User talk:Rosestiles

Welcome!

Hello, Rosestiles, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Andvd (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Andvd
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

March 2009 (http://spam.zagat.com)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. MER-C 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * http://.blog.zagat.com
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

April 2009
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Zagat promotional activity must stop. Other of your editing work is good. Binksternet (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all the red flags related to the Zagat activity. I added Zagat links on restaurant pages and other relevant ones because I think that anyone who is looking this stuff up would also want to know what people think and I know that Zagat's pages on these restaurants offers positive and negative comments and reviews from people who have been to these restaurants which can be valuable for people to know when deciding where to eat. I would also include links to Michelin, another restaurant review guide that's well known, but it doesn't seem to provide any information online.

That said - ;-) - is the issue that I only link to Zagat reviews of restaurants or that there shouldn't be links to discussion board-type reviews of restaurants in general? If I come across reviews on other sites such as Chow Hound or in the online edition of a local paper, and think it should be added to the external links section of the Wikipedia entry for a restaurant would that be acceptable instead?

Since I don't want to cause any trouble, I'll also start using the talk boards of entries where I want to add an external link to make sure others agree and approve in advance so as to avert any further misunderstanding. Thanks for the warnings.


 * For me, the issue was that so many of your additions to Wikipedia involved adding something about Zagat—it looked like you were promoting the website. For external links, a Zagat link would be appropriate for exactly one page: Zagat. If there's a Zagat webpage with fixed content, like an interview with a restaurateur or chef, then I can see using it as a reference to support text in the body of the article. I don't ever think it's appropriate to use a URL that involves a fresh search function as a reference... you just don't know what you'll get on any one day.
 * That's my take on the issue, unless I forgot some aspect. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, that was exactly my take as well. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Applebees entry
Hi C.Fred, as you can tell, I'm currently learning a lot about what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'm trying not to make the same mistakes again and am very interested in getting feedback. I noticed that you deleted the section I added to the Applebee's page about the recent bacteria outbreak. What was the problem with it? Was it too local? Thanks.


 * While I agree with Jerem43's deletion of the section on the bacteria outbreak as being localized and not relevant to the chain as a whole, you might also want to ask him if there were other specific concerns that led to him deleting it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Eric Ziebold
A tag has been placed on Eric Ziebold requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I went to the page to add the "hangon" tag to dispute your claim, but couldn't find the "speedy deletion" tag that's mentioned above anywhere. Where should I look? Based on the links to the guidelines in your message I believe that Eric Ziebold is notable and worthy enough to have his own page for the following reasons (that I also added to his page): He is the recipient of respectable awards such as a James Beard Award and there is a considerable amount written about him in reliable online resources (He is also recognized on a national level). Let me know if you agree with this or if you would still like me to remove it. Rosestiles (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)rosestiles


 * It's been removed (the tag, that is). Apparently someone else knew him. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for letting me know. Rosestiles (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)rosestiles

Speedy deletion of "Danny Abrams"
A page you created, Danny Abrams, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)