User talk:Robiquetgobley
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Robiquetgobley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Aboutmovies (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Robiquetgobley (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC) thanks for the advice, I will try to improve...
About "See also"/"Related articles" sections
[edit]The purpose of See also section is not supposed to provide a directory of links. It should be restricted to links that are related, but would be tangential or cumbersome if they were added to the main text, or important topics not yet covered. It is ideal to integrate the links into the article.Novangelis (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I have some existential concerns about your article Vegoia and Egeria. I've asked for members of the Greece&Rome Project to look at it (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#possible deletion), and also invited an admin to offer perspective. Just wanted to let you know that in my view, it ought to be nominated for deletion, but I don't want to put you through that tedious process unless there are others who share my response to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I see that you are a new editor, so this may simply be a matter of learning WP procedures and guidelines for content. The WP definition of "original research" is particularly tricky. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I'm not concerned about the copyright questions, since Dougweller is guiding you toward addressing them. And I'm not trying to discourage you — just want to make sure your useful contributions can be tailored by WP procedures. I've had an article on Vegoia on my to-do list for a long time, and was surprised no one had posted one before now. It was needed. I still think Vegoia and Egeria is not an independent encyclopedia article, for the reasons I've just reiterated at the AfD discussion. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- From what you say, I would lean toward exploring this in Vegoia, and then add a short section to Egeria called "Vegoia and Egeria" with a "See also" under the subhead. This is assuming that there's a consensus at the AfD for deletion of Vegoia and Egeria. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Vegoia and Egeria for deletion
[edit]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Vegoia and Egeria, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegoia and Egeria until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This article was created by taking editors' contributions from a number of other articles and combining them to make a new article, am I correct? Unfortunately I can't see anyway of identifying who wrote what, and because of that this is copyvio from our point of view. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I checked with another Administrator who works on copyvio more than I do, and we agree that unless there is some way of sorting this, the article will have to be redone. This means I will turn it into a WP:Stub and editors will have to expand it, and if any copy comes from other articles it needs to be attributed clearly to that article. Do you see any way out of this? Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Your perception of that article is not right; "Vegoia" was not written from other articles in Wiki, as that figure was hardly mentionned at all, and not qualified except in a very vague way; all features are tracked to sources in notes; it is also clear that there is no global development on that figure in any one of the sources tracked, hence there should not be any copyright issue. with my best regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought by 'articles' you meant Wikipedia articles. Ok, apologies. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
no issue; some words we use can indeed be misleading (I am not native English)
regards
Robiquetgobley (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
[edit]
Your addition to Vegoia and Egeria has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See [1] - this is pretty obvious copyvio from [2] Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
well, actually not all, I did not know this source; the excerpt was taken up from another Wiki article : "Etruscan mythology", § "Prophets and prophesy-Etrusca disciplina" the which did not refer to any copyright use (no note whatsoever); I took that for self writing by one of the contributors to the article this obviously sheds light on the difficulty of mastering eventual copyrighted content throughout the Wiki process itself; as for myself I keep a copy of what I wrote (when significant), with (most of the time) a tracking of the source I took that from; and I certainly am not wont in copying full sentences wording from non-wiki sources without tracking, through a note or reference; hope this clarifies a bit regards Robiquetgobley (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, but I thought you hadn't copied anything from other Wikipedia articles. How much more have you copied from other Wikipedia articles? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2010 (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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Robiquetgobley. 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 Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]Hello, Robiquetgobley. 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, Robiquetgobley. 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, Robiquetgobley. 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)