User talk:Mojoworker

Hello Mojoworker, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! VanTucky Talk 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

I am the Walrus

Thanks for reading through all that stuff and commenting positively :) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

VDM

Hello, Mojoworker. You have new messages at Kasaalan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Kasaalan (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mojoworker. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fool's jokes

Thanks for the SPI notice. Hopefully he'll run out of methods to annoy. I can't believe he's serious. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

bumped heads

• I had just finished adding all the states, and ec with you... have you finished them all? • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm done! • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I was actually there to clarify New Mexico Territory, since Arizona Territory was split out during the war and I just noticed a few missing states and didn't realize you were working simultaneously. Mojoworker (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • I think I hosed the New Mexico Territory and Arizona again. Would you check all 8 or so of those? I gotta run. Tks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix them. The sortable table looks great BTW. Mojoworker (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Tks. Later... • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian wars

Hey – it seems like you're interested in the Indian wars. If you wanna write (or start to write) a little 2 or 3 sentence introductory blurb to put just before that table, that would be a Good Thing.. If you don't wanna do it, I'll get around to it eventually. Thanks! • Ling.Nut (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I inserted a short intro as well as a tiny intro to the other USA/CSA battles as well as some fixing and cleanup. Mojoworker (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah... thanks for the intro text, and thanks for tidying up... I was getting a little bleary-eyed from staring at those things... so thanks! :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about being bleary-eyed. You've been working pretty hard for someone who's retired :-) Mojoworker (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

shhhhhhhhh.... it's a secret... • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on that table! I've kinda given up on it, mainly because I'm a little tired of staring at it (at least for now). I'm kinda gonna move on to something else. There are still a handful of battles with no details or comments, but I'm just gonna leave that for others to do... But if you need any help on that or anything else Civil war related, drop me a line. I'm just now starting this topic so am not knowledgeable about it, but can chip in wherever it may help. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've already done quite a bit of work on it, so I'll see if I can finish it off and maybe add a couple of additional altercations. The last time it was assessed (looks like way back in July 2006), it failed B status on referencing and citations. It would probably make more sense to be rated as a "List" class article instead of a "Start" class article, so I'll see if I can get that changed. Do you think we should have it peer reviewed and maybe eventually have it assessed for featured list status? I wish Wikipedia had been around when I was reading extensively on the Civil War -- would've been easier to find what's missing in an article... Not sure what I'll move on to next -- maybe First Battle of Bull Run since the sesquicentennial is coming up in July. Mojoworker (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea how they evaluate featured lists. I bet there's a page at WP:WIAFL...yep, I was right (I was just guessing because I am familiar with WP:WIAFA). Yes, it should be a "List" not a "Start." It's easy to change ratings; just change them. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like for WikiProject Military History, "Start" is correct. At WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment#Assessment instructions it says "lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status". The project also chose not to adopt the C-class designation. So, it looks like it's classified correctly, but it seems strange they kept a list from attaining B-class because of referencing and citations. Once I finish up, maybe we should change it to B-Class and then get it reviewed and/or assessed. I see you joined the American Civil War task force. I probably should too. I joined WP:WikiProject Military history/Operation Brothers at War some time ago... Mojoworker (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing the "State" field to be the current state and list the state or territory as it existed at the time as the secondary fact. I think it will make the tables less cluttered and easier to use for most people. What do you think? Mojoworker (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Are you talking about the CWSAC table, or the Indian Wars table, or all of them? I don't think adding a new column to the CWSAC table would be a good idea. Too many columns, and many of them would be empty (because the state then is the same as the state now). In the Indian wars table, one more column wouldn't hurt (since we deleted the CWSAC rating column). But then the column headers would be something like "Territory" and "State" or even worse, "Current State" (which sounds like "current condition"). You have to put some explanatory text somewhere. I dunno if it would be more clear or not. You could try it and see how it comes out. I dunno. • Ling.Nut (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK Southern Adventist University

FYI, from WP:DEADLINK

Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line.

Thanks. Fountainviewkid 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement here, thank you for taking the time to explain to Fountainviewkid the problems with his edits. Although you are now the third editor to attempt to do so (Hrafn and Jasper Dang have tried previously). Note that the information you are discussing with FVK is still in the article and is still unsourced. I removed it but FVK promptly readded it, still with no source. bW 13:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We're working it out on the Talk page. Please engage there. I believe we are getting to the place in editing which you are requesting, but it's better it come through consensus than arbitrary changes.I personally am about ready to remove the "progressive" reference, but I'd like it to be a community decision. Fountainviewkid 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald found the Adventist Today print source and added it in. He modified the wording so hopefully this debate should be over. Thanks for your guidance and concern in this. Now we just have to go through the ANI madness after affect. Fountainviewkid 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI fun

Hey Mojoworker I have opened an ANI thread to hopefully draw some attention to the issue at Southern Adventist University article. As one the more rationale voices youe comments would be helpful The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it? bW 00:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BW you're the one removing what are now (thanks to Donald) properly sourced edits and adding POV. Fountainviewkid 00:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, Donald didn't leave the "progressive" in the main text. But content is not justification for gaming the system. bW 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually in the last situations he didn't remove them. He left it in that way. Fountainviewkid 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Go look at the history FVK. bW 00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the history. Yes originally he moved "progressive" down to the notes section. He also added other info there that you deleted (or should I say reverted). Another editor added the progressive back in, and Donald kept on editing without reverting that point. Though he disagrees with the label in the text, he knows how to edit with creating wars on articles. Fountainviewkid 1:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please see Talk:Southern Adventist University#Where the fuck did that come from? if you get a chance. Thanks. bW 01:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

west virginia

• Hi Mojo. :-) I think "Virginia (at the time)" might be a little vague. Maybe "Virginia (currently West Virginia)" would be better? You could link to West Virginia in the American Civil War, perhaps. Cheers.  – Ling.Nut 01:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's how I originally had it, but with New Mexico, Arizona, Confederate Arizona, Virginia and West Virginia in flux during the war, it gets complex and confusing. For example, when did West Virgina come into existence—June 19, 1861 or June 20, 1863 (or somewhere in between)? Also, the CWSAC has them listed using the current states... Anyway, that was my reasoning. What do you think? Can you come up with more descriptive wording that will still fit in the table? I thought of "then Virginia", but "then" has more than one connotation. I also believe that today, most people would be interested in the current location of the site rather than the historical jurisdiction, especially when sorting, otherwise the locations that are currently in West Virginia would be split with some listed as Virginia and others as West Virginia. I do like the idea of wikilinking West Virginia to West Virginia in the American Civil War like New Mexico Territory is linked now. I'll go ahead and do that. Mojoworker (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bello Wello

I noticed you changed the information about Bello socking to say it was WP:Duck. From what I see on the investigation it was Wikistalk. Are these 2 the same? The IP was confirmed as a sock of another account which was confirmed as a sock of Bello.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikistalk is a tool to compare editing similarity. I removed the "checked=yes" parameter just to make it correct, since the socking wasn't proven by a checkuser, rather he was blocked for socking based on editing similarity. Not that it probably matters much, since it sure looks like the same guy. But I suppose there's always a chance that he will return from his Semester at Sea or trek to Mount Everest base camp, claim it was someone else and that he was uninvolved in the current socking, and find a sympathetic admin. I'm guessing we've not seen the last of him — and as long as he can keep changing IP addresses, it's pretty easy for him to keep editing as an IP. Not much that can be done as long as he's not too blatant about it — although it seems likely he'll have difficulty restraining himself… Mojoworker (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. As you know well he goaded me many times into doing stupid things. Fortunately I'm starting to get that under control. It would be easier if I didn't have to deal with him. My history outside of dealing with him isn't exactly THAT horrible. Yes I was wrong, but having him gone makes my life (and many many others) easier.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he really was successful in taking things to the limit and pushing you over the line. And he's obviously an intelligent person and made many good edits, but ultimately, he pushed things too far. And maybe your adversarial relationship with him made you react similarly to anyone that supported one of his edits. Anyway, I didn't take it personally. I see that you have found some mentors, so that's a good thing. Most importantly, don't get blocked again! Stay away from controversial subjects such as politics, abortion, evolution/creationism — I would normally add religion, but I know SDA is the topic you like to edit. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing for other ideas on what not to do. You might see some traits there that fit BelloWello amazingly well, but some other editors you interact with may be fit into that category too, so try to avoid, rather than emulate, that behavior. And I see that you are discussing edits and letting other handle them — I think that's a fine strategy for anything controversial, but I would encourage you to continue editing on non–controversial things so that your article/talk ratio doesn't get too far out of whack and people start thinking you're just using Wikipedia as a social medium. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs for ideas on some things that need fixing. And if you ever have any questions, just let me know . Mojoworker (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. I'll still try to keep editing, just not excessively. I know how stringent one's record can be used against them.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request

I have restored the template, given that it has been about a year. However, you should probably discuss this with the editor who nominated it, since he/she may still think it is unnecessary. But, I do see your point that there are other such campaignboxes with only one link. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've notified Bart133 and also placed similar information for discussion on the template talk page. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mojoworker. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Campaignbox question

Hello, Mojoworker. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Mojoworker/Third Battle of Dalton

Incl. all relevant page history. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Campaignbox question

Hello, Mojoworker. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 13:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Hi Mojoworker, thanks for your recent note on my talk page. Your encouragement is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting me some slack

Sorry I messed up one of the references. And thanks for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates page. I never knew that they were documented anywhere. Quebec99 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A question: There is a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill and I know another Ray Hill that I would like to start a page on. What would be the best way to proceed? I was thinking to rename the current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(British) and name the new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(American) then rename the current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(disambiguation), or just make the disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill

What are your thoughts?

Quebec99 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've actually never had to create a disambiguation page, but the second option sounds like the correct approach — create the new article Ray Hill (American), then move Ray Hill to Ray Hill (British) and then create the Ray Hill disambiguation page. See WP:D for more info. Mojoworker (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal's Logjam

Thank you very much for asking what happened to Mediation Cabal's efforts to resolve censorship on the Zoellick bio that deleted Zoellick's misconduct at the World Bank, as documented by reliable sources. After having been accused of conflict of interest it is necessary for others to help carry the ball on these rule of law issues.Currency1 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi Mojo, it looks like you kind of took a breather from the gang at Calvary Chapel. I did too. Funny, after I threw in the towel (and even told them that I was doing so), Bluemoonlet reported me to someone. I was out of town for a week to be greeted by a Wiki threat. Yay. From my recent research and my new experiences, it appears that particular religion grows militant attachments among the followers. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your posts in trying to build an encyclopedic page, I thought some of your suggestions were undervalued. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)