User talk:Robedia

Ronan Farrow

Hi, Robedia. I appreciate your attempts at making Ronan Farrow a good and encyclopedic article. I know you've only been editing since September, so I want to take this moment to explain that Wikipedia holds biographies of living people to the highest standards of anything in this encyclopedic — the full policy, and it's a policy, not just a guideline, appears at WP:BLP. That policy, combined with general verification policies and guidelines precludes insertion of tabloid rumors. Information in Wikipedia has to be solidly, concretely, swear-in-court true, as much as we can humanly make it. Anonymously "sourced" personal claims do not in any way reach the threshold of a reliable source.

I hope you understand that WP:BLP vios are considered very serious — Wikipedia has been publicly shamed in the past over unconfirmed and incorrect claims about living people — and this is something that, if it keeps being reverted back in, will have to invite admin scrutiny.

If you still want to add these tabloid rumors, please go to the talk page to discuss it with other editors or open a Request for Comment. As a veteran editor, I thank you for understanding Wikipedia policies and respecting the spirit of their aims. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be polite, but your continued insistence on bad grammar is appalling. Are you a native English speaker? I'm a professional journalist/editor, but don't take my word for this: Go look it up in a book on grammar and you'll see we do not split participial phrases. "has however been" is terrible grammar. Look it up. And "however" as used here doesn't say anything the sentence doesn't already say, so that's just wordiness — which is a second, separate issue, since unnecessary wordiness is just plain bad writing. You could look that up, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

As mentioned in the previous chapter, your grammar leaves much to be desired. It results in meaningless and/or ambiguous sentences which are in no way better than the ones that were already there. Richard 08:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robedia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]