User talk:Teratix

Teratix, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Teratix! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Petruccelle has been accepted

Jack Petruccelle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Kwame Boateng

Not a problem! GiantSnowman 13:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your very nice copyediting at SpellForce 3. I might have to ask you for your copyediting services on future articles as well. Regards SoWhy 13:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   00:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Portal RfC

You posted a nice thank-you message on my talk page for my support of the Portal system, but I was actually partially supporting depreciation :). I supported depreciation because I wasn't convinced portals could be maintained, but on seeing the amazing response from editors (you in particular), I would've changed my vote.

P.S. It might be time to archive some of your talk page... TeraTIX 03:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Deprecation isn't deletion, and therefore you were also partially opposed to the proposal. And saving portals in any form, preserves them for possible reviving or leapfrogging later. Hence, my heartfelt thanks. And with technology advancing so rapidly, I don't believe they would have stayed deprecated for long. See accelerating change. If you like our responses at the RfC, you should check out the development threads at WT:WPPORT.    — The Transhumanist   04:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Nash

As far as I can tell, her website appears to be offline, which is perhaps why the editor concerned is removing such content? -- Longhair\^talk 23:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. TeraTIX 23:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For keeping Ricardo clean — Safety Cap (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Just trying to help out TeraTIX 05:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Find sources by yourself next time. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 01:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: If you rollback an edit that removes unsourced material, surely the onus is on you to find a source. That said, I promise to be more proactive when finding sources in future situations like this. Still learning :) TeraTIX 02:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks Editman5 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Editman5: No problem! TeraTIX 06:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Respect other editors!!

I am so absolutely sick and tired of working for hours to carefully edit a Wikipedia entry appropriately, only to have some uninformed schmuck spend one second ignorantly destroying everything I've done. I realize that I am in the distinct minority of being a conservative in the overwhelmingly liberal Wikipedia world, but might there be some liberals who actually care for honesty and integrity? Your deleting my corrections to the Vince Foster alleged suicide article, without bothering to spend a moment finding out if you have a leg to stand on - that was the straw that sent me off the edge. Too often those who share your narrow worldview have done the same to my edits, and I simply can't stand it anymore. Can you find six studies supporting the claim that Foster's death was a suicide? If so, name them!! But you can't, so why would you delete my correction? Do you believe you know more about the Foster case when you are 10,000 miles away, than I do right here? How many articles have you read on the subject? How many books? I've been watching this case for 25 years. Have you? Why did you delete my correction regarding David Brock's background? The previous claim was simply false, and if you don't believe me, go read what David Brock himself wrote. If anyone gives a damn about the truth, how about reading Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's work re Foster's death? Or are you simply ready to admit that the truth takes a backseat to your political beliefs? If you bother to read the evidence of homicide, let me know where Evans-Pritchard went wrong. As someone who has had an avid interest in true crime for decades, I think I know what evidence looks like. Do you? And more importantly, do you care at all?? Lastly, I have made approx. 300 Wikipedia edits in my time. I challenge you to show me ONE where what I wrote was not fair and balanced. One! Go ahead. I'm waiting. ~~ Vcuttolo (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)