it in the internet. Please let me know how I can include this link on the adult doll article according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Or please let me know if I can include it at all so I won't be left wondering what happened to my contribution... Dr. Darwinc 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Commercial link" removal
I noticed yesterday you went through removing dozens of links to interviews throughout encyclopedia biography pages, with the comment that you were removing commercial links. Can you explain what makes these particularly commercial, and not useful none the less? Note that most interviews and news pages carry advertisements of some kind - for example, the front page of the New York Times on the web, has no less than 12 ads.  I'm particularly troubled by the removal of this interview, from Holly Randall which seems not to have any ads on it at all. What makes it commercial? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I may see now. You were following another editor that stuck links throughout many articles. Makes more sense. However, each article really should be judged individually. Where we already have plenty of interviews, adding one more may be just spam - but where there aren't that many, one more may be quite worthwhile, whatever the motives of the person adding it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 20:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of the removed links do look useful to me, although clearly commercial links should be avoided. The RogReviews and blog.adultdvdtalk mp3s (both free sources) in particular look informative. I imagine that for many of the articles, the interviews have also been used as source material, even if they were not cited as such. Olessi 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 20:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the mp3 interviews, would including a direct link to the mp3 instead be acceptable? I actually had been intending to add the interview link to Penny Flame last month, but User:Luftballoons beat me to the punch. Olessi 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my talk page
I appreciate you preference to keep the conversation unfragmented. please visit here. Skobelief 04:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Case of Female Macrophilia Link Removed
I noticed you removed two links in the Macrophilia section. Both were to katelynbrooks.com, the website of a well known female in the community who has macrophilia. Females, up until recent were extremely(!) rare in the community, and many speculated if a female could actually develop macrophilia on their own (As was stated in the out-dated information given in the original article- note that some of that info is several years old, dating back to the 1990s). She is extremely well known in the community and it is not just a "personal site" as she has ties with Mystic's forums, Magic's forums, and other community sites. What I don't understand is that you'd let a site such as Chilean Rose up on there, who is clearly an all out pay site with forums as a side... that site provides absolutely no insight into any aspect of the fetish, compared to Katelyn Brook's clearly documented case of Female Macrophilia. Katelyn goes through great detail throughout her site explaining her case of female macrophilia- and will without a doubt shed more light on female macrophilia in the future.

I've been active within the community for years and have seen the community grow. I've also had the pleasure to see the incredible impact Katelyn Brooks has had on the giantess community all over the net- it's about time the information and links were updated accordingly. Katelyn's macrophilia and site are noted as historical if not a major "event" in the giantess community by those who are active in it and have been for years. A female this open about this fetish has not been seen since the 1990s, with Stephanie's Collage Page. (which was sadly short lived, but none the less mentioned on wikipedia at one time!) DancingCat55 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you've changed the excuse for deletion to "pay site". Her site is not a "pay site", although it does have small off-site store, which she uses to maintain her site and equipment. (Like most sites do- as she has stated it is not for profit). Nearly all the links listed there have a member's section or a store- this is how the community works in order to support itself All of the sites listed (Except Chilean Rose, who is an all out paysite, which you have now deleted, thank you) are not directly a pay site and are largely free. I see no reason for you to not even mention her site when she has become a well known historical figure in the community, for her case of possibly rare female macrophilia. DancingCat55 09:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 09:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the second edit was to take out the Chilean Rose pay site and not the reason for the edit- thank you. Sorry for using the word "excuse" didn't mean for it to sound in a bad way. ("reason" probably would have been a better word)

As for her not being notable enough, she is very much so, and I think the majority of those on the community forums would tend to agree (where she has racked up tens of thousands of views, posts, and fan artwork contriubtions- on a scale I've not seen before in my entire 15 years in the community). While her site is under a year old, she has already caused waves in the giantess community on nearly all the main sites (Mystic's, Magic's, and GiantessDC). This has always been a male dominated fetish, with very little if any female presence. Just as Stephanie's Giantess Collage site was a noteable historical mark back in the 1990s, Katelyn's site is that on a much larger scale. In many ways, she is redefining the fetish. She also states within the forums that she will continue to help shed light on the female side of the fetish, for example, bringing up points about her overall bisexuality that has led to her to not care what gender plays the shrunken person role.

I will bring it up on the talk page when I get the chance, however I really like to know what you think. DancingCat55 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Userpage vandalism
No problem! As I've had my own userpage vandalized nearly 30 times, I agree that it's just a pain to be subject to childish behavior by vandals. Happy editing! –- kungming·  2  (Talk)  10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Automotive autoerotism
Training wheels are a wonderful thing. I am an administrator - but I didn't speedy it on my own either. After a few people agreed, the next one did. That's the way things should be! - crz crztalk 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Art Dominique
Hi! A report for this guy isn't necessary, because he's really, really, obvious. There was even an arbitration on this user. I think the guy above telling you that "Kven information is abused, by you too" is him as well. I'm going to go ahead and block, , and now. Ciao, Khoikhoi 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Unreasonable Deletion of My "Sexual Fetish" Link
I think that you are a little over the edge, dear Robotman. I posted a link to an excellent article about fetishes by an expert in the field, Dr. Susan Block, on the fetish page. This article is not on a commercial page, though it has links to some commercial pages as well as more informational pages and other valuable fetish-related articles. Dr. Block follows in the footsteps of Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld whose institute was for the educational benefit of all who sought it out, and also sold dildos in the gift shop. You deleted my link to Block's article with the explanation that it is "commercial." As I said, it is not. I notice you delete a lot of links, and I can see by your "talk" pages that there are many Wikipedians who disagree with your many deletions. With all due respect, you cancel out a lot of good information in your clean-up campaigns. And this is what Wikipedia is all about: good and valuable information. Please keep in mind that nothing on the Internet exists in a vacuum. One good link leads to another, and eventually down the line, some money might exchange hands. This is the concept of the Internet; we are all linked to each other, as we are genetically. So I am putting the link back in. I look forward to your reply, and I would also like to hear from other Wikipedians on this subject. Maxatnite 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 14:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate your thoughtful reconsideration. Maxatnite 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

re female ejaculation
I have an interest in wam, particularly lotion-play (hence my editing the articles in the first place) but I don't want to give the impression I "own" the article, its just that like I said, if you include that in see also, why not the other fetishes I mentioned- I know from wam forums etc. that anything related to body fluids is not considered to have any wam component- its banned on umd for example. I just feel that the existing see also links are all things which fall into the remit of wam, and that one stands out as not being- maybe you could add it to "what wam is not", that way the link will still be there if anyone wants to follow it, and in what I feel is a more appropriate context... Urso 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop claiming time after time after time this is vandalism.
Have many a time explained why this is NOT vandalism, try replying in response to what I've said on my talk page instead of constantly saying the same thing over and over again that it is vandalism. thanks. Mathmo Talk 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is vandalism, and trolling. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Images of Miss Nepomenko

 * You said that "Please stop adding images of that same person to multiple articles, as you did to Exhibitionism, Orgasm, Glabrousness, Nudity, Swimsuit and Bikini. These articles already have enough images appropriate to the articles subject matter. If you wish to publicise this model, get a blog. Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion or promotion of non-notable people." As you might check yourself Orgasm and Glabrousness have no picture whatsoever. I am not trying to promote myself (I am neither the model nor the photographer); I am not trying to promote anybody. Just trying to illustrate some wikipedia articles with tasteful and appropriate pictures. Regards, --Gruk 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You said "Please do not add the images of that model to any more articles. If you think those images should be included in those articles, please discuss that on the relevant talk pages." Do I understand correctly that you discussed on the relevnat pages before removing the pictures? --Gruk 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:House Centipede
I didn't check whether or not what you say is true, but since the user has been permanently blocked for page move vandalism, I have deleted all of them. - Mike Rosoft

Welcome
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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Sorry mate, the Vandalisim warning was an accident. I meant only to welcome you, and you did nothing wrong. In fact, good editing so far, see you around, Dfrg.m s c 1 . 2 . Editor Review 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exhibitionistworld
Haha I beat you! :) It was obvious advertising, and I'm kind of annoyed with it. I'm going to keep a watch on their contributions, because I'm sure that they're the kind of people that won't give up until they're blocked. I'm glad to see that I'm doing something productive in the whole two days that I've been monitoring new pages for speedy deletes. --Adam Riley Talk 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out my talk page and see the request the left for you on there. --Adam Riley Talk 00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a spammer as you stated. You both are not being consistant and fair to all exhibitionism links is my gripe. As to Dear Robotman 1974, Your message is noted. However Exhibitionist World has been promoting the exhibitionist lifestyle before wikipedia was even registered. If you are going to promote Jerry Springer as a exhibitionist medium relevant to exhibitionism, then you have to include the most popular way used today for exhibitionists to share pictures in the web. If you truly want to say that any link for exhibitionism is not relevant take alook at the other links you leave.....none is close to being a site totally dedicated to exhibitionism. I hope you will reconsider, this not promotion, just simply fact. Exhibitionist World is a Free site known thoughout the world by exhibitionists like myself, and is worthy of recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibitionistworld (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 December 2006


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally Order
Hey thanks for organizing the 'Humanoid Robot' page list, I was going to do it but I don't have much time in my hands right now-Dark Dragon Flame 23 December 2006
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 05:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

About "Genesis" album cover
Why do I need a source for my statement that the tracklist page for the 1983 "Genesis" album cover uses the same number for each shape that the Shape-O toy has on each corresponding block? Anyone who owns both the toy and the album can see that it's true. Jphillst 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ayles Ice Shelf, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway
May I ask why you made the track timings smaller? I was under the impression that they were to be of a "normal" size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Track_listing Does this mean I have to edit all the album articles I have created? Is there a new convention now? Stephenjh 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about template
Hi Shoessss, I saw the nice yellow template you used on this user's page here. I haven't actually seen that template before, so I'm just wondering if it counts as a final warning. That user made another edit after that, which I reverted as vandalism, so I'm also wondering if I should have reported the IP to AIV. Thanks. Robotman1974 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I use it as a warning right before the Final Warning

Hope this helps...and Happy New Year Shoessss 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL...no problem...done 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot error
Thank you for letting me know about the error (and fixing the problem) and I will immediately investigate what went wrong. Cheers, Jayden54 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:151.199.192.140
Hi, this user has vandalised the Dylan page today. As you gave him a final warning, I thought I'd let you know. All the best, Lion King 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. Cheers! Lion King 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking templates
You're right that I was going to do the blocking first and go back to my block log and leave templates. I probably better do it so you don't get in trouble later. Thanks for the offer though. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Genesis template
Previously when I've done these, someone else has come through after the FA time has passed and cleared the protections. I went on vacation shortly after doing these protections, and assumed the same would happen, and did not even think about them when I returned. Obviously they were not cleared out. So I have started clearing them out myself, starting with the one you wanted access to. (They are being protected because a serial vandal is using them to put pornographic pictures onto the FA pages, and make it hard to figure out where the images are coming from.) - TexasAndroid 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 15:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedia meetup
Just a reminder that the Calgary Wikipedia meetup is this Sunday, 2pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). —GrantNeufeld 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help me fix my user page
Hi -

I tried to make a user page which has some componenets of your page, and some components of other user pages.

It ended up looking like crap. Could you please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alan_Rockefeller and let me know why it looks so bad in my Firefox browser? Am I missing some brackets or something?

I am asking you because you edited some pages that I worked on, and you seem to know how all these things work.

Thanks

-Alan Rockefeller —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan Rockefeller (talk • contribs).


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of user page
I didn't catch the deletion nom fast enough - is there any way I can see what was on the page prior to deletion? Weatherman90 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

your message
I deliberatley done it, I am seeing how easy it is for vandals to get away with vandalising. 1B6 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of Interest, I also suffer from Aspergers Syndrome. 1B6 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Robotman1974 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Swinford
I certainly feel it is pertinent, as it's the only time in my lifetime that swinford has ever gotten any fame, of infamy, as the case may be. BTW, I'm also have asperger's. And as for reference, it was broadcast on national television! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conor quinn (talk • contribs).
 * My response is here. Robotman1974 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)