User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2010/March

Adoption

Greetings RobertMfromLI/Archives/2010/March, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Those rollback options appear for all Twinkle users, even without being an admin, as described here and here. You appear to have used it correctly in your most recent edits; basically it should be used only for self-explanatory things - blatant vandalism, page blanking, etc. If it requires any explanation, then you should revert instead and supply an appropriate edit summary. - Draeco (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage help

Robert if you decide to use "my" user page layout and need help, let me know. I'll try my best to help with my limited knowledge of CSS/HTML. lol :-) I borrowed this layout from someone when I first joined, and don't remember who. I never asked if I could "use" it.. I guess I should have. LOL Oops. —Mike Allen 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks Mike! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: ABC's_of_Self_Defense page

I didn't see the company name at the bottom of the page. Regardless, he had plenty of time to try to assert notability, so I've gone ahead and speedy deleted the page. —C.Fred (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Juliancolton,

Much thanks, and don't worry, before an edit war over vandalism starts, I'd already have reported it to the correct board (AIV, etc).

Thanks again, and glad I can help!

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you! Not as good as cookies :(

		The Recent changes Barnstar
		For your hard work in recent changes! Thanks for making wikipedia tastier :D avs5221 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Glad I can help out! :-) RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your AIV report

We don't normally go straight to uw-v4im except in fairly extreme cases, but in this case your reasons were sensible. WP:VANDAL is the general guideline for dealing with vandalism. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

James Cawley

Hi. Regarding your suggested edit, that seems fine with me. I only made the change I did because in a quick look at IMDB I couldn't find any indication that shooting had actually started. I'll make the change, and if you can add a ref to support it, that would be good. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'd rather not add the cite due to COI concerns, if you want to pass it on to me, I'd be happy to add it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to take it off myself

My IP address is probably similar to the one that was writing the obscenities, but I'm a different user. I tried to take off the obscenities, but the edit filter wouldn't let me. >!< 98.232.204.226 (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown

This edit [1] should probably say "Brown" rather than use his first name. Might be in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but addressing Brown in the familiar with his first name seems out of place for an encyclopedia. I didn't revert it, but I've noticed that it keeps getting put back into the article.Malke2010 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malke,

I agree... I didnt create any of the content though, I was just reverting a bunch of vandalism in the article. I've got no objections to any changes in the article whatsoever (well, except for the vandalism of course) :-)

Best,

Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for reverting that vandalism. It's been getting hit a lot lately. Also, do you know if when we revert vandalism with TW if that automatically adds the vandalized page to our watch list? I love fighting vandals, but I'm getting a growing watch list and I'd like to cut that down. Any suggestions? Thanks. Malke2010 03:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, adds the user's page and the article to the Watch List.

So, what I do when I use Twinkle, is once the revert loads and the vandal's talk page reloads, I simply click the (un)watch star so it doesnt go on my watchlist.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that from now on. Cheers, Malke2010 03:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the addition made in homophobia was biased in any way, it was quite straightforward and the main points that were said were true by definition. Perhaps it is you that is being discriminatory, by not allowing the opinion from both ends either because of being biased in the subject or to seem politically correct? This was one of the main reasons why I put it in as it was my belief that this website is biased on certain levels. Your reaction to my addition proves this point exactly. In reality both sides of any subject should be allowed to be viewed by people so they can make their own decisions on the subject. You do not need to reply as it will most likely be a waste of your time as I will discontinue all use of this website and encourage others to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.37.167 (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vic Mignogna

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is up to you to fully read this to understand why adding in info needs to be sourced. And also, Living persons can contribute to their biographies, but in certain cases. Asking him directly is not allowed; sources must be from verifiable and stable sources. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragon Superhero

Well what does it mean? What reliable sources discuss it and define it? What reliable sources note that Thor is a paragon Superhero? etc etc --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LoL, I was just asking why. Not disagreeing with it's removal. The category seems undefined... but as it had Superman in it, I figured Thor should not be removed from it - or (as noted on the cat page) the whole cat should be removed.

Best,

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)