Robroams
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Welcome from Vatsan34 edit
|
Your recent edits edit
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 ( ~~~~ ) 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) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your credibility edit
Hello, Robroams …
Your blatant failure to respect the Policies and guidelines here, such as Assume good faith and Sign your posts, are only hurting your case in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar … instead of maligning the other editors, you should do something constructive, like adding Reliable sources to cite as links to the article, but for some reason, you refuse to learn how things are done around here, or to even click the links that are provided, as demonstrated by this post:
Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) …
All you had to do was click the link provided (sock/meatpuppets), but you do not appear to be as smart as the 12-year olds who use this site.
At first, I thought that your references to "a photographer and computer programmer" were directed at me, but then I realized that you weren't smart enough to follow the bread crumbs and find my Web pages, because you haven't figured out that you should click the text that is highlighted in blue.
Upon further reflection, you couldn't be Sophia Ziburtovicz as I at first suspected, because she claims to be a member of Mensa … that is, unless they've lowered their standards since I joined over 30 years ago … and yes, I can document my membership through having been one of the subjects of an article on Blacks in Mensa in the Oct'84 issue of Ebony … that's an example of the kind of WP:RS documentation that Eric Zaccar's article is lacking.
Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I signed at least one of my posts Rob Stedelin. Read more carefully, Mensa member.
I'm working with Sophia Ziburtovics who is, in fact, a recent, later in life addition to Mensa. She took her test and was accepted sometime in the past few weeks. Someone else who works with us posted her name on the Mensa list as kind of a surprise for her. For whatever reason, after this was done, this person was suspended from editing for a week. AFTER this suspension, he noticed the warnings he received not to continue adding Sophia's name. Since he'd never gotten messages in a wikipedia E-Mail box before, and didn't even know that he could be E-Mailed through wikipedia, it didn't occur to him to look for these messages, before. If he'd have seen the first warning, he wouldn't have done it again.
He tried to write to appeal his suspension but none of the links seemed to work.
Oh and I added numerous new newspaper references and reliable sources to my re-written and far more informative article about Eric Zaccar, and it was still removed within five minutes. without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 October 2009
- Signing once with your name in Real life is not the same as signing your posts so that you are identified as a Wikipedia user and can be contacted … Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs) was blocked from editing for a week because they blanked the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar, a clear case of WP:Vandalism … as for not seeing the messages, there was a clear You have new messages banner displayed the next time they logged on after the messages were posted (I'm assuming that by "wikipedia E-Mail box" you mean User talk:Dreamdesignernow, their user talk page) … how smart do you have to be to read the messages on your user talk page and then add {{unblock|Your reason here}} as instructed?
- The recreated article was deleted as WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.) You can try to bring it up at WP:Deletion review, but given your track record, I doubt that you'll have much success there, either.
- In case you haven't realized it, George Orwell was half right … instead of Big Brother watching you, there are millions of "Little Brothers" looking over your shoulder, attempting to rid Wikipedia of self-serving interests with an agenda of promoting their own enterprises … there is no "malice" involved, just an aversion to WP:Conflict of interest and subjects that do not meet the WP:General notability guideline.
- Bottom line, if you want to participate here, then take some time to learn how things work, and follow the WP:Policies and guidelines like everyone else (including WP:SIGN, i.e., adding "~~~~" at the end of your posts, or can't you find that key on your keyboard?), otherwise you may find yourself at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and all of your related accounts (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dreamdesignernow for the list) will be blocked not for just a week, but indefinitely. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- The added news references were about Zaccar serving as a jury foreman. That doesn't do much for his notability as a writer. Evil saltine (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire tone of Eric's rewritten article was changed so that his jury foreman references did relate to his writing. Eric's upcoming feature film, WITHOUT HATE is all about the jury case, and "legitimate" checkable publicity for the project should start popping up, in the coming months. His play, HOUSING, written up in the New York Times, also dealt with his own personal experiences with something very public. Every writer tells his own life stories, at one time or another, but they don't all have the distinction of having being personally involved with headline stories, and then writing about them. If you google "jury foreman" and "Brooklyn," without any names, dates or additional information, more than one article about Eric will come up, on the first page. In other words, he's gotten more recognition for his jury case than virtually any other jury foreman to come out of Brooklyn. And he's the only one who's about to have a feature film made, as a result.
We (the sock puppets and I) would have been more than happy to debate the merits of Eric Zaccar's work and noteability in a private forum and/or at a different time. Again, our project is at a crucial point, investors, actors, directors and other industry people are being solicited to come on board, and having people google Eric and see words like "minor, insignificant local writer" was not something we needed.
I still don't know how to make this official, but I think that writing my name should be at least as much of a signature as an IP address..... Rob Stedelin(Robroams (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC));
Contacting me edit
LEARN TO CLICK THE LINKS!!! All you have to do is look at User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome and there is a link to email me (that's why I have a {{User Alternate Acct}} userbox on both my User and Talk pages) … I only use that account to create pages or make changes to semi-protected pages … it also has a link to my primary website, if you're not too mentally challenged to find it (it's between the {{User:UBX/Cat owner}} and {{user current age}} userboxes.)
And links to audio files are prohibited by WP:ELNO, in case you hadn't noticed … as for being anal retentive, I guess you still haven't read Wikipedia:Verifiability either, so here's the CliffsNotes version:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
This is a Wikipedia:POLICY, and as such it is not subject to debate. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You're a funny guy, I'll give you that. A lot of these links don't seem to work on my computer. I haven't been able to click on a link to E-Mail anyone on this site.
I'm rather computer literate. I've designed websites and I've done audio and video editing. I couldn't seem to make these things work, and I did try hard. And I know that dreamdesignernow, who chooses to remain nameless for what should be obvious reasons, tried for hours to find a link that allowed him to state his reasons that he didn't think he should be banned from editing.
If you don't know to look for messages, you might not neccesarily see that messages are there. Dreamdesignernow had no reason to expect to get messages on wikipedia, he didn't know that any kind of messages could be sent to his wikipedia account, so he didn't look for them. That much I know because I was there when he was banned, I was there when he tried to find the link to appeal, and I was there when he found the messages.
Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2009
Repost of Eric Zaccar edit
A tag has been placed on Eric Zaccar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- How? I tried repeatedly to contact the editor who deleted the page, but I couldn't find any links. As far as reposting Eric's article: What's the point, if it's going to cause another debate where your self proclaimed editors find reasons to bash him? Again, that's totally detrimental, and extremely costly to our project.
- And I used the term "anal retentive" twelve messages ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 October 2009
- Still can't figure out how to click the Talk links next to a user's name, eh? And that "anal retentive" message was from three days ago, if you'll look at the date/time stamp on the WP:SIGN … if all of this activity is "totally detrimental, and extremely costly to [y]our project", then perhaps you should simply cut your losses and stop posting messages on this site, where your backers can see how mentally challenged you are when it comes to simple things like civilized conversations without name calling. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
What could have been edit
Robroams … See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nevin Millan for an example of how things could have gone if you and your compatriots hadn't tried to derail the process by blanking the page and making personal attacks … why don't you follow the breadcrumbs (like Example of a stub with good WP:V to establish WP:BIO ) and make a sandbox page (e.g., User:Robroams /Eric Zaccar) with some WP:Citation templates instead of just a list of WP:External links? In other words, compare User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan with Nevin Millan, and pay particular attention to the advice on User talk:Nevpan/Nevin Millan about formatting links. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's admirable that you all have the time and inclination to learn all these code words, and verse yourselves on how to use all these links. Some of my compatriots and I are in the middle of producing our first feature film, from Eric Zaccar's script, and that's about as time consumming and energy consumming as building pyramids from straw.
At least three requests to save Eric's article didn't come from anyone in our camp, or anyone we knew or knew about. If you wouldn't have pulled it, without warning, the article would have been rewritten. Again, I did re-write it and re-post it with more thorough information and more official references, but it was immediately deleted, without even being examined.
If posting again is going to cause another name calling debate, then we'd all prefer to wait. Again, our project is at a place where a lot of investors, actors, agents, producers and VIPs might be googling Eric, and the last thing we need is for them to see pages that call him a minor and insignificant writer (which is far from the case, I assure you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 October 2009