User talk:James Cage
Your submission at Articles for creation
Thanks to DGG
I appreciate all the help - no apology necessary. The articles were subject to misinterpretation, and I'm glad you raised the subject. And thanks for the help with the form and content of the articles themselves. James Cage (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Your user page User:James Cage/sandbox, by reason of its contents, was accidentally included in a content category. It has been corrected for you. For information about this, please see the guidelines about the categorization of user pages. Thank you. Actually, James, I have not corrected the categories. You can do so yourself by putting a colon at the beginning of the categories. Like this "[[:Category:Interesting articles]]". When you don't, your sandbox work shows up in the category indexes. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting find! I can't really make head-or-tail of this article. Like you say, it's unsourced and impossible to find anything to verify/improve the article.
Problematic articles are usually deleted in extreme circumstances. This one doesn't fit the rapid straightforward criteria of speedy deletion. Alternatively you could raise it at Articles for deletion, but this takes a lot of everyone's time ...though I use it a lot, it's useful when the situation is not 100% clear and a wider input is required, or when someone is repeatedly recreating a poor article and you want to put an official end to it! The third alternative is to PROD it, useful when it doesn't fit a speedy deletion criteria but is almost certainly undeserving. PROD'd articles are deleted by an admin, if noone objects, after 7 days.
With this article, because it's remained unsourced for 3 years and is almost incomprehensible, I'd think it was suitable for PROD'ing. I have got "Twinkle" tools to enable me to do this easily. Shall I go ahead? Or do you want to try the process yourself? Sionk (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Sionk: First, thanks for the welcome, the links, and most of all for your advice and guidance over the last several months. I took a shot at the PROD process. You can the results on the page, with further discussion on the Talk page. How did I do? Is the level of information appropriate? Did I miss any grounds for deletion? Also, this is my first use of the "reply to" notification (rather than posting a comment on your talk page). I considered the "talkback" process, but this seems to be a better way in this case - true? Thanks again! James Cage (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The editors at the Teahouse can answer questions and/or give advice with articles if you need it. :)
Possible TYPO: "This this book"
That's probably a TYPO -- (right?) I was almost going to ask that question on the "Talk:" page for Clint Bolick, (which now contains ZERO sections of talkers "chiming in"... so far...) but then I realized that the fact that you do not have ANY "User:" page, [probably] does not mean that you are "defunct" as a "User"! ...especially in light of the fact (well, the "apparent" fact) that your "Talk:" page ("You are Here!") seems to be alive and well, and open for business.
I guess that the intent there, where it says, "This this book [...]" was probably something more like "In this book [...]" -- (right?) You are welcome to change it yourself (Be my guest!). I just thought that, if you do still exist (and your "Talk:" page does seem to be alive and well!), then I probably should try to give you a chance to edit it, "OR" to [at least] comment on what the original intent was, of that edit of "07:15, 9 February 2014". (It was just one of MANY edits that day, to that article -- and they were all [or "almost" all] by you...).
If I do not see any reply from you, (here or somewhere), then I might go ahead and edit it myself. But first, I'd like to give you a chance at it -- if you'd like. Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- (See this edit).
- Thanks for the kind "reply", on my "User Talk:" page. It still seems a little spooky, to me, to be sending messages to (and receiving replies from!) someone whose "User" page ((hyperlink)), shows up as a red-link[dead link] . . . ((see "red link"))... but OK... I can live with that... :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)