User talk:Robotwisdom

This user may have left Wikipedia. Robotwisdom has not edited Wikipedia since October 17, 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Robotwisdom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bloggers

Great work on categorizing bloggers, but I have to ask is it really noteworthy to point out that certain people contribute to certain blogs? I mean most of these relationships will be temporary anyway, will they not? Wiccan Quagga 18:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As long as you keep those things in mind. I look forward to future edits about the blog itself. Wiccan Quagga 07:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorn Barger

Are you in fact Jorn Barger? If so, it's nice to meet you! (It's nice to meet you even if you aren't...) Keep fighting the good fight about whether or not a blog is an application. hehe --AStanhope 03:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's produced no evidence of any sort that he is Mr. Barger. At any rate, I'm finding it difficult to fathom how people don't seem to understand what an 'application' is. Robotwisdom defines an application as software, when its definition is actually broader. If a weblog isn't an application of the web, then it also has no context amongst other "applied web thingies"--maybe he would like to use a phrase like that instead? :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I have requested mediation regarding the intractable disagreement over the weblog article and the antagonistic discussion connected to - and spinning off from - it. I hope you will agree to participate, because it seems to be necessary. Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Weblog.2C_User:Stevietheman.2C_User:robotwisdom.2C_User:Tverbeek. Tverbeek 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stevie has refused mediation and is now blanking anything related to it from his Talk page, including messages from the would-be mediator. He's "banned" me from his Talk page altogether, automatically reverting anything I say to him. I've considered taking it to the next step, which is Arbitration, but I'm not especially inclined to do that, despite his rather inappropriate behavior. Your conduct wasn't exactly appropriate either, but I'm assuming that it was situational, and without the Man! to antagonise you, you'd behave. :) Tverbeek 19:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Please include information on source and copyright status on the Wikipedia:Image description page for any images you upload (eg, Image:Jorn Barger 2005.jpg. Please use one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (eg, GFDL) if possible. See Wikipedia:Images and associated pages for more information. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Image:Ws3.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ws3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Admrboltz (T | C) 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Poldy.png

Thank you for uploading File:Poldy.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, since Joyce died in 1941, his works can't all be assumed to be public domain yet. Do you have any information on when and where this was first published? If not, I think it still might be used in the Bloom article, but under a copyrighted fair use rationale. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrew Orlowski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Orlowski 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/Andrew Orlowski 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.. Dmcq (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Robotwisdom. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vanjagenije (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Robotwisdom. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
- Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
- How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
- How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Jack Reacher page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging and Wikipedia

Hello. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question, but I saw that you were a blogger and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask. I'm currently doing a project on Wikipedia and would love any input on the topic of blogs. Pretty much, I believe blogs should not have this negative stigma as an unreliable resource when it comes to citing them on Wikipedia. As a hip-hop fan, many of the places that cover the genre are blogs, and so I believe it is a bit unfair to the industry as well. Also, in terms of Wikipedia appealing to younger generations, I think it would be beneficial to allow more blogs as sources since many millennials read them and would be able to cite them in articles. What are your thoughts? Thanks! AdamtheGOAT (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]