User talk:Jimcastor

Please read WP:TPO. Particularly,

"Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the Example text or

templates to quote others' posts."

Do not refactor other peoples' comments by breaking up their responses with yours. That is not acceptable and could lead to you being blocked if you were to persist. You have to comment after their signature. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please preview, consolidate, and summarize

Hello Jim, and thanks for your efforts here. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 19:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Plot enhancements

I saw all your edits on The Man Trap and although I applaud the work you've done, I personally feel we shouldn't be writing the level of detail that you are providing. Typically, the plot summary should be enough for a lay person to understand what the episode is about without providing so much detail that it becomes an actual story in itself. I'm not undoing any of your work, but I would hope you might consider my views before moving on to each episode and doing the same. StarHOG (Talk) 14:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG:Sure, but if you check other episode's plots they have as many details as The Man Trap. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_X or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Time or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Within_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series) Man Trap's plot is no longer than those. How long do you think the plot section should be?

I think they're all too long. @Jim, there is an easier way to create internal wikilinks. The most basic is to wrap an article title in double brackets, e.g. The Naked Time.

@StarHOG: You have a point but is there a consensus regarding how short or long the plot section should be or it's your personal opinion? castorbailey (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Basic guidance here: mw:Help:Links#Internal_links (Note: I could have been fancier and pointed to the same target, but with prettier link text, like this: internal link guidance on MediaWiki).

Long, thorough guidance here: Help:Link.

Also, have you looked over WP:TALKPAGE? It provides guidance on such things as indentation and signing posts. Eric ^talk 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a few posts in here got mixed up inside other posts or were without signatures. My only post was the initial one and this one. In my opinion, the plot summary shoudl be a summary, not the story in detail. If a person wants to know details, quotes, trivia, then they should watch the episode. I have seen a few of these longer plot sections and there is a tendency for the editor to veer off into speculation and original research. A fantastic example is on the Charlie X page from a few months ago. I don't know if I did this link right, but if you look at these edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_X&diff=911441507&oldid=911391994 you can see that the editor is speculating what Janice's thoughts were when she cried and I think is a great example of a plot synopsis moving in to the realm of story writing. StarHOG (Talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG: OK, but I didn't speculate in Man Trap. So my issue is do you know if there is some consensus or WP policy regarding how short or long the plot sections should be or this is just your personal opinion. I ask it because you have a valid argument but I wouldn't want to edit longer plots down and get attacked for deleting stuff. castorbailey (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No, please, these are only my opinions. I've edited just about every TOS episode page and did a lot of trimming. If editors think stuff should be added, then add away. I just wanted to voice my thoughts, sprinkle a little caution from experience, and help out where I can. StarHOG (Talk) 20:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG: OK,thanks. castorbailey (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

verified facebook comment as sources?

Hi @Moxy:

I ask you because you are a long time editor I don't know if comments made by verified accounts on facebook can be used as sources or not. Specifically I'd like to cite a quote by Nancy Cartwright , the voice of Bart Simpson, she has a verified account https://www.facebook.com/Nancy.Cartwright.Official/photos/a.10150391990349448/10157903639079448?type=3&sfns=mo&hc_location=ufi so one would think it's more reliable than a quote in an article where people can be misquoted but I'm not sure. castorbailey (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here, but I still had your talk page on my watchlist from our conversation. Remember that a facebook page is a 1st party source, so really nothing should come from a facebook page. Be seeing you! I'm removing the watch, so if you need me, hit me on my talk page or ping me. Thanks again for all your edits on TOS. StarHOG (Talk) 16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG: No need to be sorry, thanks for the help. I see you are a long time editor so I could have asked you in the first place too. Could you explain why an article that quotes someone is considered reliable source for wiki but a comment by a person with a verified account on facebook is not? I am talking about citing such a comment to prove that the person indeed made such a comment not to prove that something that person said indeed happened to someone else. Even then facebook can't be used a source? castorbailey (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't create chains of links

Please review WP:SEAOFBLUE; it's generally more confusing than helpful to readers to add links between existing links. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! DonIago (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: OK so you think I should create this link instead Federation starship Enterprise that would lead to the Enterprise's page where users can see additional link to starship and Federation? castorbailey (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're planning to mass-edit, I think it might be worth asking for guidance at the appropriate project. It's possible this question has come up before and the current way it's handled is based on a prior consensus; if not, this might be a chance to establish one. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of the talk pages related to Star Trek discussed this issue. But having separate links for each word is indeed WP:SEAOFBLUE but it would still be good to inform the reader that there are dedicated pages for all three subjects, the Federation, starships and the Enterprise itself. I don't see a better solution than to created this link Federation starship Enterprise . Do you have a better idea? castorbailey (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek, which is likely referenced at each of the Talk pages of the ST articles you've been working on. :) DonIago (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing about this issue on Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek either. Should I ping editors on the project's talk page and ask them about this? Ironically the project's page has a chain of links in the very first paragraph as each of these is a separate link: science fiction/fantasy television series castorbailey (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Raising the question on the project's talk page was where I was going with this, yes. I think I can clean up that particular sea as well. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power Play (Star Trek: The Next Generation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miles O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to Michael Jackson.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here:-

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--qedk (t 桜 c) 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A section has been added for you to add your summary of the debate if you so wish. Thanks. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK

Hi. Please see WP:TALK#REVISE. You shouldn't make edits like this. It takes people's posts out of context. Please fix that. 172.58.175.112 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hammelsmith's comment is left hanging there because you removed your comment. 172.58.175.112 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because it repeated a question I asked from other editors and Hammelsmith did not answer it. Hammelsmith addressed me personally so I thought it would be OK to remove it. I will revert and only delete the repeated question. Is that OK?castorbailey (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Isa Briones

Greetings, Jimcastor! I have reverted your changes to this article, mostly due to MOSCOMMA. One involved an Oxford comma, which as a rule we do not alter unless its presence (or absence) causes confusion amongst readers. The second change could cause that very confusion (for example: 'Person A is X and Y and Z' would be three separate entities, while 'Person A is X, and Y and Z' pairs Y and Z together). The third removed a comma from a quotation, which is incorrect in any event. The additional change, 'her family areis all musical theatre actors', is grammatically accurate, but clunky—I've changed it to 'her family members are all'.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. —ATS (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's OK. You may know this better than I do. castorbailey (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Martok

Thank you on behalf of Wikipedia and Star Trek fans for being a part of the Star Trek project. In case you did not see the article alert, Martok was put up for AFD today here. Lets try to avoid a repeat of Weyoun, which was deleted with one vote! Starspotter (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I will vote to keep. Why was Weyoun deleted? castorbailey (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long, apparently Projects are not allowed to notify users of AFDs. Anyway, what happened was Weyoun survived an AFD in 2017, but it was proposed again, and deleted with one vote. (see the Weyound talk here) I guess they had their reasons, but I would hardly call it consensus. Fortunately, one of the admins I contacted agreed this was wrong and changed it to a redirect now. However, the issue remains that certain users lurk around AFDing vulnerable Star Trek articles, and sometimes succeed. Its hard to counter this as apparently we are not allowed to notify users in person, and its hard to constantly monitor all the articles. As with Weyoun, it survived one AFD only to be re-AFD when no one was paying attention. Starspotter (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it makes no sense that Martok has his own page and Weyoun does not but both should have theirs so I hope Martok will stay. Is there any chance to get back Weyoun? Redirect is not sufficient. He is a very notable character he has his own page is 8 other languages castorbailey (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Waters Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Night Train.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- TruthGuardians (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I noticed. Totally ridiculous. castorbailey (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

General sanctions for Michael Jackson topic

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to Michael Jackson.
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)