User talk:Robofish: Difference between revisions
→Atrocity story: replied |
|||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
==Atrocity story== |
==Atrocity story== |
||
Is the article [[atrocity story]] clear and understandable now? [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk:Andries|talk]]) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
Is the article [[atrocity story]] clear and understandable now? [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk:Andries|talk]]) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Andries]]: I don't entirely remember what my problems with this article were, but yes, I think this article is up to a pretty good standard now. I see that you added sections giving a clearer definition of the term and explaining how it was used to describe newspaper coverage of the Unification Church. Both seem like useful additions, and it looks to me like the article now provides a reasonable introduction to the term and a summary of the debate over it. Thanks for your work on it! [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish#top|talk]]) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:43, 4 January 2014
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notes:
- This talk page is not a forum; it is meant for messages to me only. Please take off-topic discussion elsewhere.
- If you leave a message here, I will reply here and tag your username to notify you, unless you request otherwise.
- If I leave a message on your talk page, I prefer for you to either reply here, or notify me of your reply by tagging my username.
|
Barnstar
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prosper Masquelier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VSD (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) 11:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable
". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Terry McAuliffe#Discussion. Instaurare (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Film biographies
Hello! Just a reminder that {{WikiProject Film}} does not include 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) 13:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Fortdj33: thanks for the correction. I'm sure I've made that mistake before, but I'll try to get it right in future. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, as you sent Thigh gap to RfD, you may be interested in the new article Thigh gap and its associated DYK. Thank you.--Launchballer 10:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, OK then! I thought the subject was too trivial for an article, but perhaps you've proved me wrong User:Launchballer. I removed a line from the article, but what remains is pretty well sourced. Good job! I don't think I'll comment on the DYK though, as I'm not a regular commenter there and not too familiar with what the standards are. Robofish (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. I've reinstated it and clarified it; it's not official, but it has been acknowledged by Delevingne herself.--Launchballer 22:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- So I see. I've got no problem with the clarified version. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. I've reinstated it and clarified it; it's not official, but it has been acknowledged by Delevingne herself.--Launchballer 22:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
- List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
- Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
- Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
- Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
- Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Atrocity story
Is the article atrocity story clear and understandable now? Andries (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- User:Andries: I don't entirely remember what my problems with this article were, but yes, I think this article is up to a pretty good standard now. I see that you added sections giving a clearer definition of the term and explaining how it was used to describe newspaper coverage of the Unification Church. Both seem like useful additions, and it looks to me like the article now provides a reasonable introduction to the term and a summary of the debate over it. Thanks for your work on it! Robofish (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)