User talk:Pawebster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello Pawebster! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!  Netsnipe  ►  17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

"Looks as if there has been vandalism of the infobox. "[edit]

There was no vandalism. What I did was a mistake that I did when I added naval losses. Sorry about it. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 19:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

January 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Peter Lavelle. Thank you. —Snigbrook 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dan & Dave

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Dan & Dave. Thank you. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) KuyaBriBriTalk 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bleriot[edit]

Hello Pawebster, would you mind taking a look at the biography of Louis Bleriot? I've found and fixed a few of the grammatical errors to which you referred on the article's talk page. I hope you like my edit. Clear skies to you! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Pawebster! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,447 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Paul Tomkins - Find sources: "Paul Tomkins" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at WT:FA[edit]

You know, we at WP:DOH get comments like yours a lot. Random users who think we are wasting our time by improving articles relating to The Simpsons simply because those users don't the topic is of enough importance. We could work on articles in other "more important" topics, but we prefer to work in our comfort zone and contribute in the best way we can. Sure, we're not editing WP:1000 articles, but we work hard, and we're able to put together pretty good articles considering what we have to work with. And that's what wikipedia is about.

Why can't our work be showcased on the main page, the same as everyone elses? Is an episode of The Simpsons really less notable or of less "general interest", than, say, an obscure species of fungus, a small town in England, a covered bridge in Pennsylvania or a long dead racing horse? Sure, it's great to see some main topics on the main page, but having articles on such a wide variety of topics, from Simpsons episodes to obscure fungi, is what makes wikipedia great, so the main page should reflect that. And what is it you want? Do you want us to suddenly stop improving articles, just because you think there are too many Simpsons FAs? Do you want us to edit topics we don't feel comfortable editing? Do you want us to stop editing wikipedia all together? Be realistic, nothing you can do or say is going to stop us from trying to improve the site. There is an easier solution, rather than than thinking that we should be stopped from editing the topics we like, why don't you instead start working on the topics you feel are important?

Either way, our project works hard and we're proud of our many achievements, so please don't criticize us just because you don't approve of our main topic. -- Scorpion0422 21:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I am a bit touchy on the subject, but we deal with these kinds of snide suggestions all the time - users suggesting that we're wasting our time on "trivial" topics. One time, an admin actually started a serious discussion about how there were too many Simpsons FAs and that the site was turning into "Homerpedia".
As for your comment about the main page, if you're going to limit the choices to topics of "general interest", then your options are going to become limited quite quickly. Admittedly, there have been a lot of more obscure pages as TFA as of late, but that's not necessarily a negative thing. It shows that wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and there is a wide variety of articles ranging from important to obscure. Besides, being a niche article doesn't mean it's not of general interest. For example, the article unification of Germany, which is an important historical topic, was a TFA last month and it received just 4000 more views than the more "trivial" Homer's Enemy when it was TFA. [1] [2]

alignment[edit]

I touched up morphosyntactic alignment a bit. I don't know how to make it really accessible since we have to work in English, but it should be a little better. — kwami (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Prior Park College[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Pawebster. You have new messages at Talk:Prior Park College.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.