Open main menu

User talk:Moxy

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 12 years, 10 months and 11 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 administratorEdit

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 TimesEdit


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, againEdit

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 2Edit

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 neededEdit

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 artistsEdit

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. HolmesEdit

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 messageEdit

 Hello, 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 templatesEdit

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 & Regions

  Geography of Canada
   History of Canada
  Canadian Forces
   Politics of Canada
   Music of Canada
   Sports of Canada
   Canadian TV
   Roads of Canada
  Volcanism of Canada
  New France
  Indigenous peoples

   Nova Scotia
   New Brunswick
   British Columbia
   Prince Edward Island
   Newfoundland & Labrador
   Northwest Territories

   Quebec City
   St. John's
   Quebec Regions
   Eastern Ont.
   York Region

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?
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 issueEdit

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 againEdit

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 meEdit

Thank you!!

A barnstar for you!Edit

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

New Zealand photoEdit

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 explainEdit

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.
Return to the user page of "Moxy".