User talk:Robofish/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Robofish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Robofish. You have new messages at Talk:2012 United Kingdom cash for access scandal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. You have new messages at Talk:Derek Acorah.
Message added 09:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MrBill3 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:VisualEditor.
Message added by Theopolisme at 22:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, you participated in the first deletion discussion for this article; it's up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Korean War (2nd nomination). If you'd like to comment again, feel free. Thanks, Ansh666 03:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tinder (app), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hookup (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) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the portions of my edits to the Will McCants entry that you find most objectionable are clearly sourced. In the Norwegian incident, the author cites only one defender, and that defender is not an academic, he is a blogger who attracts quite a lot of controversy. You will note that the citations in the article mentioning McCants in the press all stop in 2011. He is not used as a source by the mainstream media, and before this incident he was. The Brookings article is by Will McCants, and he does say that having Salafists in the Egyptian government is a good thing, and he says so explicitly. As regards the review of his book, the reviewer, again, explicity liss the languages in which the literature he cites is written, and explicitly notes that McCants only reads one of these, Arabic. She also explicitly notes that he covers 2,000 years of history in one chapter, and that this is too fast. I'm not sure what more one could want.

- Mirogroupy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirogroupy (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to ping someone the userlink has to be added in the same edit as a signature, or it won't be processed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Gilderien for pointing this out to me. (That worked, right?) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 03:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• WP: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)

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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohammed Shafiq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrat (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) 09:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the page about Trevelyan and The Irish Famine. I entirely agree. I don't want to get into an edit war, though, on a subject about which some people are emotional. How can we proceed?

Tishtosh20 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid, User:Tishtosh20, I don't remember the article you're referring to! I've edited a lot of articles and talk pages, and don't keep track of most of them. Could you provide a link to the one you're talking about? Robofish (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - that was foolish of me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet

Robofish says: "The lead of this article is highly non-neutral. The opening paragraphs go out of their way to attack Trevelyan and his defenders (described as 'British aristocracy apologists') in a way that's not consistent with our WP:NPOV policy..."

Tishtosh20 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Yup, I still think the lead of that article has NPOV issues. You may not want to get into an edit war, but the best thing to do about it, really, is to just be bold and edit the page into something better. Then, if someone else reverts, rather than reverting back, you get into a discussion over it and (hopefully) reach some sort of agreement - the bold, revert, discuss cycle. That's the way it's meant to work, anyway. If you're still not willing to make any changes to it yourself, I'll see if I can do something about it over the next few days. Robofish (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've had a little bash at it. You, I'm sure, will be able to improve on it. But I've made a start, which is always good. :-)

Tishtosh20 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, not a bad effort. I'll take a proper look at it sometime over the weekend. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Thank you for drawing my attention to potential problems with Commons. If you'd like to elaborate on them, I'd be interested in reading your more detailed thoughts on the subject. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I notice in December you wrote on the Talk page of V.S. Naipaul, "I don't just want to blindly revert, but the current version of the article is not adequate. I hope you'll read this and take it on board, and take steps to improve it. I don't mean to undermine the work you've done on the article (which is appreciated), but to highlight how it's currently lacking or out of step with Wikipedia guidelines." I agree completely. I made a stab at correcting this article. Could you review it? I think Folwer has taken it upon himself to write a little hagiography with special reference to Naipaul's Indian background and youth in Trinidad, when those are only small aspects of his life. Thanks. Chisme (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

[1]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robofish. After you tagged Irina Margareta Nistor I added some links to other articles using the FindLink tool. Just wondering, do I leave the Orphan tag up for a while now, or can it be taken down? Or do you do remove the tag later on, at some stage? Cheers M Stone (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, M Stone. Thanks for adding the links. I just removed the tag, but in future cases, feel free to remove it yourself. As soon as the article has at least one incoming link (not counting redirects), it's not an orphan and the tag can be removed. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. M Stone (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Some months ago you commented about the article on Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet suggesting the POV writing needed attention. I've been doing some cleanup on the references & formatting etc (as part of working on the cleanup list for WP Somerset). Could you take another look and see if you think the issues have been addressed or whether more is still needed?— Rod ^talk 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on the article's talk page. Robofish (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, YesAllWomen, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. A Canadian Toker 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You know better than that. Dreadstar ☥ 02:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted my redaction of some of your comments here. I think we're all better served if you retract the attack on her detractors as 'misogynists', even if it be the truth - unless it's impeccably sourced. It's inflammatory, unnecessary and makes admin's jobs to be fair and impartial even harder if both sides are making unwarranted, inflammatory and unsourced attacks against others - whether it be individuals or groups. Please retract that part of your comment. Dreadstar ☥ 03:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't deserve even a short response? I had hoped for much better from you. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response, Dreadstar. I was busy yesterday and wasn't able to spend much time on this, but I looked at the talk page and saw that the section I started had been renamed (to simply 'harassment'), so I assumed the issue had been resolved satisfactorily. I admit the section header I used was a bit provocative, but I won't apologise for using the word 'misogynist' which seems to me to be justified by the evidence. It was not a BLP violation, as I wasn't referring to any specific living people; in any case, it's the attacks I was calling misogynist rather than the people behind them. Finally, I don't take kindly to other people editing my comments on talk pages, but I understand that you did so here with good intentions in order to try to preserve a cordial editing environment. In future though, if you find a talk page comment abusive or defamatory, it's usually better to remove it outright (or hide it using {{cot}}) rather than just redacting part of it; editing other's comments is strongly discouraged by WP:TPO. It's best to leave other's comments in one piece, and let others respond to the post as a whole rather than an edited version of it. Robofish (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realize just how I'm reading your statement, I've had to expound upon it here. And, just fyi, I'm pretty familiar with WP:TPO and collapsing/archiving/hatting, but thanks for the attempted education.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 11:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You once started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination), so I thought you would be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (3rd nomination). Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about this and this? WikiProjects are meant to highlight the work of WP members; they're not directly linked to the person that the article is about. For example, one may have a WP LGBT Studies tag and not be gay. Thus I don't believe it raises any BLP issues. Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s: I guess I'm more cagey about BLP than you. Personally, I think there is an issue with those templates: I think the way they're used on the talk pages you added them to is effectively to imply 'this person is a bigot' without saying so, which would be a BLP violation. I think we should be extremely reluctant to tag biographies of living people with that template unless plainly directly related to the subject of discrimination. (For what it's worth, WP:DISCRIMINATION says its scope includes articles closely and explicitly related to the topic of discrimination (my emphasis) - it seems to me that biographies of people who have been accused of making discriminatory comments falls outside that scope.) And as it happens, I do have similar concerns about the use of {{WikiProject LGBT}} as a way of implying someone's gay without directly saying it.

But this is just my opinion, and maybe I'm misinterpreting how the templates are used. If you think they belong on those articles, feel free to restore them, and I'll create a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination to see if we can get some other views. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're wrong, but I understand why. Btw, they have not been accused of making racial remarks. They made them. They sent those e-mails and then acknowledged those e-mails. Thus I believe it will be good to get more editors from WP Discrimination to expand those referenced sections in the relevant/tagged articles. As for WP LGBT Studies, it's not about outing at all. Gay icons (who are often straight) get tagged, as editors from that WikiProject are more likely to expand/work on those articles.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

E-e-bayer_lover (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

And remember to keep the CHRIST in CHRISTmas! E-e-bayer_lover (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). I would be more than happy to talk about your concerns over Commons (and I do agree this project has deep issues), but I'd like to start by assuring you I am totally fine with keeping local copies; my primary concern is to make images which are currently only available on English Wikipedia also available on other projects (as long as there are no copyright concerns). Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Robofish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hi Piotrus, merry Christmas. I admit my Oppose on your last RFA was rather WP:POINTy, made due to my dissatisfaction with Commons rather than due to any fault with you specifically. I still feel the same way about Commons, but I don't comment on RFAs any more these days - I haven't the time to properly assess the candidates. So I can't give you any particular suggestions, but for what it's worth, if you do run again, you won't get an Oppose from me. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. If you would have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask me. It's not like I am planning to run anytime soon (maybe in several months at best), so there's plenty of time to discuss anything you'd like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Majorat, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you are a WP:DRIVEBYTAGGER. Le petit fromage (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, Le petit fromage. I do tag pages quickly, based on an initial reaction, but I don't mind if people revert the tags just as quickly if I've made a mistake and they're not appropriate. Reverts are cheap after all. It would be nice if you let me know which article you're referring to here though. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robofish! I'm an ex member of the Sukey project, and newbie to Wikipedia. I noticed that there can been some disagreement over the notability of the project. Whilst not widely known, I would argue that Sukey had a small, but vital part to play in the history of student activism in the UK, and set a precedent for mapping and its role within activism in the UK, please see this link (section 5), for a little background on its notability.

I would be interested to know your reasons for adding the notability tag, and whether there is anything I can do to resolve this. (Gaffen (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for your comment, Gaffen. I'm still not entirely convinced about the notability of the subject, but on taking another look at the article, there is slightly more media coverage than I first thought. I've given it the benefit of the doubt and removed the tag. Robofish (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi; I notice that in User:Robofish/common.css you have the CSS rule

.ambox-Orphan{display: inherit !important;}

- please note that there is an error in this (almost certainly copied from an old version of Template:Orphan#Visibility) which causes incorrect display in some browsers.

To check this, visit this page and look at the second bullet (the one that precedes the text "This article is an orphan ..."). If this bullet is not in the same alignment as the other four, but displaced to the left, you can fix it by altering inherit to table in the CSS rule mentioned earlier. If that doesn't work either, alter it to block.

Template:Orphan#Visibility has been amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Redrose64. I've corrected it. Robofish (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) which affects the recently renamed page Myanmar. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Sawol (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for a mention at ITN. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Robofish, I am very concerned about the activities of someone on Wikipedia with regard to the Alan Kurdi story. Not hard for you to work out who. Just have a look at the contributions to the talk pages of the Alan Kurdi article and the Photographs article. To be honest, I am more than just concerned. In my opinion, something must be done and soon. The situation is getting way out of hand and I don't think I am exaggerating. Please would you message me about this. I'm afraid that I can't see the way to message you. Thank you. Boscaswell (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you *very* much for your actions and your message on my talk page, Robofish. I have responded there. I think you will be interested. Fingers are crossed. Boscaswell (talk) 08:31, 10 September 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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the fact that in "cite news" the correct parameter for the name of a newspaper or magazine is "newspaper" or "work", not "publisher". Please remember that names of newspapers and magazines go in italics. This happens automatically when the correct parameter is used. The "publisher" parameter is not needed in the case of mainstream media sources. -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Alarics - I have to admit I'd been using that template for years, and never actually checked that I was using the parameters correctly. Well done for spotting my error, I'll try to remember this in future. Robofish (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Alarics (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Worst president ever. Since you had some involvement with the Worst president ever redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. 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)

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, User:Mujaddouda, but I'm not entirely sure why I was chosen to receive it. Looking through the history, I've never edited that article. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I indiscriminately messaged everyone on the revision history page, and it has you listed as the user who added the wikiproject templates in 2013. You haven't actually contributed to the page's contents per se, though. So feel free to ignore - sorry! Mujaddouda (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's right, thanks for the reminder. Don't worry about it, no need to apologise. I commented on the AFD page anyway. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much appreciated. Mujaddouda (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

From your contribution history it seems to me you might be interested in this tool for WikiProject-assessing: User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. I find it very useful and it has saved me countless hours of time already. Just wanted to let you know about it, maybe give it a try!

--Fixuture (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. 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)

Hello, Robofish. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 2,298 pending submissions (refresh) I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that back in 2010 you've made several professional contributions to Gene Lyons's article and decided to ask for your help with The National Memo article. Lyons is a frequent contributor to it so I assume that you know this media (and the liberal press) quite well. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for your assistance in editing/improving this article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor (properly stated according to WP COI editing rules). At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding some well-referenced info. The article started to look like a normal website/media article. After that it got heavily edited in two waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going on around this article is plain nonsense. So if you are interested in the subject/in improving the article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share.

I've also created a topic about it at Project Journalim. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Bbarmadillo. I've taken a look, but I don't really want to get involved in this dispute. It's not a subject I know anything about in any case.

If you want my opinion, I'd say your preferred version of the article was a bit too promotional, but the subsequent edits have also gone too far in removing useful content. I don't particularly want to be the one to sort out a compromise version, though. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for the feedback. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robofish. 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)

Sorry, that wasn't me. I was trying to revert the vandalism by 92.237.82.248, whoever that was. See my comment on the Shrove Tuesday talk page. Fcrary (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment (better late than never, I guess) on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 195 about my 2010 RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Chill. The rude comment and the nominator regretting vouching for me are two of the reasons that I requested a username change. I don't even vote in RFA because of that nonsense and I don't know if it changed any, but I'm asking you if that rudeness is still present. I would never run for RFA again no matter what, but this is more of for voting. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow SL93, that is a blast from the past! The answer is, I've no idea. I don't take part in Wikipedia's internal processes like RFA any more, and haven't done for many years now. That message you linked to is probably around when I became tired of the whole thing. Robofish (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Robofish, after your proposition about removal of article about Mikhail Spokoyny, I added new references to significant resouces with a mention of him, such as: United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Wired magazine with article by Bruce Sterling; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME); and IEEE Components, Packaging & Manufacturing Technology Society. I hope these references will be enough that article had been left. Yours, Roobinstein (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roobinstein, thanks for your message. I've removed the proposed deletion template, so the article is not in danger of immediate deletion. It's still possible that it could be nominated for deletion again in future, but that would require a consensus following discussion at WP:AFD. Robofish (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Roobinstein (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:The People's Choice (political party)/meta/color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. doktorb _words^deeds 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey. At some point in the ancient past you were either involved in the creation of the above template, or the successful AfD for the party's article's deletion. I've just put the template up on TfD so am letting editors involved at some point, even fleetingly in most cases, just in case you want to chip in the discussion. Cheers. doktorb _words^deeds 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it left a mess behind, since you didn't change any of its existing redirects to Template:BSicon-name before retargeting it. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlgaeGraphix - think you messaged the wrong user here. I didn't retarget the redirect, I just nominated it for RFD. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that; User:Rosguill is the guilty party. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Technopolis (comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging Azealia Banks; I'd been wanting to deal with that for a while but never got the impetus to do so.--Jorm (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris in the ''Belle Époque'' and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 2#Paris in the ''Belle Époque'' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)