User talk:Robofish/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Robofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Civility in AfDs
Could you try to be more considerate on the other sie in debates, and those who've built the work you comment on? Your enraged outburst in the gory death scene AfD made me want to cry. --Kizor 12:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm sorry for getting so angry on the 'list of gory death scenes' AfD - I was tired and frustrated, but that doesn't make it appropriate behaviour. I may go back and edit what I wrote now to make it more civil, and I'll definitely try to keep my editing WP:COOL in future. I hope this makes up for any hurt I may have caused. Terraxos 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's a great sign of character to eat one's words. I have no hard feelings.
I was planning to discuss your argument in detail, but that fell by the wayside what with the AfD's closing and all. As it is, I'm wondering if you're up for doing so now as preliminary research for my upcoming plan to bring the article to the film wikiproject and, with any luck, hammer out a version that addresses the grievances. --Kizor 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You might like to know that this incident inspired #161 on Raul's laws. (Take it as a compliment.)
At the time, I'd been embroiled in an incendiary "discussion" for weeks - possibly months - and seen prestigious editors on the other side, admins and former admins, declare their contempt for anyone who learns the wrong way from the encyclopedia, explode in expletives and insults and, in one case, declare themselves one of the few true wikipedians tasked with protecting the site from users and administrators who do not understand it like his kin does. (Yes.) Having someone actually apologize did wonders for my blood pressure, not to mention idealism... The ability to co-operate and compromise is more important than brilliant editing skills, and as the project develops, it will become ever more so. --Kizor 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: a gift for a recent comment you made...
I thought you should get one of these things due to this
slakr has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cheers :) --slakr 04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Class Act
You're a class act. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and thank you for your awareness of what you know, and what you don't. Antelan talk 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. That was a very thoughtful comment you posted on SA's talk page. Let's hope he returns. It might even be worth reviving the "expert policy" that he long sought. Eusebeus 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis
After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't Destroy
I responded to your comment at [Destroy]. Fresheneesz 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: AfDs of Warcraft articles
Didn't find the link to it. I'll be sure to go for it next time, as if I attempt to nominate a lot at once, I'll get attacked for bad faith nominations.
By the looks of it, it is obviously cluttered, and they still managed to make individual articles for them, gah. IAmSasori 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Wales national rugby union team GA assessment
Hi, thanks for the assessment. I believe I had addressed all your concerns. Please see the article talk page. Thanks. - Shudde talk 03:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, would you be able to address this soon please? - Shudde talk 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
R&I – a new approach
R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Template:Dominionism
Hi Terraxos. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of support! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi!
I smiled when your name was similar to mine. Just thought I'd stop in to say hi :P (Terra Xin (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
""Unreferenced" tag
We usually don't add this tag to stub articles. `'Míkka>t 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No big harm. It is just it is very easy to litter a microarticle with all kind of big tags: surely a stub is prone to have numerous problems. On the other hand, if you see a dubious statement in a stub, it is quite OK to tag it, explaining in the talk page the reason of suspicions. `'Míkka>t 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that in your self-admitted zeal to tag other people's work, you put a little more homework into what it is that you are doing. If you're going to question other people's work, you might want to be prepared to defend this. --Achim (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Whodunnit and how???
"I realise I might be violating WP:FORUM a bit here, but I think these are genuine serious problems with this hypothesis, and would like to see them included in the article. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% You're English, aren't you? "realise" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% I'm going to answer your questions, even if you don't think that's possible. I'd recommend looking at the video 9/11 Mysteries to get a sense of the flavor of the controlled demolition arguments. . The way you make money in business is to find a need and fill it, right? The World Trade Center was a white elephant. The building was contaminated with spray-on asbestos insulation throughout, and that asbestos had to be removed for health reasons. The offices were unpleasant and, in some technical ways, obsolete. The State of New York ordered some of its bureaucracies to move into the building to help the city out economically, since many businesses had no interest in locating there. . It would cost more to remove the asbestos than to demolish the building. The Port Authority applied for a permit for a controlled demolition. It was denied due to the dangers involved. Now, it would cost more to build scaffolding and demolish the buildings by hand than it had cost to build them in the first place. The state of New York ordered some of its bureaucracies to move into the undesirable building to help out economically, since many businesses had no interest in locating there. . Along came Larry Silverstein. He signed a long-term lease, voidable if the buildings were damaged by terrorists. He took out a big insurance policy to make big money if the buildings were attacked by terrorists. During the next six weeks, according to 9/11 Mysteries, businesses were moved around in the building, creating several completely vacant floors. Suddenly, there was dust everywhere, and a lot of noise coming from the vacant floors. The bomb-sniffing dog patrols were stopped. One of the elevators was "disabled" the entire time. Covertly operated, the elevator could be used to take, for example, thermite, or other explosives, to core columns on every floor, if necessary, along with radio- controlled detonators. . Over six weeks, a dozen or two people could bring in a few tons of thermite to a sub-basement level, and up the "broken" elevator. Some of the security guards would have had to be in on it, but they worked for a company directed by George Bush's brother. No problem there. The last weekend, cameras and alarms were turned off while "engineers" swarmed all over the building. They left the doors to the roof locked when they were done. . Now, where would they find a dozen or two "engineers" to plant explosives? During the Reagan administration, many of the tasks which were formerly done by the CIA were farmed out to new companies. Then, we have new companies like Blackwater. Then, we have commandos in the Israeli army. Some people in the governments of Pakistan, Spain, Great Britain and several other countries were probably part of the "rogue network" that may have been responsible for the demolitions. There were LOTS of sources for people to do that, and some of them could always be murdered afterwards to keep them quiet. According to CBS news, 180 Americans commit suicide every week, and 2/3 of them are recent war veterans. Many other people die in car accidents. Airplanes crash in various parts of the world. Killing the grunts is not a problem. . Is that the way it happened? Who knows? All we really know is that we have been lied to with an explantion with more holes in it than a ton of Swiss cheese. Is Bush a bad guy? Is Bush a good guy? We don't have enough information even to evaluate him. All of this "state secrets" nonsense has to be done away with. . How long could they keep something this big a secret? Try forty years. According to deathbed confessions by Cord Meyer and E. Howard Hunt, LBJ ordered the murder of JFK. LBJ's lawyer wrote a book saying the same thing. LBJ's mistress made public statements backing them up. Her illegitimate son by LBJ tried to get some of his inheritance from LBJ's widow. He ignored warnings, filed a lawsuit and suddenly disappeared. He turned up, three months later, in a military hospital, dying of cancer. All a big coincidence, of course. Wowest (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd add to what Wowest has said. He is right that the bomb sniffer dogs were discontinued two weeks before 911 and that the alarms and surveilance cameras were turned of for several days due to work being done. There is also the fact that several times in the week before 911 evacuation drills left the buildings empty for extended periods. This is plenty of time to plant explosives. Experts estimate that 12 tons is enough (with luck) and up to several hundred tons to do it "by the book" and 2 men could plant 12 tons in a few hours (it can be poured like a liquid into the columns). All the central columns are hollow and easily accessable without the need to poke a hole in anything. In fact it is common practice to build them with access plates for just such a purpose. Another little known fact is that some skyscrapers are actually built with explosives for CD already in place (it saves a LOT of money later and is completely safe). Because the plans for WTC were lost no one knows if they were rigged this way although due to age it is unlikely (though not impossible). CD is entirely speculative and while highly unlikely is not impossible and therefore until evidence discounts it CD can not be ruled out. This is the mistake supporters of the official theory make....instead of finding evidence for the OT they contend they do not need to because CD is impossible. I doubt Cd myself but do not rule it out as there are too many unanswered questions. I suspect we will not know the truth for a very long time if ever. Wayne (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Cyber Monday
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cyber Monday, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Monday (2nd nomination). Thank you. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Supermarine Spitfire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. In the meantime, I encourage you to find an article that you feel you could constructively review to help pass along the benefit of such reviews. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Terraxos,
I'm checking in to let you know that the very worthy and interesting article you nominated, Supermarine Spitfire, didn't meet GA standards—yet. I'm confident that, with some cooperation among the contributors, it can be brought up to standard. My top three concerns were:
- References—Clearly the article draws on some great authorities on the topic. Unfortunately, there's usually no footnote in any given paragraph to identify who that authority is. If the paragraph changes sources, there should be as many footnotes. I recommend identifying who the original contributor of each section is and having them assist in the proper use of citations.
- Images—Several images had questionable licensing.
- Stability—The article seemed still to be under active development and not quite "settled out."
I'd be happy to come back and continue a review, when you or your fellow editors feel that the article is ready. I believe that it has strong potential to become a very worthy GA.
Sincerely, HopsonRoad 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
KKK article
Could you check out my comments at Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan#Recent_changes_by_Parkwells. An editor has made a ton of edits to the article in the last few weeks which, IMHO, do not improve the featured article and include too many POV issues. Could you examine the issue and comment, if you feel like it, since you've been so involved in the article in the past. Thanks.--Alabamaboy (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Terraxos; this lame war ain't over yet, take a peek. GoodDay 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the war was over too. I'm just as surprised as you are, that it flared up again with a new twist. GoodDay 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
|
We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to build and maintain a large and neutral database of the Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of WikiProject Czech Republic. |
≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange edits by Smackbot
I just reverted a couple of edits by Smackbot, where it was messing up subtitles by replacing 'Operations==' with 'operations'. See diffs here and here. Could you please work out what the glitch is here, and try to fix it? Thanks in advance. Terraxos 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I too have just noticed this error in a bunch of US Navy ship articles such as [1]. I've been trying to cleanup these articles myself, however it seems I might be doing so for a while. Would it be possible to get SmackBot to correct this problem? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29 3 December 2007 (GMT).
- Now running. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42 4 December 2007 (GMT).
- All done. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52 5 December 2007 (GMT).
Redirect of Gare du Nord riot in Paris
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gare du Nord riot in Paris, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gare du Nord riot in Paris is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gare du Nord riot in Paris, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[2]] Jmegill (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's grrrrrreat!
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| For your umpteen-million tags on articles that need them. My mother thanks you. My father thanks you. My sister thanks you. And I thank you. —ScouterSig 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Thanks! You know, I used to think barnstars were a bit of a waste of time, but now I've got one they suddenly don't seem too bad. :) I appreciate it. Terraxos (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I ran across a huge swath of contribs of yours in Asimov's Foundation related articles. I've built more of a 'master list' of pages on my subpage; check it out, perhaps. I also decided that because I'm on winter break, I'll reread all of those books, since it's been 10 years or so. Maybe then I'll have something to add, or maybe will be able to merge a bunch together. —ScouterSig 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think merging some of them together would probably be the best solution. I don't really want to see so much good content deleted; but the problem is, most of those pages have no references at all, and are written entirely in in-universe style with no claim made to real-world notability. This is a perennial problem for Wikipedia's articles about fictional topics, not just the Foundation universe; and there's much dispute over what is appropriate in articles about fiction, and what exactly should be done about it. See WP:FICT, and the extensive discussions there, for more details. Terraxos (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I ran across a huge swath of contribs of yours in Asimov's Foundation related articles. I've built more of a 'master list' of pages on my subpage; check it out, perhaps. I also decided that because I'm on winter break, I'll reread all of those books, since it's been 10 years or so. Maybe then I'll have something to add, or maybe will be able to merge a bunch together. —ScouterSig 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced tags on Playboy List pages
On 8 Dec 2007 you added Unreferenced tags to five pages that were merely lists pointing to other Wikipedia article pages, as a cross reference. Why do you think that those pages lack references? All you have to do is click on any page refered to there, and you get that page which confirms the particular heading on the original list (those pages ought to have refs). Are you actually expecting that someone will add individual refs for each issue of the magazine monthly back to 1953, merely to add unnecessary references? (No one has such a complete collection to be able to do that anyway.) Although I applaud you for adding unref'd tags to real articles that need refs, pages that are simply cross reference lists to other pages don't really need specific references, as long as they're consistant to the pages referred to. Thanks. GreatScott (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- After taking a look at WP:LIST, you're right - such articles don't need cites for every single member, only for those that are potentially controversial and need to be proved. That's probably not the case for the Playboy lists, so I apologise for tagging them 'unreferenced' unnecessarily. Feel free to remove the tags, and I'll avoid adding them to similar lists in future. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Terraxos (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick review -- I'll pull the unref'd tags. GreatScott (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation at Charles Kuentz
Hi Terraxos, thanks for the message. I can't remember why I did no more than leave a note -- probably because I wasn't certain it was (entirely) a copyvio and didn't have time to research it properly. You're quite right of course that there shoudn't be such copyvios hanging around unnoticed for months, I suspect it happens a lot. Next time I'll know to go to the Copyright Problems page. Flapdragon (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Graduated Random Presidential Primary System Wikification
Evenin' Terraxos. I saw you left a 'wikify' tag on the Graduated Random Presidential Primary System entry I wrote. So I gave it a quick once-over and linked it up. Just wanted to run it by you and see if it passes muster now. Keep on gnomin'...
SenorCrunchy (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rolfing
Thanks for your comments on the intro to Rolfing. The response of naive readers to an article is very valuable to editors who often lose sight of just how specialised their own knowledge has become. Rolfing could be described as including a lot of massage that is directed to changing the way the recipients body/nervous system responds to weight/force. Rolfing aims to have balance being used and just the necessary muscles for a movement being called into action rather than tightening up lots of unnecessary muscles.
The difficulty in getting this as an intro is that what I've just written may be difficult to source and it reads very poorly. And other editors probably think the present intro sounds "more encyclopaedic". SmithBlue (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Intex
I've nominated the article for AFD instead of prod because the version I submitted is substantially different from the article as it appears today. Please comment on the AFD if you have an opinion, and thanks for letting me know about the prod. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned article on Int'l reaction to Bhutto assassination
Terraxos - I went ahead and removed the orphan template you placed, as the situation is still developing, and other articles may still be linked to this one. Just wanted to let you know. Edit Centric (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I'm naturally a world events hound, and had the entire day free to devote to the story. Edit Centric (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Shout out
Thanks again for all the assists on Benazir Bhutto, you made my user page, and my day! Edit Centric (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
E. V. Ramasami Naicker
Page unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
ghits
Number of ghits is not a deletion consideration--you need to examine them to see if there is any information given. And it is particular irrelevant for people from India--the internet has much lower penetration. But examining them, I find that they are essentially all wikipedia mirrors, so the deletion seems reasonable. can stand; I am adding a second deletion reason. . 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of HotBasic
An article that you have been involved in editing, HotBasic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotBasic (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Certification listing - unreferenced
As my name was used without my permission by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca in reverting your unreferenced tag in Certification listing, I want to set the record straight. I agree this article is not properly referenced. Fireproeng (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Terraxos, just so you know, User:Ahering@cogeco.ca has a history of this kind of behavior. He knows a lot about the stuff he writes about, but after a lot of tries at educating him about proper WP intent and protocols, he still writes unreferenced articles that are not in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#MANUAL. Additionally, he can be rude and will personally attack anyone who disagrees with his edits. As my personal expertise overlaps some of the areas in which he edits, I can tell you he is often correct in his technical knowledge when he sticks to objective issues (as oppposed to personal essays), but he continues to advocate that this personal knowledge is more important than proper WP protocols. Good luck. Fireproeng (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, I would hate to end up with the guy blocked, because he does bring a lot of good knowledge to the project. It would be great to have his energy channeled to confrom to WP protocols, so maybe I'll Request for comment. Cheers. Fireproeng (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Deaf Wikipedians
Okay, I get the message. I did not know that someone tried to create the category about deaf Wikipedians before me. I never understand why they make reason against this but I hope they did not use this excuse as they discriminated us as deaf people. I hope someday Wikipedia will give a permission to allow Deaf Wikipedians into a category. There are userboxes that do not have Indiana Jones fans and others that comes with categories. I created few but i wonder if I have to make combined of userbox and category. Cculber007 (talk} 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Yes, I can't think of any legitimate use for this redirect (and if someone does need it, they'll take the protection off) so I will make a note to do that. The reason I'm not doing it immediately is because for some reason I don't seem to be protecting pages properly -- the last few times I've done it, it hasn't worked -- so I'm going to consult an expert before protecting any more pages. But once I know what I'm doing wrong, I'll protect that page from recreation. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jon Hess
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Hess, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hess. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Tucker Max
Am trying to fix the article as per your comments. Would really appreciate any help or advice you could offer. That controversy section is an abortion. TheRegicider (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Scrabulous
Hi, I saw you moved the clean up tag on Scrabulous from the talk page to the article itself. I'm curious if you'd provide some input as to what you'd like to see in the article. I started a section for it on the talk page as I'd like to improve the article but with the game in limbo now, I'm not sure what should be added that won't be changing on the fly. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
FlightMemory
Me again, this time with a feedback/help request rather than a question. I saw you put the orphan tag on FlightMemory and I agree, however that's one part of an article that I'm not sure how to fix. There are some ties with other articles, especially FlyerTalk, however I don't know that there are enough. This article survived a PROD (baseless, IMO) and AfD but I'm starting to wonder if I should let it go. Opinion? Suggestions? I don't really know who to ask but I thought I'd ask you since you stopped by. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I think part of the issue with FlightMemory is that while it some press in the time following its English language debut in April 2007, there wasn't sustained press interest. It's still growing and used quite frequently by the frequent flyer crowd, which is why I'm thinking of the possible FlyerTalk connection. I'll continue to think of how it could be connected to others. Thanks for your help! Travellingcari (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Music of Your Life
I saw your tag just today, and I made the first step toward improving the article, since I'm the one who made the greatest contribution. I had a hard time finding the article I used as a source. I'm sorry if that article doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards, but given the difficulty in finding it, and the fact that Wikipedia needed historical background on the format, it was the best I could do. Unfortunately, the articles from publications don't quite provide all the detail that the other article does. It is entirely possible that the history posted on the Music of Your Life website appears in a proper publication somewhere, and I just haven't found it yet. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't worried about deletion, although I was concerned. Very little of what I have contributed has what would be considered acceptable sources. But I'm working on that. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comment in the AFD. Thanks Secret account 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your nomination was speedy closed as I'd already nominated it the previous day. I've taken the liberty of transferring your comments to the earlier debate. Naturally, I think they're eminently sane, reasonable and well thought out. Losing this "vote" too, though, so far. Andyvphil (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Btw, is there a template pointing to the DRV that can be added to the AfD? Andyvphil (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Delrev explicitly allows for a "delete" result, and I've taken your suggestion. Andyvphil (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I've trying (unsucessfully) to concentrate on the fact that the article deletion was out of policy rather than refight the AfD, but, fyi, the article as deleted, sans only categories, is available here [3]. I exported some material and have continued to work on it a bit as material I was unaware of has continued to show up... Andyvphil (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again - I was going to request seeing that myself. It's a little easier to defend the article when I know exactly what was deleted. :) Terraxos (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re your nomination: I dunno if John Kerry has had anything to say on this. Bob Kerrey is prominent, though. And I made the same mistake when it first came up... Andyvphil (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It reads "[John Kerry] described as 'disgusting lies' allegations on the internet about Obama's religion and record of public service.", so you were right the first time. The Guardian fellow is a careless writer, but better sources for this event can be found. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
It means all the more, then. Thank you so much! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Wiikipedian
My bad. Wikipedian 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Islamophilia
If there's consensus for a move, let me know and I'll make the change. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sim et al.
Hi, Terraxos! Thanks for the thorough note. I don't really have a problem with the outcome of these AfDs, because the places, just like Sim, are so minor and insignificant, that either way would have been fine. It least a dozen or so similar substubs I prodded were not contested and are now gone :)
What I do have a problem with is the very same clause of the MOSDAB you quoted. I already tried bringing more attention to it, but, apparently, no one seems to have any trouble whatsoever with a clause that was proposed by one editor and back up by only three (!) other. Now we have situations when people quote that clause left and right without giving any thought as to how it got there. In my view, the clause it replaced was a much more reasonable approach to red links ("if an article could be written on that topic, then a red link on a dab page is fine"). I only wish I had enough time to contest this situation properly, but time recently is one luxury I cannot afford.
Anyway, it might have been interesting to see what would happen if you actually nominated an article like Kresty for AfD on the basis of it violating the redlink clause of the MOSDAB. Just for the experiment sake, I'd try to contest that AfD by stating that Kresty, in fact, is not a disambiguation page, but a set index article page (to which MOSDAB does not apply). Now, the set index clause of the MOSDAB is another thing that perpetually puzzles me. I am yet to see it used anywhere outside the Ships WikiProject, and in the absense of any guidelines regarding formatting/layout/etc. of such pages, it very much seems as an intentional loophole for cases when someone wants to keep something that is essentially a MOSDAB-noncompliant disambiguation page. The clause has been there forever, too; and I can only guess that people just glance over it without giving it much thought, simply because it is written so vaguely that it is even difficult to comprehend its intents and purposes.
Finally, as for Sim, Perm Krai, you could, technically, AfD it, but it will 100% survive, simply because "all locations are notable" and the stub is referenced and easily verifiable. With Kresty, in this form at least, there was a chance for the AfD to succeed (and indeed, some of the articles from the same bot-generated batch did get deleted without much fuss), but Sim technically meets all our criteria; it is just extremely hard to add anything else to that little that's already there.
Why am I writing all this? Basically, I just needed to vent some steam, I guess; maybe to raise awareness a little :) If disambiguation-related issues are something that interests you and if you have time to deal with them, you might want to look into the issues I described above. Otherwise, feel free to ignore this long rant. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
References
Please can you look at the references section before you mark something as unreferenced! (-hou)--MacRusgail (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed your tag
I undid your change to Dropbear (software), and left my reasoning at Talk:Dropbear (software). FWIW, you are one busy contributor! I really appreciate all the effort you are putting in. Marc W. Abel (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Vicki Iseman
Hey -- I've initiated a discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Coatrack -- please come and discuss. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dropbear (software) tag update
Thanks for your kind reply, which I have answered at Talk:Dropbear (software). Marc W. Abel (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Serpent Seed
Hello! In December you tagged Serpent Seed for neutrality. As far as I can see that is the only real edit you made on the page. I have done a major edit on the article and think it is fairly balanced. I am going to remove your neutrality tag. If you choose to add it again please add comments on the discussion page to address your concerns so they can be corrected. Thanks Cool10191 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't erase the article. It's a good start. I will take it on myself to add the needed references to the article, although I don't know a lot about the subject (but do want to learn more about it). I will use this research bibliography as my primary source of articles OLAP Bibliography Kgrr (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the Source and References request from Nigel Benson
Hello, I have now added third-party references to the article on Nigel Benson. I shall add more later when I can. There are now sufficient to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, therefore, remove the reference request box at the top of the article that you added on January 15, 2008.
Susieabbott (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Susie AbbottSusieabbott (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Terraxos, could you take a look at the Deep packet capture article and give me a reading on what you think. The external link to dPacket.org does not seem to follow the guidelines on external references. I've had to deal with the same link in the Deep packet inspection article.Kgrr (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fly-by tagging
Please stop the "fly-by tagging". If you dispute something in an article, then note that. Simply going along all articles in Wikipedia and pasting tags everywhere without working on the article, is completely useless and turns Wikipedia into a big mess. I suggest that you try to find more productive ways of contributing to Wikipedia, such as actually writing articles. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you write: "that all theoretically contentious material added to Wikipedia must be sourced." I am not disputing this at all. All theoretically contentious material. But please explain to me, exactly which part of Bernina Range do you consider to be 'theoretically contentious'? We are talking about plain facts here - an existing mountain range, the heights of the mountains there. These are plain geographic facts. Not every sentence in such an article needs an external source! That would be completely crazy, are you going to require a source for every single sentence on Wikipedia? As long as an article/sentence/fact is not 'theoretically contentious', there is no need to add an 'unreferenced' template there. Now those are the guidelines. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding! Please keep up the good work. There is nothing wrong with placing this template at pages which might indeed have potentially contentious content. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Proletariat
Hi, I did a bit of work on The Proletariat. It's not done, but I hope I've addressed your concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proletariat. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for rereading and reconsidering. Cheers Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Moruth Doole
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moruth Doole, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Moruth Doole. Rockfang (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
regarding your "prod-2" template
I didn't know there even was such a template. Thanks for the edumacation ;) --Rockfang (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Mellow
Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation), seven articles linking to Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) have reappeared. Would you reconsider your comments? I can't but think that given more time more thngs will start to link to it again. My preference woould be to move Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation) to harshing your mellow. Thanks for looking. --evrik (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphan tag
Hi, although I agree my new article on Scramble (magazine) is orphaned, I'm not quite sure how to add links to other articles without being "accused" of spamming; this is just a magazine, like many others, most of which are orphaned too. I'm hoping inclusion in the different Categories might be sufficient. Your thoughts on this? Antheii (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then we agree on that :-) On the other hand, I've located quite some links to their website where they are quoted as reference. I hope nobody will disagree when I adjust those a little with a Wiki-link to this new article. You're OK when I remove your template after I've finished? Antheii (talk) (subscriber for over 25 years) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you put this up for TFD, but there doesn't appear to be a listing for this template there. Am I missing something? GlassCobra 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, check that, the discussions for the 5th haven't been listed on the page yet. Apologies. GlassCobra 00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The Romans
Hi, sorry that I didn't give a very good explanation about my redirect. The problem is that there is no good place to send The Romans, because there is no article about the people of Rome. Usually when someone adds a link to Romans, it just becomes redirected to Rome anyways. This could be fixed by writing an article named Roman citizen or something like that.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, noticed you added an unreferenced tag in the article Torpedo ram. I think the article need to be marked as stub or an "expand" tag is needed. What you think? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Film AfD discussion
Hi, I noticed your other comments on AfD disccusions for film. Would you mind having a look at this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraught? Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about "orphaned articles
About how many credible links should I look to create? Thanks for letting me know about this, didn't know there was such a items as being orphaned. It is me i think (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that you added Audrey Mullender to the category Category:Academics of the University of Oxford. I have removed her from this category because she is, as far as I can tell, not a member of the academic staff of the university, nor a member of the Congregation of the university. She is the principal of an autonomous academic institution in the City of Oxford that maintains a connection with the University of Oxford but is not part of it. However, I thought it was just possible that you know something that I don't, so thought I would mention it.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
Money Reform Party deletion
Hey - is the deletion for Money Reform Party going through AFD? Just that to be frank I agree with the nomination! I think in this case the article was created to make the Election Box metadata/election results tables look a little better, but I am going back a bit so memory not too clear. They are a party which stands in local elections but that isn't notable really, so unless someone forces this to go to discussion, I say its good enough to delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC) The Money Reform Party article is now going through the formal articles for deletion processWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Money_Reform_Party at which you are invited to make comment and vote on this deletion proposal doktorb wordsdeeds 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Pride in Paisley Party
I pulled the PROD and started an AFD for the reasons described in the AFD and on Talk:Pride in Paisley Party. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Bernadette Protti
This is kind of old (almost a year old actually), but you proposed that the Bernadette Protti be merged with the Kirsten Costas article. After having looked at both articles, I couldn't agree more. One anonymous IP answered your proposal about eight days ago, so if you want to get that discussion going again, I'd be willing to help out with the merging, cleaning up, etc. I'm actually thinking a redirect to Costas' page would be more appropriate since Protti's page is basically just sections of Costas' page that were copied & pasted. Sorry if this is out of left field, I just stumbled on the page today and was about to clean it up when I realized I could save myself some time. Pinkadelica 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I totally support the redirect in case anyone objects (doubt that but you never know around here!). Thanks for doing it. Pinkadelica 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Political Parties..?
A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Article length
I do appreciate your comments. At the present time, however, I feel completely burned out by Wikipedia, and do not expect to do any substantive editing. While I don't want to burn bridges, I am finding Citizendium to fit my preferred style much better than Wikipedia. If Citizendium does reach critical mass, I doubt I will do any more work here.
Under those circumstances, it would seem only fair for a serious editor at WP to make any changes that seemed appropriate; my ego will not be harmed. While I will stop in and look at things, unless there are very basic changes in the structure of Wikipedia, perhaps the most fundamental issue is that I do not want to write in an environment that permits anonymity and, with notable exceptions such as the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project, has no mechanism for resolving content issues. I also prefer a place that does permit verified expertise to be used rather than finding secondary sources for everything, and, indeed, encouraging carefully controlled original synthesis.
If Citizendium doesn't work out, I'll look at other possibilities including my own site, but, having worked in networked collaborative environments before the term "Internet" existed, generally find anonymous environments to suffer from the Tragedy of the Commons.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced article tag
I notice you've been busily adding this template to articles under the woodworking section. On your user page you say "On advice from another user, I now only do this when the article contains unsourced statements that are likely to be challenged." So how does that sit with your current activities? Have you found any "unsourced statements that are likely to be challenged"? If so, perhaps you could assist by pointing them out. I've never seen the point of the wholesale application of this template. It's quite distracting and unattractive having that banner at the top of every page. I'm about to undo your edits, unless you can give a good reason not to. SilentC (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I apologise for being grumpy about it :) SilentC (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Citation tagging
If you're going to do this [4], please put a bit more effort in next time. The quote was in the reference cited in the material before, and after, the paragraph you tagged, so it wasn't a great leap to think it might have come from that same reference (I did not know this beforehand either, but it realy is easy enough to check), especially with how wikipedia works where citations can get edit-drifted away from their original position (I'm not saying it was cited correctly before in this case, just that that is one reason not to assume that things are automatically not cited anywhere in an article, next time you tag for CN). MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, that statement was already cited elsewhere in the article. I simply saw it and it immediately raised a 'red flag' - I thought, "Did he really say that? If so, it needs a citation," - but I should have checked the existing citations first. Thanks for the correction. You have my apologies, and I will try to check the references before adding such tags in future. Terraxos (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Merely a heads up, no big deal. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is of no interest to me, and Stephen Eyre does indeed seem to fail WP:N. Xn4 00:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Move of 1928 Okeechobee hurricane
Dang, I forgot about that. I guess I didn't know that other redirect existed, or I'm just tired. Apologies, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the suggestions. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Patrick Haseldine and the Lockerbie bombing
Yesterday, you rightly removed Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission from the "See also" section of Patrick Haseldine because the biography made no mention of the Lockerbie bombing. Today, that deficiency has been remedied and you might therefore wish to re-add the Köchler link to the article. You might also be interested to see this discussion on the article's talk page.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you would tag an article with a reference section with the unreferenced template rather than the citations template. From where I sit that seems a little wierd, but before I go correcting what I percieve to be a error in tagging I wanted to get your opinion on this. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that makes more sense :) Thanks for the explination, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikify template
Hi Terraxos, you responded to an RfC on template talk:wikify a few days ago, and based on your response I've both clarified the proposal and tried to channel the intent behind your response. Would appreciate if you'd read my clarification and either confirm or deny that it captures your intent. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, never mind -- I was losing track of my own proposals :-( Thirdbeach (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
TomKat
Hello Terraxos! It would be great if you could contribute your ideas to the debate on the worthiness of deleting the article TomKat, as you have previously discussed it on it's discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TomKat Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.150 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Apartheid close
Let me just tell you, when I saw that somebody had posted on my talk page under the subject "Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination)", I was not looking forward to seeing what they had to say. Your comments were a welcome surprise - thank you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Your AfD talkpage comments
I appreciated both the tone and content of your last comment at the AfD talkpage. I hope that my comments in response to your first comment were not overly harsh. S. Dean Jameson 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good, then. I look forward to potentially crossing paths with you in future editing. S. Dean Jameson 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Terraxos, would you consider removing the Orphan status of this article as several links have been established?
Dean Armond 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my apology for the typo, I have corrected this to OMER.
Dean Armond 22:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response, apologies for the belated acknowledgement
Dean Armond 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Starlight Live
I saw your deletion tag, so I thought I would fix up the FUR and stuff. But then I was confused how it was attributted to Natasha Iron from DC comics? Then I realised.....that blah user just replaced Joey Yung's image with Natasha's???? I don't know haha. Is it possible to separate them....? Dengero (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
Introducing WikiProject United States Government... | |||
.svg)
|
Hello Terraxos,
Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Help us get the project off the ground and flying. |
|
My RfA
I'd like to ask you about a few of your comments on my RfA.
"Having read the links above (particularly the MFD discussion), BQZ appears to be somewhat argumentative and defensive..."
- Well, someone was trying to delete a valid user subpage of mine. I provided counterarguments to their flawed logic. Of course I was defensive. It was my subpage that they were trying to delete and I was defending its appropriate usage.
- "...and prone to getting into disputes with other users..."
There are only two users with whom I have had a problem other than a difference of opinion. One was indef blocked for sockpuppetry and the other is CC, which you know about. My problem extends to a single user's actions. A difference of opinion is not a dispute, but a discussion. A discussion where one side is unwilling to compromise to work with the other to find a potential solution is a dispute.
- "..which lead me to believe he might not use the admin tools responsibly..."
- Could you please explain how, considering I specifically stated the contrary in my answers to several questions.
- "...it makes me think that as an admin, he would concentrate more on dealing with his 'enemies' than improving the encyclopaedia."
- ??? Why? I stated the exact opposite in my answers to several questions. By your definition (not mine), I only have one "enemy" with whom I have sworn I will NEVER enact any action in the capacity as an admin.
I hope that addresses your concerns and I hope I can get your support, or at least a neutral !vote. — BQZip01 — talk 03:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Terraxos, thank you for your opinions in the RfA, and, though I didn't get your support this time, I'll do my best to improve and hope to get it next time. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Joe Biden
Thanks for the help on that reference-I knew I messed something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattweng (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
When COATRACK doesn't apply?
After reading your suggestion, I wrote the article you recommended. Here is the essay you suggested someone write Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. I posted it and it is being argued for deletion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. Could you weigh in? EricDiesel (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Bogus "Orphan" tag on Office of Financial Stability
You placed an "orphan" tag on Office of Financial Stability, which had two incoming links. It has been removed. The Office of Financial Stability is the new $700 billion bailout agency created last week. --John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Zeituni Onyango re-written
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Apartheid disambiguation
The banned editor in question made this edit. The editor was, in fact, banned in part for his bad behavior regarding exactly these articles, combined with persistent sockpuppeting with dozens of socks. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
How many other articles must link to remove the orphan tag? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and will do so. I had overlooked going to these other articles and correcting their links... as I have noe done. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the heads-up about the larger, related, existing article. You are correct, and I have asked for administrative deletion... Geo Swan (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Military Brat
I responded to your question on the Military Brat page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
AfD
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Terraxos, I been noticing your edits on the List of documentary films, I would like to let you know and invite you to take part in getting this list to featured list status. As it will be a very time consuming project I have started a new page here to avoid it looking messy while in public view before going live with it. You will notice a to do list on the discussion page as to what needs to be done. Your input would be most valued and hope you take part. Best wishes.--intraining Jack In 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome aboard, I have been at it for the last few hours and not even past Bb, I have been double checking all possible references before adding documentary's. It is amazing how many articles that have listed the wrong directors/producers which I have also been changing also. Thanks for you reply and I look forward to see you over there.--intraining Jack In 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. All of the edit history will be merged with the actual article when the page goes live.--intraining Jack In 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Putinjugend
At the AfD for Putinjugend, another editor has requested that you withdraw the nomination. I would ask that you don't for the reasons stated when I have changed my opinion from Redirect to Delete. I would be approaching such "things" with Template:db-attack. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I quickly checked your recent edits and think they are good. Alexander Zhukov is obviously not notable. So, I labeled it as "Prod". Joseph Farah is notable, but someone removed most of the content to make the article look poor (I restored main part of that). Putinjugend is certainly fine as a redirect or disambing. page, and it could even meet notability criteria as an independent article (similar to Great Satan). Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
R.Santorum
Hi Terraxos, and to you a joyous "Day of Prophets (& List-Makers)[31Dec]". But I fear I recently must've described myself elsewhere as being 'beyond Texas'- So I guess it's only justice I'm now 'here' in Terraxosh realms. I submit myself, for either punishment or... or an etymology lesson: Isn't a "Terraxos" some kinda proprietary commercial fantasy character? Maybe soon...
>>re: Talk:Rick Santorum#Article length Are you actually interested in working on this humongous article? Editing could become a real drag- a potential revert-war. Perhaps tho' the time's coming soon when it's safe to edit RSantorum's. Your specific suggestion [spin-off to 'PA elections 2006'] is brilliant. Spin-offs are EZ & non-controversial. But: Even at present size the article needs more suggestions for where to stash it all. Can your intuition now reveal more?
>>ps: Alexander Zhukov = notable. He's more notable than all these emo bands with WP fansites. So what he's not famous to Anglo-centrics? Humbug.
Alex.Zhukhov is Russia's face for the international audience on matters of official bad-news and related trial balloon politics- Real info from one big country.
BUT- if politician Alex.Zhukov, immediate successor to the Russian President, is related to People's Hero Marshal Georgy Zhukov of WWII fame, then he's XXtra-notable-- He'd represent the Russian/FSU political-dynasties at their very elite finest. So... Related? No?
- ♦♦♦ Happy New Yarrr, O Wise Editor. Hilarleo (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Say Te₪axos; thanx for the info. Yer name ist tres euphonious…+fun to say. I could make it a habit; I'd advise you to ₢egister "TERRAXOS" asap, O terr-ific one :-) In case some local developer heard me. E-Z'ly done too.
♠ re:Rick Santorum-Moi??? Twist muh' arm. But, IT'S SO BIG- 'n' I feel not expert enuf to break it up happily (I probly read more Dan Savage than Congress Watch)-- Xactly why I'm inspired by your brill suggestion identifying one extant exterior section I'd use.
But we'll fish around Talk:Rick Santorum for ace editors. Then If/When *you* (or someone) ID's [a number of] appropriate spin offs- Then yes, I can happily administer just what the two tags advise ;-\
re:A.Zhukov I'm more 'hands-off' than wanting any 'hand-off' of this deleted article. However I meant another 'Alexander Zhukov':
♠ Googling "Alexander Zhukov"[sic] today the top returns relate to a current figurehead- one Russian "Deputy Prime Minister". This 'Alexander Zhukov' is quoted in the last line of [Guardian/business 2008.12.29] -But there must be _hundreds_, if not kilos of 'em. Who knows what Marshall Z. got up to once he disappeared into the 'Security state' role of People's Hero ;-? Another article entirely. ♠ T'anks TerRAXos;
G^8 Happy New You 8-D Hilarleo (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your edit to remove the POV material. I also updated it and added a citation. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Stub templates
Is there any special reason for going around putting stub templates on pages that are at least several paragraphs long, have references, and are clearly not stubs??--Gilabrand (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is another option for the talk page should the soft redirect be deleted: move it to WT:The weather in London (and deleting the resulting redirect). This will preserve the talk page - and still leaves options for Wikilinking to it when/if it is appropriate. Since the historic use of this is self referencing to begin with, the move into project space (or, in this case, project talk space) is long overdue. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD: Manichaean paranoia
Hi! I've nominated the article Manichaean paranoia for deletion because I deem that it is not notable and cannot become notable, because of the inherent contradiction in this political phrase. I'm giving you a notice on this because you have contributed to the article and I deem you have rights to have a say in the matter. My elaborate analysis of the failures of the article can be read in Talk:Manichaean paranoia. The discussion for (and against) deletion is kept in this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination). Be welcome to partake! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
You left a message on my talk page about wes cravens nightmare??? or something like that. Not only have I never edited it but i've never even heard of it.
Cookie
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
- Congrats Robofish, you were the first person to send me a munch. Ever. Here's a pint to comemmorate the event
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Its the Cookie Monster (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Request to move article Alex Fergusson (Scottish politician) incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Alex Fergusson (Scottish politician) to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Charles Brown (California politician)
My original edit, as you noted, was not meant to be destructive. I have adjusted the infobox to a more relevant format. EATC (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thankspam
Hi Robofish, very very belated thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin, there's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. Oh and congratulations on your new name. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Userbox vandalism
Thank you for spotting and correcting that. It just shows how long since I properly looked at my userpage. RolandR (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
.jpg)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Quick note on RfA
I recently added a discussion re: Goodmorningworld's neutral !vote. I encourage you if you have time to read that discussion, and Goodmorningworld's own additions to his commentary. Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Jason Steed
It wasn't found to be non-notable, it just didn't have enough (online) 'reliable references.' This happened over the Easter bank holiday, when everything closed down for four days, and I wasn't able to get hold of newspapers/magazines etc to confirm things. I explained this, but the wonderful WP admins deleted anyway.--Beehold (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
CoM RfA
re: your post. Great Minds think alike eh? ;) ... actually, I ran into an edit conflict (probably with your post), and I just refreshed and tried to post again - when I read what you had to say ... I thought, yea .. Robo's got it right! ;) — Ched : ? 07:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
like i said in the discussion, lets add the links back; it had links and this guy User:dreamguy didn't like the article and erased the links., Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Robo. Thanks very much for the consideration and thoughtful comments you contributed to the discussion on my canddidacy for Adminship. Your comments were very constructive and I appreciate the time and care you put into them. I thought they were the most accurate and helpful in the discussion and I agree with what you said. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
HELP!!!
I am the author of the site "Ethnomethodology" - you helped me before over the question of citations. I have been decended upon by a guy named Jonathan Bishop [he has a bio on Wikipediam - why I don't know]. He has inserted various statements into the text which are inaccurate and contextually innappropriate. He has absolutely no background in this area, yet he claims that he is a "professional researcher". Despite my telling him that he is in error and showing him the error of his way, he continues his mantra of "professional researcher". I want to either get him off the site and finish the article, or nuke all of my prior entries and leave the site to the vultures. Can you assist me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either comment, advise, or contribute. I think something like this should have been a while ago so as to help stop the bickering at AfDs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Defaultsort/LIVING --> Listas parameter
I notice that you have been adding the WP Biog banner to articles as appropriate. Please remember to complete the listas parameter so that, for example, the Talk page for Ellen Bard, where all the project information is posted, will be sorted in its relevant categories under "B" rather than "E". It is not possible to track the pages that have or lack a DEFAULTSORT value or a sort value in the LIVING tag but there are categories for Biography talk pages with or without the listas parameter. I realize that this will mean extra time for you but it will save some one else opening the Talk Page, checking the article for a sort value, creating or fixing the sort value if necessary and copying that sort value to the listas parameter on the talk page.
Thank you.
Victims of political repression
This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
WIC
The first three hits on Google are about the United States program, the other pages listed at the dab page are far less likely to be known as "WIC", and there is precedent for keeping an article at its acronym name (see SCUBA, LASER, CD, DVD, and so forth). As this, I believe, more than satisfies the primary topic requirements, I suggest undoing your actions. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can get an admin to undo your move, but obviously I would want your agreement on this (I'd rather avoid the week long discussion that would need to take place at WP:RM, and I do believe the move is largely uncontroversial). If this is okay with you, let me know. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly no urgency, I'll open a discussion at WP:RM then. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 09:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion here, if you're interested in participating. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly no urgency, I'll open a discussion at WP:RM then. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 09:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Andreas von Bülow, following the guideline on multiple messages.) — Regards. Cs32en 19:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD
I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Rhianna Pratchett
Hello. You wrote that the subject is, 'according to one list the 2nd most important woman in the game industry'. Which list is that? Are you referring to this - Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women? That list is arranged in alphabetical order and she therefore appears at no. 2 on p. 9, falling between Powers and Ray. Or is there another list that I haven't seen?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
re: welcome
Hi, Robofish. Thanks for the welcome. Was there anything specific I'd done wrong or was it simply an automatic heads-up? Lidmann (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Smiles
Robofish, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It is a mistake to try to shoehorn traditional Arabic names into the European naming scheme of inherited surnames...
You are the sixth volunteer, in as many weeks, I have asked to refrain from trying to shoehorn Arabic names into the European naming scheme of inherited surnames. Arabic names don't work that way.
Please reconsider this effort. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- The same applies to most Eastern names as well. The conventions for Japanese and Chinese names does employ an inheritable component. But the inheritable component comes first, not last. And in this particular case the robot editing tool's advise is doubly wrong. If you look at the article this individual's birth name was Hideyuki Hirano. I renew my suggestion you stop taking surname advice from robots. Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [5].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
AWB error
Thanks Believe it or not, I noticed this error myself in other edits and amended them. I'm glad that you caught it as well. Please correct me in the future if I am as sloppy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the alert, Robofish. Betax 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Tags
Robofish,
I saw your tags on Bill Pearce's article. I fixed the issue with the tags as far as I know. Feel free to double check me, and if it's not right in your eyes, feel free to re-add the tag, I won't revert!
Thanks! Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Robofish
I got your message and was able to link Bill Pearce with the Kurt Kaiser article. It's the same person as the same meeting is metioned. (I wrote both articles). Is it now okay to remove that tag ? (I won't touch it without asking you first. :) ) Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 22:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikify?
Hi Robofish,
I just saw the Wikify template added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Marquez. I read through the various links on that notice, but I'm not sure I totally understand the message it's trying to convey. I went through and made some changes and added some sections. Can you take a look and let me know what I need to do to make it meet all the "wikify" requirements. Thanks --Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Again Robofish,
I added several third party references and hope you find it satisfactory. Can you please take another look and let me know. Thanks --Warriorboy85 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
Hello, I'm new here. What happens after one of the redirect pages I put up for deletion gets a "delete per nom" comment? Should I go ahead and delete the redirect myself, or will a moderator/admin do that job?
I put the erotolepsy redirect up for deletion on May 26. -Roastporkbun (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Okay, great, thank you! -Roastporkbun (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review
See this deletion review. You were a participant in the deletion discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Transgender Day of Empowerment
Thanks for the note. I've nominated it at AfD - one article in a local gay paper does not reliable sources make. Rebecca (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The Onion Girl
You stuck an unreferenced tag on the article for The Onion Girl, and I am wondering why, since all I did in creating the article was basically a plot synopsis and list of characters. I realize that the article needs more content, but what's there right now isn't in need of references, according to Wikipedia guidelines. marbeh raglaim (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing me with a detailed explanation for your actions, and for removing the tag when you realized it was inappropriate. I knew the article was far from complete, which is why I added a stub tag. But I have now searched for and found a secondary source--an interview with Charles de Lint--and I have added it to the article. It's just a start, but I was able to find it through Google News archive search. I also searched my local library's magazine and newspaper database but did not find much. marbeh raglaim (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
bot
are u a bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magibon talk (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Archie Humanoid Robot
Just a friendly note on Archie Humanoid Robot. I declined the speedy because a robot doesn't really fall into any of the categories in A7. If you think the article isn't notable, try prod or AfD. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. I applied A7 under "Group" as it was built by a group of students a s a project, but it is understandable how that may not apply LeilaniLad (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there,
- You left a reply on my talk page about this article. Since I haven't seen it or edited it before, I'm guessing it wasn't meant for me - you probably meant to reply to User:Fabrictramp, right? But since you've brought it to my attention, I'll take a look at the article anyway... perhaps there's something I can do for it. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good lord, sorry. Yes, was not meant for you, was meant for Fabrictramp. The article seems non-notable to me if you want to look at it (i.e. a science group project that has no secondary sourcing). LeilaniLad (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- You left a reply on my talk page about this article. Since I haven't seen it or edited it before, I'm guessing it wasn't meant for me - you probably meant to reply to User:Fabrictramp, right? But since you've brought it to my attention, I'll take a look at the article anyway... perhaps there's something I can do for it. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Since Ladder Theory survived AFD in 2006 the {{notability}} template does not belong on the article. Samboy (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your prompt reply, and have a wonderful day! Samboy (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
- T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
- WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
- WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
- WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
- WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations
Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of South Park title sequence
The article South Park title sequence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- non-notable - no third party sourcing
While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Emanuel article
Thanks for the welcome back. I don't have any particular opinions about the content of the article, my only interactions with it were administrative. I suppose I should have re-deleted the redirect when it was created, but it didn't seem to be doing any harm, and arguably was helpful. I didn't imagine a conflict would arise about which article it should re-direct to. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I had been led to believe that it was an official trailer for an upcoming animated film. Considering that I can no longer find any sort of valid or reasonable link to it or mention of it, as far as I'm concerned, it's fodder for deletion; I'll happily send it to Speedy deletion, or barring that, to AfD. --mhking (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Orphan tagging
Hi there. I'm curious why you decided to retag 2012 Conference with {{orphan}} after I already removed it? I think it's great that you're helping to identify articles which are orphaned however, the current backlog of orphaned articles is so huge right now (second only to unreferenced articles) that per consensus reached at the WikiProject Orphanage talk page we decided to focus on tagging only those articles which have NO incoming links from other articles. I know the criteria says 3 incoming articles but until we can make a bit of a dent in the backlog our goal right now is to get at least one or two relevant incoming links and that should be enough to remove the tag. There's also a bot we can set loose that automatically tags any articles as an orphan depending on the criteria we give it, whether that be 1, 2 or 3 incoming links. So once again, although I can't tell you to stop, you can do whatever you think is best, but it would really help if you could only tag as orphaned those articles that have absolutely zero incoming links from other articles or lists (disambig pages don't really count but even they help too.. anything to help get that tag off). Btw, see my log of de-orphaned articles for some examples of what I deem to be enough to remove the tag. Thanks. -- Ϫ 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
User Lida Vorig
Hello, I would like to ask advise from you as user named user:Lida Vorig flags all Azerbaijani articles due she is armenian and her anti-Azerbaijanism hate. Where I can complain?--NovaSkola (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Recent death}}
Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. --Brian McNeil /talk 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Robofish. Regarding your addition of {{notability}} to Danny MacAskill. I'm not sure what you are looking for. The article already quotes multiple, reliable, and secondary sources (e.g. BBC news and Times Online). And an AfD discussion concluded that this individual is notable per WP:BIO. If you disagree, please let me know, and suggest ways to improve it. Otherwise, could we please remove the tag? Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing the tag. Hehe, can't say I look forward to the AfD ;), I'll keep my eyes peeled for any thing more from him - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Stephen Eyre
Thanks for the note.
Over the next month or so, I'm planning to dredge through all the constituency articles for the upcoming election and try to identify the various borderline candidate articles (there's a lot), so that hopefully we can have the worst of them tidied away well before it becomes an issue, and keep the rest watched to make sure they remain of a decent standard. If you'd like, I'll let you know when the master list's ready for poring over. Shimgray | talk | 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
==AfD nomination of YIMBY==
An article that you have been involved in editing, YIMBY, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YIMBY. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nsaa (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Lucas Gonze
Hi Robofish, about the conflict of interest comment you left at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lucas_gonze , see the notes I left at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lucas_Gonze
But the case for me editing my own bio page is:
- I didn't create the bio page in the first place.
- My edits were minimal as possible.
- I documented my edits ahead of time and followed responsible practices for community involvement.
- The substance of the edits wasn't random self-promotion.
- The page as it was left by ordinary social processes misprepresented me and needed a little bit of gardening.
--Lucas gonze (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Encounter group/T-group (social psychology) merge proposal
A late reply, if you're still interested after all this time: [6]. I think it's okay to have two articles; there seem to be enough sources which draw a distinction between the two. If you agree, let's remove the merge proposal, and perhaps put a "See also" in each article. Cheers, --JN466 22:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Pornopedia article
I've added some references at the article. Are there enough in order to remove the notability templates? Thank you User:Biris —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
lookout
thanks for watching my back and correcting that. i appreciate your help and understanding. happy editing.
>>>> Posted By Alex Waelde (Leave Me A Messgae) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
RFA spam
- —Kww(talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Note to readers: I de-transcluded the above message as I felt it was taking up too much space, but left it as a link. Robofish (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
Invitation
WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy Halloween!
As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Lifetime
You seem to be replacing defaultsort and categories with the lifetime template. This is pointless, as Lifetime is a convenience template. It only exists to make writing articles easier; if someone has already put in the information longhand, Lifetime is redundant.
From Template talk:Lifetime:
- "{{Lifetime}} is s shortcut to generate birth and death categories and DEFAULTSORT. Automatic bots regularly replace it with the expanded form, but editors can still use lifetime to save on typing."
Hesperian 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
re your comments there - you've echoed what I've been thinking for some time, but haven't yet got down to writing. My own view is that those who perpetuate the inclusionist/deletionist split (which is less of a split than it was, seems to me) are those who feel in some way validated by it - by belonging to an in-group within the larger group. If you do write anything I'd be interested in taking a look. pablohablo. 23:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Requested move (please comment)
Hey Robofish, I noticed that you had participated in an AfD discussion regarding the Honduran articles, and I would appreciate your comment here: Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move I hope that you can kind of understand the logic of what I was saying there, even if you don't agree with the move. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Please suggest replacement template
Hi. You recently participated in a template deletion discussion [7] which resulted in the deletion of a template, Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias, used at the top of the article Positive airway pressure. The deletion discussion did not mention which template should be used as a replacement. I can't even see what the text was that was formerly at the top of the article as created by the template. Could you please suggest an alternate template to use at the top of this article? (I'm also posting this request to the talk pages of others involved in the deletion discussion.) Robert K S (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, according to the Google cache, it used to read, "This article includes a subtopic, Continuous pressure devices, which is often known as CPAP. For other uses of this term, see CPAP." Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, see reply on my talk page. If CPAP was a direct redirect to Positive airway pressure (as it used to be, and, IMO, ought to be), what would the appropriate replacement template have been? Robert K S (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede
Sorry to bother you again, but I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Joe McElderry
The AfD for Joe McElderry which you participared in closed as Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6). There is a proposal now at Talk:List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6)#Joe_McElderry_2 to restore an independent article and your opinion would be welcome there. I42 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Requested edit on Body burden article
Hi, Robofish -- I noticed that, earlier this year, you placed a warning tag on the Body burden article and a comment on its Talk page regarding a POV section. (Some time after, the template was removed without explanation.) I agree with this complaint about the article -- and have several others. Over the past few months I've been working on an alternative to this article which is currently located in my userspace. It is now finished and addresses all of the problems I have with the current version. But I haven't replaced it yet because I have a potential conflict with the subject matter: the public debate in which the body burden concept figures is a matter of import to the American Chemistry Council, which is a client of my employer. That's why I've decided to open it up for another editor to review and see if they agree with my judgment calls and, if so, implement my suggestions. (Read my full explanation on the Body Burden Talk page here.) Since you had expressed some interest in fixing the article, I thought I would reach out to you now. Let me know if you decide to take up the matter. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you please copy the text from that talk page to my userspace somewhere? I was working on an article... thanks. User:Pedant (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
|
The SILLIWILI |
| Congratulations, this "SILLIWILI" is hereby awarded for finding the Silliest wikilink of the month of January 2010! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
I had meant to AfD it following the contested PROD, but didn't get around to it. Thanks for taking the initiative. Cheers, and have a great new year. --kelapstick (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Gladstone (humorist, writer): Consider 'Needs references' tag?
Hi Robofish-- At the end of November you quite justifiably tagged this article as needing references. It was in its beginning stages at the time and has undergone several revisions. Could you give it a look and either consider removing the tag or give some more specific feedback now that it's more developed? Thanks. --Sainge.spin (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks & thanks for the advice. Going to talk it over with a couple of people & get back to it. --Sainge.spin (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Reply from tomalak_geretkal
Hi; please see my reply to your message at User_talk:Tomalak_geretkal#Luc_Bernard. Cheers. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yellowface and Racebending
I do agree that the Yellowface article may need to have a separate entry for racebending.
I attempted to improve an article for racebending, but it was deleted. I then created my own, but that too was deleted.
The reasons were supposedly due to a neologism created by Avatar: The Last Airbender fans.
I currently have it on my userpage and you are welcome to peruse and perhaps give pointers on how to improve it for publication.
Nemogbr (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mentorship
I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?
Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.
Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"
- May I offer a proposal? Please replace your username with your signature (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.
- You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
My username
It has been bought up a few times before, going through all the discussion processes. In my opinion, if someone views my userpage it's pretty obvious I'm not that other fella. Regards, --Jimbo[online] 12:42, 31
January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I removed the stub template from Omar Amanat article by mistake. Can you please re-add it?
J araneo (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Robofish,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
- Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
- As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
- Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
- Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
- Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
- In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
- Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant by 'none' was precisely that: that I don't think there should be a threshold of support beyond which bureaucrats must automatically desysop admins. However, as a guideline/rule of thumb, I would be happy to put it at 80%. (Actually, I'd put it even lower at 75%, as long as we're only talking about a guideline and not a strict rule.) Robofish (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
CRU article name
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom process
Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.
- I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."
I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."
Orphan tags
Are you going through my contributions to place orphan templates on articles that I have created / worked on: World of Pet Supplies, Heart-kun, and World Chocolate Wonderland? Cunard (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
How mentoring will work
As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.
I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:
- An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
- Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from a salutary premise which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences:
- We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein
In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.
The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.
In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.
Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Your note on my talk page
is not appreciated and has been deleted for the following reasons:
- 1. A similar (yet less aggressive) note already exists on my talk page.
- 2. This is your own opinion, so please do not force it upon other people. As you can see from the talk page, most users support keeping this template.
Thank you. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for the clarification. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 14:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Robofish. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Biased Arabic Wikipedia Template
Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion of my personal space page about Arabic Wikipedia template. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. I would greatly appreciate your input in this matter. Thank you in advance. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mentoring task force
Robofish -- This text could be added to my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?
Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Supplementary statement
- A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.
- A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.
- The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.
- A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."
- I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."
Editing advice
Robofish -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.
With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:
- A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.
- B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.
Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.
Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?
BTW, I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.
The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?
Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way.--Tenmei (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.
"My Name Is Legion"
Hi, and thanks for your message about the possible deletion of the "Legion in Popular Culture" article. However, I did NOT create that entry. What I did create a long time ago was a disambiguation page with an altogether different title, see here.
Best wishes, <KF> 13:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Deng (species)
Thank you for contacting me. I agree that the article should be deleted. It doesn't meet notability SithiR (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Tenmei mentorship
Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP-Prod
That's fine; while not a requirement to overturn BLP-PRODs, it would be helpful (considering the reason they were instituted) if you provided sources which verified the material found in the article. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Ruchir Punjabi
An article that you have been involved in editing, Ruchir Punjabi , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruchir Punjabi (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem with your removal of the BLP PROD; I agree. I used it in the hope of encouraging improvement on the article. I've now tagged it a bit. Cheers. Chzz ► 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Weapon Brown
I have to disagree with the idea that the comic isn't noteworthy. Weapon Brown is noteworthy for the manner in which the characters are parodied. Unlike Robot Chicken, which simply uses the original designs of the characters in a manner designed to mock the source material, Weapon Brown takes the characters, modifies their designs, and places them in all new settings and situations, presenting a parody that re-imagines the Peanuts gang in a way that, so far as I can tell, has never been done before. While it may be an independent comic, and a one-shot compiled from the first four issues of Deep Fried, the new material created specifically for the book, such as new material within A Peanut Scorned and the wholly new back-up story A Weapon Brown Christmas, makes Weapon Brown noteworthy as a comic, even if it didn't become a nationally known independent comic.
When one considers that there are articles for films, TV shows, and comics which are little known outside of particular areas, and in some cases may be so obscure many viewers of wikipedia don't even know they exist until they stumble across the article, I would consider it a disservice to this comic to delete the article on it just because it isn't a nationally known work. Furthermore, although it may not be the best argument for it, a search on the Weapon Brown comic I did, did produce a listing for an article- or so I would assume- for an article produced in a college magazine for the SUNY buffalo campus called Generation, which, if the link is still accurate as it appears to have a listing of various articles from the same issue, should be here: www.subboard.com/generation/articles/104615028054665.asp, that details information about the comic. If it will help matters, I will gladly post the link on the article itself. There are two other articles that came up in related searches, found at the following links: www.whatisdeepfried.com/2010/01/19/who-let-you-in-here/ and www.experiencefestival.com/weapon_brown.
While neither goes into extensive details about the comic, the comic itself is mentioned in both, indicating that people did find it noteworthy. In addition, I have a copy of the comic myself (I was the one who provided the scan of the cover for the one-shot) which I purchased while out in Buffalo, and can, if necessary, make listings within the article of references to where in the one-shot that the events listed in the article can be found, for anyone else who may have a copy to verify.
Furthermore, the comic is listed as having been published by the Death Ray Graphics company, and has the address to the author's website within it, which was provided within the article itself after I located it in the issue. The website, the last time I'd seen it, had been offering copies of the various issues of Deep Fried and the Weapon Brown one-shot for sale. Granted, this was a few years ago when I had seen the site and purchased anything from it, but this still notes that the issues are available through a website that produces items for sale via mailing distribution, giving people the possibility of purchasing copies of the issues themselves if they so wish.
I apologize in advance for the lengthiness of this reply, but after having gone to the trouble of creating the article after finding the comic in my collection again after years of disuse, I feel it is a disservice to simply delete it for not being well known when there are just as many other items that are likely as equally unknown by people until they see articles for them on Wikipedia, and which they may not feel to be noteworthy either, but remain on the site.
Warwolf1 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you added a dictdef template to Mainstream media. I don't disagree with that at all. But I'd be interested in your thoughts on the future of the article. I think it has little potential (you can see some of my rationale on the talk page). But I figure that even if it were deleted, it would likely be recreated. Maurreen (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. It makes sense to me.
- It had earlier had varying "definitions", such as "The Mainstream Media (MSM) is a catch-all term that applies to all media outlets that existed in the United States of America prior to 1987".
- As long as people accept a tautological definition and the small opportunity for expansion, I'm OK with the article. Maurreen (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty
Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:
1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.
2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:
- Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
- Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Notability tag on AC Transit Bus fight
I removed the notability tag you placed on AC Transit Bus fight. The tag does not apply because the general notability guideline is met by the substantial coverage in reliable sources. Feel free to renominate this article for deletion at AfD, though, if you believe WP:NOTNEWS applies. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Caillou
I restored the warning, with an explanation; however as I indicated in the edit summary I won't re-restore it if you disagree. I just wanted to make it clear that I think it actually does help, and doesn't really "give people ideas" because those intent on vandalizing this specific article will likely be those who already know about the "Caillou has cancer" joke. Granted, not all of them will ... some people just cruise through Wikipedia at random. So I don't have strong feelings either way. —Soap— 12:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks :) —Soap— 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Morefootnotes Tag on Donna J. Stone
Thanks for your interest in the Donna J. Stone article. I had been planning to convert the reference list to inline citations, and your tag prompted me to finally get it done. I removed the tag after adding the citations. Thanks again for the friendly reminder. Mary Ann --Mah Jong (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Okip personal attack against Animate
Re [8] (I placed that comment there, but "inclusionists" have a penchant for selective perception so I am repeating it here just in case):
The first categorical difference is that one comment was made on Wikipedia, the other one was not. The second categorical difference is that Animate's Wikia comment was a conditional: He said that A Nobody was "pathetic" if several conditions were fulfilled. We all know they were, but Animate did not claim that, thus he didn't even "call A Nobody pathetic" at Wikia. Whereas Okip did, in fact, call Animate pathetic on Wikipedia, outright and went scot-free another time. Just noting the facts. --87.79.167.3 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Internet celebrity
See here, for some thoughts about supporting additional fields in {{infobox person}}. The use of "Internet celebrity" as an example may not have been the best one (since it is arguable if the additional fields should be in the box), but it seemed timely. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
None of the above
As the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero, None Of The Above has been blocked as a sockpuppet and you're the sole deletion !voter, if you agree with a merge we can speedily keep and merge the content. Fences&Windows 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've seen that you've made an edit on this page. I would advise you that this party doesn't exist in Italy, but only on english wikipedia. You should check on Italian Wikipedia, Italian Newspapers and on the website of Italian Minister of the Interior and you will find nothing about it. It was a spin off of Northern League (alias Lega Nord) of Umberto Bossi. But after less than 2 years the man who created this "faction" Max Ferrari came back in Lega Nord. So actually the page of this "party" on wikipedia is online only because someone want to promote himself. That's all. I suggest you to check all the information and then delete those pages. I'm trying to clear those page removing the false informations. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.132.144 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
BLP
Hi! I am inviting you to join the discussions here. Here is the link. I am trying to prove to the #1 critic-editor of the subject that the lead section of the Eli Soriano article is POV (not to mention poorly-sourced) and more importantly, libelous. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Pointy hat --> pointed hat
Hello. I'm not sure consensus was reached. Did you check the talk page before the move? Also, you only changed pointy to pointed in the first instance leaving behind a hundred "pointy"s. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I did check the talk page - there was a discussion there of the title, but it had grown stale. I couldn't honestly say there was consensus to change the name, but there wasn't consensus in favour of it, either - and it seemed to me the arguments for changing the name were stronger, so I decided to be bold and move it. If you disagree, feel free to propose moving it back and create an area for discussion.
- Thanks for pointing out (heh, no pun intended!) that many uses of the word 'pointy' remain in the article, though - I'll go change those now. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the pointys. Your bold action has received no protest. Good. Fewer long talk page paragraphs. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Gore Effect AfD
You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to maintain perspective
I fear however that as far as I/P issues are concerned, you will likely not get very far. NickCT (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I found several reliable sources to show Maj. gen. Smith's notability. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Dramaout
Your name was on the 2nd dramaout signup and the organizer of the 2nd one suggested notifying those who signed up the last time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians
and also a mention on WP:ANI. We would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: Edmund Burke quote
Actually, Wikiquote is one of the first places I went to try and find who said it. I did read how there was no definite proof that he said it, but my interpretation was that it was probably him, or at least based on his ideas. Thus if I attribute it to anyone, it might as well be Burke. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Schlingesief's Container and James Corden
Thanks for that, I expect merge is what I meant; I've put the templates up. As for James Corden, I can't say I'm greatly bothered, I only took a swift knife to it in the hope of provoking the people who do care to fix it. I realise that in cyberspace no amount of drivel takes up any space at all, but then you might as well abandon the whole project and give everyone a free fansite instead. The Corden page is by far not the worst offender; look at Apolo Ohno. The point is that it's counterproductive if the aim of wikipedia is to serve as a place where ordinary people without a passionate affinity for the subject can quickly and conveniently look things up. Sartoresartus (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Twin Towers 2
Thank you for your message. While I agree that this project has received sporatic attention over the years, it has been declared categorically unfeasible in its entirety by Chris Ward, the head of the PANYNJ. I do not think the article should be merged into the 'Rebuilding of the WTC contoversy' page since that page already reflects this project. I do feel the article should be deleted and allow the project to exist on the controversy page, a page that also needs a lot of work.
Since I am somewhat new to this forum and want to do things correctly, I would appreciate your help in proposing this article for deletion with my representation as a signature. Thank you.Skimlatte (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Herostratus' RfA
And you also should be grateful you're not an admin, because you wouldn't be one for long after you blocked me. I made no accusation. When someone's completely obsessed with pedophilia articles, that's a pretty big red flag, and I'm going to be uncomfortable. Love, Keepscases (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
orphan tag
jnl_chemist here....I'm not really sure why my wikipedia article on Johann F C Hessel was tagged as an orphan. At the time it was tagged it had numeerous links to intrnal and external sites. Nevertheless, I added about six more links or so this morning. Could you please consider reviewing the article again and removing the orphan tag now? Jnl chemist (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
jnl_chemist here again. Thanks for the clarification. That made good sense. I did manage to find two articles for which I added links to my article on Johann F C Hessel. Is two sufficient to warrant removal of the orphan tag? Jnl chemist (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why sow the seeds of confusion on my talk page?
Please could you explain why you have put a false message on my talk page? The Wikipedian in Residence page has been moved and is not up for deletion yet you said the situation is quite different in your posting on my talk page. Please can I hav an explkanation? thanksHarrypotter (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, if I suggested you sowed teh seeds of confusion. In fact when I tried to find the track of events, I was unable to. Thanks for the explanation.Harrypotter (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Foot odor
I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor#Merger proposal. SnottyWong yak 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please consider participating in a deletion discussion for Category:Poetasters
Category:Poetasters has been nominated for deletion here. Last January, you participated in the previous deletion discussion (which resulted in a no-consensus keep), so you may have an interest in this one. Please consider participating. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi my understanding is (and I have only recently started to use this and was a bit disappointed at how arbitrary the figures being quoted are) you need a listing of all of someones works that are considered relevant. They should be in order by number of the number of times they have been cited in things that are considered relevant. One then runs down the list till the position in the list is the same as the number of citations. A person with the following could have a h-index of 5:
- st Most cited article 200 citations
- nd most cited article 100 citations
- rd most cited article 10 citations
- th most cited article 7 citations
- th most cited article 5 citations
- th most cited article 3 citations
- th most cited article 2 citations
- th most cited article 1 citations
- th most cited article 0 citations
Several things simplify this: Google scholar - will list in this order so one can just count down. Scopus and web of science are othe databases - but one has to be registered to use them (or at an institution that is registered). Web of science produces the h-index automatically.
There are problems though - different database include different lists of journals. And this can give massively different results.
- Luboš Motl has a h-index of around 20 by google scholar and only 8 by web of science and scopus. Google scholar includes arXiv papers which are none peer reviewed - so you might think they shouldn't count but they are normal in his area.
- Tia Keyes now deleted has a h-index of 10/11 by google scholar or 16 by web of science. (With this one there was also a problem that she published as TE Keyes and ET Keyes and her most cited ref was left of the lists being used for calculation.
I hope this helps (and is right). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
Craigslist Killer redirect
Just want to bring to your attention the exchange at Talk:Craigslist Killer regarding the disambiguation page that one editor wants to create, seen here: [9]. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Tvoz/talk 16:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable source??? sufc.co.uk
You recently said that this website sufc.co.uk "this is clearly not a third-party reliable source." How is an official professional football team's website not classed as "third party" to a music artist? and why is it not a reliable source? Regards IJA (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also can you please say why a tabloid is not to be considered a reliable source for Bio of a living person? IJA (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- oops, sorry I apologise, I got confused and sent it to the wrong user. Sorry mate. Regards IJA (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I thought this was very well put. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, now there are some references (from reliable third-party publications) provided. Would you mind to remove the 'Primarysources' template? Thanks --Pevos (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Race card article
Hey there, Robofish....I never censored the article! I looked at the revision history and for some reason....the n-word was placed with symbols. I didn't do that. The only change I made myself was using the word "strategic".....umm...WTF?
Anyway, thanks for making the correction. Again, i have no idea why the symbols came up. And I'm aware of the censorship rules...thanks for keeping WP sound. PalindromeKitty (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Wonk
Hello there.
I have a copy of The Adventures of Wonk, as you report it is fragile in that the spine has broken so that the front cover is loose but otherwise the pages themselves are in pretty good condition. The book was published in 1945 with a second edition in 1946. If you'd like info about the book let me know. Could it be valuable? It was a pleasure to find someone else out there who knows about this book, a much treasured childhood memory for me.
Wonk2010--Wonk2010 (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.
It's raining thanks spam!
- Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
- There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
- If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You've marked this article, stating that it may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view - please could you explain which portions you feel are non-neutral.
I rewrote the article entirely, and tried my best to stick to neutral, verifiable information. I am not, actually, a 'fan' at all.
If there are any specific problems, please let me know. Best, Chzz ► 19:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Integrity
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| Your reconsideration of your position at this discussion was commendably judicious. Well done. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) |
Opposition to Prohibition
You moved Repeal organizations to Opposition to Prohibition, which was a fine improvement. How would you feel about adding the content of Opposition to Prohibition to Repeal of Prohibition and then deleting Opposition to Prohibition? Opposition to Prohibition is just a fairly short list of organizations and individuals that could easily (I think) be incorporated into Repeal of Prohibition. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
London Wikimedia Fundraiser
Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.
Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Operation Ore
Hi, I take your point that the secondary source that was quoted seems to be against me. But there are two sources here - the primary source in the form of the judgement from the court of appeal, and the secondary source in question which was an on-line article. My point is that the information given in the secondary source article was wrong, being based on a complete distortion of what the court of appeal primary source actually found, and can be shown very easily to have been wrong by referring to the written court of appeal judgement, which I quote and show why this secondary source got it badly wrong. Those quoting from this secondary source in the article, are therefore perpetuating misinformation. Anyone reading the wiki article as it now stands, will be misinformed that the court of appeal ruled there was no credit card fraud in relation to operation ore, when the court of appeal actually found the opposite. At paragraph 37 of the judgement, they found there probably was credit card fraud involved. These quotes in the article from the secondary source, are also given as though they were made by the appeal judges in relation to all criticism of operation ore. But read paragraph 5 of the judgement and you will find the appeal judges explicitly state this isn't what they are finding at all. In the written judgement, the judges qualified very tightly the quotes they made. In the wiki article, the authors have selected the bits that suit them, and left the all important qualifiers out. My contribution may have looked partisan, but this was only because I was having to explain why these peoples contributions were inaccurate. I am just struggling to get my head around how allowing inaccurate and misleading information, which can be easily and readily verified as such, by reference to the primary source, to remain can be the right thing to do. I will of course abide by your call, but it just seems so very wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManWithaFlan (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Climate change denial
I do not appreciate people accusing me of copyvio. Please check the source before reverting people on such grounds. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You still got it wrong when you wrote on my talk page. What the article said was "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science." Plus the revert you did stuck in a whole lot of stuff about environmental skepticism which is something quite different altogether and didn't mention climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the proper guidance and making my contribution as per Wikipedia structure. Sarmadhassan (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
James Delingpole
Hi Robofish
not sure why you have completely cut the climate change paragraph from james Delingpoles page? He is one of the most prominent climate change deniers in the UK. Who did Horizon call on when they wanted to find a climate change denier? The paragraph isnt particularly controversial. I have restored it. (btw you cannot really call him a sceptic. He doest read the original papers. Sceptics are well informed, on the whole. I think denier is a reasonable word for his stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.202.109 (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London
 | For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you! |
All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw your edits to the disambiguation page. I don't have time to link to all the discussions at the moment, but there are very good reasons that the dab page was set up the way it was, including legal ones fielded by Wikimedia's then-counsel. I'll try to follow up later, but you might want to rethink your page move until you read all the talk pages and the AfD. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took the last admin action here, but I can not find a good solution, and have therefore taken this to the BLP Noticeboard., in the hope that the community can resolve this. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: 2010–2011 anti-government protests
Im glad you AfD'd this article at least 4 editors feel it is not needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Nima
I was choosing random article to fix under wikify. I came across Nima Elbagir's article. I fixed what I could and moved all stuff guaranteed to be deleted under the section "x". If you could put whatever template there that is supposed to go there, then that would be good. Has something to do with no first person accounts in biographies. Its blatantly material from an interview. Give it a week so I can see the template and the author can see why their stuff is being deleted - that would be greatly appreciated. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)!
You recently participated in a straw poll regarding the above article. New options have been crafted at Talk:Ruby-gate#New options, and your input is welcome. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi if you feel like it please check out the Afd discussion for Emilia Carr. I personally believe in Keep for it.. but I wait for your opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my personal opinion anyone can make a decision on Keep or delete of an article based on even a quick review of the article even if not involved with the creation or interest for the articles subject. Anway, cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Robofish, I don't understand your removal of the BLP tag at all. The article is a BLP, obviously, and just as obvious is the fact that there isn't a single reference in the article that could qualify as a reliable source. I urge you to reconsider, to look closely at the sources, how something like this or this (and for the latter, here is their editorial page--it's a fan page run by an individual relying on user contributions) is even remotely like reliable sourcing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mario_Parga. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Robofish, thanks for your comment on the noticeboard. I've seen you around often enough for me to have faith in your judgment, and I am not disappointed. AfD may be revisited, and I'll let you know if it is. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Removing disambiguation pages needs checkup
I recreated the David L. Smith disambiguation article. It's needed since other articles are linking to it not referring to the historian , f.e. Alt.sex.cancel did it before I changed it. It's necessary to check what articles linking to a disambiguation article are referring to. The Melissa worm creator David L. Smith is mentioned in that article. Algotr (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You accuse me of vandalism
As you can read in the article, we are led to believe that Mohammad Atta's deeds were supposedly inspired by the shelling of Qana. Since he's a perp, he's listed. Perhaps best to remove all reference to Atta as the whole idea is pure conjecture anyway. This I'll do. It's not vandalism, it's a list of the people/groups in the article who did bad things. Why Atta's in the article is someone else's doing, and soon my reversion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also see you restored the NPOV title in the infobox; I guess you have too strong a POV on the subject to edit that properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of The David Vetter Show for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The David Vetter Show 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The David Vetter Show 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.
- Sorry if it turns out you really couldn't care less about this, but I decided to leave you a notification in case you wanted to comment since you PRODed the article unsuccessfully back in 2008. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about this, I've commented in the AFD. I always try to let people know when I nominate an article that they've proposed for deletion before (or discussed in a previous AFD) for deletion, no matter how long ago it was; I like to see that other users do the same thing. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
TFD Re-opening
Per an unusual request on my user talk page, I have re-opened the discussion that I had closed regarding Template:Infobox fictional battle. Since you participated in the discussion and may have thought it closed, I wanted to make you aware of its re-opening. The discussion is now listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 6 if you wish to make any further comments on it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI
You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. –xenotalk 16:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Chinook
Sorry, it was a great mistake. I wanted to make the change in the Hungarian Wiki. Thank you for the correction.Kaboldy 12:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaboldy (talk • contribs)
Heroes in Hell
A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
a request to view a page
Hi Robofish- I've spent some time updating and sourcing a recently deleted Jeff Pearce (American musician) article, with help from Ron Ritzman. The page is now in article space. I noticed that you were someone who wrote in favor of keeping the original article. If you would get the chance, I would appreciate you taking a look at the page to see if this strikes you as an improvement. Lavacheisfetchez (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Robofish- I thank you for looking over my Jeff Pearce (American musician) article, and for adding the categories! Lavacheisfetchez (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Something odd
You might want to have a look, something odd happened here. --Muhandes (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, I've no idea what happened there. It seems to have been a Twinkle error, I'll report it on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Thanks for noticing the bad edit and reverting it. Robofish (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Simon Heffer
What are you talking about? I've taken a look at the history and your most recent edit, and it has abslutely nothing to do with me. Care to elucidate? Derjederman (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Lists of Russians
Per your comments here, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Help_removing_a_template? Thank you. 198.175.175.57 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| For standing up against Occupy Wikipedia. Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
Let me add my support for that, even though I have a different view on this issue. Standing up for what you believe in, and defending it, is vital for making Wikipedia work. Geometry guy 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Political blog
Was this because I took fire axe to the spam in it earlier today, or just a coincidence? The article definitely needs some loving, it's a bit of a mess.
Also, is the act of adding those tags likely to get articles related to the projects worked on? If it is, I might dig into the list of projects and use the templates where I think they're needed --GraemeL (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, just a coincidence - I often trawl through related articles tagging them with wikiproject templates. As for your question, I suspect it doesn't make much difference, though it depends on the wikiproject - some are much more active than others. I figure that if I see an article that should be in a particular wikiproject, I may as well tag it, just so that project becomes aware that it exists and might take a look at it at some point. Robofish (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add it to my list of things to check when I come across neglected articles. --GraemeL (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Aversive Racism
I edited aversive racism adding a line informed by my being a mixed race Republican who met and discussed politics with Obama while he was at at Harvard. RichardBond (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Robofish, thanks for your work and comment on the One-third hypothesis article. Could you take an other look here and tell me if you could agree with the compromise I presented? -- Mdd (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't make myself clear. I do agree with your removal of the text. I just want it restored on the talk page. -- Mdd (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Removed Tag stating primary Sources
Dear Robofish,
I have removed the tag-
 | This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. |
mentioned in the article PEN American Center, and have added enough references to reliable third party sources. Please do care to review the article. Salman Gurung 10:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Numismatics project related inquiry
Greetings, Robofish! Congratulations on studying for your degree (read it on your user page). This isn't terribly important nor urgent. I wondered why you had included the WikiProject Numismatics template as part of Ven (currency)? Ven is a digital currency, or electronic currency. Does it have physical coins too? I know that bitcoins can be physical coins, which are quite lovely to look at. Perhaps the same is true for Ven? I couldn't find any references to such, however. I left another lonely entry on the Ven currency talk page about this. I'm sorry if I seemed strident. But digital currencies are controversial, so it is difficult, regardless of personal opinion. I know, we are supposed to be impartial, but many aren't. You know how that goes by now. Cynicism, but just a bit. Okay, that's all for now. Sorry, I'm too chatty, but this is a user talk page! I never have anyone to talk to on Wikipedia, so I'm taking advantage of this opportunity. --FeralOink (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! I read your very prompt response, and proceeded accordingly, i.e. got rid of it. --FeralOink (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Notification
Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been nominated for deletion, since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one, the discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination). Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Made a recommended Keep including subsections Natural Law vs Positive Law with protection against your repeat vandalism. MrsKrishan (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment: Template:more plot
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 21#Template:More plot is closed as keep. However, these issues are still discussed in Template talk:More plot. Please join in discussion for more consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested to know that there's a new AFD discussion on this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination). I'm mentioning this to you because I note that you took part in previous discussions about the notability/verifiability of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For moving the BLP donkey. Finally someone stood up. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
A cup of tea for you!
|
With compliments! Mootros (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
Speedy deletion nomination of Zhirinovsky's ass
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mootros (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This is obliviously a bug that this note is shown on your talk page. I've ask for speedy deletion as the title of this page is used in the DYK to disparage the subject. Mootros (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Zhirinovsky's ass listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zhirinovsky's ass. Since you had some involvement with the Zhirinovsky's ass redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mootros (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, a link to the discussion for deleting this redirect are now over here, after CSD10 was declined. Mootros (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Robofish. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Talkback
Message added 03:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixing my userpage
Thanks Please do it anytime. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your perspective would be of value
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
War on Women
I see you participated in last month's AfD for "War on Women"; that article was reinstated yesterday.--24dot (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Quick Note, War on Women has been renominated for Deletion--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/War_on_Women_(2nd_nomination)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed, thanks. But as that discussion seems to have reached consensus already, I don't think there's any need for me to add to it. Robofish (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Phoenix Affirmations page
Hello, would you mind taking a look at the current version of the Phoenix Affirmations entry to confirm whether or not it meets the need for notability that you flagged? Several contributions have been made to that entry since the original flagging. If there's anything else that needs to be done, I will try to do what I can. Thanks! Travelingsoul (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I have no problem with a PROD, it allows 7 full days for someone to look at it. CSD is much less transparent and more prone to error in such cases. Thanks.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Twitter issue
As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Notification of nomination for deletion of Night flight in the UK
This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night flight in the UK. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Luka Magnotta AFD4
Hi, your input is requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th nomination), per your previous comments at the third AFD. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Adding inflammatory and misleading content to biographical articles isn't constructive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
July 14th
If you do not wish to incite such a response, please do not revert MY edits to MY user page as vandalism. Edits to my own user page are not considered vandalism by Wikipedia's guidelines. 
This is your last warning. --Intimidatedtalk 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A well earned Barnstar!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| I hereby award this barnstar to editor Robofish for gracefully finding ways to bring heated discussions to consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Your proposal at the Debt systems AfD was also useful in that the rename makes it much easier to write a useful and interesting article with clarity and without OR or Synth. Thankyou! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900–1909
Now that the TfD has closed, see this thread. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War
I saw you advised a couple of people who worked on Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War.
Now that I have access to the userified article at User:Geo Swan/Comparison of Iraq War to the Algerian War I wondered whether if all the unreferenced paragraphs had been excised the article could have sailed through {{afd}}.
In your nomination you wrote: "This kind of compare-and-contrast exercise is best left to the reader." I agree that the unreferenced portion lapsed from WP:OR -- so why not just trim that portion?
I asked the contributors who played a role in the article for their opinions as to when or if the article could be restored to article space. Your opinion is welcome too.
I don't understand why the closing administrator wrote we need "in-depth histiographies of the subject". Do you?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Rename as opposed to delete perhaps?
Here you favoured delete. But after going through your rationale it seems like you're inclined towards a rename rather than deletion provided the new name is neutral enough. BTW, I myself am in favour of renaming it to a suitable name. May I humbly suggest you to clarify your position there (as in, rename or delete)?
FYI, the category can be directly renamed by an admin without having to delete it. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 09:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Women's Equality Day
In most, if not all, cases, the states which granted women the right to vote did so by amendment to their state constitutions. Thus, the right to vote was a constitutional right. While it is true that a state constitution can be amended, they would have had to let women participate in that process. Likewise, the Nineteenth Amendment could be repealed or modified, just as the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed. For the resolution to suggest that August 26, 1920, was the "first" time that women had the right to vote is simply false and wrong. The right was given, and the fact that it might have been taken away is irrelevant to the question whetn it was "first" given. The statement in the resolution indicates that Bella Abzug thought that history began on the date of her birth.John Paul Parks (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, since the 19th amendment says that the right of "citizens" to vote may not be denied or abridged on account of gender, a state is theoretically free to allow male aliens to vote and deny the vote to female aliens. Prior to the First World War, several states allowed lawfully admitted aliens to vote (see Florida Constitution of 1868).John Paul Parks (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: TRULINCS
Hello Robofish. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of TRULINCS, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: whilst it qualifies for G5, it seems like a valid redirect to me, so there is no harm in keeping it. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Lot (biblical person)
Your edit summary for this edit [10] says 'rv edits by sockpuppet of banned user'. This presumably refers to user:StAnselm who last restored the information here: [11]. But I don't see anything on his talk page about his being banned. Could you clarify please?
Regards,
Springnuts (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I don't think the material should be restored - it is not an accurate reflection of the source, which says that Lot's offering of his daughters to the mob earlier is an act of abuse, and the incest is to be read in the light of the earlier elements of the story. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Criticism of Wikipedia
You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Robofish. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Lat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above the Law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
For your interest yet another editor with probable support from others is planning to restore the Bully allogations to this page, see Misha AMBER Bryan section, I would value your comment if possible....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.
The questions are:
- Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
- Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
- Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
CfD talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also my comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 8#Category:LGBT_musicians_by_nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Outside opinion request
I noticed you were taking part in the deletion request for the article International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012. Until the matter is decided would you consider giving your opinion on an edit I think should be removed? See the article's talk page Thank you, Coinmanj (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| For the intellectual integrity you have shown in your decision here. Thanks! Cyclopiatalk 19:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
Bishop Bell School (and contempt of court)
Message added 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
THE AFD for Jan
I agree that it should be deleted. I seem to have missed participating in the discussion which seems to have been closed prematurely. The references given just show her interjecting into discussions as a member of the crowd and would make her as notable as any person interviewed on the ground by a reporter. NOT NOTABLE. Also, the sources cited by Obi refer to press releases where she is said to speak at. Again not notable. These are all trivial mentions. Would you be willing to nominate it again? BlueLotusLK (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)
You are getting this alert because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list
Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) is now up for deletion.
- Per Wikipedia:Canvassing:
- An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
- ...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).
Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Lauryn Hill
1997–99:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill and racial controversy: removed 'racial controversy' from subtitle - not a controversy, as these rumours were entirely false. - First, I'll make it clear that I have NO problem with you removing 'racial controversy' from the subtitle. (In fact, I think it's an improvement.) However, whether the rumours were false, (or true), makes no difference to the fact that there indeed was a "controversy". Even if the controversy was purely a media beat-up on a slow news-day, and totally unwarranted, it was still a controversy ...
(No reply solicited or expected.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Diana Gould
Robofish--Please revisit this article. I have expanded it and added references. If appropriate, please remove your warning templates. Thank you. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
TFD Infobox settlement
You have been involved with Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 13. Would like your feedback at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 18#Template:USA City infobox NVanMinh (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Asia topic
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hipster racism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aboriginal and Black culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
RFA
At WT:RFA#Has anyone suggested this before: moving to a system of regular elections like ArbCom?, would you have any objection to letting people do the usual RfA between elections, and reducing the slots open in elections by the number of successful candidacies in the previous quarter? - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One-state solution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Two Nations theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
American Inaugural poets
Hi Robofish
I have closed the CfD discussion on Category:American Inaugural poets as "listify and delete".
As nominator, would you like to make a start on creating the list? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Done: Poems at United States presidential inaugurations. Feel free to delete the category. Robofish (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great work, and super-speedy too. Thank you!
- Category now deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Robofish. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Poems at United States presidential inaugurations, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for this. Do you have any insight on this? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Film project template
Hello! Just FYI: since {{WikiProject Film}} already covers so many articles, it was decided (not by me) that the project should exclude actors, filmmakers and screenwriters. Articles about those people are covered by adding the parameter |filmbio work group=yes to the {{WikiProject Biography}} template instead. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. Feel free to remove it from biographies where I added it, and I'll tag them with that method instead in future. Robofish (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) 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. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jose Tillan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Ley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Whpq (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Please don't bother alerting me of a discussion.
Linking to my user page or talk page sends me a notification, simply editing one of my articles sends me an eMail notification and linking to it naturally sends me a notification. Bunging some boilerplate template on my talk page is just lazy and insulting.--Launchballer 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Launchballer: That template was indeed a boilerplate, added automatically by Twinkle. I'm sorry you found it insulting, but I didn't know what notification settings you're using - some people don't have all those article notifications turned on, so a talk page message is the only way you can be sure of getting someone's attention. I'll remember not to leave them for you in future. Robofish (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)