User talk:Cltjames

Mr. James wiki space.

C. James online Wikipedia Talk.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Street League Skateboarding, world tour results (November 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Street League Skateboarding, world tour results and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Street League Skateboarding, world tour results, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cltjames! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, have amended SLS webpage to include split request, the reason I resubmitted the request is because even after reading instructions I was unaware of the process, I think I got it right this time. (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add citations to self-published sites

Hi, I noticed you referenced "Unofficial Royalty" (a group blog) and "Genealogics" (a blog) in this edit; per WP:SPS, self-published sources such as blogs should not be used for non-BLPs unless the authors are extremely well-respected as topical experts, and should never be used for living people. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, understood. - Cltjames, 19/11/2021, 22:29. Cltjames (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Surnames

In Wikipedia articles, please use surnames after the initial use of the full name. See MOS:SURNAME for details and exceptions. Cheers. Schazjmd (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it thanks. Cltjames (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you didn't read MOS:SURNAME very well, because your very next edit, you added "Mr." to a surname. Please read and follow the Manual of Style guidance that I linked you to. Schazjmd (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Partially, force of habit, kinda playing it by the ear but also know what is being suggested; I wasn't too sure if MOS:Surname is applicable to the whole of the article, or just specific sections. I think I've covered my tracks for now, thx again, long day. Cltjames (talk). 20:07, 23 November 2021.

Re: Gravata case possible hoax

Hello, Cltjames. You have new messages at Psiĥedelisto's talk page.
Message added by Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jaguar

Please do not use all caps. If there is a technical problem with the app, that should be reported and you may temporarily use Wikipedia in a browser on your device, instead of altering articles. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I used all caps to get someone's attention for this particular reason... I don't know why people are ignorant like this waiting for the page to be removed as the main article and rudely reverting, when there is a problem identified a revert is not the answer.Cltjames (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The best approach is to explain the problem you are seeing on the talk page (Talk:Jaguar) rather than get into edit wars. This pages has got 150000 views in the last month and no problem has been reported. Can you explain the problem in more detail. What device, operating system and wikipedia skin are you using? I can't see any problem in mobile view, but don't use the app. Describe exactly what you see and what is wrong, as that is the only way to diagnose the problem. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks, the problem wasn't necessary mobile view, it was when the Jaguar made front page for wikipedia there was an edit where it was written like this.... jaguar () .... So the idea was with text inserted into the empty bracket which was coding only it removed the bracket entirely from the article introduction.Cltjames (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That helps, I can see the problem in the page preview feature (when you hover the mouse over Jaguar in another article). This usually removed the scientific name in parenthesis, but it has trouble handling two consecutive parenthetic terms, i.e. (a)(b). I assume the front page used a similar preview method. I'll see if I can find a fix or find someone who can. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the initiative, it's true, I didn't know how to approach the problem. Cltjames (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Various

Hi, I've been editing Wikipedia for some ten years, just thought I'd chip in with some thoughts about your messages.

• The wide variety of allowed referencing styles is a source of considerable contention. They are very personal, and all have pros and cons. As regards HMS Hood: this is a WP:Featured Article, which means that an exceptional amount of effort has been expended to achieve that gold star. Likewise WP:Good Articles. These types of articles are usually jealously guarded to maintain their status. The general idea is that the originating editor of the article chooses a reffing style, which should be continued for ever unless a wp:Consensus for change is reached on the talk page. Some people can be very forthright about their preferences. See User talk:MinorProphet#Referencing for one editor's views, which I completely respect, by the way. There are further lengthy discussions with other experienced editors if you click the links at User talk:MinorProphet#Further thoughts on referencing.
• My personal preference, learned over many years, is for {{sfn}}s, which integrate very well with the templates of {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} etc. I don't know if you are aware of the mouse 'hovering' function which means you can hover the mouse over an {sfn} to show the short reference, and then hovering over that pops up the entry in the bibliography if it's been made with {cite book}. This is done by clicking on Special:preferences → Gadgets and disable 'Navigation popups' and enable 'Reference Tooltips'. This has recently been made the default, but you may not be aware of it.
• {sfn}s are great when they work, but a pig when they don't. You just have to learn the {cite} and {sfn} templates and the many ways they can go wrong. Failed sfns and cites can be highlighted in orange or red by a javascript. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page.
• DPL bot will point out links you make to disambiguation (dab) pages such as Nannau. These are usually unintentional. It's amazing how many dab pages there are for subjects you think are unique. To highlight dab pages, click on Special:preferences → Gadgets, and enable 'Display links to disambiguation pages in orange'. This does what it says on the tin, and alerts you to such links. I have raised this point with the creator/maintainer of DPL bot, but the message only contains opt-out instructions, rather than a link to the gadget. The only way to make sure that the link is the one you really mean is to click on it, physically copy the article's title and paste it back into the link. Some pages aren't actually dab pages, but still contain links to multiple articles. In other words, click and test every single link you create.
• Being wp:Bold is fine, but it's often a disheartening learning process. There a are a large number of experienced and helpful editors on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with anything in a particular article, raise it on the corresponding talk page. Don't be in too much of a hurry. Someone will usually reply within a day or two (or less), often an editor who has made considerable contributions to the article. Many people actively use their wp:Watchlist to monitor pages they are interested in. There's always the WP:Help desk if you get stuck.
• You can quite happily delete any old messages from ArbCom (I call it Admin spam). As the messages say, to opt out from the notices, just add at the top of this talk page, it doesn't display anything.

I hope some of this has been useful. WP is an ongoing learning process, it doesn't stay still for long. You can ping me with {{re|MinorProphet}}. Happy editing. MinorProphet (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the insight MinorProphet, it's been really interesting to learn the coding, and I hope to help out when I can. Cltjames (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Women's rugby

Hi, C. James – If you have time, could I ask you to give an opinion on this talk page about the current World Rugby Sevens Series? There is some contention over the standings points to be carried over from the Great Britain side to England (and potentially Scotland and Wales) if/when they play in the competiton next month.

The issue is there's no source for the speculated calculations used in the article on Wikipedia. Because England have not even played the competition yet, my proposal is to remove them (and other potential future teams) from the standings list until after they have actually joined the competition (and when there's a reliable source for their carried-over points). Can you can add any thoughts on that? Thanks for your contributions. -- Ham105 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the scoring list for team GB, and the home nations (Wales, England, Scotland); I know this system is based on an Olympic qualification system, so GB represents 3 nations playing. As for your query about how England scored points, then maybe there could also be an error in the webpage.

But as for how teams are calculated in a table, normally in sports it's ok to leave a team with 0 games and 0 points and just have them at the bottom of the table with 0 as representation and have the table show all the teams playing, irrespective of if they've already begun the tournament or not, just to explain the format better as to who qualified. Cltjames (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hi there. Thanks for this. I hope you don't mind, but I have pared it down from your very nice Welsh medieval castle situated on a rock overlooking the sea near Criccieth to the rather less elegant C13 Welsh coastal castle. If you have a look, please, at WP:SHORTDESC you will see why, including the rather depressing fact that we are supposed to try to keep them down to about 40 characters! So we are always looking for a bit of a shorthand way of saying things without it becoming incoherent ... certain things are obvious, like Criccieth's redundancy in the short description, and others we just have to busk a bit. I hope this helps, and thank you for your edits. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Cltjames! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Hywel Dda that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, my thinking process was I did 2 edits, therefore I wanted to introduce one edit as potentially a minor edit, this is because I didn't alter anything direct in the article, only external links. But thanks for the info. Cltjames (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Gerard Garner

Many thanks for your message - 'rv' just stands for 'revert'. Your point is valid, however, and I have re-added the key info with better sourcing. GiantSnowman 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of CR7 titles

Hey, Cltjames, I hope you’re okay. I was thinking it would be a good idea to take the discussion on the UEFA Super Cup and Ronaldo’s Community Shield further. I consider that the PeeJay user is not giving much importance to the issue and just claims that there have been discussions about it in previous years and that the player did not play in those games, in addition to showing a link to a page of the game record of that Super Cup as proof when I showed him official links of UEFA and specialized websites where they mention the titles. On the other hand, I consider that the user falls into assumptions when stating that the official website of Madrid is impartial for "praising its footballers" when it has no proof of it. Do you dare to continue debating? Judasly (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your update, I believe the correct route has been taken for now, as in all the references needed have been displayed and we are waiting for administration to complete the task, maybe just add a definitive reference for the 2008 Community shield to prove the same issue, and perhaps another example of another football player who received an honours medal without playing the game to show this Cristiano Ronaldo case isn't the only example on wikipedia. Cltjames (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Judasly:, the discussion is ongoing with help from admin I have reopened the talk now at - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player awarded medal without playing, so we can continue to tall and then maybe refer to RfC for an independent comment from admin. Cltjames (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Perfect Cltjames, I’ll keep an eye on everything, thank you. Judasly (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Principality of Wales

I’ve just been sorting out your addition today to the Laws subsection in the post-1284 section. Couple of things on sources: don’t use WP:PRIMARY sources in the way that you did. A secondary source is needed. I’ve kept the primary source and list of penal laws as a footnote, separating it from any interpretation, which is necessary if a primary source is used. The Senedd web page is not WP:RS. Use a proper history book. The text you added in about the “UK constitution” didn’t make any sense and was unsupported anyway. I’ve replaced that with some proper text about the penal laws and 2 scholarly WP:RS supporting it. But that’s not why I’m posting on your talk page. I missed a series of edits you made in December which has messed up the referencing and notes - it begins with this edit where you create a different and conflicting set of references to the actual referencing section. It wrongly uses the notes section. So now there are two sets of references: “references” and “notes”. You need to revert that and put it back into the main run of references. The notes shgould only be for additional explanatory text not citations. I assume you did that when you were still learning. Because of intervening edits I can’t just roll it back and it’s quite a bit of work to do it manaully. So i’m asking you do it please. Hopefully you understand the problem, If not please ask. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've completed the task willfully. As you've noticed I'm working cautiously and have been taking things slowly in amending articles, but now have refined the article to try and make it perfect. As for the Principality I have found some work I am reading through, specifically governance and the set up of the Principality towns and administrators. e.g. The Medieval boroughs of Snowdonia, and some JSTOR extracts relating to the period of the Principality of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that I appreciate it. But please don’t use that book on the boroughs of Snowdonia. It was published in 1912! There’s plenty of modern materials. You just need to not necessarily look for the obvious. Rule of thumb: don’t go much before 1990. Even second half of 20th century likely will be overtaken by modern scholarship. Pre mid 20th century and certainly pre WW1 won’t have the standard of scholarship we expect these days. Nevertheless pretty much anything by Rees Davies is going to have relevant information and be reliable. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm aware of modern literature, only with Wikipedia being a free source of knowledge it only makes sense to include copyright free books, and the medieval boroughs book is perfect for this time frame we're looking at. This is especially true because it's been correctly scanned and posted online. I'd like to argue including this book because of the relevant information which is not available elsewhere copyright free. In particular the breakdown of the era, the book is perfect for the article so to speak. And the same goes for Robert Burton's book, it's an old source, not an unreliable source. I've searched plenty online and have only come up with maybe 5 sources which are free to reference, and the Snowdonia book comes from the wikipedia library, so I would consider that a reliable source. Cltjames (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, copyright is absolutely irrelevant. I assure you you are completely on the wrong track. WP:COPYVIO is about copying text not using it as a source. That is absolutely fine provided you use your own words to convey the information. It’s more than fine - it is the way everyone edits and must edit. Look at this article: Edward II of England. It’s a WP:FA: our gold standard. all modern sources. Put out of your mind using these old sources. Using those sources will be perceived very badly and undoubtedly be reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What I was saying was, it's actually from the Wikipedia Library, if that isn't a high enough standard then it begs the question, what is ? Cltjames (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

it’s just a resource like Google books. just because something’s there doesn’t mean it’s reliable and there’s no ‘stamp’ of approval. In fact there’s no standard attached to it at all. There are dozens and dozens of modern sources which are good to us. Look this is one I randomly dug up: p.161 “Patronage, Politics and the Principality of Wales 1413-1461. This is the sort of thing you should be looking at and using, not something from. 1912 or 1730. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: no doubt that book would be ideal (bit out of my price range right now), but how about some extracts from JSTOR, such as this JSTOR. Also I found some key information in the Snowdonia book I mentioned about the organisation of the towns, e.g. distribution of boroughs explaining how the castles dominated the lands and how farming became key to society in the Principality. The information is there, it just needs to be extracted, remembering these old books would have been used as references in modern literature based on how the information was originally collected in this modern era. I mean for now these sources are better than nothing and can be seen as a second draft until better sources can be found. Cltjames (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your editing

You wrote this: I am sorry but I will have to refer to a Wikipedia administrator if you continue to dismiss my work like you've done so far, this passage I wrote is wholly purposeful to the work, please continue like this and we will see what will happen. Let me be clear: your editing is severely problematic. The text you have been proposing is muddled, confused and sometimes unintelligible. You have an extremely poor grasp of the sources we should be using - you seem to think pub websites and books from 1730 are viable options. I’ve only had contact with you on one article but even that one article has been a time sink for me because of that. If you were a new editor that would be (somewhat) explicable. However you are now on 3.5k edits - these issues shouldn’t be happening at this stage and is disruptive WP:IDHT. I would encourage you to find an experienced editor to be a mentor to get some guidance on what you should be doing. This can’t continue. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I understand your precaution. I wanted to work as a team and specifically explained it was a draft, basically fact finding mission, and frankly it was successful as you finally got your work in place, you dismissed me on several occasions and I replied in kind. Now finally I can say my effort has been rewarded. Thank you for your honest opinions, I will consider dutifully as to what you have said. But to explain in full, I am Welsh and have plenty of knowledge of the subjects I have chosen to edit, and so far so good in my opinion, shame it's taken this long for you to acknowledge my findings on the Principality of Wales. Maybe in the future I might find more gaps in the article and I will use the talk as is recommended. Bye for now. Cltjames (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

House of Aberffraw

Just saying thanks for the reference added for the family seats. Have a good day ;) 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:8498:8F3F:9D8E:575E (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)