User talk:Robin Hood~enwiki


 * Archives
 * 2004
 * 2005

Please see
Image talk:Slavic languages.jpg. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stub templates
This category existed before some time but was found duplicate of WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and therefore deleted. I was doing the same categorisation in bg.wikipedia.org but then saw the outcome. --Петър Петров 18:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As above, it is redundant with that list. We do have set procedures for deltion review - please goto WP:DRV and list the page there.  Thanks. M a rtinp23 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2006
I assert to be the same user as commons:User:The Saint. Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander peer review
I noticed that you changed my bulletted list to a numbered list on the Anaximander peer review. Please don't change other people's comments! I specifically chose bullets because numbers imply a hierarchical ranking of concerns. See WP:Wikiquette - ''Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a Talk or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment, misrepresenting the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.'' Awadewit 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander
KSchutte 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

proofreading

 * Hi, I got your message. You're exactly right--that is an important distinction. I'll change it back to "with" if you haven't already done so. Sorry for the mistake, and à plus... Psp 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Human sciences vs Humanities
Hello and thanks for your message. Please let me try to explain my move: Humanističke nauke is an exact equivalent to the English Humanities, in both the term and the meaning. This is to say that these two expressions correspond to the traditional Latin term of Studia humana and include arts and languages and the similar disciplines such as history and archaeology (but excluding sociology and political studies, for instance). The Human Sciences, on the other hand, is a concept of a rather more recent origin which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet found its exact terminological match in Serbo-Croatian (my personal attempt at a translation would be, e.g., Nauke o čoveku or Antropološke nauke), and differs from the traditional studia humana in that it includes, e.g., anthropology, ethnology and sociology. My opinion is that the traditional concept of the Humanističke nauke (= Humanities) should be retained whilst also keeping an eye on the possibilities of introducing, in parallel, the other concept of Human Sciences if such would be the tendency in the development of Social Studies within the Serbo-Croatian speaking area. Please let me know your opinion on this. --Igorwindsor 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was me who left that message on your French Wiki page, because for some reason I thought that was your "mother Wiki" :-) Seriously, though, I can't be registered on all Wikis, hence there is unfortunately no proper username signature of mine there, however the point of my message was hopefully conveyed: the sh.Wiki is still under development, and every contribution is very much appreciated, especially so by me if it is within my area of interest, even if it involves adding interwikis only! ;-)


 * On the point of Humanities vs. Human sciences -- I agree with all you have written on my talk page. I never imagined my change would require so much follow-up discussion. Therefore, since, unfortunately, I don't have time for making substantial changes to en.Wiki, as sh.Wiki takes priority, I think that, a) from what you write, you have understood perfectly my point, and I am still of the opinion that the semantics connection between the Humanities and Humanističke nauke should remain (particularly as they are equivalent translations of Studia humana), but also that b) you are free to change the interwiki links back to as they were, if that's easier, as it is not such a big deal anyway. I just thought that the interwikis should be set appropriately, but of course nothing is perfect, and neither is Wikipedia. :-) Cheers! --Igorwindsor 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Noinclude in stub templates
Hi Robin Hood

You're right, I made a copy-paste error on Bio-stub. Thanks for fixing it. To be frank, I don't understand why people keep adding iw links to templates. The benefit is small and the risk of messing something up becomes apparent. IW links aren't mentioned on WP:STUB either. However, if you wish to use the noinclude option on the sortkeys, the normal format is:

without the asterisk or similar and I've modified Bio-stub and Philosopher-stub accordingly. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again.
 * I can't give you a written reference for the sortkey. However, I've sorted 10,000+ stub articles and cleaned up the code of a great number of stub categories and templates, so my post was based on this work. The format using the asterisk was previously very common, but as far as I can tell, usage is clearly shifting in favour of the version I indicated above, in particular regarding new templates. Regarding the second issue; I am a great fan of iw links, and I've maintained many of those as well. Unfortunately, noinclude errors in template space can cause a lot of problems, so I personally avoid adding iw links in template space. Regards. Valentinian T / C 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander copyedit complete
Hi, I'm with the WP:LoCE, and just finished your copyedit (it will still get a proofread, of course). I noted several issues/questions with hidden comments in the text, but otherwise it only required some minor adjustments for grammar and punctuation. Nice job! Galena11 17:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Robin. I went back and looked at my comments and your notes.  My responses are below:

1. I don't know if you meant that it is too subjective to say that scientific methods have considerably improved or if the POV is something else. I do think that it is not a POV. Isn't it a fact that the methods we're now using have actually changed for the better? Qualifying something is not necessarily a POV if it is obvious. But if the word improved is too much of a problem, we can re-phrase with changed, but then again, the whole sentence does not provide sufficient information to be indispensable.


 * I think my issue was more with the phrase, "One could say that...", which made is seem like a subjective statement. I revised the sentence to eliminate that part and made the second half more cohesive.

2. Last time I checked the style conventions for bulleted lists, if introduced by the two-points, each item should not start with a capital letter, each separated by semi-colons because it is grammatically considered as one sentence. The three reasons given in the article being too long and elaborate, I removed the following (useless since the list is obvious) and the two-points, so each item is treated as an independant sentence.


 * This is probably just a matter of style. I use the Chicago Manual, which does not have this rule.    :o)  I changed the list in the "cartography" section to sentence/paragraph format, to conform with the wiki convention of avoiding lists when possible.

3. Thales, Miletus, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea are clearly tagged as links in other places in the text. Do we really have to wikify them again in the bullet list?
 * Sorry, this is my mistake. Because I only edited the second half, I didn't see the links at the top when I skimmed the first part.  However, the wiki style guide does say that you can link twice in an article if the initial link was in another section and it would help clarify the text.  I think that of these, Thales and Miletus are not something that everyone would necessarily know, and might be a candidate for a second link.  I left them, but you may remove them if you feel that is better. Its your call. :o)  Galena11 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Animander sources/interpretations
I am responding your comment on my talkpage. First, I am not particularly knowledgeable about modern philosophers, so I may have made an error which you should feel free to correct. Second, the source (footnote 25) is the same book listed. As to footnotes 26 and 27 (Neitzsche and Heidegger) these are not the books listed, as I could not find them, but they are books which according to synopses I read contain the general point of the paragraph. See, e.g., | Free Essay on Anaximander.

I hope that if you have better sources you will add them. Thank you for your comments on the GAR, I think there is no question this article is GA, thanks mainly to your good work! Argos&#39;Dad 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your review
Most of what I noticed could not have been fixed faster if I did it myself. I scan multiple articles a day and write down the things I notice in shorthand on a post-it, then I carry that over to a review. I'd have 3000+ edits if I fixed all the little mistakes I found myself. As nice as that may be, I've not got time to find all these little things on an edit page and fix them considering the other things I do here. If it were just a hyphen and one or two other things, I'd probably fix it and be done with it, but there were more issues with the Anaximander article than that. Additionally, GA Review isn't for us to point out and fix issues. It's for us to point out issues for justifying our recommendations. Regardless, thank you for making the changes. I'll fully read the article soon and adjust my recommendation accordingly. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Slavic_languages.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Slavic_languages.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the 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.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Robin Hood. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Robin Hood~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)