User talk:Batboys

Welcome!
Hello, Recyclebotboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as RecycleBot, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of RecycleBot


A tag has been placed on RecycleBot, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RecycleBot


The article RecycleBot has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This appears to be a request for undeletion and not an article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to request undeletion, please make a request at Requests for undeletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RecycleBot


A tag has been placed on RecycleBot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ...William 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Article restored, and username
Hi Recyclebotboy. Per your request at Requests for undeletion I have restored the RecycleBot page. One of the things that may have been a factor in its deletion is your choice of username - whilst I don't believe that you are actually a representative of the makers of RecycleBot, your username does suggest an affiliation, and might well have influenced the deleting administrator's decision (we regularly find - and delete - unsuitable articles about companies or products which have been created by accounts called "User:CompanyX PR" or "User:CompanyXwiki" and so on). To avoid any future misunderstandings, you might want to consider renaming your account; you can do so at Requests for changing username (it's a fairly straightforward process). Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch
Hello!

I see you've been busy telling others that I'm "auto" tagging or "auto" deleting your work. Since I haven't been given the opportunity to defend myself, I thought I would do so here.

I patrol new pages. "Patrol" is not a word that I assigned and I don't even particularly like it because I associate "patrol" with police officers which may imply that I have some sort of powers that I do not. I have the same rights and powers as every other editor here. The name comes from the a project called New pages patrol. Wikipedia has editors like me (patrollers) who check every new article for obvious issues. I generally stick to topics that have no indication of importance (like an article about Jimmy who is the best painter in his third grade class) and copyright violations. I patrol tens and occasionally over one hundred articles a day. Still, WP:NPP is hopelessly behind as there are now articles that need patrolled that are over 30 days old. Here is what the workload looks like right now. A 30 day backlog is considered very bad.

I mention this because I volunteer my time here to try and protect Wikipedia from people creating new articles that will either put more work on our editing body that's already spread too thin or worse, introduce copyrighted material that could financially harm Wikipedia. No matter how much time I donate or how hard I work, I'll only ever put a dent in that backlog but it all adds up. For every editor to more efficiently use their donated time, templates have been created so that those editors don't have to take the time to show the comparison between texts, notify an editor of the issues with a personal message, and notify administrators that there's an issue that need their attention. In fact, the time it has taken me to address this issue has resulted in 10-20 articles not being patrolled. Not everyone understand this and I didn't expect you to but I do now. The idea is that, while the templates may seem cold, their positive affect on WP is far greater than their possible negative affects.

So, you left a message on my talk page. Before I could answer it, you completely changed the message and told me to "be more careful" with copyright violation tags. You also went to several sources and incorrectly told them that I made a mistake when I did not (I'll show that I didn't below).

Text you used was most definitely taken from a copyrighted source and although you may not have taken the text from the copyrighted source, it's still a copyright violation and needs to be addressed. Here is the version of the article you created before I tagged it. Here is the source that it was taken from that is very clear about its copyright. It was published in 1995, before Wikipedia or any other Wiki was even thought of, let alone created. It's also the source that I used to tag the article for G12 deletion (see here). Below is some of the text that I have found that's obviously from the copyrighted source. The bold text is from the copyrighted source.


 * "this has implications for municipal waste management programs as in home recycling could reduce cost and greenhouse gas emissions associated with"
 * "this has implications in the field of waste management as in home recycling could avoid the greenhouse gas emissions and economic costs associated with"


 * "citation christian baechler matthew devuono joshua m pearce 2013 distributed recycling of waste polymer"
 * "citation christian baechler matthew devuono joshua m pearce 2013 distributed recycling of waste polymer"

Sometimes phrases can occur in two independent sources that are nearly identical but not only does that not matter when it comes to copyright violations, those examples cannot have been a coincidence, even though it wasn't you whom copied the text from the copyrighted source. If you took the text from a source whose license allows Wikipedia to use that same text, meaning that the original copyright violation was written by someone else, when you were alerted that the copyright violation existed, none of the rest of that mattered anymore. The copyrighted text needed to be addressed. There may be other portions taken as well but I haven't taken the time to search for more issues.

Personally, I think that you may either have a close connection with the subject or you at least "think it is a great idea which has a ton of promise". In either case, I think your desire to support this product may be clouding your judgement a bit. I think that might be why you gave me a day to respond to you then went around complaining to others about me when you don't know anything about me, my workload here on Wikipedia, or my workload in my life outside of Wikipedia. I don't really care if you have a connection but either way, WP:COI outlines the issues that commonly occur when someone edits a page about a subject with which they have a close connection or when they edit a page about a subject with which they personally support. You may want to take a look at that guideline but that's entirely up to you.

I understand that you're relatively new and no one expects you to understand all of these issues. I do wish, though, that you had taken the time to think about this before going around telling others that I ignored you and that I made a mistake. I don't expect new users to understand that while new page patrollers may seem cold, NPPs have no malice for those new editors but hopefully I've given you a bit of a view into what people like me do here. All I care about is that Wikipedia continues to be the incredible project that it is. I don't care if you're connected in some way to RecycleBot, if you're not connected, if the text was written by you, if you incorrectly call me out on other pages without telling me, or if you just think I'm a dick who is out to get you. I just don't care. That article has copyrighted text in it and needs addressed. That's all I care about in this case.

I propose that we forget everything that has happened before this time and that we work together to make that article better which includes having no copyrighted text in it. Does that sound good to you?  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  17:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On a side note, it looks like after my deletion template, you got hit with a WP:PROD tag and a WP:G11 WP:CSD tag. Neither of those should have been applied to the article meaning that neither notification should have been left here.  After the deletion review, the RecycleBot article can only be deleted per WP:AfD (a 7 day discussion about the article).  I'm sure it must have been frustrating to get those templates on top of the frustration you felt towards me.  I'm sorry that happened.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Waste plastic extruder for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Waste plastic extruder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Waste plastic extruder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –  Richard  BB  15:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of RecycleBot for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RecycleBot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/RecycleBot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)