Jump to content

User talk:Robofish: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
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

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.
Hello Robofish, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Budgiekiller 10:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see Talk:Terry McAuliffe#Discussion. Instaurare (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So I see. I've got no problem with the clarified version. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. 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)[reply]


Atrocity story

Is the article atrocity story clear and understandable now? Andries (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]