User talk:Pawebster

"Looks as if there has been vandalism of the infobox. "
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
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. — Snigbrook 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. KuyaBriBri Talk 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) KuyaBriBri Talk 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bleriot
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
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 Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Paul Tomkins -

Your comment at WT:FA
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. -- Scorpion 0422  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.  --  Scorpion 0422  14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

alignment
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)

Nomination of Paul Tomkins for deletion
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 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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)