User talk:Rbkl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Tuheitia Paki
I notice that you have twice added the title "Prince" to the children of Tuheitia Paki. Please provide sources for this claim. Although the present Māori king is the son of the former Māori queen, the position is not hereditary, and the title would appear to be inappropriate. I haven't seen a source which gives the genders of the children - since you know they are all male, you must have a useful source which should be added to the article.-gadfium 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Manual of style
Your edit summary, "STOP vandalising the article! The changes I have made is CORRECT!", is out of line. That user wasn't vandalizing the article, and the changes you made were most definitely not correct. I invite you to read WP:MOS and WP:CIVIL, and to not bring spurious incidents to ANI. Tan | 39 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester
I encourage you to take a look at the article now, I ensure you, I have corrected my mistakes, and there is NOTHING wrong with the article now. :) Rbkl (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because User:DCEdwards1966 cleaned up your mess. By the way, you can just reply to me here. Tan | 39 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Nunh-huh: Excuse me! Please refrain from Vandalising the Article; Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester. It is against ALL Wikipedia "laws", and needs to STOP. This is a final warning. IF you persist, you may be blocked. I DO NOT understand why you reverted my reformating of his page, I made it more legible. Thank you for understanding. Rbkl (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, "King" Robert. I'm afraid you don't understand what proper formatting is; please consult the WIkipedia Manual of Style. Names that don't correspond to the name of the article aren't bolded. You need to stop crying "vandalism" when no vandalism is involved; to do otherwise is to violate WP:CIVIL. You probably should actually understand Wikipedia "laws" before lecturing people on them. You probably don't enhance your credibility by issuing "final" warnings. You might want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which concerns the use of Wikipedia to promote yourself (in your case, your pretense of "Kingship", among others). And you need to learn that new comments on talk pages go at the bottom, not the top. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nunh-huh, Thank you for your recent message. I should probably explain that I got the idea that what you were doing was vandalism, becuase about a year ago, my cousin was using Wikipedia and did what you did (in a different sense) and a Wikipedia administrator kept saying that it was vandalism, so that is why I called it (what you were doing) vandalism, since you never really gave a reason for what you did. I appologize for not understanding the correct way of doing things, and going by what other administrators, who are supposed to follow the rules, did. I thought administrators were supposed to lead the editing with good and truth. I guess some don't. Rbkl (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you haven't thoroughly digested WP:CIVIL yet. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please expand on the whole "thoroughly digested" thing. Rbkl (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please read it. Wild accusations probably aren't your best move. - Nunh-huh 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I had said (if you read it), I thought that is what I was supposed to do, as per other administrators. Thanks tough. At least you can feel better :). Rbkl (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate [1] your suggestion that I haven't read your message, and [2] your comments on my feelings. - Nunh-huh 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I had said (if you read it), I thought that is what I was supposed to do, as per other administrators. Thanks tough. At least you can feel better :). Rbkl (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please read it. Wild accusations probably aren't your best move. - Nunh-huh 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please expand on the whole "thoroughly digested" thing. Rbkl (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you haven't thoroughly digested WP:CIVIL yet. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh, Thank you for your recent message. I should probably explain that I got the idea that what you were doing was vandalism, becuase about a year ago, my cousin was using Wikipedia and did what you did (in a different sense) and a Wikipedia administrator kept saying that it was vandalism, so that is why I called it (what you were doing) vandalism, since you never really gave a reason for what you did. I appologize for not understanding the correct way of doing things, and going by what other administrators, who are supposed to follow the rules, did. I thought administrators were supposed to lead the editing with good and truth. I guess some don't. Rbkl (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
