User talk:Rosstoph

A tag has been placed on APEASS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:APEASS. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Improbcat 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your article was deleted because it does not meet notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not to be used as a place to advertise your personal websites. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed you had read the message Improbcat left you above. My comment was a summary of the message left above. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, Rosstoph. I'm glad you learned of our policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome back to Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page. To stay in Wikipedia, an article has to be about something notable, that is, of general interest. Click on Notability for an explanation of what that means, and on Notability (organizations and companies) for more detail. Also, it must give independently verifiable sources. Articles that don't meet these requirements are likely to be deleted. Follow the links below to learn more: JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To find out more about creating articles, read the Introduction and the Guide to creating your first article.
 * You should not write articles about yourself, your band, your group, your client or your best friend - that's a conflict of interest.
 * Wikipedia is not an advertising service or business directory. Before writing about your own business, read Business' FAQ.
 * For experiments, please use the sandbox.

Notability of King Ed's TV
A tag has been placed on King Ed's TV 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability and all that...
Reply to your note on the article talk page: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where anyone can post about themselves or their group. Articles have to be about something of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article: the Wikipedia term for that is notability and you can read about the requirements in Notability and Notability (people) and Notability (organizations and companies). (All this is in the Welcome paragraph above). Also, they have to be able to cite references from independent, reliable sources, not just their own web-sites, blogs etc. Whether someone independent has written about the subject is one measure of notability. Finally, people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their own groups, because of the Conflict of Interest involved. There is good advice about this at User:Uncle_G/On_notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to King Ed's TV has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to King Ed's TV constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to King Ed's TV. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to King Ed's TV.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  14:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice: the edits that prompted the above warnings were not vandalism, but the author deleting his own speedy-nominated article. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you letting me keep my account? After all I did to destroy my King Ed's TV page, your letting me remain? Rosstoph (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you can keep your account. The warning messages above were from people who thought you were vandalising Wikipedia, which I'm afraid is all too common. I don't know what you were doing to your article, but don't do it again and all will be well. I am just writing you a longer message in reply to yours on the article - wait five minutes for that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your note on your deleted article
Hi. Before I read your note on the article, I was coming back to say: sorry to sound discouraging, it was a well-presented article, just not on a suitable subject. Don't be put off, sniff around the site to get ideas and see what other people have done, but (this will sound discouraging again but is intended to avoid disappointment) check out What Wikipedia is not and the List of bad article ideas. Wikipedia is good at encouraging everyone to contribute, much less good at explaining that there are fairly clear criteria for what sort of articles are acceptable. But one of our principles is "Don't bite the newbies", and I'm sorry if you felt you were patronised.

You have a point about discussing on the talk page before tagging, but one problem is, new articles come in at considerably more than one a minute and the (unofficial) New Page Patrol, all unpaid volunteer editors on just the same footing as you, have quite a problem to keep up with them without, maybe, giving some of them the consideration they deserve. The difficulty about "talking to you like a human... instead of reciting guidelines" is the time it takes to write an individual essay on (say) the idea of notability for people rather than typing "see WP:BIO". The tag lets you have time for discussion (your article wasn't deleted for over 3 hours), and one advantage of prompt tagging is that the author is likely to be still on-line and can see his article has been tagged and state his case.

There are two aspects on which I would be glad of your feedback (note that I am not Authority, just another editor who sometimes does New age Patrol): the "Welcome" paragraph I put on your talk page is one of my own invention - there are standard ones, but I don't find they cover the right things. How did it strike you? Would it have been helpful if you had seen it before preparing your article?

Also, I have been thinking of suggesting that before they are allowed to create articles, new editors should have to read a short (one or two pages) piece about what Wikipedia is and what it isn't and what sort of articles are acceptable, and then click an "I have read and understood the above" box like you get on terms-and-conditions screens. I think it will be objected that it would discourage people, but I feel that a new editor like yourself who puts effort into an article which was never likely to be accepted will go away more discouraged, and there are a lot of people in that situation. What is your view of that?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your reply to my note on my deleted article
Well, first off, I'd like to say sorry for what I did. I'm sure you were probably fairly annoyed with me, and I appreciate the fact that you didn't kill me or anything. That was nice of you.

Secondly, the "Welcome" paragraph was good. It pointed out some important things, that I should have paid more attention to when creating my article. Again, I apologise for not looking into that.

The idea of presenting the short piece and getting newbies to read and ensure that they understand everything seems like a great idea. I think it will ensure that people know beforehand what is allowed, and what isn't. The only trouble I see with this, is that I imagine a lot of people wil probably just agree without reading anything. But I suppose if you know that they have definitely seen it, you may be able to use that to your advantage, for want of a better word, against people like me  ; )

I'd just like to say thank you again, for being so understanding and considerate. It's always nice to know that, even though they can't magically fix everything, someone understands your frustration. I also think it's important for you to know that I now understand the importance of promptly tagging everything, and giving us guidelines to look at, rather than taking forever on discussions.
 * Thank you for taking the time to talk this over with me. It was very kind of you, and I'm sorry if my actions earlier upset anyone.
 * Rosstoph (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No trouble. Whatever it was you did that set off the anti-vandal alarms, you may be sure that Wikipedia has survived much worse than that. And your first reaction was useful and instructive, because it shows that we are not presenting as kind and helpful an interface to new editors as we should. I shall definitely pursue my idea of a "prequalification check" - I'm sure you're right, many people would click "Yes" without reading it, but a good many serious contributors might be spared the annoyance of working on an unsuitable article and seeing it zapped. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your very last warning. -- Rodhull andemu  17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zachary Quinto
Stop vandalizing the article or you will be permanently blocked. Grow up! -- >David  Shankbone  15:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)