User talk:James Cage/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Boundless (company), 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! Sionk (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

apology
I owe you an apology, and you will find it on my user talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to DGG
I appreciate all the help - no apology necessary. The articles were subject to misinterpretation, and I'm glad you raised the subject. And thanks for the help with the form and content of the articles themselves. James Cage (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Your user page User:James Cage/sandbox, by reason of its contents, was accidentally included in a content category. It has been corrected for you. For information about this, please see the guidelines about the categorization of user pages. Thank you. ''Actually, James, I have not corrected the categories. You can do so yourself by putting a colon at the beginning of the categories. Like this " Category:Interesting articles ". When you don't, your sandbox work shows up in the category indexes. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep an eye open for this in the future. I also left a note on your talk page. James Cage (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Nine Families
Interesting find! I can't really make head-or-tail of this article. Like you say, it's unsourced and impossible to find anything to verify/improve the article.

Problematic articles are usually deleted in extreme circumstances. This one doesn't fit the rapid straightforward criteria of speedy deletion. Alternatively you could raise it at Articles for deletion, but this takes a lot of everyone's time ...though I use it a lot, it's useful when the situation is not 100% clear and a wider input is required, or when someone is repeatedly recreating a poor article and you want to put an official end to it! The third alternative is to PROD it, useful when it doesn't fit a speedy deletion criteria but is almost certainly undeserving. PROD'd articles are deleted by an admin, if noone objects, after 7 days.

With this article, because it's remained unsourced for 3 years and is almost incomprehensible, I'd think it was suitable for PROD'ing. I have got "Twinkle" tools to enable me to do this easily. Shall I go ahead? Or do you want to try the process yourself? Sionk (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for the welcome, the links, and most of all for your advice and guidance over the last several months. I took a shot at the PROD process. You can the results on the page, with further discussion on the Talk page. How did I do? Is the level of information appropriate? Did I miss any grounds for deletion? Also, this is my first use of the "reply to" notification (rather than posting a comment on your talk page). I considered the "talkback" process, but this seems to be a better way in this case - true? Thanks again! James Cage (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Just need to wait now and see if anyone objects to the deletion. Nice one! Sionk (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible TYPO: "This this book"
In this edit (of the article about Clint Bolick), some text was added that included a sentence beginning with "This this book".

That's probably a TYPO -- (right?) I was almost going to ask that question on the "Talk:" page for Clint Bolick, (which now contains ZERO sections of talkers "chiming in"... so far...) but then I realized that the fact that you do not have ANY "User:" page, [probably] does not mean that you are "defunct" as a "User"! ...especially in light of the fact (well, the "apparent" fact) that your "Talk:" page ("You are Here!") seems to be alive and well, and open for business.

I guess that the intent there, where it says, "This this book [...]" was probably something more like "In this book [...]" -- (right?) You are welcome to change it yourself (Be my guest!). I just thought that, if you do still exist (and your "Talk:" page does seem to be alive and well!), then I probably should try to give you a chance to edit it, "OR" to [at least] comment on what the original intent was, of that edit of "07:15, 9 February 2014‎". (It was just one of MANY edits that day, to that article -- and they were all [or "almost" all] by you...).

If I do not see any reply from you, (here or somewhere), then I might go ahead and edit it myself. But first, I'd like to give you a chance at it -- if you'd like. Thanks! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)




 * (See this edit).


 * Thanks for the kind "reply", on my "User Talk:" page. It still seems a little spooky, to me, to be sending messages to (and receiving replies from!) someone whose "User" page ((hyperlink)), shows up as a red-link . . . ((see "red link"))... but OK... I can live with that... :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to fix that ... someday ... :) James Cage (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Institute for Justice
Thanks for keeping it constructive at Institute for Justice, I do appreciate it. FYI, I requested a 3O. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Right back at you, and please forgive me in advance if I get excited. I started editing Wikipedia to learn more about the "wisdom of crowds". I didn't expect to learn as much about myself as I have. I will also say that in at least half of these discussions, I've been shown to be on the wrong side, so I am paying close attention to our discussion. Thanks!. James Cage (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've been busy off-wiki lately and it just slipped off my radar. I was thinking of WP:NPOVN, but the RfC you created is fine. We might want to advertise it at NPOVN, as well as relevant WikiProjects: Conservatism, Law, Libertarianism ... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Doc - the page is marked as being of interest to the Libertarianism wiki project, so I put a notice there. I was about to drop a note on your talk page, when dinner called! If we don't scare up a discussion this way, then let's try WP:NPOVN. Hope you're doing well - James James Cage (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vivint
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)