User talk:James Cage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Boundless (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I owe you an apology, and you will find it on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to DGG[edit]

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)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon 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)

Thank you! I will keep an eye open for this in the future. I also left a note on your talk page. James Cage (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Belated Welcome![edit]

Hello, James Cage and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Sionk (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Nine Families[edit]

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)
Looks fine to me. Just need to wait now and see if anyone objects to the deletion. Nice one! Sionk (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! James Cage, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 5 February 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"[edit]

In this edit (of the article about Clint Bolick), some text was added that included a sentence beginning with "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)

Resolved: "Case Closed"
(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)
I need to fix that ... someday ... :) James Cage (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)