User talk:Mojoworker

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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)[reply] 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

Hi, Mojoworker, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main aim is to help improve Wikipedia articles and content. If someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Sometimes we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Sometimes editors who are new to Wikipedia may perceive the deletion of "their" article as discouraging. Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving Wikipedia articles and content. A more dynamic list with article links and descriptions are located at our rescue list. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again — Welcome! Northamerica1000(talk) 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Dear Mojoworker, thanks for your kind words on my talk page, including your good faith and advice to make me a better Wikipedia editor. I wish the best to you and yours, AnupamTalk 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You rock! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed his name, issues came up again, [1], I had to block an IP who got rude with him over tagging as well. Just keeping you in the loop. Just not much I can do at this point.

Thanks Dennis. I'll try to keep an eye on him. Mojoworker (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting edits that were constructive. I promise to be more careful from now on.--Scott Delaney (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Delaney (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) You will find there an Apology for All the vandalism mistakes I made.--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to file something at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding our friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a plan at WP:AN#Disruptive Editing (CIR issue with) User:Scott Delaney that I think you will approve of. As before, it only requires you and I observe from a distance. It is a bit of a last chance, but perhaps it will work out well. Of course, we both hope so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I saw this morning on the AN thread that he's only 14. That explains much. And i saw that Adjwilley accepted your call for a mentor – I considered it, but I'm busy writing a proposal, so haven't been doing much else today, and If I get the work, I may be scarce for a bit... I'm heading out the door, but I'll read your latest update when I get back. Mojoworker (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message. Thank you, I knew there had to be a more formal way of doing it. Yes, I was the original creator of the template, but I have since found it unnecessary to have a template (at least a campaignbox template) for Indian wars/conflicts in specific states/territories. Often, Indian wars occurred in multiple states/territories. For example, I dont think it would be a good idea to have the "Indian wars in California" campaignbox template in addition to an "Indian Wars in Nevada" template on the same article since none are really needed in the first place. It could be misleading as well I suppose, but, again, they just arent needed. I may make a new template(s) for the information, which would go at the bottom of the article, but I have yet to decide if that is really necessary either. Apart from my thanking you, I left this message just in case you were interested in understanding why I wish to have the templates deleted (I am not the best at explaining things and I know I did not leave an explanation like this anywhere else). Thanks for your concern.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm As Midnight 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter 07:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did vote for a small number of candidates - I think it was four in total. Mojoworker (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Mojoworker. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing a dose of reality but don't accuse "both" of edit warring only to revert back to my original on identical grounds of BRD... the user has reverted twice as many times and has yet to justify 1) their original revert and 2) subsequent edit... on grounds other than what they wish WP:ERA says.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to accuse you – just trying to be somewhat even–handed. Basically, just trying to get you guys to discuss things. Mojoworker (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost, I appreciate your participation... Perhaps you hadn't noticed that I did wait for the user to reply... their accusation of personal attacks, WP:IDHT and failure to self-revert leave nothing to the imagination. Please note that you incorporated a rather significant proportion of the contentious edits into your own revert, which nearly tips the balance... probably why the user has acquiesced for the time being. Also note that they've yet to make a case, per the current WP:ERA, that a History of physics article should use BC/AD... surely if either, is not the secular qualifier to be expected? Absent any rational ground on which the current consensus could be reversed, entertaining their request for a delay as ideal, merely invites further obfuscation and disruption.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I put a different list up for flist just to see how things work there. We'll see how it goes. Cheers. • Serviceable†Villain 09:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look at the list you nominated. Mojoworker (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alas, I was rather curt when I was a FAC reviewer. And just as I feared, the FLIST reviewers have gathered their hurt feelings and spoken from them. My list will not pass. So, if the Civil War list is ever nominated, it would be best if my name were not on the nom, despite the nontrivial effort I have expended upon it. • Serviceable†Villain 05:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunate – not much feedback there. I'm going to be pretty busy for the next month, but after that I was thinking of asking MILHIST to do an A Class List review. I'll see if I can split out the casualty list before then...if no one beats me to it. Mojoworker (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't expect anything else. Well, maybe I had some small hopes, but only small ones. It does not matter. :-) I'm not going to engage in useless, protracted discussion.... As for the Civil war list, don't forget to add Dalton III some day soon. I may not be any help. I'm pretty busy. I am not doing anything on Wikipedia, no articles etc., and may drop off the radar completely again for a while. Good luck! • Serviceable†Villain 06:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) My oppose has nothing to do with "hurt feelings", I didn't even know you'd reviewed any of my FACs? Perhaps it was with another account? The oppose has to do with my concerns that the list doesn't meet 3b. In all honesty, can you see the point of the main article, pretty much all of which is then repeated in the list article? That's what 3b is designed to avoid, particularly when the main article is barely a screen-length in size. And the opinion is of just one single editor (me, not "the FLIST reviewers" as you claim), we base our promotions on consensus, not one individual's opinion. If, User:ServiceableVillain, you're not going to try to work this through, I suggest you withdraw the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Of course I am willing to work with constructive comments. The examples I gave... should I look at the parent articles to see how tiny they are? The tingTings or whomever?... is that article large?... as for FAC, one reviewer at flist is the precise reason why I will never review at FAC again (well, him and the FAC delegate relevant to that thread). I also thought I remembered you from another time... but if not, then I am sorry. • Serviceable†Villain 04:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea who you are or what your grievances in previous accounts have been. It's got nothing to do with me, nothing to do with FLC, nothing to do with nomination. I'm not sure how many times you need to be told that the Ting Tings discog was deemed to be a reasonable fork from the main Ting Tings article. Given the size of the main article, there is no need to fork out the list in the case of the Harmon award. One article with a list is perfectly adequate, see Sakharov Prize or 1st Academy Awards or PDSA Gold Medal.... These don't have a "list of x winners" and a main article of "x", because there's too much overlap and not enough to justify two articles. That's why we have 3b. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggle, the newcomer socialization tool I've been building, is finally ready for general use. All you need to do to get started is point your browser to https://snuggle.grouplens.org. Let me know if you run into any trouble. I'll be watching WT:Snuggle. Or you can also just contact me directly. Thanks for your patience.

See also:

• Documentation
• Bug tracker
• Open source code repository
• My work log describing the last few months of work

--EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 19:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to post a reminder that this discussion will be happening in about 24 hours. If you haven't already used Snuggle, I recommend giving it a try before the meeting. I'll be in #wikimedia-office ^connect a half hour early to answer any questions you have. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have received notification of your message to Athollgoon concerning the redlinks in the American Civil War articles. Adamdaley (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if I have caused any inconveniences. I would love to help out with creating Regimental Articles. I am new here, and would love to learn how to create articles. Could one of you please help me in doing this? Athollgoon (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help you. I'm pretty busy the rest of the week, but I should have some time next week. In the meantime, take a look at WP:Your first article, and WP:Article development, and take a look at some of the existing regimental articles as well, to get an idea of how they are structured. Most of them got their start with material from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer AKA Dyer's Compendium. Do you have any particular regiment in mind or a specific State or Territory? Let me know if you have any questions. Mojoworker (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help create the 109th New York, because that was the regiment in which my relatives served. I would also like to help out with Pennsylvania and Missouri regiments. And editing the First Washington. Athollgoon (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (For your information).--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about that conversation. It would seem though, that we have a different understanding of the results of the discussion. As I understand it, the England / Ireland / Scotland ensigns were to be replaced with the Union Flag and that the other flags would be the national flag, not the civil or maritime ensign. That is how the the table at Challengers and defenders is currently configured. Did we decide otherwise for the yacht articles?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed lots of America's Cup related editing recently, coinciding with the interest in the just–finished edition of the Cup. While examining some of them I noticed a discrepancy in how the ensigns were being handled in the individual yacht articles. For example, Sceptre (yacht) was using the red ensign, while Endeavour (yacht) was not. I noticed you created Sceptre on 26 April 2012. I looked a little further and noticed Alinghi using the Swiss maritime ensign and the Shamrock series (Shamrock (yacht), Shamrock IV, Shamrock V) were all using the red ensign. While (in addition to Endeavour, Galatea (yacht), Cambria (yacht), etc. were still using the England / Ireland / Scotland country flags.

So, remembering the discussion from that time, I went back and looked at it. There was a very clear consensus to use the UK flag – Mattlore's: "I think using UK and the home countries flags is confusing and we should pick either style and stick to it. Based on the argument above for Shamrock and the modern challenges I have been convinced during this argument that the UK flag is the appropriate one" and Nuttyrave's: "Irish, Scottish and English clubs all represented under the Union flag is the simplest way forward". And, while most of the discussion concerned the table in the America's Cup article (and I think we are all in agreement on the style in use there), there were some complaints about the civil ensigns being difficult to distinguish when they were small. I did notice a couple of references to the individual yacht articles: your "For the individual articles, I likewise agree that the appropriate flag template is {{flag|United Kingdom|civil|size=48px}}.  United Kingdom" and my quote (discussing the table and the individual articles) "I would vote to use the for all the UK challenges and the civil ensigns on the individual yacht pages where the icons are larger." I didn't see any dissension there, and seeing that you changed the table and some of the individual yacht articles in that time-frame, I assumed that you just forgot about changing the others. So I went ahead and made them all consistently maritime ensigns (and UK where appropriate).

Now it's possible I misinterpreted something in the discussion, but I just went back and read through it all again, and I'm still coming to the same conclusion. Let me know what you think I've missed there. Oh, and congratulations on your adminship. I have a script that highlights the admin signatures and noticed yours was highlighted. I went and looked at your RfA, and it looked pretty close – sorry I didn't see it earlier, or I would've supported you. Glad you made it anyway. For all the talk about the Admin bit being no big deal, it sure seems some people think it is a big deal. I mean really, what did the people who !voted against you expect that you would do – start blocking people willy nilly? There's too much immaturity around here sometimes... I'm sure you'll "grow into" the other admin duties if you ever have the inclination, but I'm sure the project will be just fine either way. Mojoworker (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I think that the discussion worked because we were able to stay on track and decide the one issue and that was the flag icons in the Challengers and defenders table. Even though we mentioned the individual articles, I don't see them as part of the decision.

I suppose that the argument could be made that we should look at how flags and burgees are used throughout the whole range of America's Cup-related articles for reasons of consistency. If and when that happens, I'll be interested in participating.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which would be more correct – my goal was to make them consistent. It was my understanding that the reason for using the national flags instead of the ensigns in the table was because, at the small size used in the table it was easier to tell the difference between the UK, Australia, and New Zealand national flags than their ensigns, while that wasn't an issue at the 300px size used in the individual articles...

In any case, after making the England / Ireland / Scotland ensigns consistent with the other articles using the red ensign, there were only a handful of articles using national flags, so those were changed to be consistent with the other ensigns. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages Mojoworker & Stfg. Substitution or translusion (DEPRECATED) a part, there was a problem within the template footer message. Its code called BASEPAGENAME, which runs properly within the template page itself (and all of its subpages, sandbox included), of course, but not on user talk (and others) pages. I've fixed it by replacing
{{[[WP:SUBST|subst]]:[[Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]}}
with
{{tls|Blank WikiLove}}
(as per other WikiLove templates). And, I've also added a default value→"this WikiLove template" for the "item" parameter (in case it is left blank by the poster).
I've made a series of tests here, and you can see the changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABlank_WikiLove&diff=577741779&oldid=504554247.
Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but don't they belong on my talk page rather than the article's? Instaurare (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the accusations of the other editors are largely unfounded. See the edit history rather than the other editors' unsubstantiated, undiscussed claims. Instaurare (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on your editing of the McAuliffe‎ article – didn't look in depth at your edits at the Cuccinelli article, for example. Have you inserted similar criticisms there? Right or wrong, the other editors don't have the same clouded history that you do. Mojoworker (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I misread what was going on and had no intention of accusing User:Mojoworker of vandalism. I was in the middle of reverting a ton of very bad deletions sparked by 777sms's very bad tagging, and by the time I reached the Little Rock campaignbox, I'd gotten to the point that I was deeply doubting 777sms's good faith. Your tag is completely different: I disagree with it, but I do not doubt your good faith. I disagree with the deletion on three counts: (1) Copyright. This is the situation in which {{Copied}} is appropriate for the talk page, and the source page may not be deleted because it serves to provide attribution. (2) Speedy deletion criteria. When we merge page1 to page2, we normally turn page1 into a redirect, and redirects aren't eligible for any of the template criteria. (3) Since it had been used for 2+ years, it's better to leave it a redirect than to delete it, since deletion hurts the appearance of old revisions of pages using the original template, and even ignoring my other two "counts", there's nothing harmful that would necessitate deletion, so I don't see why we absolutely need to delete it. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:No problem. Thanks for the explanation. At the time, I wasn't sure which course of action made more sense. As I mentioned on your talk page, keeping it as a redirect might prevent someone from recreating the Campaignbox in the future, and as you point out preserves the history. On the other hand, the template was erroneously created with the wrong name by a problematic sock... That's why I consulted with Moonriddengirl. After giving it some more thought, I agree that the current state of the template (existing as a redirect) is better than it being deleted. Mojoworker (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine is available for hookworm. You are right in the sense that there is not now a world-wide eradication attempt going on against the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 836th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 836 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Building C is still needed. Please check for a photo. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... is what if one part of the previous change was correct, and another part wrong, and simply undoing it in whole is just as bad as the previous change.

They did:

"South African Defence Force" -> "South African Defense Force"

"US Department of Defence" -> "US Department of Defense"

You reversed this to:

"South African Defense Force" -> "South African Defence Force"

"US Department of Defense" -> "US Department of Defence"

Now "South African Defense Force" is wrong, but so is "US Department of Defence". These are names and so not an WP:ENGVAR or WP:RETAIN matter. So who is winning here? :)

And, hey, I'm an ENGVAR nut (see recent edit - and yet even there it is unclear, as a Canadian First Nation organisation mentioned in the article has a name with 'organization' in it - confusing, and makes me nervous enough to go back and check again!) Shenme (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I didn't look at it closely enough. I had noticed the lede discussed Rhodesia and South Africa and so changed it back to British English (and the change I undid was linking to the redirect instead of South African Defence Force. I've changed the other one back to US Department of Defense. Mojoworker (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Was curious about where to post query regarding use of BCE/CE; BC/AD; BC/E AD/CE. Because in an article that uses BCE/CE (which isn't widely used), I tried to make adjustments and was reverted (it was all AD). Then thought I'd insert AD/CE. I don't presume that there are problems with that, is there? If so, where do I post to do a vote? Thanks for the input! 164.107.217.46 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tom[reply]

Hi. I left the link to the relevant section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style in the edit summary when I undid your edit. The information is at WP:ERA. It's possible that CE can be removed if it doesn't result in ambiguity, but you should probably discuss it on the article talk page first. Let me know if you have any questions. Mojoworker (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked to be notified here: User_talk:Padenton/adminhighlighter. Amalthea is back and has corrected the bug, so my version of the script and related pages are now deprecated. I'll probably CSD the scripts in about a week or so to give people some time to switch back to the script here: User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js or here: User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter. ― Padenton|✉   19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.54.141 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the WP:RS guidelines demonstrates very clearly that the Sorakonich piece fails that standard, as discussed on the talk page. You have also used a citation of the Austin Healy Restoration Guide incorrectly. An editor of your seniority should know better. Do you have a response?75.111.54.141 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond there, but I will say here that I resent your accusation. You damn well ought to read WP:AGF and take it to heart, or your career at Wikipedia will be short-lived. You have a flawed understanding of WP:RS and WP:V. User "I dream of horses" was nice enough to leave you a welcome message with lots of links on your talk page – I suggest you follow those links and read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines more thoroughly. Mojoworker (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that your edits were not unconstructive, however the article has too much details and most of the information can only be ascertained by a person with technical expertise in the field. Your first edit, Special:Diff/696655546 restores off-topic information. The page is about CobraNet, not latency issues and even though latency issues factor within CobraNet's field of work, that certainly cannot be a reason to explain latency issues within the article. The article is very intricate as is and just any reader will not be able to understand the information conveyed by it. As, for your second edit, Special:Diff/696656747, it's completely fine as you've chose to explain why CobraNet's technologies are expensive. My bad. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you've given me a second opinion, I've explained my stance here and also kept your edits. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 08:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CobraNet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mojoworker. This is Zee money. This is in response to the village pump forum. Please do not assume ip 119 is me because I talk directly to people and instead of through a forum. My points: 1. I think ip 223 exaggerates my work. I have created less than 1,000 articles (Lugnuts has almost 26,000). Nobody has told me that if I can do something on wikipedia, they can too. That has never happened. The concern about wikipedia being a soldier and politician 'database' and 'directory' is an overstatement. Let's take the American Civil War for example. The deaths for the years 1861-1865 has less than 5,000 articles. Over 99% of the people who died in that war do not have an article. World War I and II killed millions yet the number of articles for the deaths is less than 10,000 for 1914-1918 and less than 20,000 for 1939-1945. Again, over 99% of those who died in those wars do not have articles. 2. Every state governor, congressman and senator in the US has an article, along with the majority of the mayors. People in equivalent positions in other countries (eg China) do not (at least before I started creating them). I would to like to know if there is fairness in that. 3. Another user, Sander v. Ginkel, has been creating articles with brief summaries on LIVING people without creating talk pages, without putting up any photographs or without any links to other wikis. Myself and others have created talk pages for him and he puts up these articles at an incredibly fast pace. He goes from one article to the next without regard to what country his subject is from and rarely updates previously created articles. I suggest you speak with him about this. 4. Some of the articles were created to facilitate the creation of new categories (transferred from existent ones on other wikis), reduce the number of red links in other articles or templates or in response to an article request (eg Lu Dachang on WP China). They would have been created eventually by other users if I did not create them. My articles are generally not read, much less edited by others (there are a few exceptions). I do update them if I find new info (I just created 3 categories from ja wiki and added them to Takji Muranaka, an article that you brought up) Zee money (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As terrible as it is, lots of people have died in wars. But, according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, not all of the people who served in the war are deemed notable, even if they died in action. Please try to adhere to WP:SOLDIER when creating articles. And please advise your associate, IP 119, to refrain from editing or removing the comments of other editors. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well played We have a leader in the best post of 2017. Regards   Aloha27  talk  03:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mojo,

Thanks for your helpful answer. I did visit the Vicksburg National Military Park long ago, but could not remember whether Snyder’s Bluff was within the main park or separate from it. I was shown round by the most charming lady tourist officer, with whom I am still in touch. And the atmosphere in Cedar Grove was so enchanting that I almost dropped down on one knee! Valetude (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The {{cnote}} templates has been nominated for merging with the {{efn}}/{{notelist}} family of templates. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting this article. The user doing this has been doing this for some time now, which I reported to the CVU and at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Nothing has been done about it to date (except for someone trying to hack my account once I reported the vandalism...). If you know of any way of getting someone to take action, please do. I've linked some of the vandalism in the CVU request. -Yupik (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	yes Bondboy9756 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you for turning the citations into same numbers, but how did you do that? Bondboy9756 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for actually showing me how to cite my sources! NumbnessOfDestruction (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, Mojoworker,
please, it is possible can you help the Wikipedia Community to save this template from (senseless) deletion?
You give your help at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 25#Template:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War.
Thank you and Ciao!! User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019, 16:00, UTC+1).

• Thank you for your comments!!! Ciao, User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019, 18:35, UTC+1).

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Absolutely inspired :D ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha ha seconded. :-) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Quantrill's Raid into Kansas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hog Farm (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boer war. I had the same reaction as you did when I saw it, but when I saw the Template:About, I saw the logic. Two pages, not really sufficient for a disambiguation page IMHO. I suspect we have a reason to believe which is the primary topic, but that's just my personal judgement and not based on any measurement of consensus. BusterD (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: I hadn't noticed that. I was more worried about the fact that the talk page and the article had mismatched titles, so I needed to move one of them and it was pretty much a coin flip. I figured the title had been without the date all these years and there was no edit summary on the move… I had also just reverted the same editor's move of "Battle off Fairhaven" to "Battle of Fairhaven", so I thought he might be confused. Mojoworker (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my observations regarding who was the primary cause of that accident, but respect your professional viewpoint. I 99% expected that to be reverted. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieronoldham: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. We can't know for certain, and the drivers involved are long dead. But Wikipedia's reliance on WP:RS requires us to leave our opinions aside. You may find this analysis of those involved in the crash interesting: Le Mans 1955, A Lawyer’s View. Mojoworker (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojoworker: Within seconds or a minute of making that edit, I regretted doing so. I appreciate the fact I temporarily deviated, and, from that tangent, am prepared to apologise. I just watched an interview of Macklin (from I believe 1978) on YT after making the edits I did on the 1955 Le Mans disaster article, and was struck by the callous attitude he displayed towards the fans that day, then recolected his claims as to what he states Hawthorn said to him. I am personally convinced he was largely to blame and formed a steel resolve to cope with guilt. If I had to affix ULTIMATE blame it would be on the track layout. Drivers? 89.9% Macklin, 10% Hawthorm, and 0.1% Leveigh.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Mojoworker!

In an attempt to standardize and shorten flag captions within the article itself (as there are so many), I made an edit to the "Flag of Mississippi" article that shortened a recent edit you made. I am hoping that my placing Clay Moss's actual words from the 2015 FOTW website article in a footnote might not only simplify the caption below the flag variant, but might better clarify that Moss wasn't certain if the flag was used by the post war U.C.V. (as there is no primary reference material to support the dubious claim).

I greatly appreciate your patience and cooperation in this matter. Thank you! Lieutcoluseng (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lieutcoluseng: Looks good. My main concern was that the unofficial status of that flag be made clear. Mojoworker (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool then. We "meet in the middle." Have a great day, Mojoworker! Lieutcoluseng (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/01/14/history-champions-packers-no-1-nfl/96552152/ According to this source the Packers have thirteen championships, and their champioships for 1966 and 1967 were won when they won the Super Bowl, not the NFL Championship. The Wikipedia article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League_championship#NFL_championships_by_franchise also does not count NFL Championshps from 1966-1969 and gives the Vikings ZERO championships. The Vikings have zero championships (not one), Colts four (not five), Chiefs three (including one as the Dallas Texans in 1962 in the AFL)(not five), Raiders three (not four), and Jets one (not two). Their articles should reflect that in order to be consistent with the Packers article, which is sourced and credits them with thirteen (not fifteen) league championships. There needs to be, at the very least, a serious discussion on Wikipedia about creating a consensus on what constitutes a league championship, but the evidence suggests that 1966-1969 NFL/AFL Championships don't count.Politician818 (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Politician818: Yes, the Wikipedia articles are inconsistent. And the Infobox is flawed. The problem is getting consensus on what it should say. There are literally hundreds (even thousands) of WP:RS references for the Vikings being the 1969 NFL champions or the Raiders being the 1967 AFL champions. I don't know how you can argue otherwise, Wikipedia lives or dies on WP:RS. Mojoworker (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies the Raiders and Vikings winning those championships, just that they don't count as "league championships."Politician818 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politician818, please avoid stating your opinions as fact. Do you have a policy based argument to back your assertion "that they don't count as league championships" or is it WP:OR? They clearly were "league championships" as supported by the multitude of WP:RS. More like Superbowls I-IV were not "league championships", since they were inter-league games. Mojoworker (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Jets article state that the Jets won two championships in the same year? Why does the Chiefs article credit them with two league championships with 1969? If the Packers article doesn't double count, then neither should those articles.Politician818 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback on the WT:NFL page.Politician818 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the articles should not double count those seasons. Mojoworker (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the same user has been making disruptive edits to a number of pages, such as this edit and revert to Dakota War of 1862. See User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:DD95:7CD3:6071:8A19 and User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:592F:6D14:BAD8:DFA7 for a list of other edits by a very similar user. I'm not sure how to proceed. Do you or MarnetteD have any advice? Cxbrx (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did the proper thing by starting the thread on the talk page Cxbrx. I have added a comment there. Now this is a content dispute rather than outright vandalism so you might want to change the header to your thread. If they persist we can make a request at WP:RFPP. I'm not sure if an admin would grant it but if they did it could make the person editing from the IPs join the conversation on the talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I updated the header in User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:DD95:7CD3:6071:8A19. Let me know if this was not the correct header. It looks like Dakota War of 1862 was protected, see Talk:Dakota_War_of_1862#Possible_Vandalism?. The edits in question came from a different IP address geolocated to the same city. It looks like these edits are similar, though from a different nearby city. If the editor would include WP:RS citations for their different numbers, I would have absolutely no issue with their edits. Cxbrx (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is editing warring on Dakota War of 1862 and I have started warning them about violating the 3RR rule. They will be blocked if they continue this disruptive editing elsewhere instead of engaging on talkpages and any of their sockpuppet IP accounts should be tagged as well. It's not that hard to use citations and they should figure that out.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tagged User talk:2600:1700:7270:2CB0:DD95:7CD3:6071:8A19 with {{uw-unsourced3}} but they switched IPs. If they persist (and there's not collateral damage to productive editors), perhaps we can get an admin to do a range block on the IPs. Mojoworker (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reported their IP and it has been ranged blocked for 2 months. Hopefully that puts an end to it.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MJW, Have you ever considered getting more active in MILHIST? Maybe run for a coord position? It's a bit hypocritical of me to say that, 'cause I can't do anything there. Way too much bad history. But it's a thought for you. Cheers, ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you Lingzhi. Maybe someday I'll consider it – just don't think I have enough time to devote at present. Mojoworker (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojoworker: It appears you have at least a little interest in the Battle of Shiloh. You are probably aware that it was a featured article, and it has been demoted to a C-Class article. I suspect that, over the years, people kept adding to it until it had accumulated some serious "bloat". Citation procedure has also changed over the years. It still gets as much as 31,000 views in 30 days. I have rewritten the article, and I believe it is up to GA. I also had an informal Peer Review that I have preserved at User talk:TwoScars/sandbox2. Have you thought about doing the Good Article Review? It is a long article with lots of citations, but the informal Peer Review may have removed a lot of a reviewer's work. TwoScars (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars, I'll take a look at the peer review, but I've never done an article review before. Lately, it's a challenge just to find the time to patrol my watchlist. That being said, if I am able to shake some time free, I guess it's something I could consider doing – might be a good skill to develop. Probably won't happen before I get my taxes done however. Mojoworker (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I don't like doing reviews either, and the two that I have reviewed have been on topics I am very familiar with—and they did not have 200+ citations. Peer reviews are more my style than a GA review. As always, family & real world come first. TwoScars (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination 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 will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

MediaWiki message delivery 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reuss-Lobenstein on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

MediaWiki message delivery 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Persian Gulf on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

MediaWiki message delivery 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Horst Wessel on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)