User talk:Robotforaday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A belated welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Robotforaday, 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!  Brendan 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jermaine Pennant

I have reverted your entry to Jermaine Pennant as information introduced into articles must be verifiable from reliable sources, and conform to a neutral point of view. Entries should not be speculative. If you have a source, please site it in the article. -- Alias Flood 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed given a reference, Sky Sports. This was offered in good faith, as I assumed it was a reliable source. I did not know that the BBC had the monopoly on such news.--Robotforaday 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies. Your edit was one of many to Jermaine Pennant and Liverpool F.C. during the last 24 hours. From your edit summary, I wrongly interpreted that you had seen the information on Sky News TV. Again, my apologies to you. -- Alias Flood 16:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, I understand. For future reference, what sources are deemed most appropriate for citation? I have now cited the BBC, which seems the most preferred, however, I also used the news on the Liverpool F.C. official website. Would that have been acceptable? I can understand why Sky Sports might not always be 100% trusted... --Robotforaday 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Robotforaday and thank you for your understanding. As with most things on Wikipedia, there are few set rules but one of the core policies is verfiability which links in closely with the guideline on reliable sources. Reading these helps editors to understand that 'verifying sources' should have a degree of longevity and be held in high regard as being reputable. In the main, for Wikipedia, I tend to look for sources such as the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, etcetera and shy away from the tabloids (unless the article is linked to tabloids). For football articles, the official website can also be a good source for announcements — whereas forums, blogs, fansites and unofficial sites tend not to be reliable. It is very important, in my opinion and that of many other editors, that for Wikipedia not to reflect personal opinion or original research and to that end Wikipedia, along with most reputable enclopaedias, acts as a tertiary source summarising the secondary sources of such well reputed publications. Other links which you may find useful, and generally acceptable for football articles, are those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. I hope that this information helps you in some way and, also, helps to make up for my earlier mistake. Please let me know if I may be of any further help to you in this or any matter here on Wikipedia. Regards -- Alias Flood 02:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Image:Benedict XVI.jpg

Hello, Robotforaday, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! —Mira 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool F.C. Reserves

Thank you for your kind words about the above article. I appreciate the point about changing links, but sometimes people get distracted. There is no reason to change back page just because links have not been corrected. These can always be changed later. Djln--Djln 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Saint John Roberts

John Roberts
Born 1575-6
Died 10 December 1610 in Tyburn, London, England
Venerated in Roman Catholicism
Major shrine Downside and Erdington Abbeys
Feast 25 October
Saints Portal

Hi Robotforaday! So glad to see someone's keeping such a close eye on the page. In tagging and classing so many of these saints articles, it's clear no one's bothered to look it over since its creation two or three years ago... The rating system is a bit fuzzy over on WikiProject Saints, but I think the only thing that prevents this article from being B-class for the project is its lack of an infobox. Would you mind if we put one up? It would look something like this:

I tend not to put them up for people who are well known outside of their sainthood (e.g. Constantine I), but as John Roberts is famous mostly for his martyrdom, I think the article could benefit from an infobox. From B-class, it's a matter of getting good article status, which will probably require a picture of some sort (a portrait, a picture of the fingers?? etc. etc.) as well as perhaps a few more sources? To be honest, I am new to this whole ranking thing, so I'm mostly tagging just to keep track of what needs to be done at minimum, not what could be done to make things awesome. Fortunately, you're here to see to that! :) Best wishes, --TurabianNights 17:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! As far as I'm concerned, feel free to put in the infobox and anything else you think helpful. I'll get onto finding some pictures in the meantime. I know of other sources (in particular Bede Camm, who presented the causes for various Benedictine martyrs, and who I've used in making an article for Maurus Scott). There is also information in various books on the history of the English Benedictine Congregation, but I'd have to have a check of them before putting anything new in. I put what's there up in haste because I wanted to tidy up the Downside Abbey page with shorter bios of its martyrs and link to articles about the specific martyrs (still not done, actually). While John Roberts had an article it had very little in it, so I just raided the Catholic Encyc. It's been my intention to go back to it with other sources when I can. Robotforaday 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great! Honestly, this article is in much better shape than almost all in its class. Additional sources could be helpful to the very interested reader, but I think you've got a very fine article here even without them (not that I am an official voice of Wikipedia!) Congrats! --TurabianNights 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You're a good guy

Cheers for improving the Wayne Biggins page.

Tallboydoctorpepperthesecond

[edit] Liverpool F.C. Reserves

Sorry, but I never ever believed in notability of reserve teams, unless they take part to a first team division (e.g. Real Madrid Castilla). The article is very short, it is just a squad and a few information with questionable notability, so I don't understand why it cannot be merged to Liverpool F.C.. Therefore, I won't reconsider my vote. Good work. --Angelo 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I said my part. The vote should really be thrown out in my opinion. We'll just have to see. Note that he also listed the LFC Academy article for deletion. aLii 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, more then willing to support your case. I think you will now find the debate is beginning swing your way Djln--Djln 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't answered your message, I'm feeling so tired by just looking at the discussion... I still do feel that the article should be merged into the main article. I hope we can reach a consensus on the Project after the AfD is closed, no matter how it ends. – Elisson • Talk 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The prod tags

Yep. But in order for it to be removed via prod, it has to be very clearly non notable. I would suggest posting them on the regular articles for deletion list. Beware, though, that some people (I am not one of them) will never ever vote to remove a school article. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep I know. And school articles are the worst, trust me. --Woohookitty(meow) 20:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Dromore Castle

Hey, thanks for adding categories to the article I just created at Dromore Castle. Having written the article, I just went away to make a cup of tea. I was very pleased when I returned that the article had been categorised already, saving me a bit of a tedious job. (I spend a fair bit of time going through articles categorising marked "cat needed" myself, although I really can't pretend I enjoy it.) Anyway, once again, thanks, very efficient :) Robotforaday 21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was browsing through Recentchanges, and figured I could help improve an article :). --Q Canuck 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So

What specifically do you have against skirts? --84.64.51.100 14:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Infobox

To the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User_talk%7ERobotforaday_d46c.html"