User talk:Robertcoolh

EVERYONE'S IGNORING ME.

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scooch, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AngelOfSadness talk 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page That's Not My Name 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): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/thetingtingsofficial).

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) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to the page List of Live Lounge covers constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Alex Evans (model). If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. -- Menti fisto 16:24, 18 February 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 vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:33, 18 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry and I will never vandalise this site ever again.

Decline reason:

Nice to hear it, and that's right, because you are blocked. If you want to be unblocked you'll have to make a case that you would be a valuable contributor if you had a second chance. I suggest you explain your editing interests and possibly demonstrate your skills at writing or researching. Mango juice^talk 20:01, 11 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I will be a valuabl contributor as you said, I will read WP:WELCOME, I will make constructive edits

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:32, 12 March 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.

The Ting Tings

{{helpme}} I want to add a comment to Ting Tings' talk page, stating that I work in a bar, and that Jules showed me his ID and it DEFINITELY says 16/7/79.}}

Sorry, but that's not reliable information. And you're blocked. Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Katie White the only girl in Dear Eskiimo? Robertcoolh (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JGXEnite, was Katie the only girl in Dear Eskimo?Robertcoolh (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sarah Templeman, who keeps getting called Simon, was in the band. Tomcoolh

Why did Sarah Templeman get changed back to Simon on both Katie White and Julesde Martino's pages? From Tom xxx Tom 15:05, 21 March, 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am currently looking at the BBC source "Ting Tings plan to return to studio". This source states that "Jules De Martino hooked up with Katie White at Leeds University"

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.. Sandstein 19:51, 19 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Exactly. The block was indeed made in error, and I understand.

Decline reason:

I'm still waiting on your article revisions from the second chance thing above. Where are those? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:49, 19 March 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).

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

Request reason:

here they are; there's a relible source below this. [1]

Decline reason:

This is not sufficient. We are looking for substantial improvements to an article, not the addition of a single source or spelling corrections; both of these take the span of a few minutes to do depending on the article (and I don't even know what article you're referring to here). Please follow the directions and do as you were asked multiple times if you would like to be unblocked. Having a mite more patience wouldn't hurt either - we are all volunteers here, and cannot be running back here at your beck and call as soon as you comment. Please also be aware, however, that continuing to waste our time with frivolous requests may result in the protection of this page. You've already been accorded many more unblock requests than we usually give editors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:26, 21 March 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.

Hersfold, in answer to your question, the reference is below

This is pointless, because no-one's paying attention any more, are they? Robertcoolh (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would those substantial improvements be? Rachelcoolh (UTC)

93.96.34.79

Did you delete Johnny Borrell's Dear Eskiimo section on his Wikipedia page? User:93.96.34.79 Robertcoolh (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) JGXEnite, why did 93.96.34.79 delete the Dear Eskiimo section on Johnny Borrell's talk page?!?[reply]

It still says "Dear Eskiimo" in Johnny Borrell's infobox.

Troll/Sockpuppeteer

I'm not a troll or a sockpuppeteer, I'm an innocent little boy. Robertcoolh (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why you created another account right after you made this posting? No thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will JGXEnite some day get along with me and stop calling me a troll?

Shipwrecked 2009

Could it to say they are animatronic chickens/pigs, not live ones? If they were live, they wouldn't be allowed to kill them.