User talk:Chris Oxford

Welcome!
Hello, Chris Oxford, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Dear Editors,

Today I spent some time, reading various existing Wiki’s articles, and I found the photo of The Hope Diamond in the article ‘Mineralogy’.

As this diamond already has been cut and set into a pendant, it is very strange to see this image in the article ‘Mineralogy’: it will be more appropriate to use this photo for the articles ‘Gemmology’ or ‘Jewellery’, but not for ‘Mineralogy’, as 'Hope' on this photo represents not a mineralogical sample with natural surface, but already processed (cut into gem) mineral carbon.

To represent The Hope Diamond properly, as a mineral in the article ‘Mineralogy’, it's necessary to display the photo of the rough diamond, from which 'Hope' was cut into a brilliant. In connection with what was said above, I’m considering the photo of The Hope Diamond in the article ‘Mineralogy’ as a mistake. Can someone of my colleagues-Wikipedians have a look at this article and tell me what they are thinking about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineralogy

Regards, Chris

Chris Oxford (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed on the article talk page, but in principle I agree with your reasoning. commons:Category:Diamond in conglomerate or commons:Category:Argyle Mine diamonds may have something more suitable. Huon (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Chris. I disagee with your suggestion that an image of the Hope diamond is inappropriate for the Mineralogy article. While it has obviously been cut and set, a diamond is still a mineral, and the Hope is a very well-known diamond indeed. However, your argument isn't at all illogical. I suggest posting your arguments on Talk:Mineralogy, as Huon advises above. There are surely many other freely licensed images of diamonds available. If a consensus to change the image develops on the article talk page, one of those could be used instead. DES (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all opinions sent to me, I am sending the same question to Talk:Mineralogy. Regards, ChrisChris Oxford (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please make sure you add new messages to the bottom of an article's talk page. I moved your question at Talk:Mineralogy for you. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Editor Huon for good advise and for spotting the right articles for the photo of Hope Diamond. In my view it’s absolutely correct. By the way, there is the photo of Hope Diamond in the article Diamonds, and I agree, that this is rather more suitable place for ‘Hope’, than the article Mineralogy.

I fully agree with Editor DES that the diamond after cutting into brilliant remains the same hardest naturally-occurring mineral form of carbon, but I will try to explain why I am confident, that regarding the image of Hope Diamond my opinion is correct: I realize, that Gemmology is the branch of the Mineralogy, but still they have specific purposes and separate directions, where one object is studied under different angles. Gemmology is about natural AND MAN-MADE gems, whereas the Mineralogy studies only naturally formed (as result of geological processes) minerals. Gemmology generally — it's about a specific stage of presentation of minerals - the stage, when the minerals have been processed, one way or another (cut, polished, tumbled), and also about study of gems’ properties and qualities, acquired after processing the raw materials into gemstones, which can be used commercially in jewellery production. Certainly, gemmologist should also be well versed in matters of Mineralogy, but Gemmology and Mineralogy are two different, albeit related, branches of science, and in my view, each of them should be illustrated in accordance with their differences.

Thanks for reply, RockMagnetist, I totally respect your point of view: mineralogy is the science, so, its demanding the preciseness and accuracy of definitions and descriptions of the studied objects and correct presentation of their visual appearance, as without such an approach is impossible to create a proper system of the study.

P.S. Just a moment ago I looked at the article Mineralogy again and noted, that one of the Editors, who obviously has agreed with my arguments, has already removed the discussed photo. Thanks - now Mineralogy looks like a serious article, without photos “chosen because they are pretty” (as Editor RockMagnetist aptly remarked), but not completely pertinent to the case.

Great thanks to all editors who responded.

Best regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How to alert other editors
Hi Chris, it's only me from the Teahouse again. I'm just leaving you a little manual on "How to use the phone" here on the Wikipedia. It will make it easier for to communicate with other editors:

When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a small blue sign followed by a long yellow box at the top of your page (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in just the red sign notification on top of that users page. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write resulting in  or W.carter resulting in W.carter and sign with the four "squiggles" ~ at the end and hit "Save". There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert.

The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page.

If there is anything you want to ask, feel free to drop my talk page any time. I'm one of the editors who help "newbies" around here. w.carter -Talk  18:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

URL
Hi Chris! To get the right "url" you just copy the address from the little left-hand box on your web browser. Otherwise, nice work. :) w.carter -Talk  18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear W.carter,

As always, great thanks for your invaluable help. I feel myself a student again and this is a good thing. I just made one reference, as required, now I know how to do it and will complete the job during the week (as soon as I can). Also I'll need to correct the map a bit, as I placed boars in the wrong space. Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal Park of the Monts de Gueret has been accepted
 Animal Park of the Monts de Gueret, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! /wia 🎄 /tlk 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Animal_Park_of_the_Monts_de_Gueret help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Edit summary
Hi Chis, now that the article is in the main space you must start to leave an "Edit summary" every time you make an edit. This is so that the editors who are monitoring changes in the articles can get a quick look at what has happened to the article. If no edit summary is left, your edit might be mistaken for vandalism and reverted. Please read about this in: Help:Edit summary. Cheers, w.carter -Talk  12:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page style
Chris, you have been here a while and apparently making fine contributions to Wikipedia images. Thanks! It would be nice if you would take a moment to learn the proper style for talk pages, particularly indentation. Proper indentation makes it easier to follow discussion threads. Note that text should always start at the far left and colons should be used for indentation;

if you add spaces before the text, it looks like this. Regards, RockMagnetist(talk) 15:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RockMagnetist,

Following your advise I learned every rule with respect to Wikipedia indentation. Hopefully, my texts will never appear on Talk pages in the form of a chaotic style. Thank you.

It was very pleasant to hear that you are considering images, uploaded by me to Wikimedia Commons, as a fine contribution. When I’ll complete my second article, I will try to make the good photographs of several minerals from my collection and, probably, to write an article about some interesting mineral as well.

Thank you very much again.

Regards, Chris Oxford Chris Oxford (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Copy of answer at my talk page
Hello Chris, sorry for the late reply but I was away for a while. This is a copy of my answer to your questions on my talk page since that one will most likely be archived when you return in June.

It is not prohibited for you to contact anyone you are writing an article about, you just can't use the information you get from a conversation, letter or email in the article. All facts for WP articles must be written by someone else so that other people can find it as well to verify that it's correct. The only good thing contacting someone for information is that they may know where facts about them are written, sources you can then use in the article. As for a photo, we will take that info when you get back in June. There are a couple of ways to do that. As far as I know, no one can forbid or decline to get an article about them in the WP. It's the same with any encyclopedia. If you do noticeable things, you get noticed. The WP is only a collection of what is already made public in some way and you do not have to inform them about getting an article here. The translator can be a great help once you find out what you can and can not do with it as you so rightly pointed out. Great that you started the draft! :) I'll help you tidy it up until you get back. Good luck with whatever it is you will be doing until then! Best, w.carter -Talk  08:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing problem
Please do not excessively post about your discussion about a Mineralogy Barnstar. You appear to be canvassing other into the discussion. In particular, you appear to be spamming or campaigning about the barnstar. (In particular, I am talking about this message on WP:THQ, which is not related to mineralogy at all, and, as a result, should not have messages like that posted to it.)  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 23:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Gestrid,

Thank you for your message and information, which you provided. I was not aware of the fact, that Editors are not advised to send on Tea House messages, highlighting such events, like a creation of new Wikipedia Awards. I'm very grateful for the offered by you materials, regarding these rules, especially as now I'm participating in the Progect Wikipedia Awards, and these links were very useful: I found, that Wikipedia is considering the personal invitation to "one or more" Editors for discussion, as a perfectly appropriate, as well as highlighting event on the related Wiki Page (as Talk: Mineralogy / Mineralogy Barnstar) and I'm glad, that this part I have done correctly. Now I realized completely, that formally Tea Hause was not a right place to sent the message in regards a new Barnstar, and I excepted it, but if you will visit the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards you will read the following: "This WikiProject is believed to be semi-active. Activity is slower than it once was. " Thus, WikiProject Wikipedia Awards (one of which, fairly and justly, decorates your own User Page) is in decline ... and probably my message will make a positive effect on it any way.

About "spamming" ... This term is usually used, when advertisings of commercial nature have been taking place. I decided to regard it as a "spooky Halloween joke" and, to support the jolly tint of outcoming sense, I hasten to assure you, that Mineralogy Barnstar is "not for sale", as well as all others.

But, if seriously - I'm really grateful for your help.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding, Chris. Let me clarify some things, though.  I (and likely others) am ok with you sending messages to editors involved in Mineralogy article editing.  The guideline allows for that.  However, you still should not have posted to the Teahouse with that message, as it is not involved in Mineralogy at all.  A couple of places that would've been better to post at are WikiProject Geology's talk page or WikiProject Rocks and minerals' talk page for starters.  In the future, I would advise you to follow the guideline listed at WP:APPNOTE, making sure you don't invite editors to the discussion on the basis of their opinion.  (In other words, don't invite editors just because you know they'll agree with you.)  While, in this case, it turned out okay, there are some places on Wikipedia (such as Articles for Deletion) where this is an extremely important guideline that must be followed.  Otherwise, it can get very messy very quickly.  (An example where someone canvassed others into a discussion that I actually took part in can be found here.  As I said, it can get messy.)  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gestrid,

and thank you very much for reply; glad, that you found everything OK (with the exception of message on Tea House), and now I understand, what you meant: I read the page, pointed at by you previously — yes, that is a complete mess, it couldn't be more messier.

As in future I intend always to be totally sure, that I’m directing my requests correctly, I would like to take this opportunity and to ask you for an advise in regards of similar, but at the same time, different matter. As I mentioned before, I took a decision to participate in the Project Wikipedia Awards, which is officially considered as the Project in decline. I tried to create good designs of Awards for the fields of science, that interested me, from my very first days in Wikipedia, as I’m seeing this method of communication betwixt Wikipedians, as an extremely important one: that is giving the possibility to express by the clear, visual way the personal appreciation of professionalism, knowledge, willingness to help, sense of humour, etc, of your colleagues Wikipedians; this is a language of symbols, and the more varied will be the Awards, the richer will be “coded” language of the Editors. Just imagine for a moment how different will be without Barnstars and other Awards the space of Wikipedia. So, I think, that it could be good to give the “slowing” WikiProgect a bit more energy; thus, to attract attention of Wekipedians to this problem (I would like to stress — not to any kind of Barnstar, but to the problem, as a whole) I’m planning to let Editors know about this situation to encourage all those, who can and willing to offer new ideas, to come up with their thoughts and new designs, what can help to make the Project flourishing again. At least, it’s worth trying if it works. But the question is — where shall I send this message? Is Tea House the right place in this case? If not, can you, please, suggest the best option?

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reviving a WikiProject will take a lot more than just a discussion of what should be done to revive it. For starters, I suggest you follow the steps outlined at WP:REVIVE.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gestrid. Will do on my arrival in the end of November. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well done
You seem like a genuinely well motivated editor. I particularly like the barnstars you have made, keep up the good work! Are you a graphics designer by any chance? Oh and you don't need to reply with dear  every time you respond. Don't worry, I used to do the same.--NetworkOP (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, NetworkOP,

On my arrival I found your message, which came as a surprise, and a very pleasant one. Thank you very much for the kind words. So, no, I'm not a professional graphics designer, not by chance, not by deliberately obtained education in this field, but sometimes, as many others, I'm trying to do something of my best in the different fields of art and science, which are attracting my attention. In regards to Barnstar - that is my second attempt, and this one has been appreciated more, than the first one. I tried a variety of the combinations of shapes and colours, and finally got a result, which looks OK to me. I described the process on the page Talk: Mineralogy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mineralogy

I feel, that I can not continue at the moment, I as I got absolutely devastating flu. Will be glad to talk to you later. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback
01:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Joanna Angelett
Hi Chris, it's been a while. I saw that you had done some additional work on Joanna Angelett. Hope you don't mind that I made some fixes on the article, mainly the pictures, to make it more compliant displaying it on all the electronic platforms avaliable today. Not all devices have the same format as your own computer and an article must look good on all of them. We often forget that. I have also sorted out most of the mess you made at Commons and put the photos in the right categories. Tip: You never spell a category with just capital letters unless it is an abbrivation or something. Angelett now has her own category at Category:Joanna Angelett. All the best, cart -Talk  11:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, W.carter!

What a great surprise! I was just completely stunned how nice and clever you distributed images throughout the article. I thought I done a good job, but "everything is learned in comparison," and now I'm a bit embarrassed about my exclusively primitive version. About mess at Commons— I remember that I demonstrated this sort of activity at the Tea House twice, and one day it was so bad that I even got a hint of trying to sell a Barnstar (see Canvassing problem above), but I presumed, that at Commons I conducted myself with the utmost propriety, as I tried to cope with files by all rules, but as it is clear now, things went wrong, I lost control over the battle and that is what exactly has caused this mess at Commons. But now absolutely seriously: I’m extremely grateful to you for the amazing, and so timely (certainly I was already drowning), help and for the excellent work on the article and all extras, which have been done perfectly. Very glad to talk to you again and I'll be back with the pack of surprises next week. All the best. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)