User talk:Roguetech
December 2013
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roguetech reported by User:Inanygivenhole (Result: ). Thank you. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Petty and vindictive to report when we had mutually agreed not to, have not made changes to what you claimed is what you have a problem over, and over issue that you are so clearly wrong about (orphan status on an article with links to it). Considering that you haven't contributed anything constructive to the article, and prefer to simply undo what I add, I doubt you're upset over effectively ending research on the article for a week.Roguetech (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- No such agreement was made and you violated a well-established policy despite warnings not to. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Skirting the rule by making different arbitrary changes to a document when you've already made two reverts in a day without explanation -especially when they are clearly and unambiguously wrong - is nothing more than vandalism. Reporting an article already under third party review was, as I stated, petty, self-serving AND unproductive. If you did anything for a good reason - or even a stated reason- it would be different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by roguetech (talk • contribs)
- "Everything I disagree with is vandalism", yes, we know that you are unfamiliar with policy. No need to go and make it obvious. I would strongly suggest getting acquainted with *all* policy immediately, and not on an "as needed" basis. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything I disagree with is vandalism" Never stated anything of the sort. What I stated was that making arbitrary and unsupported edits with the intention of interfering with an article is vandalism. Since you have made no explanation of any of these changes, I can only assume your purpose is to obscure a specific edit while skirting the three edit rule.Roguetech (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have made my purpose and intentions clear, and everything I say turns into an argument with you. No answer is good enough for you, and instead of attempting to work together, you read what I have to say so quickly that you completely misunderstand it. Clearly, I am not worth your time. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have yet to state any intentions whatsoever except in regards to unverified source, despite multiple requests for you to state your reasons. Clearly hypocritical AND dishonest.Roguetech (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have stated them on several occasions, and every time your lack of attention has led to you blatantly distorting my words when the intended meaning is very obvious. The slightest shorthand I use to express my thoughts (even something as simple as a pronoun with an obvious antecedent) becomes fodder for your distortion. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop using shorthand and actually explain why the article is stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues, or how you concluded wanting to convert Martians is extraordinary. Just to be clear, claiming you stated explanations is not the same as actually doing it. Roguetech (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about you slow down and realize that "shorthand" meant "pronouns observing obvious, traditional rules"? Hint: when someone says "reliability and verifiability" and then in the next sentence speaks of "them", they don't mean "stub, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, etc." Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop using shorthand and actually explain why the article is stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues, or how you concluded wanting to convert Martians is extraordinary. Just to be clear, claiming you stated explanations is not the same as actually doing it. Roguetech (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have stated them on several occasions, and every time your lack of attention has led to you blatantly distorting my words when the intended meaning is very obvious. The slightest shorthand I use to express my thoughts (even something as simple as a pronoun with an obvious antecedent) becomes fodder for your distortion. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have yet to state any intentions whatsoever except in regards to unverified source, despite multiple requests for you to state your reasons. Clearly hypocritical AND dishonest.Roguetech (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have made my purpose and intentions clear, and everything I say turns into an argument with you. No answer is good enough for you, and instead of attempting to work together, you read what I have to say so quickly that you completely misunderstand it. Clearly, I am not worth your time. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything I disagree with is vandalism" Never stated anything of the sort. What I stated was that making arbitrary and unsupported edits with the intention of interfering with an article is vandalism. Since you have made no explanation of any of these changes, I can only assume your purpose is to obscure a specific edit while skirting the three edit rule.Roguetech (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything I disagree with is vandalism", yes, we know that you are unfamiliar with policy. No need to go and make it obvious. I would strongly suggest getting acquainted with *all* policy immediately, and not on an "as needed" basis. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Skirting the rule by making different arbitrary changes to a document when you've already made two reverts in a day without explanation -especially when they are clearly and unambiguously wrong - is nothing more than vandalism. Reporting an article already under third party review was, as I stated, petty, self-serving AND unproductive. If you did anything for a good reason - or even a stated reason- it would be different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by roguetech (talk • contribs)
- No such agreement was made and you violated a well-established policy despite warnings not to. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
How about you slow down and realize that multiple requests for explanation of specific things are not satisfied by an excuse why explanations have not been provided, or why the explanation(s) were not recognized as such. How about you slow down and provide an explanation why the article is stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues, or how you concluded wanting to convert Martians is extraordinary? Hint: when someone specifies "stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues, or how you concluded wanting to convert Martians is extraordinary" what they probably mean is "stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues, or how you concluded wanting to convert Martians is extraordinary" rather than just "reliability and verifiability", and an attempt to only address one thing from a list of eight (and one thing not even mentioned) could easily be viewed as dodging the issue.Roguetech (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afronauts, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afronauts
[edit]
Hello Roguetech. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Afronauts".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afronauts}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)