User talk:Jwilsonjwilson

Welcome...

Hello, Jwilsonjwilson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on Story and Bozeman

If your facts are correct and you have the sources to back them up (please review WP:RS), please edit the appropriate content in the Bozeman article and support with the proper citations WP:CITE. Your contributions are welcome and I will be happy to help you become a regular editor on WP if you desire that. Please ask me any questions you might have on my talk page. Sincerely. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, I thought I did. Isn't that what put my info at the bottom? I see that I should have include some sort of title as other posts have. As for references, if Virginia Speck's excellent thesis is insufficient then you are setting a rather high standard I should think. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JW - Talk pages (Discuss this page) are design to do just that--discuss issues about the article. Merely putting something on the talk page and expecting someone else to make the change doesn't work very well. Articles don't have owners. We are all editors of equal stature. Again if you believe that there is a better way to write the content in the Bozeman article about Story, Cattle, etc. Please make the appropriate changes to the article. The content just needs to be supported with reliable sources. WP:RS Our sourcing standards may seem high, but in reality they are not. If the thesis you speak of is well sourced, sources for the content you are interested in must exist. Take it slow, don't get frustrated with the burden of understanding the complexity of WP policy (all of which is pretty flexible in reality), and enjoy contributing.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor, there is a lot to learn

JW - I was thinking about this. There is a lot to learn about the ways of WP as a new editor. If you are serious about becoming a regular contributor and are as passionate about Montana Cattle history as your few posts indicate, then I have a challenge for you. Currently there is no article entitled Montana Cattle Industry. You should create one. An article that covered the history of the industry from its beginnings in the 1850s to the present would be very encyclopedia and further the aims of the Montana Project. It would be a great way for you to learn about all the elements of a WP article, how to put them together and create content consistent with our norms. If that is something you would like to work on, I will help you begin creating a draft article in your user space so you can experiment a bit before taking the article into the main space. It is how a lot of us build new articles anyway. Let me know if you are interested. Sincerely--Mike Cline (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks for your kind responses. I am obviously a very newbie to all of this. I am writing a small tome on the history of the Deer Lodge valley and happened to look at the Bozeman article while persuing an entirely different train (we've been at the MN lake cabin for the last 7 weeks and our next door neighbor's son died in Bozeman about a week ago and it's been very bad and weird) and happened to notice the referenced statement. I guess I should learn to update articles rather than just criticize others who are doing their best. As you could probably tell I'm still a bit thin skinned and shy, and have never ventured anything to the world beyond (many) computer programs. The Montana Cattle Industry article would be a good ancillary project I think as I've had occasion to read a lot about particularly the early days. Ultimately I'd like to rewrite the Deer Lodge article. Also perhaps the one on the Morrisites, who were very important to valley history. I don't doubt that a number of others could be useful also. Your help would be much appreciated. We'll be back home just after Labor Day. Hope to connect with you then - John Wilson Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, assume from your comment above that you live in Bozeman. Where? I am in Baxter Meadows. Are you an MSU student? Looking forward to working with you.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. We're finally sort of back in town. Town however is Berkeley, CA. I am old Montana boy, having grown up in Deer Lodge and BS from Bozeman @1966. More opportunities down here in those days for physics majors. Also summer of love was pretty cool. Now I am drawn back to write about those old times and places. My brother Morry lives over in Billings and likes (at least he used to like) to go out on trail/branding drives. (first name?) Galt was a good friend of his and owns a big cattle ranch in that area somewhere. I'm considering asking my brother to participate in this as he should know a lot more than me about current state of industry. His wife's ex-husband and their son also run a ranch somewhere down by Broadus I think. When I was a kid I worked several summers for Con Warren and on the Tavenner ranch, both outside of Deer Lodge. As I think about it, I have and have had a fair amount of association with the industry, albiet mainly of a tangential nature. I guess I should go over to your area for discussion (?) Not sure of proper etiquette. My nature is more to plunge into the middle and feel my way around rather than becoming expert up front. I guess that might upset some. Hope my contributions will make up for situational ignorance. College psychology tests showed I have unusual learning curve, so work a bit differently perhaps.Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, become the student for a while

Welcome back. Contributing to WP is actually very easy and rewarding. One does not need to become an expert in anyway to start contributing. Right up front, I'll tell you two things you must understand to survive this collaborative encyclopedia.

Its not about what you know, what you feel, or what you think about any subject--It's always about what the sources say. Find the sources and everything is golden.
Civility - The single most frustrating thing in WP are individuals that just can't find a way to be unquestionably civil with others. You, the content you add and other contributions will at some point get criticized, reverted,deleted et. al. by others. Take it in stride. ALWAYS be civil and focus on the substance, not the behavior of others. When you are attacked, let others come to your defense.

Now. Becoming the student.

Task 1: I have created a draft article in your user space entitled: Montana Cattle Industry. Your job is to begin fleshing out this article with content that covers the start of the cattle industry in the 1800s to present day. As you build the article out, I will coach you relative to the MOS, sourcing and other formatting things. When it gets to a point where its suitable for the article space, we will move it there.
Task 2: I want you to read WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS and put these policy pages on your watchlist so you can follow any ongoing discussions about these policies.
Task 3: I want you to participate in at least one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion everyday for the next 2 weeks. Your job is to make a Keep or Delete vote as you see fit with appropriate rationale in any AfD. This provides you the opportunity to see policy interpretation in action from a different perspective.
Task 4: I want you to identify gaps in current Montana related articles, provide new, sourced content to fill those gaps.

I will be here to help as you progress. Welcome aboard.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the help. I'll do these tasks as best I can as they seem to teach things I can benefit from learning. Just by the bye, I was reading a Wikipedia article in which there were what seemed an inordinate number of references to a single work. Altho I don't know this, I suspect the article may have been by the author of the often referenced book. If so, is this considered copacetic?Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to answer without seeing the article. Name?--Mike Cline (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Montana State Prison.Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a well sourced article. I think the abundance of references to the Giles source is merely the fact that so much of the article is about the incident at the prison, not the prison itself. The article could be cosmetically improved through the use of citation templates instead of free form. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also the author (see note at bottom) probably isn't Giles as he or she seems younger, by his/her account. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a potential problem already. One of my important sources is a Masters thesis published in 1946, of which there are maybe 6 copies left in the world. That work provides a convenient reference to otherwise hard to assemble first-person accounts of explorers et al. As the date is so long ago aspects of it may be superceded by later research. Also it will be difficult for others to reference it for verification purposes. It is however cited in several tertiary publications which I have read. Should I refer to the bibliography sources directly, which I may not myself have read? I see WP:RS favors scholarship (hence prior peer review & vetting) over primary sources, suggesting the answer to be NO(?)Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary and Primary sources are both OK in the right context. Lets see how you use them as the draft progresses to access what's needed. WP:BOLD applies here. As you work on your draft it is important to remember you are learning both how to include substance (content) and do it with style WP:MOS. --Mike Cline (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the NPOV requirement will be a big source of contention. Guess I'll just have to get used to having my balloons popped. This should be very good yoga for me as I've never cared much for (what feels like) criticism. At least I can do likewise, which should make things feel more balanced. Can't believe I'll turn out to be worse at NPOV vioation than most authors. I see the value of participation in AfD. I'll get right on that.Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

FYI John, I am as bad and lazy at this than most, but it is considered good form to include discrete edit summaries for all edits. Always be civil in your edit summaries as they are the first thing people see when reviewing your edits. Good start.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask, but now I see the entry box below. I will use it! Thanks. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 3

I am trying due diligence here as promised. I must say that (titles of) most of the topics I saw proposed for deletion just left me cold and wondering why anyone would bother with them. However the world is a diverse place... So I have been trying to seek out topics of some interest to me (is that a good idea?). Of the first I looked at, Weight loss effects of water I was having a lot of trouble paying attention to the content (I found it boring and unfocused). Not sure that is sufficient reason for deletion but has to be in there somewhere because what use are articles that nobody will read? Also, supposing that the topic does deserve inclusion, it is a disservice to all to make it boring. Indeed that of itself is a form of obscuration - the opposite of our intent here I would think. Looking at the discussion, the original author seemed at great pains to defend him (I looked up his page) self. Trying to get detractors to feel sorry for him and relent in their critiques it appeared to me. This is quite clearly discouraged in WP:??. So I need to bone up on policies concerning boring and obscuring before jumping into the fray. Also I wish I could past that to be able to dissect the problem in greater detail, so perhaps as to be of more help rather than just a DELETE vote. There are a lot of criteria out there! I fear it will be a while before I can be truly useful in these debates. But as you say, I need to be involved even if imperfectly. Forward into the breach!!! Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. You are diving in and beginning to learn to deal with the seemingly endless complexity of a simple place. In an AfD, regardless of subject, your job is 1) Determine what the nominator is saying about the article. i.e. It isn't notable or doesn't meet some other guideline. 2) Quickly review the article to see if you believe the nom got it right. Don't dwell on the details of the article or its flaws, merely attempt to determine if the nominator's rationale has merit. 3) Look at what others are saying--delete, keep or comment. Which ones do you agree with? If you believe Joe saying Delete no reliable sources, non-notable is correct, then you can merely say Delete per Joe. or you can supply your own rationale. If you have a question or observation about someone's position, you can Comment to raise the issue. Your job in this task is three fold: 1) Learn how to evaluate articles against policy for inclusion or deletion. In other words compare the nomination's rationale, voter's rationale and the article itself against policies/guidelines invoked and make a personal call up or down. This forces you to understand policies/guidelines in the context of specific articles. 2) You will be learning how to communicate your understanding of policies/guidelines to other editors. You won't always do that well or always get it right, but that is OK. 3) When you get it wrong or someone thinks your position is crazy, you are going to learn how to deal with that in a collaborative and civil way.

Least important in this is your emotional connection to any specific AfD article. Most articles that go to AfD are flawed in some way. Our job is to determine whether those flaws warrant deletion or beg for improvement. In the process of doing so, you'll gain a much more useful understanding of policies/guidelines that you can apply to your own content work. Press on.--Mike Cline (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did venture a critique of Weight loss effects of water. Hope it's not too silly. I did go into much more detail than you suggested, which I likely wouldn't do in future. It seemed useful in explaining my current understanding per your note above. Believe I'll concentrate on Montana Cattle Industry for a bit. After all, unfair of me to critique others without giving them a fair shot back. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with your comment. A bit more concise and too the rationale +/- would be better but one has to find their own way. Don't shy from the AfD participation as their are lessons to the learned in the process that will make you a better contributor, even on the Cattle article. Can't wait to see the beginnings of the draft.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt reply. No intention of dropping AfD participation. Just shifting emphasis for the moment. I was looking around for a possible template, like Texas Cattle Industry or some such, but so far haven't found one. If you know of one I'd appreciate the reference. Continuing to look also. Hoo boy! There is a lot of room for improvement in Montana articles. A problem must be the effort involved in constructing a truly comprehensive tract. I see a number of starts that seem not to have gotten very far. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of a comparable article, but that should not deter you. Based on my understanding of the industries beginnings, I would approach the article from a chronological perspective which 3 main sections outlining the nature of the industry in 3 periods--pre-territorial, Montana Territory, and the State of Montana. These sections could then be further sub-sectioned with appropriate topical headings. Even though the chronological-period structure might not prove to be the best way to organize the content in the end, it will provide a reasonable structure for fleshing out the content. As for the cosmetics, I help once you get some content started.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start there. Thanks. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana State Prison article

Hello Jwilsonjwilson! Thank you for your feedback on the Montana State Prison page; it was a very fun project that I haven't even peeked at for quite some time. I grew up in Deer Lodge and worked as a housekeeper/groundsman/tour guide for the Prison Museum and Towe Ford Museum (before it became the Montana Auto Association Museum) for a summer after my Senior year at PCHS. The building and its history have always interested me, and I was glad to be able to share the interesting history of the place here on Wikipedia. Thanks again!

tanankyo (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion of Montana Cattle Industry to its talk page

John, you're doing good stuff, keep at it. I've moved any future discussion of the Montana Cattle article to its talk page to removed the clutter from this page.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your courteous cooperation and willingness to listen and think things through.

Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Windover Archeological Site

Just removed your last edit there. Please, our talk pages aren't forums, they are there purely to discuss improvements to the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Bruce Kremer (March 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This needs major cleanup. It is much too much like an academic paper., going too extensively and broadly into the background. What is needed is an encyclopedia article, focusing on the person himself, not the surrounding political environment. I rewrote the last two sections to indicate what is needed. Now, rewrite the rest of the article in that fashion

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:James Bruce Kremer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jwilsonjwilson, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo , 942-461.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo , 942-461.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deer Lodge, Montana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Benton and Fort Union. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:MCQ#File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo , 942-461.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ#File:John Francis Grant circa 1860's - courtesy of Montana Historical Society - B and W photo , 942-461.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jwilsonjwilson. Any further information you can provide about this file you uploaded would be most helpful. It's possible that it does not need to be licensed as Non-free content and can be converted to public domain instead. This would be a good thing because the way the file is currently being used is questionable, in my opinion, per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James Bruce Kremer concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:James Bruce Kremer, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:James Bruce Kremer

Hello, Jwilsonjwilson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James Bruce Kremer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 05:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deer Lodge, Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sacred Heart Medical Center. 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) 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3O decline

I have declined your submission at WP:3O because I could find no evidence that a thorough discussion has occurred regarding your dispute, a prerequisite for requesting a third opinion. I would also note that your dispute was worded non-neutrally and was not formatted properly, though these are secondary concerns. If or when a discussion has occurred and there are only two involved editors, you are welcome to relist the dispute, but please read WP:3O carefully before doing so. You are also welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether a separate article is required for each listed notable person. Thank you for your trouble. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]