User talk:Roman Soldier

This page has been locked from further editing and is preserved as a record of the incidents leading to this user's ban.

Welcome!

Hi Roman Soldier! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Tobycat 00:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted content by that troll Lucky whatever, please do not put it back up here. After all, it is my talk page. Roman Soldier 01:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for showing an active concern for the protection of the validity of site content. For future reference please read Wikipedia:Revert to repair vandalized pages and Wikipedia:Vandalism for dealing with vandals. Thanks. Mostly magic 20:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Oceans Origin article was worth keeping. It is a topic that can and should be expanded. I have written a "Keep" for it on the deletion page in defense of the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ocean_Origins More small articles of interest belong on Wiki- They can be developed into full articles of interest in time. - TikiWiki

Male Wikipedians

Hi! I noticed you had placed yourself in Category:Male Wikipedians, and use babel boxes. Just so you know, I've just made the template {{User male}}. Feel free to use it and/or edit it! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 19:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of 'liberal wikipedians' category

Hi. I saw you're (like me) listed in this category which is up for deletion. Hoped you'd like to vote in favor of keeping it... Thanks! Larix 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for voting! Larix 16:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

New article deleted

This concerns the article Future of New Orleans, which you've recently added. The article was deleted because it contained no meaningful content and was highly biased. Please review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before making any more new articles. Thank you. // Pathoschild 03:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation

I suggest you create "$User:RomanSoIder$" and mark it with {{doppelganger|Roman Soldier}}. 12.75.98.103 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --reWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Origins xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't edit others' user pages

Please don't edit others' user pages. This is considered vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, please don't remove AfD notices from articles: the notice clearly states that it is not to be removed. If you have any questions or are confused about anything, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Do it again to my page and we are going to have issues. You have something to say, either leave polite word on my talk page or e-mail me. Meantime, you're now gone for one month for vandalism and personal attacks. You have some chip on your shoulder, bub. I tried to help you back in October and you've apparently held a grudge since then. Next personal attack on me or anyone else on this site means this "troll" blocks you permanently. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You owe User:Knowledge Seeker a tremendous debt of thanks. Your block has been reduced to one week. Please maintain a level of civility upon your return. - Lucky 6.9 08:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucky,

You are a horrible administrator who certainly doesn't deserve the title. I simply tried creating a couple of articles back in October, and you deleted them before I or anyone else had a chance to get them going. And I'm the one getting blocked? Also, please don't ever taint my talk page with your non-sense ever again. Roman Soldier 18:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Roman, this type of comment is not appropriate for Wikipedia. We are a community working to build an encyclopedia. While we may disagree at times, we can do so calmly and rationally. Also, regardless of what someone has done, insulting in this manner is not productive. I have disagreed with other administrator's actions before, but I try to point out why I disagree. If there is a heavy pattern of abuse, I have worked to get administrators desysopped before, but it is through discussion, not rudeness. Certainly vandalizing his user page was out of line. User-page vandalism is never appropriate. I do feel that your being blocked was appropriate, due to the personal attacks, user-page vandalism, AfD vandalism, and so on. Nevertheless, I did ask Lucky to consider reducing the length of your block and he did—and he was certainly under no obligation to do so. But I would like to help you interact more smoothly with other Wikipedians and to be able to be more productive here. I would be happy to work with you to answer your questions or help you with concerns. In turn, I'd like to ask you to refrain from further vandalism and to treat your fellow editors with courtesy and respect, even if you don't agree with them. Both of these are essential components of Wikipedia. You may e-mail me at the link off my user page (it will say "E-mail this user" in the left toolbox). But consider taking a break from Wikipedia for a few days—sometimes it can be surprisingly helpful in gaining a fresh perspective. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge

Knowledge, if you'd like to give me your email address, I can explain to you why Lucky does not deserve to be an administrator in more detail. Roman Soldier 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, you ignored mine. Permanently blocked. I don't need this kind of abuse from someone who's held a grudge for this long and then appears out of nowhere to begin the attack anew. - Lucky 6.9 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge and Knowledgeless

Knowledge,

That's very nice, but have you seen the kind of stuff this guy has done? I tried created a couple of articles about television shows (we have tons of them on Wikipedia) and he deleted them in seconds, before I had a chance to even get them started! He didn't call a vote for deletion, he just abused his powers to delete them outright. He told me not to create stubs. We should be grateful that he wasn't in charge of creating Microsoft Word or we wouldn't be able to save anything until our 10-page term papers were finished and spell-checked!

And you defend this man and his administrative powers? Is he really Wikipedia material?

To 69 (I'm assuming your name makes light of the sexual position?),

Well of course, abuse your administrative powers to block someone you don't like. I wouldn't expect any better from you, Lucky. First you delete articles as users try to create them, then you lock members accounts? Is this in the mission statement of Wikipedia anywhere? Is this what Jimbo Wales wants of his site?

I've created articles about the origins of the Oceans, contributed material about television shows, and filled gaps in articles such as nuclear winter. What have you ever done? All you do is delete articles before they have a chance and block members. I've seen your harassment of other members, particularly new ones.

Alas I hope that in time the other administrators will see you as a liability to Wikipedia, and not an asset. Roman Soldier 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, pal. The gloves are now off. Take a look at my user page if you want the origin of my name. You think that name would have lasted two years if it was a reference to a sexual position? Where's your head? I help new users. Ask users like Maoririder, SuperDude115 and Wiki brah. I tried to help you as well and all you've done is bitch, moan, invoke Jimmy Wales and generally stir the pot. You want Wikilove? Earn it, bubbie. I'm glad to extend it to you. You want to talk about contributions and how much of an asset I am? Read the list of my contribs and check the edit history at the start of each. All started as useable articles right out of the box. You want articles to stay once created? You've read the tutorials and you have added some really good work. Have I deleted your recent contributions? Not on your life. That would be a misuse of administrative powers. I haven't removed, edited or otherwise even seen anything of yours since October when you first started. Now I have to read your bile and hatred in December? Hell, I'd forgotten about you and even if I hadn't I don't hold grudges. Don't you dare turn this around on me. You earned this block. You want back in? Knock off the personal attacks and let's work together. I don't dislike you; how could I? We've never met outside a few keystrokes of data! You think I wanted to block a user who really has contributed in a positive manner? Here's the deal: You promise to knock off the personal attacks. Period. No parting shots. I promise to unblock you and make myself available to you for assistance should you wish it. And, I promise never to lord this incident over you. As I said, I don't nurse grudges. I await your answer here on this page. - Lucky 6.9 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Lucky 6.9. First I must say that I think Lucky is a fine adminstrator: I supported his bid for adminship and I support him now. You, too, have done good work for Wikipedia, although the vandalism has marred your contributions. I understand your frustration, too, at your articles being deleted a few months ago. Lucky and I both would like to help you become a productive member of Wikipedia. On a project like this, with such diversity in contributors, there will be disagreement and conflict. You'll have to learn to not take it personally, and to be able to move on after an issue is resolved. As Lucky says, I see no reason for further conflict. Let's work together to make Wikipedia better instead of attacking each other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just One of an Army

Lucky,

The only help I need is the removal of deletionist administrators such as yourself. As you can see from my contributions, I add quite a bit to Wikipedia. I'm glad you see this. I just looked at your talk page. I see that I'm not the only one whose articles you have deleted on sight for being stubs. You seriously need to stop doing that. I don't see a "no stub" rule anywhere on this site. In fact, had you not locked my account, I would be talking to Jimbo Wales directly about this. Roman Soldier 06:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a "no-stub" rule. Speedy deletion criterion A1 states that an article with little or no content may be immediately removed. Obviously, you refuse to get the chip off of your shoulder. I don't give a damn about your contributions if you refuse to act as part of a community and come here three months after the fact and start in again without the slightest provocation. You were blocked twice before for this kind of hate...consider yourself gone for good. I came by in hopes that you'd agree to my proposal, but you obviously can't let this drop. This talk page has been locked from further editing. - Lucky 6.9 03:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)