User talk:M.O.X

+

A

A

talk

Contents

This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections with no replies within 5 days are automatically archived here. An archive index updated daily at 0:00 & 12:00 (UTC) is available here. Please check the archives to make sure your query wasn't already asked by another user. Thanks! G'Day! When posting on this page, please observe the following guidelines: Discussions should be kept together and I will reply to messages where posted. Disputes belong at their relevant talk page, not mine. Please be civil, stay cool, avoid drama and don't be a dick. If I made a mistake know that it was unintentional and in good faith. Don't be afraid to out my mistakes as I am still human, but please don't assume bad faith. If matters are beyond my assistance, I will contact an administrator or bureaucrat so that they may properly assist you. Thank you! Adapted from Misza13.

Trout me • Whale me • Poke me

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

• News and notes: Geographical distribution of Wikipedia edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

• In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

• WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute

• Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Hi James,

somehow I missed you nominating yourself for an RFA until after it was all over. I can see that you are keen. A way to help in success is to wait for someone to nominate you. You have hardly started yet on the training that you need. But at least you now have a clue as to what the process is like from personal experience. It became evident that you need to have more practical experience with speedy deletes.

One point to start with speedy delete is to look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and see what should be rescued rather than needing administrator action to delete. The A1 no context can often be rescued by writing another sentence to clarify if you can work out what they are talking about. For A7 see if you can recognise a claim of importance and then you can remove the speedy delete tag. For G11 you can remove promotional text and leave the factual material behind. G1 nonsense is often a mistag as there is a strict definition for WP:nonsense. This can often be changed to some other speedy delete criteria or a prod. For authors attempting to delete their own material, you can check if they are really the author. If they use some other tag you can check the history and change it to G7 if it makes more sense that way. A2 for foreign material is often a mistake, as it should already be posted on another language Wikipedia. If you can translate it you may find it is a speedy delete candidate for another criterion. You can also give feedback to the speedy delete tagger so that they do not repeat tagging mistakes. For an exercise you could rescue/retag 100 CSD articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah RfA is the best place to get assessed on one's editing and to give suggestions for candidates on how they many improve their editing. It is my intention to work in the areas of admin work where the opposers felt I need to do more work at. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34am • 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

George Washington birthdate, Old Style/New Style etc.

Just wanted to let you know the birthdate and Old Style/New Style has been previously discussed in various permutations before, at the present those discussions are all in the Talk:George Washington archives:

• different birthdate discussions here
• "Old Style" vs. "New Style" discussions here.

In my opinion this particular lede is always teetering on the brink of unwieldy. Personally, I think the previous form of the inline cites appearing later is fine (I seem to remember - in an MOS sense - that the lede does not have to have inline citations as long as its assertions are sourced in the main body?) Anyway, in this instance, the birthdate information along with the change from "Old Style" to "New Style", are all referenced in the first sentence of the main part of the article (Early Life section).
Also, in looking at your edits I see you removed a citation to an image of the Washington family Bible (from the Washington Papers Archive at UVA). This particular image shows the birth information as it was contemporaneously recorded along with hard to find birth information on some of Washington's siblings so for now I have added this cite back into the articles.
If you don't mind, I think the lede having or not having these particular cites cites should be discussed on the article's talkpage, so I have opened a discussion there. If you disagree with my edit re the UVA Washington Arhives/family Bible image, just give me a Talkback & I'm sure we can come to some kind of consensus about it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I apologize for mis-reading the edit history. I see now that you didn't delete the family Bible/UVA Washington Papers cite but instead altered the image ref into an "a,b" form. Still welcome your thoughts re:the lede cites on the article's talkpage. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The OS/NS dates were removed without discussion. Yes it's true that citations don't have to appear in the lead, but when I edited the article all the refs used for his DOB and DOD were in the lead first, but then got moved into the early life sections and also the sections got reorganised from the last time I edited. I'll happily opine in the talk page discussion. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34am • 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Adopt

Hiya Ancient apparition (cool name) I was wondering if you would adopt me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrainEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, add your name to User:Ancient Apparition/Adoption and choose a course you want to do, anything you need just ask and I'll help where possible. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34am • 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I want to start with the policies section first. TheTrainEnthusiast (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm currently at school, when you're done with the questions I'll review your answers. The courses just contain the basic fundamentals of editing, I'm willing to cater to your interests, remember adoption is about you, not me. I'm here to guide you along the way and give you recommendations and help you progress your editing. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:14pm • 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay! You've got mail! :P

Hello, M.O.X. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:34am • 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Any response? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied (next time you send me mail, add {{YGM}} in a new section with your signature). Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 03:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I assumed you were watching your email. Sorry about that —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:14pm • 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What I learned

I learned that signing your posts to talk pages is good practice, and I already knew that signing your name to edits on articles is bad practice. I learned that articles must be well-sourced, and it's bad if they are not well sourced. I also read the page on verifiabiltiy, and found out what is and what isn't a reliable source. I learned that even if an edit looks like vandalism if it was made with good intentions it is not vandalism.

I learned that you must remain civil in conversations with other users. I learned that Wikipedia is centered around five (I think) core policies, and that the policies are not rules, they're just guidelines. I learned that if you want to make an edit, but you're not sure if it is right, be bold and do it anyway, because if it's wrong someone will come and clean it up and let you know that you've made a mistake. Oh, and I also learned that using edit summaries is good practice, too. TheTrainEnthusiast (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good :) I'm impressed, remember that competence is required and that while civility and good-faith are required when engaging others in discussion, especially dealing with users who repeatedly insert false information or defamatory material into an article, sure they may "mean well" the first 3/4 edits and claim that they're "new and aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but after numerous warnings there's simply no room to continue assuming good-faith, that is where one should be "to-the-point" and warn them in a passive-aggressive manner:

"You have been warned multiple times to stop inserting vandalism and defamatory material into the article on John Doe, you are violating the policy on biographies of living people and if you refuse to comply you may be blocked.", after which if they still refuse you should ask for administrator intervention on the matter.

Choose another course and perhaps take on some article writing/improving, you're interested in topics on Nevada and trains, try find a stub about something related to Nevada or trains that you'd be familiar with and improve it, when using references may I suggest using the Gadget "ProveIt" it's a helpful tool that makes adding references a whole lot easier, to add it just go to Special:Preferences and click on the Gadgets tab, under Editing gadgets check the box next to "ProveIt" and click save preferences. Keep up the good work :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:56pm • 05:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How can I find a stub article about Nevada or trains? TheTrainEnthusiast (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Goto Category:Nevada stubs or Category:Rail stubs. Good luck and remember if you need help just give me a holler :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:03am • 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

al new article

hey hello james and thanks for your help an this new article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alexis_Mendiola but is difficult find a good source because this person is beginning his carrer in the football soccer, so I put some sources about this person, where they talk about his career or his stay at his club, anyways, I put a new source, where the person give an interview and talk about his career, i don't know if this can help me to create this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.78.176 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey James hello again, I'd want to ask you wich of my sources are wrong because I've edited again the article and I erased some of the sources and I saw some pages about other footballers in wikipedia and I put some sources that I think are good.

Your public key

Hello, I'm just letting you know that you know that your PGP template is currently showing the default key ID instead of your actual key ID, which is 0x0A553464. Also, it's not on the linked server. If you want to fix it, your key is actually at http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x0A553464. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The key ID and server were right at the time I last edited that template, I guess my keys must have gotten moved. Thanks Feezo, I'll fix it now :) Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:14pm • 09:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My oppose in your RFA

Hi. Sorry I am late to your reply to my oppose in your RFA since you closed your RFA. But I am here just to clarify my oppose if you did not understand my oppose. I was not holding a grudge against you for nominating my page for deletion. But you had given small reasons that were not worthy for deletion, which shows that you did not understand the main purpose of the page. Good luck. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 06:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm I understood what MfD was full-well, my view at the time was that the page did not belong on Wikipedia because it was slightly misleading and redundant to the New Admin's guide, the community largely agreed on this but also agreed that deletion was not the best way to deal with the page, rather it should be improved upon. I do hope it has improved since I MfD'd it last time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:44pm • 06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you left a {{talkback}} on my talkpage Porchcrop, I hope you could clarify further - what exactly is a "small" reason? To me, that means a reason like this. I have to agree with James here, he submitted a deletion request at MfD, hence he must have understood the main purpose for the page. Sorry, but if anything, you clarification has made me even more confused. [stwalkerster|talk] 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay I now see what you meant James. Stwalkerster, a small reason is "small meaning", not "small text". If you look in the MFD, see the nomination rationale and comments by James in the MFD and see the page that was associated with the MFD, and could you explain how James was correct with what he was saying? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for revising "Géa" and please help!

Dear James (Ancient Apparition): Thank you very much for the time you spent in revising the page "Géa", which I created - I am a reader of the book, not its author. The page was not accepted, and so I've tried to improve it with the new subtitle "Géa - Citations and Notability", where I put the original Portuguese citations and the best translation I could do for these citations (and I don't know if it's better to let in the page only the English translations or both, the Portuguese original citations and the English translations). I am a Brazilian, my English is what you can see in the page "Géa" and here... Please! help me with the English, correcting it! And also, please help me in avoiding the "essay" style. I have done my best to avoid it, but couldn't do better. The book is really great, its Portuguese is perfect, but I and my "English" am not. Please help! 187.13.15.246 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox as it was irrelevant, however, the submission now appears to have a large chunk of Portuguese text in one section, this needs to be translated. With the rest of the article the references appear to remain unchanged, for a submission to be moved into the mainspace it needs to have verifiable statements through the use of citations to independent, reliable sources, assert notability. At the moment it is not verifiable (Wikipedia articles should not be included as a reference) and fails to assert notability, see WP:VRS. I'm not an expert on this topic so unfortunately I cannot be of much more assistance, though I do urge you to read these guides: WP:YFA and WP:REFB. Good luck and regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:01pm • 11:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Portuguese citations removed from "Géa" page and a Synopsis included

Thank you very much for the answer! I removed the Portuguese citations from page "Géa", and included a Synopsis. I will read now all the articles you kindly suggested and try to do a better job! Please read the citations (all only in English now - and I removed the Wikipédia citation), the sources are perhaps now relevant, as is the case of the Jornal da Tarde, who has an article in En Wiki. If you have time, please help me with the English in the page! It's my best "English" and I have nobody to help me in improoving it. Good luck for you too and regards!!! 187.13.15.246 (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice work, the article now reads a lot better :) I have only 1 more suggestion, alter the layout of the article ever so slightly to conform to the style guidelines for article layout and then add some citations, at the moment the article only has 3 and some external links a present before some of the article's text. The article is definitely notable, however, in the references section you mention some of the references used are present in other articles, if you can copy these citations over and use them in the submission I'd happily move the submission into the article namespace. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:46pm • 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Working!!! Thank you immensely, James!!! I've included the References in the page "Géa"!

I am very moved with you kind help! I'm working in the page "Géa", doing my very best! Excuse-me, please, for my "English" in the page! The References are already now in the page, and I'm working to follow all the suggestions you so kindly gave. Best regards! 187.13.15.246 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.13.15.246 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. When it's ready I or another volunteer will assess the submission again. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:17pm • 12:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The page "Géa" is ready for new analysis

Hi, James! Thank you for the answer above. I followed the best I could the suggestions you kindly gave: tried to improve the layout (but, please, if possible, improve it better for me) and included the references 3 and 4 to the book of Camilo Castelo Branco, now best specified, with links to external sites where it can be found and with the copy of the mention to the same book which is in the En Wiki Camilo Castelo Branco article. I hope you or other En Wiki member may analyze the page "Géa" again. If there are any new suggestions, please tell me and I will continue to work in that page! If you may help with the English text and a best layout, please do. I studied the Wiki page about layout you recommended but couldn't see, with my inexperienced eyes, where to improve more that aspect of "Géa" page.

I also included three illustrations in page "Géa", from "Géa" books. Please, tell me if that is a good idea or if would be better to remove the illustrations.

Best Regards! 187.13.15.246 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If the illustrations help define the information and are relevant to the topic, they should be included. Also external links should not be used in the body text, include them in the "External links" section but not the body of the submission. The references you used check out, I'll try and improve it where I can. Good work :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:00pm • 02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, James! I (the person who created "Géa" page) am moved when reading the magnificent work you are doing in improving the English of that page. As I read a note in the History of the page, where you say something like "to do not edit the page during it's revision", and as I read above in this entry your instructions about external links, please tell me if you will remove yourself these links from the body text and include them in the "External links" section, or if I can since now do it myself. Waiting for your answer, I will not edit the page "Géa" now. About the illustrations, I think they help to define the information and are relevant to the topic, because they are part of the book and also part of the work of the same author who wrote the book. Thank you immensely for the help in improving that page. 187.13.17.184 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You can edit it, as you are the author and being the author you would have most knowledge on the subject by comparison. That message was a note to the reviewers. Originally someone was going to copyedit it but they're offline now. If you could improve it in whatever way you could that would be much appreciated. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:36pm • 11:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind answer, James! I will look for the links inside the body of the text now and include them in the "External links". 187.13.17.184 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thank you for taking the time to improve the article. It is well-appreciated. Also take note of our policy on neutrality when editing the article, try and make sure the article conforms to this policy as much as possible. Try and include criticism of the book, if any. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:45pm • 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. I am a lover of the book and an admirer of the author, it's very difficult for me to be neutral, but I am doing my best. About criticism, there are only applauses, which may be read in the massive page "Opiniões sobre Géa" (in Portuguese, site www.ccdb.gea.nom.br - the author's site). The criticisms in the articles and reportings I know are all applauses too, which can be read in the articles and reportings whose links I included in the page "Géa". I could not find any person or specialist who had read "Géa" and could say or write any word against. About the presence of links inside the body of the page "Géa", I removed them - please see if it is well now. Where there were those links I put the phrase "(see link for it in the "External Links", below)". I know it's long and cumbersome; please, transform it in a better English. For the moment, I am thinking but cannot find more ways I could of improving the page - but I will continue to read and reread it and try to improve it still more. Best regards! 187.13.17.184 (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, M.O.X. You have new messages at Crazymonkey1123's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply posted. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 04:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two more sections in page "Géa"

Hi, James! I said above that couldn't find more relevant topics to include in the page "Géa", but I remembered two, which I included few minutes ago (with my "English"...) in the page. They are "Extraterrestrial languages" and "Cover". I included also a topic "Criticisms" in the page, whith links to the author's pages where he invites specialists for criticism and where therare opinions about "Géa" (several in English, the majority in Portuguese). Please, if you think one, two or all of them are not relevant, delete them; or if you like, please correct my "English". Regards! 187.13.17.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When citing sources do not use a source that is affiliated with the subject, see identifying reliable sources for more information. There's not much more I can help with. I'd ask that you be neutral in your writing as you have said that you are fan of the author and his works, which can be a problem as your point of view may not be shared by everyone. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:48pm • 06:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FS Director

Congrats you are now a FS director. If you have any questions about this feel free to ask --Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me able for the job, I hope I'll do it to a satisfactory standard. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:57am • 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)