Hi USA Eagle01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Moxy🍁12:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Mexican Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jorge Ramos. 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.)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page History of Mexican Americans, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicode in English
Please change your citations to English. This being English Wikipedia, the software functions in English. A citation like the one you added here generates an error message. Even if it didn't cause an error, our readers and editors might not understand that noviembre is the same as November. Please return to the article and fix it. It would be helpful if you specified that the source is in Spanish by including language=es in the citation; you might also add an English translation of the source's title with trans-title=. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geography of Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicentennial Park.
Hello - the use of flags in infoboxes is now generally discouraged; this may be a more recent style change not yet reflected across all pages. The relevant guideline can be read at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Would you mind undoing your recent series of infobox additions? Chubbles (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and undone all the flag addditions you made today. This has never been good style in the English Wikipedia, though it is in other language versions. Graham8715:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it comes done to an Anglosphere sensitivity? Fine, but there's a bigger universe out there.USA Eagle01 (talk)
December 2020
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy🍁12:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement.[1] Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, specify |left in the image link: [[File:Siberian Husky pho.jpg|thumb|left|alt=A white dog in a harness playfully nuzzles a young boy |A [[Siberian Husky]] used as a pack animal]].
An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image too early, i.e., far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader. The first image of a section should be placed below any hatnote (typically a navigational hatnote in the form of {{Main}}, {{Further}} and {{See also}} templates). Do not place an image at the end of the previous section as this will not be visible in the appropriate section on mobile devices. An image causes a paragraph break (i.e., the current paragraph ends and a new one begins) so it is not possible to place an image within a paragraph. This applies to thumb images; small inline images are an exception (see Inline images).
Wide images opposite one another...... can create an unsightly text sandwich (depending on platform and window size).
Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images horizontally opposite each other; or between an image and an infobox, navigation template, or similar. As an alternative, consider using the {{multiple image}} template, which places two images together on the right (but which, however, ignores logged-in users' selected image sizes). If the section has multiple relevant paragraphs, you can also move one image to another place in the section. (See WP:GALLERY for information on the use of multiple images.)
Image placement varies with platform and screen size, especially mobile platforms, and is meaningless to screen readers. As such, article text should not refer to image positions, especially with terms such as left, right, above, or below. Instead, use captions to identify images.
Disambiguation link notification for December 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass media in Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discovery.
I just reverted another of your edits at California State University, Long Beach. I looked at one edit where you added a source which did not support the edit. And all the "access dates" to your sources are off. Based on the number of copyright warnings on your talk page I would assume you have been pasting in bogus sources to support your edits. You need to stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the links below. US News and the CSU website are not bogus sources. You may want to take another look with more attention. Oh and if access dates are off who can throw stones who has no sin? I will try to be more careful next time. I will suggest the same of yourself. Easy to criticize someone else work instead of making the necessary changes. But I will live it like this so it remains out of date, it deserves to be. I only hope there are no alternative agenda as is the case most of the time and a lot of good it will do in time. USA Eagle01 (talk)
I have noticed the very specific rankings you have been adding to a large number of universities and colleges. If you are adding the more specific rankings published by U.S. News & World Report, then will you also be adding the more specific rankings published by Forbes? For example, Forbes ranks Sonoma State University as 160 among public colleges, 90 among universities in the West, and 179 among "America's best value colleges.[2] You seem to have updated the overall ranking from Forbes, but not added the more specific rankings. Is there a reason?
In order to include these specific rankings in individual tables the way you have while maintaining a neutral point of view, you would have to include ALL rankings from reputable sources in their own individual tables. This is outlined in the Wikipedia NPOV Due and undue weight policy. Adding all of these more specific rankings from reputable sources is impractical as it would make the page too crowded and render each individual listed ranking meaningless.
The guidance on balancing is also applicable here because these rankings are not regarded as equally notable/prominent as the overall rankings, however your edits present the rankings as if they are of equal prominence.
In order to resolve these issues, would you consider adding these rankings in the text of the articles you're editing and not in individual tables?
I added the very specific rankings almost specifically to the California State Universities, after I notice the Universities of California system had placed them on their individual pages. In their articles (UC's) I only helped placed them in order to help add more value given after all they are rankings. My goal in all is to better inform individuals, especially anybody trying to attend so they can make a better informed decision. I see this particular edits only adding in a positive way as a whole to something so important in my opinion as humanities education. In short, I as an individual appreciate this information and this is way I added, I felt others would appreciate it as well. To tell you the true the idea of adding the more specific rankings published by Forbes had not crossed my mind. I am not as familiar with seeing the Forbes rankings and that is way I started with the US News. But just like I told, now knowing how Forbes is ranking Sonoma for example, I feel like I am learning more about this institution of education. Haven been in a couple of the campuses for professional development, I appreciate their individual personalities if you may for what they are. In time I can try to add the more specific Forbes rankings, I need to spend some time going over the information. I will look at the NPOV Due and undue weight policy. I see way you talk about the impracticality of it, however like anything in life impracticality is everywhere if we diced to, and never the less this publications and some of this universities add them to their official publication for a reason don't you agree. It can also be argue that if individualism is not a goal or specification then don't we also risk meaningless. I am trying to present everything as much as possible as equal prominence this is way I looked at the UC articles for guidance.
May even look to see how the ivy is presenting. If you like I can add them as text and not in tables, but I will have to do it in time. But once more the table format is how the UC's are formatting I only wanted the same for the others as it seems like a clear way of adding value to pages. Again if you like, I will make the changes to the best of my abilities, specially if it resolves any issue at hand. I ask for time given I am having an issue with Magnolia677 (talk) regarding rankings as it is. See below. I can star with the Sonoma given I now have info to add and see if there is any opposition or not that is constructive. Best USA Eagle01 (talk)
The information you are adding is relevant, but it is important to present the information with due weight. The way you have listed three tables next to each other implies that all the rankings are equally notable. That gives undue weight to the lesser known rankings. Many people follow the USNWR overall rankings, but few have heard of the USNWR ranking on social mobility. That means those rankings are not equally notable. I think it would be best to include the more specific rankings in the text of the article, while the overall rankings from notable sources can remain in the infobox. This would be more reflective of how notable each of the rankings is.
ElKevbo I have added the years rankings to Sonoma State and will give it one to two days before moving on with the other CSU's. Lets see if anybody has constructive input. For now feel free to let me know if I should consider anything else and thanks for keeping an eye out. USA Eagle01 (talk)
Moxy all my editing art intended to be constructive. Even when others disagree I try to see their point of view and move on if their point has some validity. For example two out of three agree on validity. At this time, there is no consensus not to include the image, so any further removal without a change in consensus can not be considered disruptive. However, I hardly think all of your Edits are correct all the time. Furthermore I will even go as fair as to say you may be trying to push your views. For now I will live things reverted back as is. Next time, I feel a more coherent point or argument need to be made other then aesthetics. If not I will continue to edit for anybody can edit. You need to prove inappropriate editing and may move to also try to block you from editing or at least discredit you. USA Eagle01 (talk)
So have you seen/read our conventions on images? Notice how it says don't sandwich text between two images.....don't set pixel size....and images should be relevant and emphasize the text? Need to know your understanding what the problem is with adding random images with fixed pixel size and causing accessibility problems because of Sandwich text.Moxy-01:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to you "most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement". I emphasis the word should. A word use by you and it seem not a must. "Multiple images can be staggered right and left. However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." Ones more according to you, they can be they don not have to be avoided but its a good idea overall to avoid doing this. Which is a fair idea and if made a good argument on a peer case edit, a very good concept and idea given it will add value to the article instead then only take away from it. This is way I imagen the talk page exist to avoid unnecessary censorship. Maybe its a sine of the times that its time to add more text to the page to fit a new image or that an image may be need, or at the very least consider it. The universe after all is expanding and we are not at the center of it. Given however, your remark had a snarky tone to it. I will say this, I personally don't see much to the argument that it makes it seem cleaner. Especially when value may be lost. This applies to pixel size....and as far as all images should be relevant and emphasize the text of course they need to, but at the same time images should not be excluded because the "don't fit" in the margins. If need be then I suppose a literal spelling of way they fit must be added by having text addressing it with references. By and large which many articles you have personally edit have at the very least multiple images to the left. I am striving to add value to the Wikipedia project and will work with others but if others are one-sided I will also strive to make my point. Given at the end its about value. USA Eagle01 (talk)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chicano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice.
Hello USA Eagle01. I have not been able to edit Wikipedia recently, sorry for the delay in responding to you.
Having read your post on my talk page, I am considering unblocking you. Before I do that though, I would like to make some things clear. Given the articles you edit, and your responses on talk pages, I'm guessing you are working on your English, and may be heavily relying on sources when it comes to articles content, accidentally copying some content in here and there. If that is the case, and there's nothing wrong with it if it is, I recommend slowing down your editing when it comes to prose and sticking to adding statistics and other information. I think you should take your time improving upon your writing before going to write whole paragraphs on stuff, maybe only do a few sentences at a time. What are your thoughts on this? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Moneytrees I like to go to the point when ever possible. English is my second language technically and will say because of this I feel obligated to always be working on it. I spend the majority of my time looking at the hard sciences having graduated with a B.S. and haven worked in the applied science industry the majority of the time, so infect yes. I will say my English could always use some work because of this and because of the social attitudes about correctness that have been hearten by grammarians who, in their fervor to organize good English puzzled the rules of standard English with folklore. Folklore the rules that too many well-educated writes obsess over, style I up for in talk pages at times. I see you considering unblocking me as good, I think over all I could of been more clear, slow down and taken my time on articles and I'm willing to do so going forward. I will stick to adding statistics and other information. I sincerely feel my contributions, collaborations and opining add value to the Wikipedia project overall. This is way in effect I acknowledge that for article pages clarity and understanding are the basics of grace and should be maintain. Talk pages could stand a bit of correctness and choice however, elegant options. I will like to continue editing as it has become a hobby and a place to learn, but find myself becoming indifferent Moneytrees. Consider it, I could always use my time in other endeavors. USA Eagle01 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC) USA Eagle01 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you for the response, and thanks for signing your post (that's the "03:59, 19 September 2021" at the end- it makes replying to you easier). I will be unblock per this conversation, especially from your commitment to slow down and take more time. If you have any questions about editing or anything moving forward, please feel free to come to me or another user for help- I will try to respond as soon as I can. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide04:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
_(cropped).jpg)
