User talk:Jodosma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your useful edits to Henry Sidambarom. Since it looks like you are quite good at fixing spelling and other typos, you might be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, a group dedicated to cleaning up the text of Wikipedia. Either way, I hope that you choose to stick around. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost there! The trick is to use only curly brackets, no straight brackets. If you just copy and paste this:

{{User Copy Edit}}:your page will look like this:

This user is a member of
the Guild of Copy Editors.

It takes practice to learn all of the formatting tricks. If you can't figure out something, a good place to go ask a question is the Teahouse, a forum designed especially for new editors. Tdslk (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jodosma, I'm glad to hear that you're hooked. A few comments based on your edits:

1. You asked at talk:Vityaz (MVD) how there could be a merger with an article that doesn't exist. Good question. My guess is that the article got deleted after the merger was proposed, so I removed the merge tag. Generally, very few people keep track of the talk pages of smaller articles like this, so your question might have gone unanswered for a long time. Another place you might have asked your question is at the Teahouse, a forum designed for new editors learning the ropes, where it would get answered quite quickly.

2. The convention on Wikipedia is to put new comments on talk pages below older comments, unless you are responding to someone else's comment.

3. Don't edit other's comments, even just to fix a typo as you did at talk:Pontefract. That comment is ancient and the editor hasn't been around for years, so it's not a big deal, but if you did that in an active thread it could raise hackles.

Keep up the good work! Tdslk (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Good Shepherd

Hello, regarding your comments here, many of the off-topic comments are years old. You can remove comments per WP:NOTAFORUM if they are truly not relevant, though I think some comments wanted to discuss an element as possible for mention in the article. Alternately, old comments can be archived at Talk:The Good Shepherd (film)/Archive 1 following steps at WP:ARCHIVE. Just wanted to let you know all this! See this and this as examples. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• I partially reverted your edit. While you are correct that the talk page is for improving the article, repeating that comment over and over, especially to comments that have been dormant for years, isn't helping the page either. I did leave the one comment you made that was not a copy and paste one. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice; I'm new to this so sometimes I may get a little over-enthusiastic. I will persevere. Jodosma (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Welcome aboard. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!

Hey Jodosma! Thanks for your great question about test/vandalism edits which you asked at the Teahouse. It's really cool of you to be making an effort to protect Wikipedia articles and to notify other editors when they have made an error. Please come by to the Teahouse anytime for more tips. We'd love to have you back!

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It was this edit. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Olympic results index

Hi
I have noticed your article for creation. I know I'm not the most experienced editor, but I'll give you my take on it anyway.
I don't think it is neccessary as Template:Infobox Olympic sport, Template:Sports at the Olympics and the series of templates like Template:Olympic Games Figure skating cover the same information (or function as a navigational aid). Perhaps other editors will disagree with me.
In any case I don't think it is a good idea to use red links for articles that will never exist, e.g. Badminton at the 1920 Summer Olympics and Tug of War at the 2012 Summer Olympics. These articles will never be made as their subjects do not exist and linking to them is discouraged by this guideline. I would recommend changing these years to text, and possibly grouping longer periods together (e.g. for golf: 1908-2012 instead of 1908 1912 1920 (...) 2004 2008 2012). 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Olympic results index, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations

I would have to disagree with removing the red links. In order to determine how reliable the sources are, it would be useful to have Wikilinks to those sources. But of course there would have to be articles created about the sources, which I'm not prepared to do right now. I might create stub articles just to meet the minimum requirement, when I can do the research.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Offering a second opinion: I also am wary of deleting redlinks; they are a useful tool for content creators and guide us with regard to what pages are needed. My philosophy is that Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no deadline, and there is always time and space to create articles that are currently mere redlinks. Keri (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to, you can easily create redlinks to anything in any article in the anticipation that the article may at some time in the future may be created. If you want to create an article then do the work, but don't leave redlinks all over the place. Imagine a page in which every second or third word were to be in a different colour. Redlinks are useful but pleae leave them out of the refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.66.44 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

But in the refs we're seeing potential Wikipedia articles. Who knows whether the sources are useful?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to create an article the last place you should look is Wikipedia. There are redlinks all over the place. Here's a redlink, go to it! Create the article! Jodosma (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're all missing the point here; removing the link doesn't remove the info, if you want to know more about a source just cut and paste it into the search box. Jodosma (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That won't work without an article. Well, it might, but you end up having to go to Google.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, Wikipedia is all about making it easier for people to find important information. I'm going to try to remember to research these red links.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

While you're about it, have a go at the green links, and the orange ones too! (I don't know how to do that yet... Doh! I just saw it). Jodosma (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware we have green and orange links. I think users can set preferences so disambiguation pages are a different color from regular Wlinks. And I just saw how many red links I'm dealing with. Oh, well ...— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One down! It already had a stub article and the link needed to be piped.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderful that we're all doing all this work for nothing. Jodosma (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games links

Hi Jodosma! Regarding Commonwealth Games results index – I think an easier way to present these edition sports result links would be through the linking the numbers on the table at Commonwealth_Games_sports#Current_Commonwealth_Games_program. What do you think? SFB 19:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It would require a lot of work to do that and I see no reason why it couldn't be done but I would like to see my page remain; it's a little more easy to amend. Incidentally the year 1911 in that table could be linked to Festival of Empire.  Jodosma  20:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was wondering what that reference to 1911 was. I shall have to remember to add the medallists to that page! Thanks. SFB 21:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work!

		The Original Barnstar
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour.  Jodosma  20:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"defeat to" → "defeat by"

I'm slightly bemused by your "defeat to" → "defeat by" changes. Is this a personal preference, or a perceived grammatical error? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a grammatical error but mainly it can cause ambiguity so I think "defeat to" is best avoided. It seems to have become a lot more prevalent in recent years, primarily in sporting articles on this site and also in the press and other media. With "defeat by" there is never any ambiguity. It's easier and quicker to change all occurrences instead of examining each one very carefully; however, if these edits are causing a problem then that's what I'll do. Jodosma (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I was just wondering in what instances it would be a grammatical error? I occasionally go through periods of creating large-ish numbers of articles, and I wouldn't want to create unnecessary copy-editing work for others. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose what I was getting at is that grammar is what we use to get our ideas across to others. Anything which causes the information to be received in a way which is different from what was intended (e.g. by causing an ambiguity) can be said to be bad grammar. "defeat to" is not in itself bad grammar but may be the cause of it. For instance, the phrase "Arsenal's defeat to Leeds" may be ambiguous; is it Arsenal's defeat or a defeat to Leeds? With "Arsenal's defeat of Leeds" we are in no doubt that Arsenal defeated Leeds, whilst with "Arsenal's defeat by Leeds" (!) we are again in no doubt, this time that Leeds beat Arsenal, however unlikely that may be. Best wishes. Jodosma (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I now understand what you mean, and I'll use "defeat by" in future. As an aside, I'm actually a Leeds supporter, and I believe we haven't beaten Arsenal since 2003... mind you we've not been in the same division since 2004. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Degsy. I wouldn't call myself a supporter of Leeds, just a follower, (or fan). Happy editing. Ciao. Jodosma (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitney Awards

I think your suggested changes are WONDERFUL. Thank you for taking the time to make the article better. Please! Carry it over!

Thanks again. Truly. Thmazing (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

You've picked off 4 of my "afterwhich's" so far. My spell check didn't catch them, and it sounded like a real word. Thanks for all your hard work! Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jodosma (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello, sorry for speedy reverting your edits to the entry on Hilbert's nineteenth problem‎, without even analyzing them carefully, and thank you for pointing out the typos. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jodosma (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Synchronised Swimming at the 2010 Commonwealth Games a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Synchronised swimming at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. SFB 16:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. Since you had some involvement with the Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jodosma (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My signature

Hello Jodosma,

Please don't use my signature to make a point. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation after formulae

Regarding this edit, you might want to take note of MOS:MATH#PUNC. SpinningSpark 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I reverted that edit and another similar one. It's been a while since I did any maths so I dug out an old number theory book which agrees with MOS:MATH, although I don't recall adhering to this rule myself in any exams I took, which were several; I suppose there's no time for it in an exam. Jodosma (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well for exams it is not really important, their purpose is to test your understanding. For published mathematical papers and books it is absolutely standard. My personal opinion is that it is unnecessary and distracting, but as a serious encyclopedia we should stick to the recognised style. SpinningSpark 12:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Good catches with file names. Keep it up! Widr (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Links fixing

I appreciate that you updated the links on USA Women's R. William Jones Cup Team. However, while the links were dead, the "new" links (of the form "archive.usab.xxx" are temporary and will be changed again in September, so I've been holding off fixing the links, as I will have to do it again in September. There's no way you could have know this, but if you run across any other "www.usabasketball.com" dead links, you might let them go and I will fix them in September.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It will save me some time and effort. Jodosma (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Långholmens spinnhus

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jodosma

I preciate your help. This article (Spanish invasion of Portugal, 1762) took me more than two years of research. I will do some minor changes, but feel free to improve them. Hispanicultur (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Spanish invasion

Hello Jodosma.

Thank you again for improving the page Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762). A new Sources section listing only those works which are cited would be very useful and more appropriate as well as segregating the other books and articles listed but not cited (in “Further reading”). Since I am not a native English speaker, I would be glad if you could dispense some of your time in reviewing the text (semantic). However, there is one thing that should remain as it is: the complete citations in the references. Please, do not remove them (they play a central role in the article). I know, by experience, that one citation online available today could or will not be available tomorrow or a few days later, and so, the reader could not get access to citation. Thanks. Hispanicultur (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hispanicultur: I did a bit more work on my example page. Please check it out and let me know what you think. The layout can easily be changed. Jodosma (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma! Sorry for the delay, but I was (and I will be in the next days) in a professional formation. I think that, from the reader’s point of view, two things must be assured: 1) It must be possible for a reader to access a citation from a book , even if it is not on-line available (we have already seen this point, and this matter is settled as I infer from your example)

2) It must be possible for a reader to quickly confirm and confront the citation inside the reference with what is written in the book, by “clicking” in the book’s name or/and in the book’s page (with different external links). If the external links associated to one page or book’s name are eliminated, that won’t be possible any more. It won’t help if the book (in the bibliography) has a link, because there are many pages cited for the same book. Besides, some of the books are in Castilian (Spanish), French or Portuguese, so, the reader should be given the opportunity of confronting the translation with the original. So, please, if you want to simplify the references, eliminate whatever you think it is necessary, but keep the book’s name (with the respective external link) and the book’s page (with the respective external link) inside of each reference. You can, for example, delete the name of the press and the city where the book was published: <reference> author’s name, book’s name, year of publication, page </reference>

Thanks for your time and help. Hispanicultur (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ps: I still think that the best contribution you can give (as you have been doing) is improving the text. Your English is certainly better than mine (grammar, semantics, etc.) and expanding/organizing the bibliography. A help in these fields would be precious. The references do not need an intervention. Hispanicultur (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hispanicultur: OK, I will do that, however I did come across one ref which should be a Wikilink. Left a note on Talk:Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762) about it. I'm not quite sure how to deal with that one. Jodosma (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma: Nice work. I don´t know what to do with the Page from the Portuguese wikipedia in the reference, but it doesn´t matter. In the limit, the link can be removed. The article, is getting better, and that´s the point. I see that even in the middle of a "battle", you still find energy to edit so much in wikipedia! What do you eat at breakfast? Hispanicultur (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hispanicultur: Editores da Wikipédia desagradáveis e pomposos! (Espero que eu tenho esse direito). Olá Jodosma (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Olá Jodosma: Yes, i know the kind of... may your sleep not be disturbed... Hispanicultur (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

revert reasons

Hi, I reverted your CN tag at List of Scientists Opposing etc etc. My reason as stated in the edit summary is as follows

"maybe it needs tagging, maybe not, but if it does need tagging CN ain't the tag, since the only way we could satisfy a CN demand is thru a self-reference to the consensus of wikipedia editors"

Any scientist only merits a wikipedia article about his or her self if a consensus of Wikipedia editors agrees they are a WP:NOTABLE person. Citing that consensus would be a non-permitted WP:SELFREF. So if you remain troubled by that particular text, feel free to criticize it, but please do so in with a proposal that is actually implementable, if there is a consensus to proceed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Are you a scientist or a Wiki admin. I don't think you can be either of those, your grammar is bad, you use unnecessary words (actually) and fail to be consistent in your use of capitals. After looking at your user page I'm suprised you don't call yourself Niccolò. Jodosma (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, besides maligning my grammar, the only question in your post lacks a question mark. Nonetheless, the answer to that question is "neither". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: My question was rhetorical. Perhaps I am Niccolò? Jodosma (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me either way. If you'd like to discuss article improvements while assuming good faith please join the thread at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Earth

Please read Talk:Earth#To_.22the.22_or_not_to_.22the.22 and participate in the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jodosma, honestly, your changes "the Earth" to "Earth", "the Moon", "the Sun", "the Universe", etc. etc.? Also, note, we discussed much of this, and while not unanimous, the sentiment seemed to be for "the Earth". If I were you, I'd concentrate on other issues. Grandma (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@I'm your Grandma.: Can you really not see the difference. "Earth" is the name of a planet in our solar system. "The earth", or "earth" is the ground we walk upon, Would you say "the Venus", or "the Mercury". If we are talking about the ground we walk upon then it is "earth", people living on Mercury would call it "mercury" and people living on Venus would call it "venus" unless it begins a sentence, when it may be "The earth upon which I was walking", but " I was walking on Earth" means that I was walking on the surface of the planet which we have named "Earth". Jodosma (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1