Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added note

Hello, yes... I've added an additional 'welcome' template, but I felt the added information and links it contains would be of benefit. At this point, you are what could be considered a "Single Purpose Account", which is not necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on what your intentions are. So far, as of this posting, you've made 10 edits, all completely identical, where you have changed the word "manned" to "crewed" in various articles, along with the edit summary, "Changed [or] Updated 'manned' to 'crewed' in support of gender neutral language". In some cases this may be appropriate, even necessary, while others may be just the opposite (and then some may be considered somewhere in between). Some here may applaud your changes, while others may be more critical. You may hear of project guidelines such as "Righting Great Wrongs", or perhaps "No Advocacy", which is part of the larger policy "What Wikipedia Is Not". Or you may receive no feedback at all.

I am not here to take a position, just to inform. I hope you will take the time to through the information that has been provided here. It may seem like a lot, but some of it is important, and will help you with your contributions. If have any questions, you can contact the help desk.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and have a nice day. - wolf 09:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lankaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Null. 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) 05:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cap'n Angus. I've reverted a couple of instances of your changes back to "manned" for the reasons stated. But it's raised an interesting issue which I've flagged up at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) where editors are commenting. So it would make sense not to delete more instances of "manned" until some sort of consensus is reached there. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Bermicourt, I was waiting for that thread to ease down, which it seems to be doing. Appreciate the discussion and the head's up. I did chime in once but I think it got buried in all the activity. For my original edit on Baltic Sea watchtower, Kühlungsborn, I agree the change I made was a bit too sloppy and imprecise. One of my main takeaways from the Village Pump discussion is the importance of precision in edits like this, which is something I've aimed for and need to work harder to improve. Appreciate the collaboration! CaptainAngus (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I'm not against gender neutral language in principle, except where it changes the original meaning. In writing e.g. card game articles, I try to minimise the use of "his" and "him" provided I can find a clear way to explain the rules. Unfortunately, our English language, wonderful though it is in many ways, is just not geared up for this and so some sentences are virtually impossible to render accurately in a gender neutral way. If we're really serious about this we almost need to come up with new words for "he or she" and "him or her". Bermicourt (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could stop mass-changing instances of "manned" at least until our discussion has concluded. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lengthy note just above regarding this issue ten months ago. It included links to information to help you understand when and where such changes may or may not be appropriate. It would probably be best if, as MSGJ requests, you refrained from making any further changes of this type until there is clear guidance on the issue. (jmho) - wolf 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: @Thewolfchild: I appreciate discussing this issue with both of you. I am confused on the issue of 'clear guidance'. The edits I've done are in-line with the Manual of Style of gender-neutral language (MOS:GNL). I won't deny being a relatively new editor (ten months now), but when I joined Wikipedia, I had no plans to go after edits like we're discussing. However, new users are immediately pointed to Manual of Style and encouraged to work through anything on the page as a starting point. This includes cleaning up the word 'Manned' specifically: [Guidance on Manned]. This leads me to my confusion: Wikipedia itself suggested making these edits, so how is that not clear guidance?

Two other final thoughts:

• This issue has been debated very recently here: Village Pump
• To the specific edit in question, the suggestion driving the revert was due to how 'staffing a lighthouse' sounded compared to 'manning a lighthouse'. But my argument for the 'correctness' of the change is that a lighthouse needs to be 'occupied and overseen', something that is in-line with the word 'staffing'. I'd love to hear other suggestions, but I don't feel that 'staffed' is a poor replacement for 'manned' in this instance.

This is great discussion! Thank you both! CaptainAngus (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point but, the "typo team" is just one of the many (2000+) WikiProjects here, it is not an actual policy or guideline page. Changing things "per the typo team" is not same as changing it, for example, per WP:NOT, or WP:RS. You would be better off using actual WP:PGs to support your edits, as they are vetted and supported by the community at large. If your edits are challenged, (which some appear to have been) using the typo team is not really a defense. Some people actually get put off when editors use local project guidance as a reason to support edits (especially when mass-changing potentially contentious content). It would be wise to slow down, discuss and learn more first.

But that aside, do you have any other interests in Wikipedia other than chasing down "non-gender-neutral" words? It seems that the large majority of your edits and interactions are focused solely on that, which means you should probably give WP:SPA a read before continuing. (This is not any kind of judgement or admonishment, just an observation and advice.)

WP is a huge project... surely there are other areas of interest you would like to edit? Articles you would like to write? Or just improve in other ways? There are various maintenance efforts as well, that you might like to participate in. Basically, what I'm saying is, take a look around and see what, if anything, catches your fancy. - wolf 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: That is great information, and I need to continue to soak it all in. But I am still confused. I would firmly say I'm not a SPA: I've made a lot of edits in support of the typo team's misspelling workoff page, not just cleanup of non-gender-neutral terms. Given the cited guidelines, as well as the recent discussion on the Village Pump, I don't feel like I'm coloring outside the lines here.

In the case of the original edit that drove this discussion, I changed the word 'manned' to 'staffed' on the Haig Point Range Lights page. I recognize there is some historical style present, but I would still claim this edit is factually accurate: a lighthouse does not need a 'man' to run it, it needs a person. 'Manned' is, if nothing else, a restrictive definition as to how a lighthouse can be run.

You suggest helping out in other ways, including with the 'various maintenance efforts'. But given that cleaning up the word 'manned' is on one of the pages of the maintenance efforts, I'm still struggling to understand the pushback. I would say I'm doing exactly what you recommended above.

To really summarize all my confusion, if I'm following the guidelines, and I'm making edits that increase the accuracy of the articles in question, and I'm contributing to a maintenance project, what am I holding off for? I just don't follow. CaptainAngus (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "push back" here and I've not accused you of any wrong-doing (or "coloring outside of any lines"). I offerred no opinions in support of or against any specific edits you've made (eg: you mention Haig Point Range Lights and I've never edited that article or its talk page (afaik).

You keep mentioning "guidelines", but linking to the "typo team". I'm not sure if you read everything I wrote above or not, but the typo team's own WikiProject "guidance" is not the same as Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Again, if you are involved in any kind of dispute, Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines trump any local WikiProject guidance. You would be better served to learn and cite Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines to support your edits as opposed to any WikiProject. This is not to diminish the work or value of any WikiProject in any way, just to try paint an picture of the hierarchy of rules here.

If you want to focus on gender-neutral language... go for it! But if you get actual pushback to your efforts, you really should consider pausing, or "holding off", and discussing (eg: as MSGJ requested of you just above). I don't think I have anything more to add than that. Good luck - wolf 21:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Thank you, I appreciate your response and I appreciate the context you added to this discussion. I don't know if I fully grasped the distinction between the Manual of Style and WP Guidelines. I won't deny it is a bit daunting to dig through the "Wikipedia:" type pages. I will do some deeper digging. CaptainAngus (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Captain, I want to challenge this change, but as I'm not a native speaker, I'm doing it here: The original "outwordly" seems to fit better to me - it's not from this world. I googled around and there are some uses of this word, not too many though. "Outwardly" doesn't catch what's meant. --Eike sauer (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eike sauer: Hi! In looking back at the edit now, I would agree that "outwardly" isn't quite right. Note that the original word is also misspelled--"outwordly" (note, no "L", not the word 'world') whereas they probably meant "outworldly". But even "outworldly" is not a common word. How would you feel about "otherworldly"? CaptainAngus (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Otherworldly" sounds proper! I'll put it it. Thanks! --Eike sauer (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eike sauer: That you very much!

This is not an useful edit - only men were allowed to serve as soldiers in the Confederate States Army. GNL changes should consider the context of the statement. Hog Farm _Talk 03:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the catch. I would still argue that the edit offers some original value--was it more important that the people in question were men or soldiers? The cannons in question would fire either way. But I will defer to the historical context. Thanks for the feedback! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Only one source seems to provide significant coverage, more is needed to meet WP:NFILM.

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:Dream-killer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dream-killer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 23:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainAngus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! -Liancetalk/contribs 23:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liance: Liance, thanks for the feedback! I reworked the draft a bit and ensured there were more relevant and notable sources (specifically, the NY Times, ABC News, and Rolling Stone, along with others). This is my first article so I appreciate the help in getting the hang of this. I just resubmitted it for consideration. Thanks again! CaptainAngus (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and accepted your draft, in addition to adding a few more sources to establish notability. It should now be live in the mainspace. Thank you so much for your contributions! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liance: Thank you! I appreciate all your help in this process! CaptainAngus (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream-killer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Judy Castle Scott and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Judy Castle Scott, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Judy Castle Scott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://twu.edu/twhf/honorees/judy-castle-scott/ and https://www.afb.org/press-room/press-release-archive/judy-scott-retires. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Castle Scott, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— The Most Comfortable Chair 19:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's Crash Course, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

RPSkokie (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicole DeBoom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nicole DeBoom, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just want to point out that you should not remove instances of <em></em> from articles. These have a specific use and cannot be replaced with the italic markup (''). Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thrakkx: Thrakkx, I had no idea, I wasn't aware of the distinction, and I'll be more careful in the future. The driver for doing this sort of clean-up comes from the Typo Team's list of items to cleanup, which includes both <i> and <em> tags. I thought they were all fair game. I'll have to bring it up on their talk page. Thanks again! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could quickly suggest to the team that <em> should be replaced with the wiki equivalent ((em))! Thrakkx (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 57th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bivouac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicole DeBoom and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, CaptainAngus and thank you for writing several biographies of women. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might be interested in becoming a member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to reduce the gender gap. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CaptainAngus, for adding the Women in Red box to your user page. Maybe you would also like to register as a member by linking to "Join Women in Red" at the top of our WikiProject page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainAngus. Thank you for your work on Naomi Sewell Richardson. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naomi Lazard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Englewood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giannis Antetokounmpo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainAngus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nicole DeBoom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hulda Swai is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! In full disclosure, I started with the already existing French version of the page (with the help of Google translate). But I think it worked out well. CaptainAngus (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainAngus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nicole DeBoom".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through The Space Between Worlds for New Page Patrol (not realizing that it is already reviewed) and found the book to be really interesting, thanks! Justiyaya 04:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya: Thank you! The book was great and I'm hoping the page does it justice... CaptainAngus (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got a copy a week back and finished the book today, it is really really good, thank you :D Justiyaya 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya: As long as we're talking books, I'd also recommend Rosewater as a book with a similar approach and similar sensibilities, as well as Ancillary Justice, if you haven't read them already. CaptainAngus (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't! Thanks for the two new books that I will get to... soon. Justiyaya 08:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.

Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capn Angus,

Not sure where to address this so I guess I'll put it here since you created the page and reverted my latest attempt at an edit. The information about Katherine Luzuriaga's place of birth is inaccurate, and the source used is incorrect. I know this because I know her personally, which I know is not usable as a source. I'm not really sure what to do, because I don't think it's a good thing to have incorrect information up on the page, but there is otherwise no source on her actual birthplace. The source article itself is actually wrong on multiple counts, although the birthplace is the only wrong info used on Wikipedia. I guess I could try to correct the source article, and then that would be usable? TBAlderson (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TBAlderson: Hi! Before I reverted your changes, I scanned all the sources to confirm. I believe only this one gave her birthplace, and it is listed as Bacolod, as you said. You are correct that the policies direct the need for sourced data--see WP:V for the policy and WP:TRUTH for a good essay on "Verifiability, not truth". You can't find any source out there at all that lists her correct birth location anywhere? Even in a different language, that would still be usable. CaptainAngus (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, her birth location is not really public knowledge and it is very counterintuitive (she was born in a country her family lived in for only a couple years and has otherwise no connection to). That link is incorrect; her family is originally from Bacolod and there are many extended family members from that area, but she was not born there and never lived there. The source is also wrong about when she came to the US, it's not a particularly accurate article! I'll try to see if there is any record, but really honestly the best thing is likely for the birth place to be taken out of the article for now, given problems with the current sources. I'll try to find anything written online that would help clear things up! I'm also wary of doing too much editing given my personal relationship, though; apparently that's frowned upon on Wikipedia so I'll stay away from doing too much. TBAlderson (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TBAlderson: I am still learning Wikipedia policies but I would point you to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Based on my quick read, one action you could take would be to post on Katherine's talk page and add a Template:Disputed inline to the claim of her birth city (although, see my second question below). That would put the issue into a more public light (rather than leave it buried here on my talk page).

My second question is on which exact claim you are questioning; is it more than just her birth city? You say above that she was "born in a country her family lived in"--Is that country still the Philippines? Or am I misreading the above and it's just the birth city you are looking to clarify?

Thanks again! CaptainAngus (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the city, she was not born in the Philippines. She grew up there, and her family is from Bacolod, but she was not born in the Philippines (or the US, where her mother was from).TBAlderson (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CaptainAngus. Thank you for your work on Baseball Study. Bastun, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work on your new article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Bastun)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: Thank you very much! And thank you for reviewing! CaptainAngus (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]