User talk:CactusJack/Archive/1

I will respond to you wherever the discussion was initiated. If you insist anyway on responding on my talk page to a discussion on your talk page, I will copy your comment here to your talk page and respond there. CJK09 (talk)

Please stick to the top three levels of this pyramid.

CJK09, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CJK09! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CactusJack/Archive/1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

re: Palmer Report page

Hi, the wikipedia page for Palmer Report was obviously created by a handful of competing news outlets that are allied with each other, as it consisted of literally nothing but links to baseless attack pieces published by those competitors. Today's edits simply added some of the numerous ways in which Palmer Report has been recognized by respected political figures, while explaining the factual circumstances behind the misleading attack pieces written by competing news outlets. This was an absurdly illegitimate page, written entirely from the point of view of Palmer Report's business competitors, until today's edits brought it into neutrality.

Palmer Report is a small site, and this page probably shouldn't exist at all, particularly as it was obviously created by Palmer Report's competitors and has no other reason to exist. But if the page is going to exist, it needs to tell both sides of the story. As it currently stands, it's about as neutral as can be. If it's reverted to the anti-Palmer propaganda piece that it was when the day began, then the page will be in wild violation of wikipedia's own guidelines. We'll be watching your next moves closely, and we'll take this all the way to the top if necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.17.133.155 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Smearing critical sources is a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy. It looks like someone else already beat me to it, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on the article to make sure it doesn't turn back into a puff piece. When a relatively small (but still notable) left-leaning website has been the subject of heavy criticism from various left-leaning sources ranging from Slate to The Atlantic, that is absolutely worthy of inclusion. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

re: Palmer Report page

When a sitting U.S. Congressman, a respected former Governor, and a Harvard Law Professor have all expressed favorable views of the same small political site, that's a clear indicator that the site is respected. It's as least as relevant as attack pieces that have been published by that site's direct competitors. The references to Granholm, Lieu, and Tribe will be re-added. Any further attempt on your part to remove them will result in you being reported to the very upper ranks of wikipedia for clear bias, and if necessary, legal action. You are clearly biased in favor of the handful of sites that don't like Palmer Report, and your bias will not stand here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.17.133.155 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

re: out of control moderator with extreme bias

This is your very last chance to stop removing the links to respected public figures Jennifer Granholm, Ted Lieu, and Laurence Tribe. The upper ranks of wikipedia don't put up with this kind of bias from moderators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.17.133.155 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a moderator, I've been here for like a week. And what are you going to do if I violate your little ultimatum? CJK09 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm a moderator. And to be blunt, threats like this can have your account blocked. If you feel that this information belongs in the article, please discuss this on the talk page of Palmer Report. I will let you know, Twitter is generally not seen as a reliable source however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification

As per rules, we've initiated a complaint against CJK09 here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_from_IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.17.133.155 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who Showcase Series

Why do you need to delete the article: Doctor Who, the showcase series. I was gonna add links to pages about the real YouTube episodes. for example: link to Showcase 2. And I need time to finish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Probe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's a completely insignificant YouTube series with only a few hundred views across dozens of videos. Just because it has Doctor Who in the name doesn't make it significant or notable. Now please stop harassing me. CJK09 (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Unite the Right rally page

Whoo-wee, it's a mess, ain't it? I don't particularly like folks changing the references around, but everything's gone haywire. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article. Have a good one! Javert2113 (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right, I should probably wait until the edits slow down to start working on source quality. Otherwise I'll just get a bunch of edit conflict messes to clean up.

I've only been at Wikipedia for a few weeks and still figuring stuff out. Is it considered problematic here to replace possibly controversial sources with noncontroversial ones? CJK09 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed this! Sorry! To your question, though, nope, not at all. We encourage that, in fact! We love our sources to be as reliable as possible, and as we all know, reliable sources tend to be pretty noncontroversial. And that's awesome! Javert2113 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination

Hello! I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Children of Llullaillaco and there's a couple of tiny issues that need addressing before it can be cleared. Mabalu (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Children of Llullaillaco

On 24 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Children of Llullaillaco, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1999 three perfectly-preserved child mummies were found on the summit of Llullaillaco, a 6,700 m (22,000 ft) volcano, where they had been sacrificed under the Inca Empire 500 years earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Children of Llullaillaco. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Children of Llullaillaco), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Rosa Paula Caetano

Hi, I moved the Portugese article to Draft:Rosa Paula Caetano, where you can translate it to english. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually familiar with Portuguese, so I can't translate it myself, but I've listed it at pages needing translation so someone else can take a look. (I know enough to recognize the language as Portuguese, but nothing beyond that) CJK09 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I never checked who started that article, I just took for granted it was you, anyhow, I wish you a nice day! Dan Koehl (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Copying references with new prose

If you copy content from one article to another you must, at minimum, supply attribution in the edit summary with both the copied article's title as a wikilink and the article title that it is being copied into with a statement soothing like; "Content from [[article title]] is being copied into [[article title]]" so that editors can check those links. However, if you simply re-use just the references and write completely original prose, no attribution is needed. It is not considered a merger or copying of content. Just in case you had done that with any edits at United States. Might save you a little time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Still figuring out how things work around here. CJK09 (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Unbanned

I've closed the unban discussion at WP:AN; there was unanimous support for rescinding the old community ban. There are probably a half dozen things I'm supposed to do, and I don't have time to do them all right this second, but I'll work through them this afternoon. It just looked like it would be a nice change to unban someone, so I did it even though I don't have time to do everything right this second. But as of now, even without all the i's dotted and t's crossed, you're unbanned, with no restrictions, and can immediately edit wherever you want. Diffs and stuff to come later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I did assume you wanted to keep this account, and leave User:Access Denied blocked. Correct? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct, and thank you. I'd like to leave the user page at User:Access Denied as is for transparency purposes, just with a soft redirect to this userpage at the top. CJK09 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I already kinda did that. Didn't want to leave the banned and sock templates there, because then it puts the page into all sorts of categories that aren't really applicable anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Can you just change "Agust" to "August" on the userpage? It's admin only protected so I can't edit it myself. CJK09 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Gah. Thanks. Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CJK09. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

losing the mark

using a massive sock farm while running is disgusting just ignore my bigger sock farm which i'm actively harming Wikipedia with.

sorry i just had to Drowningseagull (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)