User talk:Moxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Grandmaster Editor
Click here to post a message to me


More about me: See here
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years, 4 months and 18 days.
Editor - lapis philosophorum superstar.jpgThis editor is a
Grandmaster Editor
and is entitled to display this
Lapis Philosophorum Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar.
Book of Knowledge2ndEd.jpgThis editor is a Lord High Togneme Vicarus and is entitled to write the Book of All Knowledge: 2nd Edition.
Namespace Wikipedia.1.svgThis user is not an administrator and has no desire to be one.


About becoming an administrator[edit]

Wikipedia needs you! Take the poll.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far; they are very much appreciated. Your experience and tenure have been an asset to the project.

I know you ran for adminship a long time ago. Would you consider running again? If you would like to find out about your chances of a successful RfA, please visit:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Anna Frodesiak.....thank you very much for the invite...but I will have to decline. As someone who now contributes alot to our policies and other admin pages I think it's best I stay above the fray of being an admin. I have been here a very very long time and think it's best if I am interpreting community consensus.... that I not be involved in daily implementation of thoses policies. I also think its best the next generation of Wikipedians police themselves. That said there are some tools I would like to use.....but not so much so that I would take on the burden of being an admin. Again thanks for thinking of me.--Moxy (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Need Your Help Solving a Mystery![edit]

Dear Moxy,

I was just reading the article on Qin Shi Huang and noticed that the reference of its lede to his [1] was downplayed by the clause "though a closer examination renders the account doubtful". Reviewing the article about the burning and burying, I noticed a section titled Skepticism, which was based on the work of a single unlinked scholar named Michael Nylan. [2] I checked the talk page of Qin's article and found an unsigned comment complaining about this downplay, and here the story became even stranger. The complaint mentioned that the references justifying it were themselves of dubious quality, one being from the Falun Gong and the other a Christian media outlet. I have replied to the comment and am seeking the expertise of a Wikipedian focused on ancient Chinese history. I checked the China article and found you to have many recent edits there. Care to lend a hand?

Sincerely, Duxwing (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Times[edit]


I was just wondering if you can take a quick look at the talk page at The Washington Times about ongoing lead issues. There has been a lot of news spamming and unencyclopedic content pushed lately, and it would be nice to have someone more level headed look at it.


Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia's head of state, again[edit]

Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened, concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're able, please check for deletions of edits in the page history Travelmite (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I like this source....what you guys think.... worded very well. Cheryl Saunders (2003). It's Your Constitution: Governing Today. Federation Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-86287-468-8.--Moxy (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Of course, every textbook would more or less say the same. No point to having an RfC when it is ignored and links to it deleted from the talk page. Travelmite (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Will be honest here....I'm a little lost on what you're talking about....what was deleted?--Moxy (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I think Travelmite is pointing out that when Skyring made adjustments to the Rfc at Monarchy of Australia, he deleted my mentioning the 2016 Rfc which was held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. I've since restored it. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Skyring started an Rfc, about 20 minutes after I started mine. A bit a of mix up at first, but we combined the two in to one. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't find any academic sources about this.... there are few that mention there's been a debate but that's clear to most scholars what the legal standing is.--Moxy (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
When the great David Smith declares the governor-general Australia's head of state, Elizabeth II just doesn't have a chance ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes. Skyring/Pete will dig in his heels. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I am having trouble transferring all my citations to the article so I am adding them manually.

Yaz.17 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@User:Yaz.17 best bring this to the articles talk page... references and formatting issues that need to be addressed before they will let you put it in.--Moxy (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I re-uploaded it. There should be citations included now if you would like to check them out. Yaz.17 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't get caught plagiarizing word for word?--Moxy (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Culture of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi! I'm not seeing the copyvio problem there – could you lay it out for me in words of one syllable? I saw the text you searched for in the book, but not that it was in the content added by the student user. What did I miss? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi this is to inform you that Dyslexia which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing[3] thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Slovak artists[edit]

How about requesting references first, before removing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Going to copy info from main article.... list of people isn't helpful tells us nothing. Going to clean up the article.--Moxy (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Dammit the main art article was deleted as being unsourced and just a list like the main article.....will have to rewrite the section on my own. Working on this today and tomorrow.--Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

H. H. Holmes[edit]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.

You should know that the issue of "In popular culture" sections has come up several times, and there has never been a consensus that these sections should not appear in Wikipedia articles, or to allow their wholesale removal. Please take this into consideration when you start the discussion on the article talk page. Reverting again without a discussion and a consensus will most probably result in a report being files at WP:ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Pls join the ongoing chat about the new addition so and yes restore would be best Talk:H. H. Holmes#Moxy's edits.--Moxy (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Moxy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Chinese templates[edit]

I think it is very cavalier of you to anoint yourself the arbiter of what is "useful" for English readers, especially when you did not move said information to "main page". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

opps sorry forgot to save it to the other page ...all done now.--Moxy (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No, that's besides the point. It is quite inappropriate to remove an infobox when there is an ongoing discussion on the content of said box. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see had no clue people were talking about the spammed boxes I thought it was the main infobox they wrere talking about. It should not be in the article to being with//// will explain on that tlak page in a bit.--Moxy (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
spammed boxes is merely your opinion. For instance, the infobox at [[People's Republic of China]], now [[China]], had been present since March 2010 before you unilaterally removed it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Would be great if it was that size now or even the size when it passed the GA review...but on well.
I think it's quite clear that there's no consensus for your edits to China and Taiwan. Scriptions (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems your right nreserved sethe ofor efiotrs lIke it.. despite the accessibility concerns. When you guys have a chance you should read over WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY and WP:UNDUE. Don't lose the GA status because your not aware of some basics.--Moxy (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Galleries in Uganda article.[edit]

Hello, I appreciate you contacting me about your concern about the galleries. I am been doing a lot of cite maintenance which led me to the Uganda article. I often edit for presentation if I see items to be improved. Example: I changed the use of multiple image to thumbnails to eliminate the use of px, WP:IMAGESIZE. I do not edit for content unless I am knowledgeable about the subject. The reason you gave for image removal was WP:SANDWICH which I am aware of. I felt the images added to the article and using a gallery was a more appropriate presentation. I used the second gallery to group the other random images. They were pushing other images away from article content, "Avoiding stack-ups", Help:Pictures. I agree that the article has too many images (including 2 for education) but contributors resist the removal of content. Content for many of the images is lacking. Example: The climate classification image has no supporting text in the article, not even a section header.

The images in the first gallery probably belong in Conservation in Uganda which was probably created to shorten the Uganda article but is lacking content. Like I said the images in the second gallery seem random and could easily be removed. Feel free to remove any content. -- User-duck (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What's up?[edit]

Hey, Moxy...

If you have any questions or concerns about portals and the direction they are heading, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

In the meantime, perhaps I can clarify the rationale behind the recent growth of the portal system...

The strength of the current portal model is to display between 20 and 70 topics. As you go over 70, the whole thing tends to bog down, such as with load times and possibly even time out errors. My guess is that most people won't bother to click through a slideshow much longer than that anyways. Cramming more into a portal simply overloads it while burying topics in overlong slideshows.

In order to do huge subjects justice, the tendency is to split them into multiple portals. That has been one factor driving the proliferation of portals.

But, we've been having trouble with some editors trying to make sense of portals as a whole, confused by the growing eclectic list of them.

What we've been focusing on over at the Portals WikiProject is subject or point-of-contact enhancement...

The big philosophical concept we are implicitly exploring these days is whether or not an article with a link to a like-named supporting portal is more enhanced than an article without such a link.

The answer seems to be that portals provide useful support to whatever subject they are made for (as long as they don't fall below the display range mentioned above), and therefore, they enhance the like-named subject articles they are added to.

That has been the main driving force for the creation of new portals.

With the technology we have at the moment, subjects with particular media support (such as a navbox footer and pictures on their root article) are much easier to build than those without those elements. Also, the limit of WP's search engine makes it difficult to harvest past the 11,000 results limit. These factors have influenced the current assortment of portals we have now.

Though, we are adapting ways to fill in the gaps.

As for the development of portal technology and features, the driving force has been the complaints lodged in the RfC of last Spring.

For example, one major complaint was that material on portals had grown stale (being unmaintained). Another was that their coverage never changed (being unmaintained). Yet another was that news items were out-of-date (being unmaintained).

Therefore, the Portals WikiProject undertook to redesign all the components of portals to make them run by themselves.

This has resulted in virtually maintenance-free portals.

A side-effect of this is that the code for portals is almost entirely interchangeable. The code for one often works for another. This has resulted in portals being able to be built in almost a single click.

Where this is heading has become rather obvious to some of us in the Portals WikiProject: eventually, there may not be any physical portal pages at all. Just a link or button on the sidebar menu that the reader clicks on to create a portal that appears on the fly, that disappears when they leave the page. We call that the "Quantum Portal".

Until then, portals must be stored pages, like all the rest of the pages on Wikipedia. But perhaps not for long. Quantum portals may be just a few years away.

There are many ways to look at the portals project, but the main factor of that area of the community is that it is a center of innovation and applied imagination. So, that makes it into a lab. Who knows what developments will come from there. We've already transformed portals once, and it looks very likely that portals will transform again and again. The portals of the future may be something very different indeed.

Only time will tell.

I think it is a healthy thing.

We are already seeing glimpses of possible applications for the underlying technologies to be applied to improving other areas of Wikipedia. Such as semi-automating development and maintenance of outlines, indexes, glossaries, books, navbox footers, articles (see Food), and so on.

MediaWiki has evolved into a robust wiki-supporting system, but many of its innovations have been made with non-Wikipedia wikis in mind. The design of the main encyclopedia has been relatively unchanging or static. Therefore, in order to remain in touch with MediaWiki's improved capabilities, we need centers of innovation like the portals project. The editors there are tinkering with some very interesting tools, which they may in the future apply all over the place in new and useful ways.

I hope I've been able to provide some perspective on portals and how they fit into the big picture. Again, if you have any questions or concerns about portals and the direction they are heading, feel free to share them with me.


Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   00:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with The Transhumanist's "crash course" summary here. Portals really were about to be killed off, as unmaintained, outdated junk, and have been saved by a measure of automation as to their content presentation, though there are ways of "sculpting" that. The new system keeps them functional for readers without much editorial overhead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Regarding sculpting, they are highly modular, and highly customizable, with several contributory templates to choose from.    — The Transhumanist   09:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

What about the original colors?[edit]

  • This all sounds great we can keep all the colors...any way to pic only FA images for Portal:Canada? Would love to see portals I made keep there official colours....--Moxy (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Topics Provinces & Territories Cities & historic regions

Canada Canada
Canada flag map.svg Geography of Canada
Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg  History of Canada
Canadian Forces emblem.svg Canadian Armed Forces
Can-vote-stub.svg  Politics of Canada
Tower-wireless-can.png  Music of Canada
CanadaSoccer.svg  Sports in Canada
Canadian television stub icon.svg  Canadian TV
TCH-blank.svg  Roads of Canada
Volcanism of Canada flag.png Volcanism of Canada
Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Example.svg Indigenous peoples of Canada
Arctic Ocean.jpg  Arctic

Ontario  Ontario
Quebec  Quebec
Nova Scotia  Nova Scotia
New Brunswick  New Brunswick
Manitoba  Manitoba
British Columbia  British Columbia
Prince Edward Island  Prince Edward Island
Saskatchewan  Saskatchewan
Alberta  Alberta
Newfoundland and Labrador  Newfoundland & Labrador
Northwest Territories  Northwest Territories
Yukon  Yukon
Nunavut  Nunavut

Flag of Toronto, Canada.svg  Toronto
Flag of Vancouver (Canada).svg  Vancouver
Flag of Calgary, Alberta.svg  Calgary
Flag of Ottawa, Ontario.svg  Ottawa
Edmonton City Hall.jpg  Edmonton
Flag of Acadia.svg  Acadia
Royal Standard of King Louis XIV.svg New France

WikiProject Canada WP Canada Logo-.svg

What are Portals? · List of Canadian portals
In answer to a question from The Transhumanist on my talk page: {{Box-header colour}} accept a |colour= parameter which can be set to standard values such as red or to a RGB hexadecimal value in the form #rrggbb, e.g. #ff0000 for red. (|color= should also work.) Certes (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Certes: See Web colors#X11 color names. The colors rendered by Box-header colour are not the same as the colors inputted. Indigo, for example, turns out like Medium Orchid:
Border colours and text colours are also lost.
Evad applied some algorithm to convert the entered colors to MOS-compliant accessible colors.
Canadian Red turns out like this:
Canadian Red?

For the actual color, see

It would be nice to customize, when a specific color theme is desired.    — The Transhumanist   00:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Portal:United States has a color problem too.--Moxy (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see! The template uses Module:Color contrast to tone down the colours in a complicated way. Essentially, it produces a pastel shade in the right part of the spectrum which would make a suitable background for black text. I can see why you might not want to do that, as pinky grey doesn't really shout "Canada". We'd either need a fork of Box-header which does the same thing without the colour mangling, or some new parameters to override the calculations and specify the various colours explicitly. I expect that this is all done because some colour combinations have accessibility issues, but I hope that readers who can see the current version would be equally comfortable with white on dark red. Certes (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it's probably best to use {{Box-header}} directly:
Canadian Red

Canada is a big country with lots of red and white things.

Click here for more Canadian stuff
Certes (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Certes: Cool. Thank you! Now I can do Portal:Color.    — The Transhumanist   18:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think that for the country related portals, falling back to {{Box-header}} will be a good idea (that's how I got the colors at it at Portal:India) — fr+ 14:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Canada's issue[edit]

Can I add the sound file of the national anthem "O Canada" to the article. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been a few talks about it in the past and most seem to have a problem with it especially the of key American band version.--Moxy (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again[edit]

I thank you for editing the article and removing this huge amount of images. Because if the religion section has many images, this will not be something fair to the rest of the other sections. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

how did you do this?[edit]

With this edit to List of Canadian monarchs, you added a citation that looks like this:

<ref name="LanegranUrness2008">''[ Minnesota on the Map: A Historical Atlas]''. Minnesota Historical Society Press; 2008. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css" />[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-0-87351-593-1 |978-0-87351-593-1]]. p. 10.</ref>

This cite has similarities to cites that I've seen elsewhere what were done by visual editor and that include underlying html normally provided by the cs1|2 templates. This cite lacks all of that except for this:

<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css" />

which, as far as I know, is used only by the cs1|2 module suite and {{Catalog lookup link}}. That tag shouldn't normally appear in article wikitext.

So, what I'd like to know is: what were the steps you followed to make this edit?

Trappist the monk (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No clue what your talking about. ...source was copied over from another article and looks to have been there for a decade..--Moxy (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Can you point me to that article? I can't seem to find any use of the book title 'Minnesota on the Map: A Historical Atlas', it's ISBN, or its url in any article except List of Canadian monarchs.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

and I under stand now I need to wait to see what other people say about it so I will wait to see what other people say thanks for working with me[edit]

Thank you!!

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for Helping with what I want to do Jack90s15 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand photo[edit]

I was going through the article of New Zealand and found some amazing content. I was wondering if you would like to use our image as a source?

 Eagerly waiting for your reply :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argha09 (talkcontribs) 07:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC) 

Please explain[edit]

Hi Moxy, could you please explain this reversal? There were some good edits in there. Thanks. Thayts ••• 17:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bring it the revert I missed a good IP edit as seen below. Other then that ....removed 2 images added because of sandwich to text ... removed duplication of portals at the bottom.... and a language abbreviation in the lead has been disputed for a long time.--Moxy (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Alright, well there were also some grammar fixes. I agree with you about the language in the lead. Thayts ••• 08:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

English forces under the Earl of Leicester and then Lord Willoughby faced the Spanish in the Netherlands under the Duke of Parma in a series of largely indecisive actions that tied down significant numbers of Spanish troops and bought time for the Dutch to reorganise their defenses.[1]


  1. ^ Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. 2002. p. 45.

Merry Xmas[edit]

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan edit[edit]

Hello Moxy!

This message is in reference to the recent edit you made to the Kyrgyzstan Wikipedia page "(→‎Gender in Kyrgyzstan: moving huge new addition from student to main article on the topic Demographics of Kyrgyzstan as per WP:UNDUE lots for this country overview article)." I took a look at the WP:UNDUE that you cited and don't quite understand how my contribution does not abide by the guidelines for "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery" that would deem a contribution inappropriate. As a new user, I would appreciate your expertise and input.

Thank you! Charlotteaurelius (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/California State University Long Beach/International Studies 319 TuesThurs (Fall 2018)

Country articles are supposed to be overviews of all the topics related to the country.... what was added overwhelming and far too much detail for this article..... it was moved to Demographics of Kyrgyzstan ...a more suitable article.--Moxy (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I understand what you mean about detail, however, the politics section of the Kyrgyzstan article is lengthy and contains multiple subheadings as well. Gender seems to be a relevant topic to the overview of a country, as is religion or politics. Do you think a shorter section would fit the guidelines for due and undue weight better? Thanks again!

Charlotteaurelius (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph on the topic would be resonable. ....noting was lost... tell your teacher it's all at Demographics of Kyrgyzstan. Will be doing this with the majority of additions.--Moxy (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern about my professor being able to access my work. Thankfully Wikipedia Edu gives professors access to all student work, whether or not it is moved or deleted. My inquiry was for my own purposes. Could you clarify your last statement? Thanks, Charlotteaurelius (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Gender Equality added gender equality portion from sandbox[edit]

How's it going man I think you keep reversing my contributions. I'm trying to add a section on gender equality in Eritrea for one of my college assignments can you revert my additions back on the main page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nw510510 (talkcontribs) 04:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

the additions are inappropriate for the pager trying to find them 2. Please continue editing the page you created.--Moxy (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
pls do not add this all over.... your draft page is fine for your assignment. Will be emailing the teacher explaining what the problem is with the addition by all the students.--Moxy (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Moxy - we're going to get in touch with the professor. I'm sorry that this happened. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Gender Equality dded gender equality portion from sandbox[edit]

What do you mean inappropiate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nw510510 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Remove my section on the VR article[edit]


I was wondering if you would care to elaborate on this: You removed it on the ground of: "remove as its sourced to a private YouTube channel" I do not really understand this. Does this mean that you cannot refer to SpaceX's offical youtube channel as a source for their rockets?

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrconter1 (talkcontribs) 11:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Splitting articles[edit]

Hey, I noticed you are splitting out articles created by WikiEd students. Articles that are split need attribution (see WP:SPLIT). Also, categories would be helpful. Natureium (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup will go back and fix it all after I do 27 more--Moxy (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: the easiest way to give proper attribution when splitting articles is to provide a link to the source article in your edit summary. Trying to comply with attribution policies after performing the split would be considerably more work. Bradv🍁 22:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bradv's comment that attribution is most easily done at the time the edit is made. Besides that, other things may intervene, both on- and off-Wikipedia (formerly called, "real life"), and you may never get around to the intended attribution later. Remember that, unlike Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are recommendations, attribution is not "merely" policy, it is obligatory per Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Also, articles that are split should have discussions on the Talk page first, unless they are completely uncontroversial. There has already been at least one split performed that doesn't meet this criterion (Chad). See also the discussion at Wiki Ed Noticeboard. Adding Natureium. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

────────── In the case of the split of portions of Mauritania to Slavery in Mauritania, I see no consensus justification for the split on either of the two article Talk pages or anywhere else. Furthermore, the split was incorrectly carried out. Some portions of what you removed from the article was written no later than 14:00, November 29, 2016 by CollinsTheRock (diff) and therefore antedates recent Wiki Ed student editing at the article by two years. This material should not have been removed without discussion or attribution. (There may be other, even older content that was removed; it would take me too long to run it all down, so I didn't bother.) For the moment, I've reversed this split to the status quo ante, until we can figure out where we are on this one.

This was rather a minor headache to figure out, document, and fix. I don't relish the idea of doing it again twenty more times. Can you please hold off on any more splits for the time being, and go to the Talk pages of the articles concerned, or some other appropriate venue, to discuss these splits first? If you have performed other splits, please immediately raise a discussion on the Talk page of the article(s) concerned to justify it (them) as noncontroversial, and please double-check that the content you moved was the content you intended to move. I should note that this article and the Chad article are the only recent article splits of yours that I have checked. I have no idea what the status of any others might be. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont think you understand what is going on here. We have students adding huge sections to our country articles that are essays style and overwhelming undue in size for theses articles. I an not going to sit here and see our article all messed up because some kid needs to pass a course. Fell free to join an ongoing chat at Talk:Yemen#Infant mortality section one of the many per WP:EDITCONSENSUS --Moxy (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added the required attribution for ten splits you did from December 15 to 17. Please do this yourself in the future when moving content from one article to another. It's required by the terms of our license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much....... had every intention on fixing when done.... but have been having to deal with some that don't know what's going on. Still waiting on email from the teacher.--Moxy (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm following the discussion at WP:ENB and I do understand what you say about students adding unduly long sections to country articles. I appreciate your efforts towards dealing with it. Multiple avenues are open for this: reversion, reduction to proportional length, split leaving summary behind, and so on. Still, leaving attribution is required and not optional.
You're right that the professor needs to become involved if this is as widespread as you claim. As User:Ian (Wiki Ed) said in this post to you at ENB, the best way to do this is by going through the appropriate Wiki Ed person, as they have additional methods of contact open to them. I'm sure they would give you a heads-up if you ping them. I don't think the situation is of such extreme urgency that one needs to rush to split immediately without attribution, and approaching this too precipitously may lead to compounding the issue as in the case of Mauritania. I'll have a look at Yemen, thanks for the tip. Mathglot (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I can see why this is a big problem all over this year over passed years....pls see User talk:Diannaa#Tank you so much.--Moxy (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Moxy, when it comes to something like this, you should treat student editors like other Wikipedians. If they dump a whole lot of content into an article that you can viably split into an article, I think you should do so. It's helpful to explain to the student what you did, and it's good if you can ping me (or Shalor, or Elysia, based on what's assigned to the course), in case we need to explain anything further to them or the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Sound good I will add more to my post to them and link our policies and guidelines in the edit summary. Pls see my post at Diannaa page as linked above. You guys are running into some serious problems and most people aren't like me and won't move things will just delete them. --Moxy (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Hello Moxy,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Help portal[edit]

Sorry, didn't know. Face-blush.svg    — The Transhumanist   12:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

NP....::).--Moxy (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there[edit]

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I don't know much. Please help me and teach me, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyUSWCAX (talkcontribs) 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Is this edit right? I have never seen any rule that says Centre always comes first. It's usually left to right... IsabelleFlake (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense I guess....there's no rule.--Moxy (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

AN/I notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Random images[edit]

Yup, as I had thought, it was different earlier, as in: {{#switch: {{#expr: {{CURRENTSECOND}} mod 9}} |0=[[File:Filles jouant à la marelle, Jaura, Inde.jpg|thumb|Girls play hopscotch in [[Juara]], Madhya Pradesh.]] |1=[[File:Indian-Hockey-Team-Berlin-1936.jpg|thumb|Indian hockey team, captained by [[Dhyan Chand]] (standing second from left), after winning the finals at the [[1936 Summer Olympics]]—their third of six consecutive Olympic golds.]] |2=[[File:Joueursindienspushkar.jpg|thumb|A street-corner game of ''pachisi'' in [[Pushkar]], Rajasthan]] |3=[[File:Kabaddi in Bagepalli Karnataka.jpg|thumb|A game of ''kabaddi'' in [[Bagepalli]], Karnataka]] |4=[[File:Soccer football informal in Manipur India cropped.jpg|thumb|Boys play football in Manipur.]] |5=[[File:Street Cricket Batter India.jpg|thumb|left|Cricket is the most popular game among India's masses. Shown here is an instance of [[street cricket]].]] |6=[[File:Vaalum-parichayum.jpeg|thumb|''[[Kalarippayattu]]'', a martial art native to Kerala]] |7=[[File:Viswanathan Anand 08 14 2005.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Indian chess grandmaster and former world champion [[Vishwanathan Anand]] competes at a chess tournament in 2005. Chess is commonly believed to have originated in India in the 5th century CE.]] |8=[[File:Master Blaster at work.jpg|thumb|250px|right|During a twenty four-year career, [[Sachin Tendulkar]] has set many batting records, including most runs in both tests and ODIs and most number of centuries in both tests and ODIs, making him one of the most successful cricketers ever.]] }}

This is not a real program though, which would have required Saravask's skills, and I myself could have written it. Will investigate why and when it was changed. These are the headaches in a heavily trafficked article such as India. You should really repost it there. There was no edit-warring over this bit. Thanks for catching it though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed my post... as I see in a section above people are talking about this. It is very odd to see images changing some more relevant than others some better quality than others etc.. but I see you're engaging in problems a lot larger than just images. Looks like someone took portal technology and slipped it into an article in an attempt to shoehorn in every image they liked. Wondering if we should bring this up see if others think we should have a policy against or for this type of thing in an article.--Moxy (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain "portal technology" a little please? I didn't understand that part clearly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
They use Template:Random slideshow to pic random images.--Moxy (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Visible minorities tables[edit]

My recollection is that a user was behind the mass additions of visibility minorities tables that were full of zeroes, such as would be created from this for Two Hills, Alberta, but major cities have zero zeroes in their demographic composition, which is why the tables are appropriate at Edmonton, Calgary, etc. I have tried finding the banned user but have had no luck yet. Thought it was Djodjo666 but no block history. Perhaps that was a sock of a sockmaster. Looks like I am totally wrong on that. My wires likely just got crossed with my memory of Djodjo666 adding equivalent tables at one point. (Sorry Djodjo666). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So I found this discussion – Offensive demographics tables – which the now permanently blocked xenophobic UrbanNerd initiated, characterizing these tables unjustly as offensive. Djodjo666, Moxy, and I were each involved among others. Hwy43 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Also (and off-topic) why are there no edit buttons associated with each section on your talk page?! :) Hwy43 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That looks about right....I posted a message on one of the city articles. As will start the consensus process again.--Moxy (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hooray, edit button! Thanks.

With the clarity you have since provided at Talk:Edmonton#Do we need to duplicate PROSE in a chart? I think this is easily resolvable. I will cease advancing this here and keep it over there. Hwy43 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

H:? listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H:?. Since you had some involvement with the H:? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Help. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Help redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Help listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Help. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:Help redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I took care of the last thing we want are people not familiar with our help system redirect thousands of pages to the wrong thing.--Moxy (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Poverty in Ethiopia[edit]

"Despite these improvements, poverty is still extremely low within the country"

do you mean high?

poverty remains widespread in Ethiopia

Libby Kane (talk)

Help requested for Template:Ancient history[edit]

This template has seen a lot of content dispute recently. Some accounts (and ip addresses) just keep making wholesale changes to the entire structure of the template without discussion at the talk page. I had recently requested and obtained protection for it, but it expires in a week. Could you keep this in your watchlist or suggest some one else in topic area history to do the same. Regards, (gnanvit (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

I don't know how to read or find what you told me was being discussed. It's hard to understand this website[edit]

I don't know how to read or find what you told me was being discussed. It's hard to understand this website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Great to hear from you have been trying to communicate for days with you. Could you read over WP:Quotations and WP:Circular.--Moxy (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you I'll take those two things under consideration and I really appreciate you sending them my way!

Where/how do you think creating links between articles should happen? Adding to "see also" headings? adding/links to many articles in the article

does my question make sense? I'm trying to help with what I percieve to bea lack of some cohesion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully MOS:SEEALSO will help.... but basically we don't need to link common terms like Canada or terms already Linked In the article.--Moxy (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks again for more info, and that summation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hal Lesueur birth certificate[edit]

Greetings, could you please explain why the source is not usable? It is also available through for everyone to review. (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


you did not respond to my message above. Why not? Libby Kane (talk)

Pls review WP:ANCESTRY.COM-EL.--Moxy (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
that was someone else's message. I'll post my message again below... Libby Kane (talk)

Poverty in Ethiopia[edit]

"Despite these improvements, poverty is still extremely low within the country"

do you mean high?

poverty remains widespread in Ethiopia

Libby Kane (talk)

feel free to make any adjustments with sources as you see fit..... I'm not the creator of the content just the person to transfer the information to a new article from an existing page.--Moxy (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
but you didn't attribute the article to anyone other than yourself so you are infringing on the copyright of someone else (or multiple people). Libby Kane (talk
See page history. --Moxy (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


I never imagined that you would welcome me but on that note thankagain (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praisenwachi200 (talkcontribs) 18:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NEED A FAVOUR!!![edit]

I am a new user in Wikipedia so if I may .see a tourist that would be you. Agreed pretty please I really. need it okay text your reply to my talk page (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praisenwachi200 (talkcontribs) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moxy

Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of the Americas

Many thanks for your comment on my recent edit. You say that" "OMG theses source have zero value now"

Far from being 'of zero value', they are actually invaluable and very precious records of stories that would otherwise have been lost. Far from going out of date, these sources are all UNIQUE RECORDS of myths that were transcribed around the turn of the 20th century. Academics depend on such records to write studies of mythology.

All are available to view online via websites such as So they are still very much alive

I've been working with world myths and legends for over 30 years and have written collections for many prestigious publishers including the British Museum, Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press so I do know what I am talking about!

Don't hesitate to get in touch if you'd to discuss this further. Best wishes TraditionalTales (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa Hitlers wiki page[edit]

@Moxy:Jack90s15 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC) I just changed it because that's not the proper statistic for Operation Barbarossa,it was about 3 million. I was just trying to make sure that the right information is portrayed. that is why I linked it to the operation Barbarossa page, since it shows total size of the force, which is about 3m for the the axis powers for June 22.

Will add real source with state André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 1. ISBN 90-420-1633-7..--Moxy (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


So sorry about reverting your edit to Singapore I think I may have done an accidental rollback there. Cheers! 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 05:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Top icons[edit]

Genuinely out of curiosity, where was the consensus/idea to add check mark top icons to the various templates you've been changing? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Primefac:No talk trying it out.....waiting for feed back.....great to see someone finaly notice. What do you think does it make it clear that pages are policy or a guideline? TrYing it after a talk i saw about how our protocol pages seem like all the other pages and should be distinguished like an FA article. Was thinking if people like move the template to a permanent home not in the temp..but transcluded automatically. It is odd our protocols dont have there own namespace or identifier like the MOS. I have no problem reverting if its causing some sort of tec issues,,,or if it was to bold.--Moxy (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
My initial reaction is that it is redundant and perhaps confusing given the inherent connotations of a check mark. Please ping me with a link to the discussion if you start one; I'm interested in what others think about this. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts somewhat echo Godsy's; I saw the check mark on the WP pages first and had no idea why it was there (was it a new system of patrolling, did they change the protection top icons, etc). Primefac (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
So really no problems you guys just didn't like it? no technical problems right? So 2 comments that is confusing and 12 in general most think its a good idea will make a proposal soon.-- Moxy (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) - 2019 RFC[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC is not open yet. Your edits have been reverted. Please wait for when it formally opens. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Formally opens??? Not how that works at all but ok.--Moxy (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The text which writes "THE DISCUSSION IS NOT YET OPEN, PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT", is quite clear on this. Sorry for that. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I dont think you understood my comment ...cant tell people to post later after the RfC has been advertised. If still in draft space that would be ok...but after its posted not a good idea...when can I make corrections and post next month?? in a week? Was just about to make more corrections and remove the "draft notice" you highlighted above. If this only to be edited by one person it should be in their user space--Moxy (talk)
Actually the problem is you casted your vote in it, when you shouldn't. [4]. Thats why you have been reverted. No votes, no matter from whom, are permitted until it opens. You are welcome to contribute to the RfC but without voting in it while closed. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok i get it you revert all without considering the corrections and amendments I get it. ..perfect that was all clear as mud!!!--Moxy (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
When the problematic changes are spread in more than one edit and sandwiched among your votes, then it is not like as if you gave me any options. Sorry. Next time be more careful. -- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
All good.....correction was reimplemented and I finally got a voice at the talk page . :-) --Moxy (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)



I will have a look about the gallery soon. Thank you for letting me know about the scroll issue. I think your multiple image box is suitable, but then the map of universities above must be deleted to avoid clutter. It is outdated anyways. Best Regards. Oliszydlowski, 01:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


I don't go to Canada to do this. I appreciate if you discuss all over the world before removing so much. Our page was already vandalised and the reactions will be mixed. No reason of oppression. I feel oppressed sometimes on Wikipedia (mockeries, oppression, dictatorship). Christina (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You want me to do what? are you sure English Wikipedia is a place for you?--Moxy (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Look, I was pissed off because our greatest kings, Burebista and Decebalus (Dacian), and Emperor Trajan (Roman) were deleted. Hungary article for instance has at least 2 galleries if not more, we have none for Romania. So I thought it's really unfair. You must understand, that here it starts our history. With Dacia and Roman Dacia. BOTH sanctuaries are to be kept, that's why I posted them again. We are called ROMANIA, Romania comes from Romans (Roman cohorts that mixed with the Dacians). Then the map of Dacia under Burebista is also important because it's exactly like present Romania. The Skull is also hugely important for Europe, since it's the oldest. Regarding the Cucuteni culture, it's really not that important. At least 65% of the territory is on present Ukraine and not Romania. What we lost very important, were the kings plus maybe that Christian cross. So now you understand why some users are emotional when you remove photos on their countries. People in Europe, and not only, are very emotional because of the old history. Christina (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
You really shouldn't be adding these images all over.... you're the one who added the gallery to Hungary and the galleries there already have been tagged as a problem. Are you sure you're doing the right thing if other people keep questioning what you're doing? Have you been reading the links people are providing? --Moxy (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I did now. I get schooled in the English Wikipedia. Why are so many galleries then if they are not allowed? On Hungary I placed one, but there are more. I just copied the others. Christina (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cristina neagu: WP:Galleries are allowed. .... but greatly discouraged im overview article's. .As of now the Hungary article seems to imply that food is the most important thing to its much so that it needs more images then any other section ...this is causing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one section over another. The articles should look professional and educational...not a picture book. See Bulgaria or Canada or Australia that are FA class articles ....note how images are used sparingly and only to highlight the most important points of the article. Galleries work well in articles about one Women's suffrage in New Zealand were the Gallery is very informative and it's statements sourced.--Moxy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, you posted a warning that material may have been copied and pasted from a copyrighted source without attribution. I went through it, and all the copied/pasted materials were in quotes and cited to a book that has long been in the public domain. I am new to Wikipedia. Would you remove the warning or would I?

Thanks for checking,

Mstrubler (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean this mass addition .... a few problems. ....see MOS:QUOTES ......also not the page to post one persons per WP:UNDUE. I can see your here to add one type of read over Wikipedia:Advocacy.--Moxy (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

why is the source Rejected??[edit]

it provides multiple numbers? and its reputable I can get book sources? Jack90s15 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC) @Moxy:

We have talk about you spamming your favorite wedsite all over before..... and again Wikipedia likes academic secondary sources not terrestrial primary sources especially for historical topics that have been covered by academic publications Encyclopedias, provide overviews of topics and indicates sources of more extensive information but there not a good source in themselves.... especially web-based encyclopedias. It's really concerning that you're not aware of real publications about these topics your editing. I suggest reading a real book on the topic.....and then site that book..... don't rely on wed pages....pls review WP:HSC and WP:REFSPAM....and try Google books for a search.Moxy (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK i get it I have a lot of Books I can use, I just was doing it that way since it was faster, but I will use books for the topic I am inJack90s15 (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

did I do something wrong I want to learn what I dd wrong so I don't do wrong again ?[edit]

For the page I got a book source that gives the range up to 17 million? for death during the holocaustJack90s15 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Pls bring your changes to the talk page. You change a number adding a edit you removed that source leaving a source that did not go with the number that was in the article. Your all over the place with your edits. .... starting to be disruptive....and looks like malice intent or simply incompetence.. ... either way let's continue this conversation on the talk page I'll see you tomorrow... let's see what others have to say. You're trying to change long stable numbers that were the result of long discussions.--Moxy (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize

I see where I went wrong on that page In the opening it says in addition to, My mistake for trying to change it to what it said already in the opening, I was trying to put down in that category but I see its not needed. now I Under stand how the range is given for the page so I will not edit the death toll estimate, since its given in the opening. for the sources I removed one that was the same, I should have explained it a bit more I was talking about for the other one the Romani death toll range Jack90s15 (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AN/I - Nah you're fine, but it may be of interest to you.[edit]

There is a discussion at WP:ANI#TBAN violation by Cristina neagu where you've been mentioned and relating to your recent edit to Arad, Romania. You may "wish", by the broadest possible definition of the word, to participate. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png To make up for last night !! for not being clear with what I was trying to do Jack90s15 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agnosticism - Bernard Iddings Bell[edit]


You recently removed an entire section in Agnosticism concerning Bernard Iddings Bell due to copy and paste. The section is now back and seems to be updated to satisfy the reason for removal. I'm still concerned with this section however, as I don't see the relevance of it to Agnosticism. I don't see that the entry offers anything to help a reader understand Agnosticism. It seems to be more of a short biography of the person, along with beliefs and a six point thesis that are tangent to the subject of Agnosticism.

I'm curious to know your perspective on this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIXVXII (talkcontribs) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Image galleries on New York (state)[edit]

Hi there, I've started removing some of those presidential election tables from U.S. state articles like we talked about. I'm intentionally going slowly in case there is any pushback, or if local editors on those pages have other reasons to keep the tables. One of the pages I started with was New York (state). In doing so, I noticed just what an overstuffed condition the article looks to be in, particularly with the many image galleries, Template:Multiple images, and tables on the page. I also saw the Template:Too many images at the top of the article and the discussion about it from last month that seemed to agree its a problem. I thought I was safe removing some of the worst offenders, such as the whole section that's just an image gallery, but my edits were reverted. What are the best steps to take here, do we need more discussion on the artilce's talk page, maybe WP:3 if there isn't a clear consensus? I see this elisited a long discussion in November 2016, so maybe there are editors from that discussion that would want to weigh in on the current state.-- Patrick, oѺ 22:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Patrickneil: Looks like we have run into a problem.....I guess we need more input from others..a RfC or GA review perhaps . Not sure the editor in question is aware of the basic of images this edit indicates they are not aware of text sandwich problems....they even removed the tag that was on the article we are in the middle of talking about despite you not even getting as far as fixing the sandwich problem. So perhaps best to get outsiders to explain the accessibility problems with galleries and sandwich text.--Moxy (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Patrickneil: Was going to try fixing sandwich problem ...but I see they editwar...should I try and be bold or do you think we need to go image by image with suggesting to remove File:Big Slide Mountain from Cascade.jpg that is sandwiching text and appears in the wrong section for our mobile viewers as does a few images do in the Geo section ....and add File:2016 One World Observatory view along Hudson River.jpg] ... saying "The Hudson River marks the border between New Jersey (left) and New york (right)" to the empty "Borders" section? --Moxy (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the users who prefer the article the way it is will find an excuse to keep each and every photo if you try to go one by one, and I think that's what bogged down the 2016 discussion, which devolved into "sunsets don't belong in the Sports section" verses "canoeing is a sport." I think going section by section might be better. In some of the cases, like Economy, there's a gallery whose images could just be at the top of subsequent subsections. With the specific photo you're suggesting, I think that's a good choice, though I might suggest rearranging the images currently on the page first, and later swap them out for better ones. So maybe move that Thousand Island photo to the Borders subsection first, and worry about improving it later. A goal of one image per subsection might also be the kind of thing that an RfC could come to agreement on.-- Patrick, oѺ 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
do you see this at the Manhattan page on your cell phone?
|:@Patrickneil:..Wow...just wow... even after being shown the sandwich text protocols... they still went out of their way to ignore it....very interesting. I've been doing some research and I see that this editor has affected a few articles in this manner...look at Manhattan.... some sections are not even readable on a mobile phone. It's too bad these major articles have such an ownership problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't realize it immediately, but looking back I saw I had this same sort of back and forth about excessive pictures on New York City with this same user way back in 2013, and its very disappointing to me to see them still standing in the doorway and enforcing their ownership.-- Patrick, oѺ 22:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Jesus the editor has been around this long.... so it's not a matter of educating them...they just dont care about accessibility concerns. Very odd to see someone go out of their way to defame an article they're interested in. So perhaps admin intervention is needed to move things forward...... can't have an editor going out of the way to disregard Community protocols. Makes me very upset whenever some editor does not care about disabled people's.--Moxy (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I did tag the "Boroughscapes" section on Manhattan as a gallery. You'll be shocked which user reverted the addition of the banner, with the argument the panoramas "have been up for a long time". I've started a discussion on the talk page, feel free to jump in or put the banner back!-- Patrick, oѺ 16:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Worked on that template...[edit]

and reduced its width. Am thinking it overall looks much better now, but, considering the subject matter?...others may differ. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC) adjustments didn't last long. oh well. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Good try..... can account for people who want an evil box over actual text.

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

and three songs on Ravel's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Situation I hope we can resolve this[edit]

I reverted the edits because the numbers match the sources and with the pages numbers

For the Soviet Union in World War II I just redid it so it said the number the Russian government puts it at

And for the excess mortality under Joseph Stalin for the older edit that was when I was really starting out and had no idea what I was doing and for the other one it was redid because I made a mistake with it

And for the Holocaust page I just thought it was a good add to it I wasn't trying to reference spam it like with the Hitler page I was using a different article from the site

I really hope this can all be worked out

Jack90s15 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tutorial#Headings[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tutorial#Headings. Mstrojny (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was adding the sources[edit]

I was in the process of adding the Sources I will add the sources before changing them and I was using the numbers from the Comparative strengths of combat forces, Eastern Front, 1941–1945 chart on the page to show front strength ? Jack90s15 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC) @Moxy:

the source I added is from Reina Pennington a PhD teaches military and Russian history at Norwich University in Vermont.

and for numbers I used the Book when Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler

MfD nomination of Portal:Mariah Carey[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:Mariah Carey, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mariah Carey (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Mariah Carey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Moon rabbit[edit]

I'm having a similar discussion on the pop culture trivia section on that article. I removed it, it was restored, and on the talk page I've argued why it should stay gone. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Smooth jazz[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:Smooth jazz, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smooth jazz (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Smooth jazz during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Justin Bieber[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:Justin Bieber, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Justin Bieber (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Justin Bieber during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:The Beach Boys[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:The Beach Boys, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Beach Boys and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:The Beach Boys during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Julie Payette photo[edit]

Hello Moxy,

Thank you for thaking care of copyvios! I would like to let you know that the picture of Julie Payette is not a copyvio. I'm in thouch with Rideau Hall office and was able to convince the photographer to upload another picture, different from the officiel one. You can see the discussion here. Thank you and best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Re U.S. Political Parties positions[edit]

Hello Moxy, I think a consensus has been reached that the Republican party is broadly right-wing and the Democratic party is left of center but not as far left as the Republican party is right. According to you when will we have reached consensus on where to pin the political alignment of the two parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsbobclear (talkcontribs) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk pages.--Moxy 🍁 02:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmation bias?[edit]

I was surprised to see the replacement of a reliable source by a source which embeds a search. The new citation says "approximately 11 million" rather than the 10.4 million from the reliable source (RS). The smaller number is inherently more dependable because the RS also said only 12 million draft-age men were available.

I plan to approach this with a note explaining confirmation bias. How might you approach this? (I will watch here) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I would revert if there is another source saying the same number....add 2 sources for the more accurate number.--Moxy 🍁 13:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The main problem is that he's searching for numbers on the Web rather then being aware of the scholarly Publications we normally follow. He's an amateur trying his best..... simply need to educate the person on what ishe best.--Moxy 🍁 13:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

for the draft over 30 million men had registered,and the 11 million number is used for the Total for The U.S Army for WW2Jack90s15 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of your Portal[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Note. A portal which you created or substantially contributed to has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are most welcome and can participate in the discussion by adding your feedback at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals. You are free to edit the content of the portal during the discussion, but you should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page. Such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, –MJLTalk 00:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from TheSandDoctor[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Moxy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/
Message added 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheSandDoctor Talk 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Marvin Gaye[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Portal:Marvin Gaye, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Marvin Gaye and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Marvin Gaye during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi Moxy, I noticed you recently reverted my edits to Tutorial since it messed up the transclusion. I am unsure how to fix this kind of problem. Can you please sandbox the changes so they don't mess up the transclusion? The reason why I added the extra row is because I discussed this on the talk page and there have been no objections to it. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you sandboxed the changes. Are the changes OK for putting on the Tutorial page and their subpages. Interstellarity (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
No! I can't find the coding problems.--Moxy 🍁 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked a question at the help desk regarding your reverts. See here. GreenMeansGo did not find any problems with my edits so I have reverted your changes. Interstellarity (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Second set of tabs still not working in transclusion ....nothing was fixed or even changed. Perhaps best you move on to something else if you dont understand whats going on.--Moxy 🍁

About removed link in Tanzania See also section[edit]

Hello Moxy,
I would like to know why you removed the link to Basic Statistics of Tanzania, yet it is an interesting source of information on Tanzania ?
Look at the the diff:
--Cyrille37 (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the link in "External links" section (perhaps it was my previous mistake) ?
--Cyrille37 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For chainsawing that horrible image pile out of List of people from Ukraine, which I haven't had the fortitude to do ♠PMC(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate ?[edit]

Hello. You have reverted It would be a pleasure to hear your rationales. Pldx1 (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry must be a bottom slip.--Moxy 🍁 11:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

situation resolved[edit]

The problem I was facing is no more Extermination camps is blue linked to the bottom of the page and the list does show it was a Camp complex my concern is no moreJack90s15 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

bob marley[edit]

Hi Moxy, I just posted a response to you on the Bob Marley talk page. I would like you to read it thoroughly and get back to me. Thanks.Somville243 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I do adhere to standards.[edit]


Hi Moxy, I saw the comment you left for me. I don't edit out of distain. Yet if I see interesting facts in legitimate news sources, I do just go for it and make an edit contribution. Please feel free to send me more messages. Regards, Hammelsmith

Hammelsmith (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2019

Just a quick question have your ever read a bio (a book) about MJ or is your knowledge bases on media coverage?--Moxy 🍁 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There are many books about Michael Jackson with various biases. I make edit contributions from what I hope are legitimate sources.

Regards, Hammelsmith[edit]

Armoracia (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't added this information to the article or any other than List of discoveries Armoracia (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure your in the right place...perhaps the article talk page would be best.--Moxy 🍁 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)