User talk:Pawebster
Welcome!
[edit]
|
"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]
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] 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 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Paul Tomkins - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
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]
-- Scorpion0422 14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
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]
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.
Nomination of Paul Tomkins for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Tomkins 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/Paul Tomkins 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. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Pawebster. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Pawebster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Pawebster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)