User talk:Virtualizer

Welcome!

Hello, Virtualizer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Doctor Robert[edit]

Hi, sorry I've had to revert your edit because we don't regard MySpace as a reliable source for this, and since it's possible that the person in question may still be alive, we also have to take care about libel, per this policy. If you can find a better source, feel free to use it, although some speculations are sourced in the article already. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This resprond to my writing is logical, because I will first have to study the Wikipedia environment before I can come up with a definition that fits the Wikipedia demands. Everybody can read my response to administrator RodHullandemu on the discussion section of Doctor Robert:

[[1]]

Doctor Robert van der Velden

92.66.94.145 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this clear; this is your first and only edit to this encyclopedia, and for some magical reason you come straight to this page to discuss a subject about which you cannot possibly have credible prior knowledge. Above and beyond that, you seem to think that Encyclopedia Dramatica is somehow worthy of more than zero credibility. Why is this? --Rodhull andemu 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laat me dit duidelijk: dit is uw eerste en enige bewerken aan deze encyclopedie, en voor sommige magische reden komt u rechtstreeks naar deze pagina om te discussiëren over een onderwerp dat u niet mogelijk zijn geloofwaardig voorkennis. Boven en buiten dat, je lijkt te denken dat encyclopedie Dramatica is enigszins waardige van meer dan nul geloofwaardigheid. Waarom is dit? --Rodhull andemu 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's entertaining. Virtualizer (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Doctor Robert has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): <external URLs removed>

. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried the soft approach, but you don't seem to realise the problem. If you add that MySpace link once more, we may well lose patience and you will be blocked from editing as a result. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Doctor Robert, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. --Rodhull andemu 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rodhull andemu 14:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above warning. 19:26 6th January.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Virtualizer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not spam,advertise or promote; It is in my good faith that I attempt to develop the Doctor Robert Wikipedia page, since it is just in a start-up state. The damaging statements relating drugs apply to any person alive that could be the main character in the lyrics of the song. As time passes, my story will gain credibitly. Furthermore, I'm already growing increasingly cautious in my definition of Doctor Robert. I would like to ask you if you can come up with proof that I can't be Doctor Robert.

Decline reason:

How many times do you need to be told something before you understand that you cannot do it? We are not a site for yoiu to promote your version of reality and nor are we publishers of original thought. This is a collaborative project for people who can work in a collegiate and constructive manner. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Virtualizer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Truth and justice for the real Doctor Robert

Decline reason:

I feel that the commets of the previous reviewing admin was sufficient. I'm protecting the page to prevent further abuse of the unblock process. — Trusilver 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What occurred in 1966 is not just my version of reality. Something happened that drew the attention of the most influential people on this planet. It is not my habbit to promote myself, I just want the truth to be told about the Doctor Robert of the Beatles song from 1966. And I want justice to be done to the person this song is about. Right now he's being damaged by the Doctor Robert Wikipedia page.

Dear Wikipedia users and administrators,

I can't stress the importance enough of the information below. For the credibility of the Wikipedia Doctor Robert page, the text below should in my opinion be placed:

Robert van der Velden, a Dutch information architect, allround designer, composer, singer and guitarplayer, discovered in 2007 that he is most likely the one and only Doctor Robert that the Beatles have referred to in their song in 1966. He was just two years old when a true miracle happened, making him worldfamous amongst the most influential people on this planet, while he and his family didn't even realize this happened. If you don't believe this, just check all the contradictions and speculations regarding the true identity of Doctor Robert. Certainly the Beatles were smart enough in 1966 to avoid an ode to a doctor prescribing amphetamine like Robert Freymann. Being serious musicians, they already knew the severe consequences of using such a destructive drug. And why would John Lennon call himself Doctor Robert? Doctor John would have been more logical if he was carrying around all the pills in the early days. The year 1966 certainly doesn't belong to the Beatles' early days anymore, since they started to record with George Martin. Lennon had a very fine British (or should I say Celtic?), cynical sense of humour and liked to play around with this name. He created a mysterious birdnest, expecting that one day the true identity of Doctor Robert would inevitably be revealed. In the meantime it probably remained one of the best kept secrets of the Beatles...

I already managed to publish a previous version of this text on the Doctor Robert discussion page of Doctor Robert, so maybe I should count my blessings. Administrator Rodhullandemu, an incredibly fanatic Wikipedia editor in my view, has taken offense ny my writings systematically. I doubt that he is acting in good faith, because he doesn't seem to read my publications. A fertile dialogue does not appear until now.

In order to develop this true story in such a way, that it meets the Wikipedia demands, I have to be able to have a high quality dialogue, for instance with one or more administrators who are experts of the Beatles. It is most likely that Rodhullandemu does not deliver the proper responses needed to get the truth about Doctor Robert on Wikipedia. In other words, please try to get the right administrators on the job.

My mission is to serve humanity by creating a vision that projects a superior human biosphere on earth. My own personal gain has been disposable during the 8 years I have an enterprise. All the publications on my websites can be verified as true. It's only a matter of time. As a designer I am highly respected among a small, but quickly growing group of people. My company, however small in concrete size, is constructed in a way that it can never go bankrupt. It has proved to be bona fide under very different circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

Robert van der Velden

Lab 4 Information Architecture P 0031 (0)40 2512488

I'm sorry that you seem to feel that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply to you. Let me try to make this as clear as possible for you- MYSPACE. IS. NOT. A. RELIABLE. SOURCE. The edits you want to make do not conform to any number of policies, including WP:N, WP:V and WP:BLP. I have protected your user page from more frivolous unblock requests for a period of three days. I suggest you use those three days to draft up an unblock request that centers around your reluctant agreement to adhere to Wikipedia policy rather than another whiny "Unblock me because I'm right and you are wrong!!!!!!111eleven11" tirade. If I were to see that, I might actually take it seriously. Trusilver 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Virtualizer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

arguments for a sensible debate; I removed all the external links. What I would like to start on the talk pages is a sensible debate concerning the true identity of Doctor Robert. I can come up with arguments why my true story is right, but I will have to do this very carefully, otherwise I might be blocked again. I can only debate sensibly with Wikipedia users who do not exclude the possibility that I am the real Doctor Robert. Until now nobody but me comes up with this claim. It's not something you make up, my story is far too bizarre and complicated to be untrue. I realise that the Beatles are Great Brittains pride and glory, but that shouldn't be a reason why Doctor Robert can't be Dutch. I'm also doing this on the Dutch Wikipedia pages and the response is much milder. Understandable, but not appropriate. Virtualizer (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While I was initially open to the idea of unblocking your account, I al leaning heavily on the opinions of the blocking admin as well as User:Sandstein and User:Anthony.bradbury. When we consider whether or not to unblock an account, we will always consider the good of the project and our assessment of the possible contributions the user has to offer before we consider the intentions of that user himself. That being said, I feel that your intentions are probably good concerning changes made to the article. However, your interest in editing seems limited to making changes in an article which fail WP:V. Because of this, I see very hope that your positive contributions will offset your potential for negative disruptiveness. Because of this, I've decided to decline your unblock request at this time. — Trusilver 01:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm contacting the blocking admin to see if he has any input on this. I find this acceptable and I would be willing to perform an unblock if there are no major objections based on information I'm unaware of. Trusilver 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin wholly uninvolved previously, could I suggest that any unblock be contingent on agreement to make no further posting of the text which precititated the block until consensus approves it?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not unblocking this account. In my experience, WP:TRUTH-bearing WP:SPAs are ... well, generally more trouble than they are worth. Sandstein 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through this user's contribution history, I am inclined to agree with Sandstein's assessment. I would be open to unblocking should the user not contribute to the article that he seems to get himself into trouble with, but seeing that this user doesn't seem interested in participating elsewhere, that would probably mean the same to him as an indefinite block. Trusilver 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much whether unblocking this user would result in a net benefit to the project. some exchanges on my talk page make me think that this user isn't going to understand what we are trying to achieve here. --Rodhull andemu 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Robert[edit]

January 2009[edit]

Your recent edits[edit]

See also[edit]