Hello, Rotorcowboy, 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:
Hi Rotorcowboy! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.
I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:
// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
addPortletLink(
"p-tb", // toolbox portlet
"http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName
+ "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
"Reflinks" // link label
)});
Hello! I just recently became active on Wikipedia, and today is my first day patrolling pages. The page clearly suggests that it is a disambiguation page, does it not? Whether my action was right or wrong, I assure you that it was in good faith. Rotorcowboy (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the move, because the chef and the restaurant both have their own disambiguation. So, can you please move it back?
Secondly, why do you consider Ron Blaauw (restaurant) an advertisement? It is a rather short and factual article. It is difficult enough to avoid all the trash that you can find on internet. It is amazingly difficult to find the facts and write them down as bare facts and not as advertising. Can you review your opinion, maybe with help of the other restaurant articles I have written? (I know, every start is difficult so take this as advice, not as criticism) Night of the Big Windtalk19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I moved it back. Sorry for the trouble. Now that I think about it, I really didn't do much thinking when I marked the page as advertising. There's just so much to do! But luckily, anything here can be undone. I also moved it back, since Ron Blaauw appears (to me) to be one entity, but then again, I'm not the expert! Rotorcowboy (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prevented accidents: Danya Barsalona (was referenced), Infinite (song) (CSD for copyright violation). (2 out of seven checked, not bad!) Another advice: you better start checking from the end of the list. Those articles have been a bit matured (15 tot 30 days old). With very new articles it is more then likely that they are not yet finished. Except for articles that are clear b**lshit or plain advertisements, you better wait an hour befire nominating. That saves you and the author a lot of frustration... Happy hunting! Night of the Big Windtalk20:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rotorcowboy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Zotung, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. LoganTalkContributions01:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just happened to notice you appear to be having a disagreement at User talk:Jorgenev over the removal of PROD tags. While it is true that an editor may not remove Speedy Deletion tags from an article that they created, and nobody should remove an AfD tag, it is permitted for anyone (even an article's creator) to removed a PROD tag - at Wikipedia:PROD, it clearly states...
"If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it."
If you see PROD tags being removed, please feel free to take the article to AfD, but you should not revert the removal or issue warnings to the editor who removed it, even if it's the article creator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! I've cooled down since that dispute. It seems to be his, "The rules apply to everyone but me," attitude that's getting to me, but I realized that life is full of people like that. "I am incontrovertibly in the right." I mean, who says that? Anyway, thanks for visiting, I appreciate it! Rotorcowboy (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined your A7 on that because A7 is not for schools (says so on the label...). Non-notable schools (which is everything below 'high school') have to be prodded, or AfDed if that doesn't work. Any school can be got for copyvio, spam, hoax, or attack if those fit. (They don't look to, here.) BTW I put some prods back too in my early days of patrolling - that was before I started using Twinkle which makes AfDing far easier. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this article reads like an advert, or the tag will be removed. I am an honest Wikipedian that has written a number of well sourced articles on notable subjects. I can't win. If I explain why something is notable it is an advert. If I don't explain why something is notable, the article will be deleted. You are the second over-zealous editor that has tag bombed an article only minutes after it has been made 'live'. Please give people a chance! To be frank, I am f*cking annoyed because I spent over 2 hours finding reputable sources for this article, my sandbox crashed, so I uploaded a basic stub to expand later. There are plenty of unsourced and un-notable articles out there that you could better spend your time policing! Sionk (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your copyvio tag on marketing spending was correct, and the article was deleted. But I need some assistance from you. Did you determine it from the direct examination of the book, or on the basis of manner of the cited references.? See my comments at User talk:Karenmharvey.
I was not able to physically open the book in front of me and rub my finger across the infringed text. I simply ran a Google search for several sections of the article, and found results for all of them verbatim from the same source. Glad I could help! :-) Rotorcowboy (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some of the other comments above on your user page are fuly justified. Please read WP:CSD carefully before proceeding. If in doubt, use WP:PROD. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still relatively new to NPP, and I seem to have gotten a little "trigger-happy" with the CSD tags. "Hmmm, maybe it qualifies, maybe it doesn't. I'll mark it anyway and see if it works. If someone justifiably contests to my CSD, I am swift to respond with an apology. I will certainly review the CSD and PROD guidelines so that I may do a better job in the future. Oh yeah, and User:Jorgenev, in my opinion, was simply a difficult person to deal with. That was some practice for debate. During the AfD discussion for Wikiracing, he improved the article so that it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines, making me look like an idiot. Oh well, (sh)it happens. Thanks for visiting! Rotorcowboy (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I should thank you for your apology above. As you can see, I was ever so slightly cross at the time and not in a good mood :)
I do realise there are many companies that treat WP as free advertising. Personally, I use the 'Assume Good Faith' approach to these type of pages, unless the article is blatantly self-promotional and self-sourced. Maybe I am too soft! Sionk (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something that you are still doing incorrectly is nominating pages as incomplete, or A7 , or A10, within the first few minutes of their creation. People sometimes write articles a sentence at a time, and do not necessarily add the references at the first edit. They need to be given a chance. <Many is the article on a person or company where the first sentence does not indicate importance, but the next few sentences do. People need a chance to write them. If you choose to patrol at the very top of New Pages, you should only deal with the pages where it looks like it may be substantially complete. Otherwise, the best thing to do is to use the option at the top to patrol one hour back.
And there's a basic idea I'm not sure you fully realize: speedy deletion is for the unquestionable deletions, that nobody in good faith would disagree with. I think you've been thinking, OK I'll put on the tag and the admin will decide. Let me tell you, don't trust admins that much--some of us tend to be a little sloppy, all of us get tired, all of us can and do make errors. I did a incorrect speedy deletion myself earlier today, and caused a good deal of unnecessary anxiety & fuss before I was convinced to revert it. The point of speedy tags is that two people must agree it's an unquestionable deletion. The basic reason for this is to avoid discouraging new editors. There is nothing which is more discouraging than a speedy tag on an article; most of the people whose first article is treated that way never come back, and many of them would make good editors once they realized our standards.
But there is something even more important. It is not a good idea to learn how to work in Wikipedia by New Page patrolling until you have considerable experience in writing or improving articles, and in following some of the discussions at WP:AFD , WT:Speedy and WP:Deletion review. I would like you to slow down or even stop for a while, and instead do some of this. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrolling
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I fail to see how Limousine Hire Melbourne can be classed as as G1 (gibberish), although it may well be a candidate for speedy deletion under a different criterion. please take a moment to review WP:DELETION, and WP:CSD, as well as WP:NPP, and replacing the CSD template with a more appropriate criterion. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two-and-a-half hours should have been enough for you to respond to this. I have now deleted the article per: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam masquerading as a long opinion piece. Definitely not G1 (gibberish) as tagged). Please stop patrolling new pages now until you have followed DGG's kind advice above and read the pages I have linked, and if you need any help or advice, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! First, I would like to apologize for not responding in a timely manner. The truth is, I did read what you said soon after you posted it here, but I simply didn't know how to respond. I don't really have any excuse other than that. As you can see, I've taken a small break from Wikipedia, since I've been busy with school. Exam season is approaching yet again! I would like to thank you for watching out for me while patrolling new pages, and I apologize for my continued poor performance. With the left brain that I have, I tend to only skim while reading things, such as the Wikipedia policies here. It sometimes takes me a while to even realize that I skipped an entire line. I will read the pages that you mentioned more carefully before marking pages for CSD or PROD. Again, thank you for your help, and I'm sorry for my negligence and your inconvenience. Regards, Rotorcowboytalk contribs17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
I recently submitted a request to create a Wiki article for a website, Artistir. It was denied for spam reasons, although I am an active user of the site and believe it should be mentioned amongst other social networks on Wikipedia. Can you advise me on what changes should be made in order to publish such an article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drock214 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cup of coffee for you!
You may need it whilst studying.
And thank you for managing to 'new article review' Exposition internationale du bicentenaire de Port-au-Prince whilst you have real life demands on your time Icarusgeek (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Planking
Reading the discussion on the talk page, no consensus seems to have been reached, the discussion seems to have just faded away as people got bored with it. The only argument for planking (fad) was that it was a new phenomenon and therefore "Unless someone can find evidence it was brought back to Europe by the crusaders or something, it has a very short lifespan *so far* and has 100% of the characteristics of a fad and 0% of the characteristics of anything else". This was then rebutted, and it seems to have been generally agreed that "fad" was POV and Crystal balling, but people hadn't actually agreed on what to move it too. This discussion seems to have stopped around 11 months ago, NOT with the consensus of leaving it at fad, but no one has done anything about it.
Planking (activity) was the main other article title discussed, and is an unambiguous NPOV term, so I propose to go ahead with the move. Shall I leave a note on the talk page explaining the reasoning?
Hi Alex. Although I can easily see where both sides of this dispute come from, consensus (what limited amount we have) appears to accept that yes, this is crystal balling, but editors seem to want to keep it as it is at Planking (fad). I personally think that we need to come up with another word that describes it entirely, as "activity" can be seen as too general. I was thinking Planking (meme), how about that? :)
Oh yeah, and it is generally a bad idea to move a page without consensus, as this seems to offend some editors. If consensus says no, you probably shouldn't do it. It's sometimes okay to do such a thing without a consensus at all, but if someone reverts your page move, you should then ask the community which way it should be. So thanks for asking me for my input on my talk page! Unfortunately though, I'm going to have to say no to Planking (activity) in favor of moving it to Planking (meme) instead. If meme fails, fad would be my second choice.
...For leaving the purple barnstar on my talk page. It is much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do to return the favor. DreamMcQueen (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After going through a nasty time with User:DreamMcQueen (see my talk page and edit history), it has come to my attention that he is a sockpuppet of User:Rollosmokes. A lengthy review of edits and cases has led me to determine that he should be banned from the Wikipedia all at once. I'm sending you this message because of my personal feelings that I have been abused very harshly by him and is seeking full procedures to ensure all articles within the scope of WP:TVS. I am asking for your opinions on this manoeuvre, which I believe may not be necessary, or should be reduced to simply a topic ban. Please respond here and inform me via my talk page. Note this message has been sent to two other users as well. Thank you! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rotorcowboy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
