User talk:Red Rover112/archive1

Welcome

Hello Red Rover112, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Rohith goura

Red Rover112, good luck, and have fun. --Roh^G??· 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Relating the N8 contribution:

My comments are completely balanced and neutral.

Nokia themselves (Mr. Savvander / Mr. Elop) have admitted themselves that something was wrong with the N8.

The N8 has been a commercial flop.

What do you mean???

I have been using this device for over 8 months now.

It has been a real disappointment indeed. BUT THOSE ARE THE FACTS !!!

The Nokia N8 page does not mention any of this. It reads like a Nokia advertissement.

If you cannot accept the facts about a failed / defective product (and user platform), then I simply suggest deletion of the whole page.

The present page is simply not worthy of Wikipedia standards.

Kind rgds,

Bfaabaa

You should take a neutral view point. That means you do not critique it. You simply state the facts. Opinions may vary hense why they are generally frowned upon. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N8: Whatever... I admit that I still needed to provide sources for most of my additions, but still had to filter those, and figure how to incorporate / edit them in the text. I've had this phone for months now... what about posivite criticism, lies and propaganda?? The whole wikipedia N8 entry reads like a joke to me!!! If you know how to do it better, be my guest. But someone should clean up the shit that was left here by some of Nokia's corporate hoaxes...

Rgds,

bfaabaa

Hey!

Hey... Dont add any crap you like... agarwals are not Dravidian. Wikipedia's standards atr going t o the dogs.. there were many inaccuracies there 117.211.90.154 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You suck man.. Either you are ignorant or b******d. Dont add crap to articles about Hindu communities which are completely wrong..117.211.90.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your edits are just plain unconstructive and that was just uncalled for. Do not speak to me like that. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't experimenting, just forgot to close a tag. --person editing the next WTA event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.28.47 (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. Just got to be sure. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Aaron de Mey

Hello Red Rover112. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aaron de Mey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 07:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 07:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Red Rover112. You sent me a message saying "Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Seekermania (Dean-O Album). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." But I didn't create these pages I just know the guy that their about and everything on these pages is correct and legal to put on Wikipedia. They are pages that deserve to be there and clearly someone went to a lot of work to put them there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyfurler (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty addition of speedy deletion template to ‎Ghannadian

Hi Red Rover112! I was a bit confused as to why you hastily added a CSD A1 tag to ‎Ghannadian, after not even 1 minute of its creation. Thank you for new page patrolling but I would suggest that you start from the back of the patrol log. This is because, hasty addition of speedy deletion templates could discourage new editors. This could be taken as an attempt to bite newcomers. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when reverting edits for vandalism

Hi RR, you accidentally reverted a legitimate edit which an IP had performed to remove a stray </ref> tag, as the editor had noted in the 'edit summary'. You also listed a Level 1 vandalism caution against that IP's user page using Twinkle.

As you can see, the edit was legitimate tidy-up action with no malice or harm. Please double check edits that you're reviewing for vandalism so we don't bite good Samaritans by mistake. Your action was reverted and the caution has been removed from the IP's user page. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops I couldn't actually see the other ref tag. My mistake. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello Red Rover112! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy? ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Shaqaqis are Azerbaijani people not Kurds.It must be corrected and also this article doesn't have any source or reference.Thank you.--Orartu (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If correcting something please do not remove half the pages content, it looks suspicious, and may conflict with the thoughts of others. If you want to include sources, then find themand then you're edits appear legit. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 07:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Prasad Singh

I noticed that you recently nominated Akhilesh Prasad Singh for speedy deletion under the WP:A1 criteria. When nominating older articles for speedy deletion, especially under WP:A1 and WP:A3 criteria, it is necessary to check that the reason they meet these criteria isn't due to recent vandalism or disruptive edits. In future please check the history before proposing any articles that aren't in Special:NewPages for speedy deletion. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context speedy deletion criteria

Thanks for your New Page Patrolling. Just to let you know, the Context criteria for speedy deletion has a very specific purpose. It is used on articles for which it is impossible to tell what they are about. It doesn't apply to short articles where the context is possible to determine, as it was at both Dowon Park and Gwaneum Park‎. For something that can't be deleted by one of the speedy deletion criteria the best thing to do is to Propose for deletion or Articles for deletion. Proposing an article for deletion using WP:PROD is only if the deletion is unlikely to be controversial. For proper discussion then use WP:AfD. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi Rover! I've seen you around Wikipedia. I am an experienced editor here on Wikipedia, and am a rollbacker and flagged account creator here. I thought you might like me to adopt you and provide guidance. Let me know if you're interested. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use Revert cautiously

Dear Red Rover:

As you are new to Wikipedia it is valuable for you to recognize that the Revert command is to be used with moderation, and not categorically. There is absolutely no reason to revert both of the edits you undid as one. Moreover, justification must be provided. Just "Reverting" is no sufficient on its merits. Yours, A Wikipedia user with over 8,500 edits over a number of years (with only 25-30 total reverts to same in that span).

Furthermore, I see now that you wontonly - and on face wrongly - characterized my edits as vandalism. Clearly they were not: both had explanations, and both inherent rationales. The first was a very clear copy edit, clarifying a muddy sentence (Which implied the horses, which were stampeded into the wild, returned to the reservation, which they did not: Brittles makes it clear in his admonition to Cohill that the renegades were walking back to the reservation sans horses.); the second a valid edit indicating such Trivia belongs at the International Movie Database, not Wikipedia. Feel free to visit that site to enjoy all of its corrections to presumed errors in his movie. Yours. 67.189.236.243 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenharmonic Wiki

This is considered an important resource by the microtonal community, which admittedly is a small one, but Wikipedia covers multiple specialized topics. The stub was removed after half an hour; I had asked for feedback from microtonalists on it and how it should be expanded, but was not given the oppotunity. I was once a big Wikipedia contributor; this excess of Deletionist zeal, plus all the tagging, is why I and many others no longer bother, and quality is declining. I don't see anything to click on to contest this absurd speedy deletion. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.255.108.104

Users can actually remove their warnings at any time. Regards. Marcus Qwertyus 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm still kinda new but I viewed that as a total disregard for the warning systems. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 09:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Claea

Hello Red Rover112. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Claea, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. Ged UK 07:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it was created the page din't exist I see it does now, ok. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 07:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion rationale altered

Hi, Just letting you know I altered the speedy deletion tag on Temi Deru to A7, because the article does have enough context to be understandable - about a person in a sitcom. Unfortunately, they don't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the net, so they aren't found to be important or significant. Keep up the good work! We need as many new page patrollers as we can get! --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did think a sentence counted as not being enough information. But yes never heard of the person either, perhaps it fits both criteria? ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 09:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I say if I can understand an article, A1 doesn't apply. I've asked an administrator to explain it a bit further, as I'm as curious as you are. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing

i' not vandalizing 75.128.238.61 (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you are. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 09:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK

But still it is a truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You know I am saying truth (talk • contribs) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

I think you incorrectly marked this edit as vandalism, while others did not agree with the edit, it was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and as such should not have been called Vandalism, I know that you are a relevantly new user but perhaps you might want to read WP:VAND. In future be very careful when using Twinkle as continued "mistakes" may well see your right to use it revoked. Mt king ^(edits) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing edit war, if you will check the entire revision history. If you actually checked it, you'd see an administrator reverting the IP over and over. The IP in question has been previously banned for edit warring. If you are questioning my use of the vandalism reasoning, its quite simple, reverting administrators is both counter productive and shows clear intent to disrupt the community. There for I do not see it as a good faith edit because the user knew they were reverting an administrator and what the implications of that were. If you would like to see more reasons why the editor is not editing in good faith and is simply not willing to strike an agreement read the user talk page. On the whole I do not see what I have done wrong as edit warring is the same thing as vandalism in my view. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself, it is an "ongoing edit war", which when you read WP:VAND you would have seen is listed under the section called "What is not vandalism". Also when you have finished re-reading the WP:VAND page, your next point of call should be WP:AGF as it is clear that in your dealings with me you have failed to do as evidenced with your "If you actually checked it" comment, you will see from my original post I said "while others did not agree with the edit", thus indicating I had checked the history.

Also as from your editing history it is clear that this is not your first go at editing WP, can you confirm that you have followed WP:CLEANSTART ? Mt king ^(edits) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not deem revert wars constructive. I deem them as vandalism, the talk page an admin has clearly asked the IP so stop their counter productive editing, so I reverted it. I do not have to assume good faith because the IP has made it very clear on the talk page that hes not willing to negotiate. I feel like I'm repeating myself. Revert good faith edits, despite the obvious fact this is a revert war the two sort of contradict each other. As for your query as weather I have editted Wikipedia before, is yes I have. But anonymously. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 06:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the community has agreed that they are not vandalism, so please accept that and refrain from calling them that. I was referring to your comments regarding me and WP:AGF Mt king ^(edits) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - This change was not made by Gizgalasi. It was not my change. So maybe someone is blaming Gizgalasi - but it was not Gizgalasi that introduced the statement. We did not touch your introductory statement. Sorry for the problems - but we did not introduce and make this change. We did not do the vandalism.

Warnings

Please do not issue warnings to IP users for my reverts. Denisarona (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrgh sorry about that I clicked the rollback button and the window popped opened so I sent it, once I closed it it came up with an edit conflict message. I though I had reverted it, so yeah sorry ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Level 4 for first offence is excessively hash.

The warning you made here was excessively harsh, there are levels of warning for a reason, since it was the IP's second only edit and since the article shows no sign of spam insertion over the last 2 years a level one warning would have been more in order. Mt king ^(edits) 04:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one (having spent a great deal of time on Uncyclopedia) have zero tolerance for spam and cyberbullying. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 05:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single issue warnings are almost never done (especially with ip's) because spam removal isn't really that hard to remove. Marcus Qwertyus 05:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the spam should not be removed on sight, just the level of warning used. Mt king ^(edits) 05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I was pointing out that I don't generally tolerate those that distribute it. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 08:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I,

are eat cow. –Mnid ^{(Let's talk about it!)} 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 03:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry. You to eat calv. –Mnid ^{(Let's talk about it!)} 03:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned on Uncyclopedia for breaking your sig I see :D ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I no good wit html –Mnid ^{(Let's talk about it!)} 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least when it come to her. –Mnid ^{(Let's talk about it!)} 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTML is the easiest ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 04:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<spa stle="clore:rd">O RLY?</spn> –Mnid ^{(Let's talk about it!)} 04:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PULL THE STRINGS

Beware of the red dragon that sits on your doorstep.
Tell me, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? - Would you kindly (Talk) (Contributions) 14:55, 23 September 2011 (FARTYOWLS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.212.210 (talk)

Um.... What? ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]