User talk:Robofish

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

Hello Terraxos, 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
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

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 _words^deeds 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 _words^deeds 11:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 _words^deeds 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. I apologise for being grumpy about it :) SilentC (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU

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)[reply]

Citation tagging

If you're going to do this [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem. Merely a heads up, no big deal. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Eyre

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the suggestions. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

American Empire (Ghost in the Shell)

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)[reply]

OK, that makes more sense :) Thanks for the explination, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oops, never mind -- I was losing track of my own proposals :-( Thirdbeach (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Omer

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)

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!