User talk:CaptainEek/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Questions about draft evaluation

Thanks for your comments on draft:Allen Estrin. Clearly user:Apathetizer's submission was rejected for reasons not having to do with the draft's merit. An earlier discussion about notability said that the draft a month ago was about halfway to establishing notability. Based improvements from that feedback, we should now be closer. A rejection should tell us what's wrong with an article and how it can be improved. The earlier rejection did so. The recent one did not. What can we do to get a fair reading of the draft? DougHill (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

GRETA (Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings)

Dear CaptianEek,

Thank you very much for your comments.

We are a group of students of the University of Padova who are working on this project. We would highly appreciate if you could possibly let us know how we could improve our article. Any recommendations maybe?

Thank you in advance.

Kind wishes, 108 Uni Students Group --108Uni (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

108Uni, Howdy hello! A few things. First, accounts are single person only. If you have multiple people, each needs to register their own account. This account will probably need to be renamed for single use, or will be blocked, and then each of y'all can make an account. Second: you're working on this...in what way? You were assigned this page to edit? You are members of GRETA? What is the relationship here? Once we've got that figured out, I can help you on the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

108Uni, Alright I see y'all are a school group, so ignore my second question. But the first point stands: each of you needs a separate account.

In terms of feedback:

1. Every claim needs an inline citation
2. The coverage seems mainly lifted from GRETA itself. We don't say what subjects say about themselves, we say what reliable sources say about them. Please find news articles, books, magazines, etc. that cover the subject, and use those as references.
3. The structure is unencyclopedic, and reads like...well a formal government document. You don't need sections describing its every action and legal duty. You need to explain it succinctly in layman's terms and in readable prose. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the welcome!!! Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for your reply earlier. I added the youtube interview after reading on wiki that you can include videos as long as it's from the original source. Also, If I only used it as an additional reference, not the mean reference should I still remove it? Thanks again for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tiveIQ (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Cre8tiveIQ, It looks like you're using it to support just one claim, and that you have another source for that claim already. I would probably opt to remove that source. Interviews are tricky, and its hard to gauge the reliability of that source. Written sources are far preferred when possible. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will remove it.(Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC))

Cre8tiveIQ, Glad to be of assistance. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I see that the Wikipedia review process can now take a month. I came across a chat on the Teahouse page in which a company was very notable but it was denied then a few AFC reviewers agreed that it was notable but did not move it to the mainspace instead they told the user they could do so themselves without afc review. My question is, would it be inappropriate for me to move it to the mainspace? I look forward to your response. Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Cre8tiveIQ, Generally, it is preferred that AFC reviewers should approve drafts, as you have to apply to be a reviewer, and are given a special software tool to do it. However, if a draft meets policy, there is no reason it can't be approved. Could you link the draft in question? I'd be curious to know why it was denied. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Smiljan

Article has couple of irregularities ie some citation are not according to RS but they are still in the article. If you could direct us or give us some advice what to do. Thank you. [1]

Note that other fellow editors see it quite differently and that's ignored all the way. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Russian Population Sources

I input sources that correctly specify Russia's population but it was deleted, i need your help. Is there a way i can settle a dispute with someone without risking my account to be blocked from editting? Take this for example, https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 22:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

IntercontinentalEmpire, Howdy hello! Your change is clearly controversial, as several folks have undone it. What you need to do is discuss it, by opening a a talkpage discussion at Talk:Russia. Discuss the issue with folks, and build WP:CONSENSUS. My take: worldometers or similar sites are actually not very reliable. They just aggregate data. What we trust far more is the source that is already there: the Russian government's estimate. They provide a very precise number, compiled as of a month ago.

Please don't make the change again until you have discussed it with the community, as such behavior will be seen as edit warring.

Also, as you have been warned: the minor edit box should only be checked for the simplest of things. You should really only ever use it when you fix single character typos. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IntercontinentalEmpire, CaptainEek I hope you don't mind me commenting, but I think the Russian Federal State Statistics Service [2] might be helpful for the figures you're looking for. It's definitely a reliable source. It's in Russian, but the figures are obvious and Google translate works well. Best of luck.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on second Bibliography

Hello, CaptainEek. You were helpful to me recently in looking at and providing feedback for my Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. I continue to work on building up that article and I've published the second article in my planned troika at Bibliography of Stalinism and the Soviet Union. I was hoping that you could again provide some feedback as you did before. I understand you get a lot of requests and thank you for any help you can provide. If there is any way I can provide help to you (doubtful, but a sincere offer), please let me know. Hope you're well and your weekend is great.   // Timothy :: talk  03:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, Once again, very nicely done! I see no major issues, and have marked the page as reviewed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hope all is well and your day goes well.   // Timothy :: talk  10:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Geological Perspective correlation

Sir, I rewrite the article following your remarks. I decrease the number of figures, but, please, take in consideration that the essence of described theory is geometrical, and for adequate presentation it need graphical material. Looking for your response. Sincerely Nabatoff (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nabatoff, Howdy hello! Numerous issues remain, and you did not address all of my comments.

1. Chiefly, it is still very technical, and not very clear. I still do not know what this article is about. Yes its about geology, but ....what is it? Not once does the article clearly state what perspective geological correlation is.
2. The lead should begin by stating concisely what the topic is, then summarize the article. Most of the info in the lead would be better as a "background" section
3. Bolding should almost never be used. I have fixed that for you.
4. The number of images is still high but is within more reasonable bounds now
5. This reads like a scientific paper, i.e. inscrutable to non-experts. Our readers are average folks (not geologists), thus our articles must be accessible to them. While technical details should be kept, they need to be accompanied by reasonable laymen's explanations.
6. The number style listing is a bit strange, and I don't think very useful. Things should usually be presented as prose, not as lists. If you are to keep the numbers, please format things correctly. Use a # number sign to create numbered lists.
7. Sourcing! Every claim needs a source. Clearly you got each sentence from somewhere, so please add an in-text reference to where you got it. If you have info you didn't get from a source, remove it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sir,
Thank you. I will continue working. The layering (stratification) is the fundamental characteristic of the Earth crust. The geometry of the layering (stratigraphy) is the main tool for the insight into the geological history of the Earth, and the main lead to natural resources exploration. For example, the oil geologists have no tools to find oil deposits, they are looking only for domes created by a porous layer. Knowledge about underground geometry comes from drilling. Drilling is very expensive, so the number of wells is limited and the distances between the wells are substantial. Reconstruction of the surface at a small number of scattered points is a difficult task and leads to expensive mistakes. Any knowledge of layer geometry constraints is extremely valuable. The theory of perspective correlation states that the thicknesses of all layers in an undisturbed sequence of layers correspond to the law of geometric perspective. This means in particular that if you know the thickness of a layer in two wells, then you can calculate the thickness of that layer on the entire profile This is the first quantitative law that describes the geometric structure of the layer sequence. The influence of this theory on the philosophy of geological science is important as well. Today geology looks mainly not at what is common in different parts of the earth, but at the peculiarities of each site. More than half of scientific publications on geology contain geographical names. This is why the Haites' theory is a big deal. Sorry dor the long comment. Is it something that has to be in the lead, or I am missing the point again? Sincerely Nabatoff (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nabatoff, Can you give me a single sentence explanation? Such as I have suggested in the article "Perspective geological correlation is a technique in geology that..." And please make sure to read each point above and follow it. If you are confused, please ask for clarification. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sir,
Nabatoff (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Perspective geological correlation is a theory that establishes strong geometrical restrictions on the geometry of the layers in sedimentary deposits. It is the only qualitative law discovered in geology in the XX century Nabatoff (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC) One more: "Perspective geological correlation states: in undisturbed succession of layers at any two locations the ratio h₁/h₂ is the same for all layers (h₁ and h₂ are thicknesses of the particular layer)".
Of course,it is difficult to describe by words the geometrical idea without a drawing. The best and the simplest description is the figure (B) in my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabatoff (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) May be the best will be :,br> The Perspective Geological Correlation also states that 1) each sedimentary basin consists of a number of stratigraphic units (sequence of layers without unconformities) , and 2) in each unit the relations between the thicknesses of the layers in two cross-sections satisfy the perspective geometry conditions with individual ratios K = h₁/h₂. Nabatoff (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

6 millionth article and Discord

hi CaptainEek, curious about how the six millionth article was decided, I happened upon this conversation and noticed you mention Discord which leads me to wonder: what Discord channel is this? I ask because I am a member of a team at the Wikimedia Foundation working on improvements to talk pages (Talk pages project) and as part of that work we are working to form a better understanding of how contributors communicate on- and off-wiki. @PPelberg (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PPelberg (WMF), Howdy hello! I regularly use the semi-official WP:DISCORD. A couple of admins on ENWP and Commons set it up a while back, and its a useful communication tool. It certainly doesn't supplant talk pages, but it is used for less formal conversations. Any formal conversations will definitely stay on talkpages (so that there is a history of them too). But discord allows us to have an offtopic channel (which wouldn't happen on-wiki because of WP:NOTFORUM), have some friendly banter, and use lots of Wiki themed emojis (like little wiki globes and FA stars and WP:TROUT). Having a real time chat platform is handy, as it allows us to talk to newbie editors faster and give better advice, as well as spread news faster (like about 6M), and get feedback and opinions faster. I regularly ask for second opinions on Discord, as its faster, easier, and less...nerve wracking. We occasionally have policy debates there too, in a manner that we wouldn't have on-wiki. Of course, not everyone is thrilled about discord, some editors feel like there is a Discord Cabal, others think it can be misused to WP:CANVASS discussions. Regardless, I like it a lot, and I downloaded the Discord app to my phone just so that I could send messages in the Wiki discord while I was on the go.

In terms of 6M, basically all discussion happened on Wiki, the use on Discord was simply a congratulatory "Heck yeah".

Cool work y'all are doing, keep it up! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, thank you for this thorough response! Pending approval [1] from WikiAuthBoth, I will see you in there. In the meantime, a few follow up questions (when you have time!):

Having a real time chat platform is handy, as it allows us to talk to newbie editors faster...

This is curious...in your experience, how do newbie editors typically find the Discord server?

I regularly ask for second opinions on Discord, as its faster, easier, and less...nerve wracking.

Can you say more to the nerve wracking piece? What kinds of on-wiki discussions tend to feel this way to you?

We occasionally have policy debates there too, in a manner that we wouldn't have on-wiki.

By "manner" here are you referring to the pace of the conversation being faster and the length of replies beings shorter? The tone of peoples' responses? Who is involved in the conversations being different from who might be had the conversation happened on-wiki? Something else?

1. Stussll is my personal account @PPelberg (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

PPelberg (WMF), Hope to see ya on Discord soon! You can chat without being confirmed by WikiAuthBot though. If it is being slow, drop a note in the Discord, and the Bot operators can try to troubleshoot (its sometimes a bit sleepy).

1. Ya know, I'm not quite sure how newbies find it, but a fair number of low count (50-500) edit users find us every week. I imagine they just come across WP:DISCORD and go from there.
2. Anything you put on Wiki is usually going to have lots of eyes, be more scrutinized, and you'll get slower responses, so it feels like you need to do it right. With Discord, you can just drop a quick, informal note, and get a quick reply. That way you don't feel bad if it was a silly question, it doesn't feel like you're wasting folk's time.
3. The pace and brevity is a biggie, but I'd say its also a bit more open. Since its not on-wiki, conversations don't have to strictly follow Wiki-protocol. Sure, you still need to be civil, but its a bit more jovial and folks feel more free to speak their mind. It also provides a forum-esque space that Wikipedia (quite purposefully) doesn't have. That way we can have a philosophical discussion about policy, without having to take a firm stance. For example, I think there is a general feeling on Discord that our notability criteria need to change. But we agree that to do so would be a vast undertaking, and require a very well crafted proposal. Any poorly crafted policy, or one that said "lets talk about it" would probably get shot down real quick. Its a catch 22: to discuss policy, you need a well crafted proposal, but to have a well crafted proposal, you need to discuss it. Discord cuts through that by allowing informal discussion on the merits of various ideas, in an environment that isn't so life or death.

Hope that helps! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Randomly popping in to say this is all very eloquently put. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek: Discord cuts through that by allowing informal discussion on the merits of various ideas, in an environment that isn't so life or death.

The above is put well. Thank you for thinking this through with me.

By the way, there were a couple of phrases you used that resonated me. While there is no real "action" related to them per se, I wanted to document them below. This all to say, you are leaving me with new thoughts and questions :)

...it [Discord] doesn't feel like you're wasting folk's time.

...to discuss policy, you need a well crafted proposal, but to have a well crafted proposal, you need to discuss it.

...an environment that isn't so life or death. @PPelberg (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh and while we're here, CaptainEek and WanderingWanda if either of y'all are open to trying out a new talk page feature, we have a prototype ready for a new workflow for replying to comments. It's available if/when you want to try it out: Replying prototype. @PPelberg (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Trivial Information

Hello @CaptainEek:

I hope you have been experiencing the smoothest of all waters out on your voyages, as of late!

I have recently been working on that same BLP article as before, and another Wikipedian called me out on using trivial information, as opposed to enyclopedic information. What would be your best way of explaining the difference and your personal best practice at being able to decypher between the two in an effort to build out an article on a living person in a truly robust manner?

As always, thank you SO much, CaptainEek

Thederekjohnson (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thederekjohnson, Encyclopedic information is not trivia. It is the facts that sources give significant coverage to, and that we should cover too. We tend not to include details about personal lives, or interesting facts unless they are well covered. Instead we focus on the information that is of historical value. The big questions like who were they, were did they live, what did they do, why is that important? But things like what their dog was named or their favorite food are not of particular value. If someone wanted to know that, they could read a full length book on the subject. But we are an encyclopedia: we have to be concise. When someone searches Wikipedia, they want to know details like birthdates and careers, not if they liked their coffee black. Also, we must be respectful of our living subjects. While parts of their personal lives may be accessible, we must be very careful when we choose to write about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an amplifier, and anything we write here is seen by thousands or millions of people.

Personally, I stay away from personal details when at all possible. They are rarely important. A good way to tell is the amount of text a source gives to it. If they mention something once in passing, it probably shouldn't be included. But if they give multiple paragraphs to it, then it could be considered for inclusion.

An error you've run into on Ahmanson's article is the style of writing: not formal enough. Casual tones aren't appropriate. If in doubt, opt for overly formal. An overly formal tone can be cleaned up easily. An overly casual tone will need a rewrite or to be removed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

My article for submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hiranandani_Parks_Oragadam

Hi, I have used a new set of references and tweaked the content based on that. Please have a look. Thanks. Daphinevadhera (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Daphinevadhera, I'm afraid I don't have a very helpful opinion this time around, Indian articles are a challenging area for me as I have a hard time assessing sources. The article is better than before, but I'm still not sure if its notable. You would be better off by asking the question at The AfC helpdesk :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - Proposing Deletion

Hi, I inserted the proposed deletion tag on the article but am not sure if it is correctly positioned. Should it be above the AfC rejection box or on top of the actual content of the page? I have placed it on top of my article and under all the comments etc. Hoping for guidance, thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tycheana, Howdy hello! You were on the right track but ended up with the wrong template. Proposed deletion should only be used on non-draft articles. For articles you wrote yourself, you can ask for them to be speedily deleted under critera G7 (author requests deletion). I have gone ahead and fixed the templates for you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek, duly noted the positioning of the template, and also now clear about which one to use where. Many thanks for the prompt guidance and also the follow-up action, regards & best wishes, Tycheana (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Captain! I've been part of Wikipedia for a few years and have made some articles, but I find that often my edits get undone because they aren't in the guidelines or they aren't constructive. I think it's mainly because I just threw myself into Wikipedia and taught myself instead of taking the time to read the policies. I hope I will be able to make more productive edits and help Wikipedia more. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 10:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, Howdy hello! I would be happy to adopt you and help lead you through the finer points of Wikipedia. With that in mind, can you answer a few questions so I can better help you?

1. What do you want out of adoption?
2. What are your interests?
3. What do you like editing?
4. Why did you join Wikipedia?

Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey CaptainEek, thanks. What I want out of adoption is to be able to make more productive/constructive edits and help the community more. My interests include computers, and I generally edit articles related around the UK and Iran. I love visual design and have remade several logos in SVG and made graphics for articles. I joined Wikipedia 4 years ago because I noticed loads of mistakes in the articles in my local area and wanted to fix it.

Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 10:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello CaptainEek,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New article in sandbox

I want to start an article in my sandbox but I've never edited it before. How do I start an article? UB Blacephalon (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, If you'd like to start in your sandbox, its pretty darn easy. Just start typing! Thankfully your sandbox isn't really scrutinized, so as long as you're being productive, it can be as messy or haphazard as you want. You may wish to use it first to assemble sources and write out important things from the sources, or generally start a layout, etc. Another way to start articles is by using the WP:Article Wizard, which starts your article in the draft space. In draft space, your work is not scrutinized until you press "submit", and it will join the AfC queue. Sometimes when starting an article, you may wish to look at a similar existing article (of at least Good status) to base it off of. That way you can get the right sections, and have a basic skeleton to go from. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know where to start. It said edit below the line, and I didnt know if I should start with the lead or what! I guess I could paraphrase it after I get my facts down. I wanted to make an article on the pokemon Porygon2 but I later found out that the article was created but the attempt to publish it failed. Same goes with the final evolution, Porygon-Z. How can I edit and later publish it and what exactly was wrong with it in the first place? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC) :

Blacephalon, Well you can start with whatever you want, although at the end of the drafting process it should mirror the standard layout of a lead, body, and references/links. I would not directly copy things down, make sure to paraphrase as you go, or it will get removed as a copyright violation.

With Porygon, I suspect the last article ran into issues of notability. Unfortunately, very few pokemon are notable enough to have standalone articles. Pikachu for instance has a good class article, but thats because Pikachu is the face of Pokemon and is used widely. That means many sources are available that discuss Pikachu. For Porygon, you would need to find reliable and independent coverage, which I think would be hard. You would need things like media coverage of Porygon, reviews of them in magazines like IGN, places that have it as a mascot. Such sources might not exist, in which case you couldn't write an article. That's why finding sources is super important as the first step in article writing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well what about the notorius episode of the anime or the Porygon phone coming in? I'm sure they have t least some sources available. Besides apparently the Porygon article is in review. I'm looking to do its evolutions, Porygon2 and Porygon-Z. What about those? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well it could be notable, the anime episode is definitely notable. For the later versions...well...harder to say. It could be that they would be better featured as subsections on a main Porygon page, or they might be notable enough as is. Can you try to find some sources and link them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well how about [3]? Do these kind of sites work for being notable? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Alas no, as that is not an independent source. What you really need is coverage in things like the New York Times, or game review and pop culture sites like IGN. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Like [[4]]? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Huh I had no idea IGN had a "Wiki" side. Alas, that is also not usable as it is user generated content. Any Wiki is not usable as a source on Wikipedia (e.g. you can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia either). Only IGN's review/news side of things, which is written by game reviewers and reporters, can be used. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Well, is Pokemon.com a source since it IS the official site of pokemon? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, It could possibly be used as a source of information, but not a source to show notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I want to do an interesting notable Unova Pokemon. Have any ideas? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, In some ways, I think writing an article about a Pokemon might be quite hard. As I might have said before, making an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, mainly because you need to find a notable topic. Can't say I'm too familiar with the Unova Pokemon, never played B&W. They are in the news today though, [5], [6], etc. However, those articles really pertain to Pokemon Go, not the Unova pokemon themselves. For some inspiration on existing pokemon topics you'd like to edit, you may wish to peruse Category:Pokémon. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There are templates others have created for some to use. Maybe I could use those? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Could you link some examples? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Here. [7]. Same goes for Porygon2: [8] UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, I should note that both were last edited more than a decade ago, meaning they probably don't reflect current policy very well. Perhaps as a rough guide, but even then I think that starting from scratch would be needed. Comparing those articles to what you'd need, many quality sources would be needed. Avoid speaking in a "in-universe" style. A trivia section should never be in an article. The "biological characteristics" section should likely be something more like "Characteristics and design".

Good articles to emulate are Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam and Pikachu. If you want to make an in-depth, in-universe article, you are probably better off editing a Pokemon wiki. Remember that Wikipedia's style and perspective is ..almost disinterested and third person. Again, the critical element here will be sourcing. If you can find enough sources that review Porygon specifically or discuss its cultural impact, you can probably make an article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, I did a fair bit of sleuthing, and asked around, and I'm afraid that it may not be possible to make a Porygon article after all. I went through ten pages of google results, and couldn't find enough sources. The only sources I could find mainly talked about the Ill-fated anime episode. But the anime episode already has an article. As another editor said to me, if Porygon didn't survive the "Pokemon purges" that happened when we began strict notability requirements, its unlikely that it would survive today. Even if you did create an article, it would likely be immediately nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Now its possible that it could survive at AfD, but its unlikely. I know that's probably not good news to hear, but some areas are a lot harder to make new articles in than others. For instance, biology is super easy: every species is notable, and we only have articles on a fraction of species. For pokemon, a lot harder. You may wish to consider some other ideas of articles to create. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Well, isn't Pokemon based off of the diverse species of animals? And so maybe Porygon isn't the best Pokemon to pick for now, but I do want to either create a well graded Pokemon article or help a Pokemon article get to good status. Is there a Pokemon that fits those criteria? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Snorlax, Articuno, Moltres, and many other existing Pokemon articles could certainly use improvement! Template:Pokémon directory shows all current articles on Pokemon. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a Pokemon in which I can create an article for? Maybe black and white pokemon? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, You mean in terms of a whole game? Pokémon Black and White exists, as do I believe most games. Template:Pokémon video games series shows all articles on the games. Most of those could also use improvement, although many are already good class. If you want, I can help show you how to take an article to Good status. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the whole game, not really. I want to do individual Pokemon species. Although I do want to learn how to make articles to good status. Can you help me with that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Certainly! Taking an article to good status is an undertaking. Simply, the article must meet the Good Article criteria. Usually that means you'll have to do some research and writing to ensure the article is complete, ensure that it complies with MOS, etc. If you choose an article I can help you develop it to GA. Once you think it is ready, you then submit it for a Good Article nomination, where a reviewer will work with you to make sure that it really does meet all the criteria. The review process takes a variety of shapes, but will always ensure you meet the six criteria. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Great! Now let's see here, I'll do....hmmm....Either the unused demo Pokemon or Unown. How about that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Links please? You can link internal pages using double square brackets, and external URL's using single square brackets. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait what? I'm assuming ill need to find those online somewhere? like....[[| dis?]] UB Blacephalon (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Oh I thought you were referring to already existing Wikipedia pages. To show the link you do [9], to show the Wikipedia page, you do Unused Pokémon in the 1997 Pokémon Gold and Silver demo. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I literally just got that off the Internet. Um, so do I just add info relating to the cites I give, because people have been reverting my edits as I was just giving good (or at least I thought it was good) info. Do I need more cites to get better article status? UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well every addition of content requires a cited reference. If you add content without a citation, it will usually be undone as there is no way to verify it. Also, for MissingNo, it is already featured status, the highest an article can go. Not much more can be done to improve an article from there, beyond minor changes. The little gold star in the top right signifies as such. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well as I said, I happen to an expert pokemon master and one thing I've learned from scouring youtube is that is was created by deleting gen 2 pokemon from a generation 1 game. I tried saying that and they just reversed it. I don't think youtubes a good cite so what do I do? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well even though you might have experience, you still have to cite things, otherwise it is original research. For instance, I'm a botanist in the real world, and know a great number of things about plants. While that helps me to edit plant based articles by giving me a background, I still have to use sources when I'm editing. Otherwise, no one would be able to verify what I was adding. YouTube is also not a good source, as its content is self published. If you want to add something, it must come from a published reliable source. Publishing ensures a level of accuracy; someone can put anything up on Wikipedia, but news sources and book publishers etc. have an incentive to only publish verifiable, well written, info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

How do I know where to look and how do I know if it's accurate or not? I have the internet at my fingertips but I don't know what to look for. I'll give you what I find. UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Sourcing is always tricky. The more you do it, the better a feel you'll get for it. You may wish to read the guide on reliable sources. For specific websites, here is a list of common sources, good and bad. If a website isn't on the list, its a case by case basis. Generally, newspapers and news sites with broad circulation are reliable. Self-published sources, like blogs, YouTube, etc. are not reliable. User-created content, like Wikis, is not reliable. Books are almost always reliable, but don't cover many subjects and are hard to get a hold of. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so is Pokemon.com a reliable source? Because I can't find anything for any Pokemon. How about chemistry? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Pokemon.com is not an independent source, as it is too closely related to the subject. You can see why sourcing Pokemon articles is so hard...

For chemistry, you're usually going to want to use scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Google scholar is a good starting point for such articles. You view some of those papers you may need to get access to the various journals, or usually the sites that host those journals like SpringerLink (Wikipedia can provide that, I also have access). Other good sources are documents created by government agencies. Books are also much more available and useful in chemistry. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so what topics are available? I'm usually fond of Radiorganochemistry (if that's even a term but you get the idea) and how SHE are used. No one else is getting back to me on the Fm-Yb alloy bowl and I was wondering if that even is a use. But I'm not sure what to create. What do you suggest? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry This is a list of articles that folks have asked be created. Not all of the articles there should exist, but many could. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I have an idea of what I want but I don't know what to put into it. What if its not long enough or have barely enough info to put into it? Plus I don't see exactly what I want but molecules will do nicely although I probably will only be able to put basic information in. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Its alright if an article is a stub, as long as it is notable. If you want to do something that is not on the list, we could still likely do it, but you'd have to find a viable topic (which can be difficult). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

How can something be notable but not have much information? I never understood a stub.... UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Stub articles are just articles that haven't been well developed. For instance, there are many stub articles about botany. Take Accessory fruit. It is certainly notable, as an important topic in botany. But its only a paragraph long. Clearly, much more could be written, its just that no one has written more yet. Take also for example the Cactus wren, which I just today brought to featured status. When I started working on it, it looked like this, a stub with not even a dozen sentences. It is now a full length article, but it took 16 years from the time it was created to reach that point.

The moral here is that an article has many stages. It may start as a stub, with barely any content (most WIkipedia articles are currently stubs), but over its lifespan be developed and improved in many ways, ideally achieving good or featured article status at the apex. That being said, starting a stub article can present some challenges, as its harder to assess the notability of a stub. The better the starting point for an article, the better off it will be in the long run. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Holy fluff! So I just have to put as much info as I can source and someone will take care of the rest? Amazing! Now about that Good Status........ UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well its not that easy, but finding as many quality sources as possible is a good thing. It doesn't necessarily mean others expand it though. They might, but the spirit of Wikipedia is to be WP:BOLD and do it yourself! But if your article starts off poor, don't worry, most do. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and you can expand it at your pace.

If you find an article that needs expanding, or want to expand an article of your own, that's where the Good status comes in. Good articles are examples of well made content, that are well sourced, complete, well written, well photographed, etc. (again, the Good criteria). If you were to start an article, it might start as a stub, before you eventually improve it to a good article. (The progression of rating is stub > start > C > B > Good > A (but only for some types of articles) > Featured) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh so what article topics can I create or upgrade to a better status? UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Just about anything! The world is your oyster. Of the nearly 6 million articles, only 6,000 are Featured, and only 30,000 are Good. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow! So what do I have to do to get articles to better status again? Cite more sources for info? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well, its a complex process. In essence: make them better. To reach GA, the article needs to be well written, well sourced, generally complete in its coverage, neutral, and be illustrated with images, if possible. To reach FA, the article must be close to perfect. It needs to have the above, but also meet every part of the manual of style, and its sourcing and writing must be impeccable.

But, one can improve articles without getting better status. The status is a good goal, but simply adding well sourced info to any article is valuable. Wikipedia is improved by many small edits everyday, that add up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

So edit and source for the better? Than how do you get recognized for your contributions? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, You probably shouldn't edit with recognition in mind. If you want that...plenty of other places will give you recognition. Wikipedia is best edited from the heart, with the intent to honestly improve one of the world's best and most useful references for the good of all. Now, with that being said, we certainly do recognize folks on Wikipedia. Many people put in some very epic contributions, and folks get recognized in many large and small ways. For instance, I try to thank editors (using the thank feature thats baked into the interface) for good edits. For particularly fine contributions, we award barnstars. We also have the annual WikiCup, a challenge to make excellent content which results in a big shiny trophy. Again, if you want, bringing articles to GA and FA is a nice way to have a solid goal and reward. But at the end of the day, the very act of improving Wikipedia is the reward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I do that every time I see things I think I should put in there. No one seems to notice or it gets reverted.... I dont get it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, If it gets reverted, try to figure out why. Engage in discussion on the article's talk page. Talk to the editors. I know it feels bad to get reverted, and experienced editors tend to revert new editors with a bit of...harshness I guess. Its often cus new editors just aren't familiar with policy, and thus are likelier to make edits that don't conform. But don't worry, even I get my edits reverted. its all part of the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. And yeah, not a ton of edits get recognized. For your average typo fixing edit...yeah thats pretty mundane. But being particularly useful/helpful/kind etc or making a particularly good contrib is where you can earn recognition. Again though, don't focus on that aspect of it. Our internal "WikiLove" is meant to be a form of thanks and kindness, not a goal in and of itself. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I make sure I do that but after a few comments no one seems to respond anymore. UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why but no one does anymore... UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Folks not responding can be for a variety of reasons. If they ever don't respond, but you think they still need to, a friendly reminder on their talk page, or a ping at wherever the discussion was happening, ought to do the trick. Editors have a lot to keep track of, and sometimes things just get lost. Especially if you don't ping them, as then editors won't get a notice that you've replied. If you leave a note on their talkpage you don't have to ping them however, as they automatically get a notice when someone edits their talkpage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I usually do it on their talk page if they revert my edit upfront. However, no one comes on my talkpage and writes to me though. sometimes, if thei not responding, I may just send them a second response to... notice that I sent them a message. Usually that does the trick. UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Folks are unlikely to come to your page unless they're opening conversation. Conversations should usually be kept in one place. But yeah, if its been a few days, a followup message is fair game. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean like contacting them? How do I do that? I thought I did do that on their talk page. UB Blacephalon (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Oops realized I didn't respond here. My bad. A discussion can be opened on a user's talk page, or on the relevant article's talkpage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's why I always check every page I commented on in the last few days. :) Anyways, I do that a lot or every time I think something wrong or they discredit me. But still half of them don't respond. What next? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well if you've given them a kind reminder on their talk page, and they still don't answer, feel free to make the change again. Do so only after considerable time has passed, at least a week and maybe two. Be very careful even if you do, make sure that your edit conforms to policy, and that you aren't going against consensus. If you are ever unsure, or would like another voice, let me know and I chime in. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh thank you! in fact if you look in fermium's talk page, you'll see that I've had a conversation that abruptly stopped as I was getting to the answer I wanted. What happened and is there a use? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Ah. Several issues there. For one, you didn't use the Template:ping to reply to the user you were talking with, so they probably didn't even see your reply. Secondly, that conversation was verging on WP:NOTFORUM, which may also be why they didn't reply. Talk pages aren't a general space for discussing the subjects we cover, its for discussing how to improve them. However, your writings on Fermium have a good point: does it have any uses beyond research? The article currently says no, but if you were to find research saying otherwise, that would be a useful addition.

Also, when you mention pages, make sure to link them, such as Fermium, so that I and others can easily get to them :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea how to ping people. For Fermium, shouldnt the picture be enough evidence to have the fact that if it was incorporated in the bowl, it was used in the bowl, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Well, yeah it was used in the bowl. But the article doesn't say it has no uses, it says it has no uses outside of research, and the bowl was used only in research. And you can ping folks by typing {{ping|InsertUserHere}} and they'll get a message sent to them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right. But if the actual element was inside of the bowl and used for the bowl doesn't that technetically be a use and can be used? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, The article states Owing to the small amounts of produced fermium and all of its isotopes having relatively short half-lives, there are currently no uses for it outside basic scientific research. The bowl was basic science research. Thus the article seems accurate. I can't imagine that more than one bowl was made, and it had no use other than being literally boiled. I think adding a uses section would be somewhat misleading. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how was the bowl made with fermium if its not incorporated in there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, What do you mean? Of course the bowl has fermium, it says so right there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break so that I can navigate easier

Then why are u saying its not a use? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, It is a use, if we're being semantic. But a "use" section in an article details how things have general utility, not just scientific. Most "use" or "application" sections (such as Iron#Applications) cover how the element is used in everyday life in the real world. Fermium, due to its properties, has no such everyday use. You can't just go to Walmart and buy a fermium bowl, but you can buy an iron bowl; thus the difference in the structures of the articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

OH! So its not a public use!....but you cant just buy a calibrator for einsteinium either so.....what? UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, You're right, Einsteinium does have a section for applications...which says there really aren't any. If you would like to draft a version of an applications section on the fermium talkpage, you could. But again, I think there are so few applications that such a section isn't necessary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well if theres a use for science, people need to know about it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, But its already mentioned in the page, so folks do know about it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm....youre right! Then what do you consider it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Not sure what you mean? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If its not a use, then what is it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, It is a research application. Call it a use if you'd like, but its a limited use. It was a single scientific experiment. We're just mincing words here, unless you're suggesting a change to the article, I'm not sure what other use this line of conversation has. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I always wondered what the last element to have a use was. Einsteinium also is a limited use so.......now what? UB Blacephalon (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Oh, now I see why you are mentioning it. To find that answer, you're gonna need to find a reliable source that makes that claim. Us trying to find out the answer is original research, which we don't do on WIkipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Can you find any because the picture is all I can find. UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

So did you find any? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, No, I did not. When we have a lack of sources, we just don't say anything, as is the Wikipedia way. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh well okay. So how do we know if the picture is real? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also I want to redo the Baldis basic's article that was deleted and I thought maybe you could help me. I'm not sure what got it deleted but I want to bring it back as an article. Plus I'm not sure how to fix it either> UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, I have no reason to doubt the photo's authenticity.

For the Baldi's basics article, I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldi's Basics In Education and Learning. Reading through it, the main reason was notability, which is killer. Unless you could find reliable sources, it would be impossible to recreate the article. At the time of deletion all they could find was a Kotaku article, and I couldn't do much better. Lot of youtube videos, but those don't count towards notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Well what about the game itself? Could that be used? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

need adoption

Hi there Captain Eek. I saw that you are offering to adopt users here? I was wondering if you could please do so for me? I am ready, willing and and highly interested in serving!! and I already know the difference between a binnacle and a belaying pin!! So I hope that sounds okay. I appreciate any help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Howdy hello! I could adopt you if you really wished, although I'll be honest, I don't know what I could provide. You have been around Wikipedia longer than I have, made more edits, and created more pages. Generally I use adoption to shepherd folks who are new or have run into trouble, you seem to fit neither. Still, I could be wrong, and try to help where I can. With that in mind: what would you like to get out of an adoption? Why would you like one? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

believe me, I need it, in all seriousness. bring yourself, bring your ships, and summon all hands to the taffrails. have all gunports open, with an oldster standing by each guncrew with a lit match and pile of chain shot. all sharpshooters into the rigging, and prepare to rig the mainmast to catch the landward breeze as soon as we're under the lee. I'll explain via semaphore signal from the quarterdeck of the good ship Vengeance. Arrggghhhhh, me hearties!! there's booty to windward!! hoist anchor, trim the mizzen and steer amidships!! arrgghh!!! --18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just kidding above, with my sea lingo, however, just to answer seriously, yes, I could definitely use your guidance. I will let you know more in the days or weeks ahead. your input will be very helpful. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your post today on my page. that sounds good. looking forward to new collaborations!! by the way, I figured out how I made my way here. I went to the page for Wikipedia:Mentorship, but currently that page directs users to go to Wikipedia:adoption. So I guess that now even experienced editors will be directed to think about joining the adoption program? does that sound right? let me know. for me it sounds like one positive and beneficial resource. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

note re items

Hi. thanks so much for agreeing to be my mentor. I have a note that I am drafting which i will send you in the near future, to let you know about some articles, drafts, and projects where I am working on various things, or have various ideas in draft phase that i am working on. I look forward to your input and comments.

right now, i just wanted to let you know about one current item that is going on right now at the current time. you can view Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians for a discussion of a proposal of a new resource that I have been setting up for the use of the community. the resource is located at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Drafts. Basically, this will be a page where other editors can view links to drafts left by deceased Wikipedians. this will be a resource for our community, to honor the memory of those fellow editors, and to value and to cherish their work and efforts. I hope you find it interesting. you are welcome to comment there, or to send any comments to me. thanks. by the way, we can discuss this at your talk page if you wish. you are also welcome to visit my talk page. I think your talk page would be better, simply because I am fine with coming here to hold any discussions, and that probably makes it more convenient for you to do so, and to send me comments periodically. Anyway, I hope that sounds good. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Yeah my talk page works, its the easiest place for me to see things. I see that you are working on sorting Brian's drafts, that is a noble and vast undertaking. I see things got a bit heated surrounding that, but it appears that they are calming down a bit. I think we should definitely get as many of his drafts finished as possible, it is the best way to honor his legacy. Wikipedia is never done, and one user doesn't own something, its all a collaborative effort. The way in which it is done, as you have seen, must be careful however. Outright editing all his pages seems to have found some resistance, so edits will need to be tactful. I'll look over his sandboxes a bit and what you've been up. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks!! glad to hear your comments, and to be in touch. thanks. see you. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi.l I just pinged you at this page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts. could you please go these and look at the last comments at the bottom of that page? I would greatly appreciate your inputs and insights. By the way, I will be offline for tonight and most of tomorrow. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re projects

Hi CaptainEek!! I wanted to let you know about an open proposal that I currently have open at Village Pump. it is at the link below. Could you please take a look, andlet me know what you think oif this?

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Idea_for_new_community_workspace

this proposal arose because I became the lead coordinator at WP:WikiProject History. You are welcome to take a look at that, and let me know any thoughts there as well.

Basically, I became lead coordinator there, because no one else was doing anything to keep the project active. I have done my best to make sure the talk page totally inviting, and to let people know that any and all input is totally welcome.

Also, when I realized that there was very little discussion taking place between different WikiProjects, I felt that a forum or community resource to allow discussion to occur, and to enable exchange of ideas and information, that is what gave me the idea to suggest a new community forum, at the link above. I hope you will feel free to take a look at these, and let me know what you think. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, if this community forum does get set up, here are some example of some of the group efforts, projects, and activities, from around Wikipedia, that I would like to use this new forum to promote. I hope this is helpful. let me know any comments. thanks!!

• Women in Green - On 10 February 2020 the project became a WikiProject in its own right after about four and half years as a task force. The project is dedicated to promoting articles on women to Good Article status. Currently only about 4% of GAs are about women, and very few core articles have reached GA status. New members and interest in this would be appreciated.
• Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
  • The Great Britain/Ireland De-stub-athon is an edit-a-thon contest that aims to vastly decrease the number of stubs we have for the UK and Ireland. This focuses particularly on places and listed buildings, but the contest will include everything. It aims to eliminate as many of our 44,000-odd stubs as possible, and to see content improved for every single county of the UK and Ireland as evenly as possible. It covers all 48 counties of England (as well as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), 32 in Scotland, 32 in Ireland and N Ireland, and 22 of Wales, 134 counties in total. Wouldn't it be great to be able to browse a Google map of the UK and Ireland and to read a consistently good quality article for every village and monument you zoom in on? That's the primary goal we have in mind long term here!
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/March_Madness_2020

March Madness is a backlog reduction drive, which will run from 00:01 UTC on 1 March through to 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2020. The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project; however, only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. This year the drive is focused on the following areas:

• tagging article and non-article talk pages that fall within the project's scope, including adding articles to MILHIST task force
• assessing articles that fall within the project's scope, including Good Article nominations

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

here is a new notice on this; I posted this to some folks who seemed interested. thanks.

Proposal for new resource

I would like to propose a new resource for WikiProjects, a community forum, or "town hall," for allowing communication between different WikiProjects. would anyone have any interest in this? Please feel free to let me know, or to comment. thanks!!

Please note, the page linked to below is merely an example, so that tab header for this page is for a different WikiProject. If implemented, the link would be placed on the specific tab header for this WikiProject, not the one shown below. thanks.

• link: User:Sm8900/Community forum and bulletin board re WikiProject

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Hi,

I would be happy to work on the Abraham Lincoln article. I have worked on a number of Good Articles, but I think I only worked on the review of one Featured article. I have worked on a number of articles about Lincoln's relatives, and would like to be part of the team. I saw that you wanted "serious" participants. If you think I could help, I would like to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I'd love to have the help! We'll need a solid squad of folks if we're to take it to FA successfully :) Feel free to add your name on the list on the Lincoln talkpage. As you've no doubt seen already, me and several other folks are taking a fine toothed comb to the article. One of the big things will be moving content to sub-articles, as it is currently far too large. If you have any good Lincoln biographies, that will also help. If not, don't worry, you can still be plenty of help. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! I will enjoy it! I will add my name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh and CaptainEek, I am sorry. I am afraid I am being a nuisance. I am on disability, part of which is brain injury, and it amazes me sometimes when I get stuck on something out of the blue... I have to do things slow... and I get stuck at times. I don't know if posting things on the Talk:Abraham Lincoln page are bothersome. I don't want to be a bother. I actually do pretty well plodding along... but it takes me awhile and I get stuck sometimes. Maybe I don't need to tell you. Anyway, it would be nice to work together, but I didn't figure that I would be disruptive in the process... so, whatever works for the two of you is good for me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, you are in good company! I was one of the lead editors in the GA effort 10 years ago. I have since suffered a stroke and I too am not so strong. Keep up the good work. You know that there is never a lack of people to show us our mistakes, whoever we are! Hoppyh (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, We're glad to have you, and will need to have all the help we can get. The more the merrier. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoppyh and CaptainEek, You're comments help a lot! Good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Since your working on Lincoln...

Since your working on Lincoln, Happy Presidents Day. Hope you have the day off and its been an enjoyable weekend. Hope all is well.   // Timothy :: talk  23:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Wiki Birthday!!

Happy Wiki Birthday, CaptainEek!!! now that calls for extra round of grog, served out to all hands. enjoy!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Hey hey! I didn't even realize, thanks so much! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

note re items

thanks for your helpful input today. I will take note of all of the points raised, and will keep them in mind. I will communicate further if you wish. thanks for your note. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks for all your help recently! please look over my contribs lately. no worries, I am done with suggesting ideas in public venues such as the ones used recently. I have a few more ideas, but I plan to do them in my own user space, and I plan to run them past you, and quite a few admins, and then wait a long time, and give any further ideas lots of time to get lots and lots of constructive and open feedback. I really appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am working on a draft, which I am discussing with user Casliber. they have been extremely helpful and supportive. you can let me know what you think. it is at: User:Sm8900/bulletin_draft. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I could use your input, when you have a chance. Please feel free to let me know once you're back. I really appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Howdy! I'm not ignoring you, just a bit busy rn (work and life is kicking me in the pants), will get back to you in the next day. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks. if you get a chance, please view my most recent comment at WP:ANI. I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, It seems that Nick has given you a very helpful message, and it appears that you have gotten it. All's well that ends well :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wikipedia:VND has been accepted

Wikipedia:VND, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well thats a new one...somehow I? got credit for approving a redirect out of draft? Go home Wikipedia, you're drunk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Adopt a newbie

Ahoy Captain! I am seeking adoption as a newbie who barely understands the basics. I am a wiki reader for many years and wanted to explore contributing because I support the idea of knowledge sharing and learning. I enjoy biology, history and nature.

Quierotacos (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Quierotacos, Howdy hello! Before I adopt you, I would ask that you first take the Wikipedia Adventure, and then get back to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Captain, HELP!!!

Hello Captain. Thank you for your contribution on the article Femi Adeoti. Though the article was declined due to lack of significant coverage. What are the necessary steps i need to take for articles like this to receive approval on Wikipedia. Considering the individual has received several mention in the news which are reliable sources. He has also received several awards within the tech industry in Nigeria. How can i use this to my advantage? Thanks for your help Captain. Shokoyokoto NG (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Shokoyokoto NG, You need to find additional sources. Some coverage is not enough, our subjects require significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and at the moment the sources do not show that. If such quality sources cannot be found, then it is premature for this feller to have an article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

JAZHAZHANDZWIKI

@JAZHAZHANDZWIKI: Howdy hello! Appreciate the barnstar, though I'll say you may have me confused with another captain (Perhaps CaptainRaju or CaptainMedusa?). I don't think we've interacted before, though feel free to prove me wrong. If I can be of assistance though, let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Vikings in Gascony.

Hi Captain, I agree with you. But not completely. It is true that Vikings have never been studied south of river Loire. So it's a new topic. If we need secondary works, then it means that new topics cannot exist on Wikipedia. Which would be counter-productive. By the way, there are secondery works. In June 2018, professor Alban Gautier wrote in Annales de Normandie a twelve pages article in which he admitted that Viking invasions had never been studied south of River Loire, that Gascony was probably invaded, that their presence in Aquitaine could shed a new light on what they did in the Mediterranean and concluded that there could have been a European strategy of the Vikings to control Mediterranean trade. My third book, la Saga des Vikings was published by editions Autrement, Flammarion which has a scientifc committee of high value. In April 2018, one month after its publication, the book entered the aggregation program. In other words, this page of history does not come out of the blue. In 1996, the Medievalist Renée Mussot Goulard concluded that the Viking presence in Gascony was "the longest Scandinavian occupation known in the kingdom"... But she was fiercely criticized by local Historians who didn't want to hear about any Germanic presence in their History. Of course, all this was written in French. If to be published in Wikipedia, you have to be translated in English, then of course, I accept this. But once more, it would be counter-productive. I will improve the article. Thank you for your advices. --Jarnsida (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Jarnsida, Howdy hello! So a few points here.

1. Wikipedia is not for covering new topics. We let book publishers and newspapers do that. We only exist to summarize existing, reliable, secondary sources. That doesn't mean we never use primary sources, but only very sparingly and when we have a secondary source that discusses them.
2. When citing your own works, be careful. Please read WP:SELFCITE.
3. You claim the subject has never been studied before, but if there really are works that cover it, then it has been studied. If there really are no works that have studied it, we cannot write about it.
4. In terms of the work by Goulard, we have to keep a neutral point of view. We can mention Goulard's coverage, but we should give WP:DUE coverage. That might mean including criticism of Goulard's perspective from local historians.
5. References need not be in English. As long as they are reliable, they can be in any language.
6. Remember that Encyclopedic writing is a much different style than book, journal, or news writing. It is quite formal and very neutral.

Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Captain Eek,

Wikipedia is not for covering new topics.  : Viking invasions in France are not really a « new topic ». You claim the subject has never been studied before, but if there really are works that cover it, then it has been studied. If there really are no works that have studied it, we cannot write about it. Ok. Viking invasions have been studied. So works do exist. How these works analyze the primary sources I mention in this article ? Did you know these primary sources ? Can you cite me a work that mention these primary sources ? If no, does it mean that these primary sources don’t desserve to be mentioned ? we have to keep a neutral point of view. The question is : what is a « neutral point of view » ? In France, « neutral points of view » don’t exist. The Wikipedia chart explains that different points of view must be presented. That’s fair. This is the reason why the opinion of those who write that the Vikings behaved like pirates without ambition in Aquitaine must be counter-balanced by the opinion that they came there as traders. That’s fair. I will underscore the official opinion and its weaknesses in front primary sources. We only exist to summarize existing, reliable, secondary sources. My books are existing secondary sources which interpret and analyze primary sources. The real question : when does a secondary source become reliable ? Thank you for your help ! --Jarnsida (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Jarnsida,

1. If a secondary source does not mention a certain primary source, we generally shouldn't include it. The reason is: we can't accurately analyze a primary source, because we aren't experts. Even if you are an expert, theres no way to know that, and anyone could claim to be an expert. So we get around that by requiring secondary sources.
2. If they have been studied, then you need to change the text to reflect that.
3. Neutral point of view means that Wikipedia presents each argument with due weight, does not favor a viewpoint unnecessarily, and isn't trying to convince our readers of a certain position, (among other things). Wikipedia doesn't take sides.
4. A reliable source is one that is...well reliable. That usually means that is 1. Published 2. by a reputable publisher 3. there is no reason to doubt its veracity. In this case, if your book has been published by a major publisher, then it should be reliable.
5. A last note of caution: don't overuse your own book in making an article. That might be seen as trying to unduly promote yourself, and would not be a neutral point of view because it focuses too much on one viewpoint. Get various books on the subject. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your review of the English translation of the entry about Marwan Lahoud

Good morning,

I have seen your comments on the lack of references and citations on the proposed article. Please, note the following:

• This article is the translation into English of an article published in the French section of Wikipedia. The article was published many years ago, by a source unidentified.
• I stepped in myself only recently to precisely add to the sections the many missing references and citations, which also appear in the present translation.
• I prepared this translation,as I believe this entry is of interest to English speaking readers, especially after the announcement of the contract signed between SFO in England, DoJ in the USA and Airbus in the major corruption affair in which both AIRBUS and M. Lahoud were involved.
• Also because M. Lahoud is mentioned in various English speaking newspapers (as Financial Times, cited, and the english version of Handelsblatt, also cited)
• I believe the article's tone is as neutral as neutral as possible, especially on the touchy corruption subject, in which this public person is involved, as several different reliable sources (recognised investigation journalists mostly), which I all checked, mention him, in the same termes I used and added.

To Please do not hesitate to send me emails if any further comment. Have a good day best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigré55 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, A few things:

1. Since it was translated, please use the Template:Translated page on the talk page.
2. Inline citations must be used after the phrase its being used for. Having a citation at the lead of a section doesn't work.
3. For your sources, please use more than just the URL. Visual Editor will let you easily convert or create full references
4. Some of the section headers are still in french
5. The business and corruption section remains...very hard to read.
6. The "Participation in institutions" section (whose title does not make much sense) has external links, which should not be present in the body CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

to CaptainEek, Thanks for your comments and suggestions:

Will work on them, starting on all technicalities

For the "Business and corruption" section, I recognise it is hard to read, also because I wanted to stick to facts, and be neutral. I suggest that this section be reviewed and improved but some others Wiki contributors, what do you think?

cheers — Preceding ~ comment added by Emigré55 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

to CaptainEek, Main corrections as you suggested made:

I suggest you publish as is, and we will see the amending the page.

Have a good evening. Emigré55 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Geologival Perspective orrelation

Sir, I rewrote the article following your instructions:

1. I made the text clear and simple as possible. Of course, it took more space.
2. I started the lead with the short definition, and shift the rest to the "background" section "Basics of Geological Correlation".
3. I don't use bolding.
4. It is extremely difficult to explain a geometrical theory without drawings. I minimize the number of drawings to the edge.
5. I set out the theory as simple as it is possible, but I still assume that the reader finished the high school.
6. I used the # sign.
7. I supplied every significant statement or geological and mathematical term with the reference or link. Naturally, when I describe the theory of perspective correlation itself, I refer to only one Haites' paper, which he published on this matter.

Do you have any other remarks? Nabatoff (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nabatoff, Howdy hello! You've certainly made improvements, but issues remain. Again, much of the article remains unsourced. You also still do not seem to understand what a WP:LEAD is. Perhaps read a great article like Earth to see how its lead is structured.

To your last point: is Haites the only person to ever talk about this theory? Are there no other papers that discuss it? If not, then I would think that maybe his theory is not especially valid. For instance, our article on DNA has hundreds of sources. Despite the fact that it was discovered in a single paper by Watson and Crick, we use much more than just Watson and Crick's paper. You say that "I refer to only one Haites' paper", which is the issue I have there. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:01:21, 3 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jblim407

• Jblim407 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Debate Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, thank you for your review of the article draft for "Debate Korea".

I would like to elaborate more on why the subject matter could be considered as notable enough to be published.

The organisation has mostly been active in South Korea so far, as referenced in the draft, and there's already an article published in the Korean Wikipedia by an unidentified user.

I thought an English version of the page was needed as Debate Korea is the host institution for the World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC) 2021, which is the world's largest debating tournament and one of the largest annual international student events in the world. Yet, there are insufficient information regarding this organisation available in English, so I presumed that a Wikipedia article would be helpful for international debaters interested in the event. While I concede that there are only limited coverage and notability of the organisation at the moment, further coverage is expected as the dates of the event draw nearer.

I added the "translated page template" on the draft, as most of the information are translated either from the article itself or the referenced sources from the article available on the Korean Wikipedia.

Thank you again for taking your time for the review, and I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions. Best regards.

References

Jblim407 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Jblim407, Howdy hello! Just because a page exists on another Wiki does not make it inherently notable by our standards. It may be a bit premature, seeing as there is limited press coverage. I am not well versed in South Korean sources, so I will leave that to another reviewer. I may have misjudged the article. But its general lack of prose, and the fact that most of the list items are unsourced, leads me to question its notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

About Bulgarian Antarctic Institute

Ahoy Captain,
It seemed somewhat odd to this old sea-dog that the Institute's website is a Weebly page.
Pete "call me fishmeal" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, Hmmm right you are. I hadn't seen that page in my search, I was instead on some other Bulgarian antarctic pages that mention it. Well I still haven't seen the page, as my anti-virus blocked it as malicious, so that is pretty suspicious. Could you leave a note on the talk page of the article, so that folks coming across it in the future can understand why, and hopefully have a chance at sorting things out? Thanks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

AHOY Matey

Hi Captain Eek!

I am new to the world of Wikipedia and am seeking a type of (short term,low commitment) mentor to utilize as a source of guidance and knowledge as I begin my journey on this platform. I was curious to see if there might be any way that I might be able to pick your brain on some best practices around your processes for creating new pages and editing pre-existing pages. Any insight you might be able to share would be super helpful.

Thank you! Hope to hear from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thederekjohnson (talk • contribs)

Happy holidays

Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

note re new info posted

Hi CaptainEek!! Avast and ahoy there!!! just wanted to let you know that I followed the advice of a few old sea-dogs, including yourself and others. I made sure to get the input of the old crewhands before making any changes to the ship's muster!!!! We had some discussion in the wardroom, and I have now added the set of announcements that I was proposing a while back, but at an existing resource, the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board. You can also view the talk page there, for the discussion that we had there. I also posted a related notice at Wikipedia: Village pump (idea lab), to let people know about it. It's much better to follow the existing ship traditions on things like this!!

I hope to get input and interest from all hands. You are welcome to go there, take a look, and let me know what you think. I would welcome your input, as being one of your adoptees, as well as one of the deckhands around here. I really appreciate your help. thanks!!! -Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, I'll go take a look. One note of advice: I see it took you 5 edits to make this posting. I understand that sometimes you miss a typo, and have to fix it, but 5 edits is too many. Before posting, make sure to re-read and proofread your posting, especially because faster users may read your first post and reply to it before you have a chance to edit it. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

sure, no problem. I understand. I will be sure to do so. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, I took a look at your idea, and it seems pretty chill. Now its up to what the community thinks. I think its somewhat similar to the category above, which is "Projects seeking help", so its possible the two sections could get bundled together, but I don't personally have a strong opinion either way. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks. by the way, I assume you saw the new section posted on the bulletin board itself? anyway, I really appreciate your reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Yes I did see the new section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

GRETA (Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings)

Hello CaptainEek, The material is resubmitted. All your comments were taken into consideration (therefore, the text was modified). Also, a section on criticism was added. Hope this time thigs are fine. --108Uni (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Shipman

I've just accepted this. Probably you didn't notice that ref1 is to a full editorial NYT obit, and we have never in the last ten years seen afd delete an article with such a reference (from after the 19th century) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

DGG, Ah, thanks for the note, I did indeed miss that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note re some ideas and items

Hi There Captain Eeek!! Avast and ahoy there!! coming alongside. mind the bosun's chair. step lively now, me hearties!!!! cheers!!

I can use your help on some things I've been working on. as noted below.

• for one thing, how do i get WikiProject History to be more active. if you view the page there, I have made it as useful, as readable, as concise and as inviting as I could. the talk page openly invites people to get more involved. I have also placed various automated project resources at the top of page, such as eg, article alerts.
  • I am open to any input at all on this. how do I make this wikiproject more useful to people, more inviting, and more active? any idea is good. I've tried my own ideas; I'm fully open to other ideas to be tried as well.
• how do we promote "community bulletin board" as a shared workspace and group resource? I am thinking of adding a prominent link to this page, somewhere at WikiProject History. I would like other projects to consider doing so as well.
• Do you see any potential ways that I could reach out to other history-related wikiprojects, and start to promote some kind of shared discussion space, or other shared community page?
  • as you know, two of the most active wikiprojects are history-related, ie MILHIST, and Women in Red. I'd be interested in finding some way to promote some sort of page for group updates, discussions, discourse, etc.
• One major idea that I had was to create another tab on the tab header for WP:HIST, and use it to link to some shared project space, or discussion forum, etc. I think this could have massive benefits. Wikipedia is a community. we are not a social network, but we are indeed a thriving, robust community, with multiple group efforts, discussions, etc, happening every day. (it could simply point to community portal, or community bulletin board, by the way.)
  • So I would like to promote this idea for a shared workspace or shared community forum for wikiprojects, as one way to promote that. what do you think of that?
• lastly, I note you are quite active on editing drives, as well as several wikiprojects. what draws you to them? what are some ways to make them a good resource?
• okay, one more question. there are editors who edit history-related articles, whose knowledge and activity is exponentially greater than mine. so they are intriniscally involved every day. Perhaps one role of mine is to make WP:History more inviting to them?
  • in other words, if someone is already continually focused on this subject area, what are some good ways to make this wikiproject useful to them, given that they are already highly involved?

Ok, those are just some of the questions I've been thinking over lately. having you as a mentor is one great and positive way that perhaps I could start to look at some of these.

By the way, I don't expect a highly-detailed answer by the way, unless you would like to provide one, which would be very welcome. but any thoughts that you have would be greatly appreciated. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Howdy hello! Its been a very busy day for me, so sorry I didn't reply earlier. When I get some time this evening I'll take a look and give you some feedback. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Howdy hello! My thoughts:

• You can't really force projects to be more active. Some lay dormant for a while, rising only when necessary. The project will only be as active as its participants are. And often involvement is hard to track. Folks may be very engaged, and just not say anything. Sometimes less talk is better, as it means that the project is helping people achieve goals. As long as it well structured, has the resources people need, and is not clunky, folks will use it. For instance, WP:PLANT is one of my favorite pages, and I use its resources all the time, even tho I say rather little on the talk page.
• The community bulletin board will be used as much as people want to. You can only promote something so much, at one point you need buy-in. It needs to fill a niche that isn't being filled, and not be overly bureacratic.
• I'm not sure if inter-project discussion is super necessary. If such discussion needs to happen, you can put a note on one of the talk pages. Less pages is usually more helpful than more. I think that the inter-project pages may be less used, instead of more used.
• In terms of editing drives: Idk, I like the gamification aspect. Its nice to compete with people in a light hearted manner and also know you're getting something done.
• Best way to make the project useful? Ask the people in the project. Don't be obtrusive, just put a short notice on the talk page, and see what people say.

Glad to provide some mentoring! Don't be afraid to ask questions, and don't worry if I don't reply right away. IRL is very busy right now, so it may be a few days between editing at times. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

thanks CaptainEek! that's very helpful. this kind of back-and-forth and feedback in the wardroom is just what I need, to steer a straight course!! seriously, good to hear your feedback. I will give this some thought. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

new possible item

hi. here's a little item that I cooked up. this is meant for use as a template. I got the initial code from Wikipedia:Community portal, then added some more items and links. what do you think? don't worry, I would present this as a proposal, either on a talk page or elsewhere, before using it widely. thanks.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Howdy hello! Where would you imagine this template being used? Also, side note: it took you four edits to add this note, please try to keep that number at 2 or fewer, since every edit you make here pings me. If you need to draft it in userspace first do, but you should be able to just proofread the version before adding it. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

sounds fine! no problem, re number of edits, will keep in mind to do so. re where this might be used, well, one initial place I thought of might be all the pages that are already linked to. in other words, this is already used as the heading for community portal; so, similarly, it could serve as a heading at dispute resolution, requests for comment, reference desk, in short all the other community sites deemed to be useful enough to link to from this template in the first place. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Need some basic information and clarification

Hi CaptainEek. I'd like to request a clarification, or actually just some basic information, on the steps for creating a new category that pertains to a scientific topic. I just created a new category just now, Category:Conceptual species roles. I thought it was a valid category for creation. however, another editor says it was disruptive to create this category. I have also asked for some assistance and help on this at WP:AN. Below is the remainder of the question as I phrased it there. Could you please assist me with understanding this process? I would greatly appreciate it. perhaps there are some steps for this process that I am not aware of. I appreciate it.

I am open to any and all feedback on any category that I set up. however, in the past, I have created various new categories, and then populated them, but I have never been told that the mere act of creating a new category was disruptive. If I am incorrect on this process, or not fully informed, then I will be glad to change my approach, based upon any feedback. could you please assist? If it was disruptive, then I will be glad to willingly withdraw it, and to change my approach to this process in the future. by the way, I have responded constructively to several highly-valid questions that were asked about this category, which I felt were thoroughly constructive questions for discussion. I really appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: I have removed your thread from AN, as it is not a general purpose help thread. Reporting yourself at AN is more likely to be a death sentence than a helpful trip. With regards to disruptive editing, the definition is left purposefully vague. DE is anything that unduly takes the time of other editors. Creating categories that are doomed to fail could be seen as disruptive. Before creating a category, you probably should have read up on the guidance about creating categories. I'll be honest, I'm not the most familiar with creating them, but the fact remains that they must follow our core guidelines, which include that categories cannot be original research. I would personally reccomend you not create categories for the time being, and ask before creating your next one. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek. Okay, no problem. I will be glad to follow your advice and your guidance above. no problem, I will follow all the steps that you outline above. I really appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick's Day

Happy Saint Patrick's Day :)   // Timothy :: talk  14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note re new item

Hi. I think i figured something out. I'm a WikiPrairie Dog!! like it? --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Hehe thats real cute, I like that! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

lol thanks!! glad you like it!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

by the way, watch out for WikiHarrier-hawks!!! there seem to be a few of those around, every so often!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

note re category ideas

hi. if you wish, would you care to please drop by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 16, and see if you can post an idea, or suggestion, or two, etc, for renaming that category?? if not, it's no problem at all. this is not a major priority. just wanted to let you know, the discussion has taken a very positive and beneficial turn, and now we are having an old-fashioned brainstorming session of sorts. your input might be helpful, mjust to give us another alternate idea or two. feel free to let me know if you'd like to make any suggestions there.

and to think this all started due to my sudden interest in prairie dogs as a topic! well, that's Wikipedia for ya!!! this is my first foray into the area of zoology and taxonomy-type topics. kind of a really cool place!! I might start to hang out around there, almost as much as the history categories!!! well, anyway, feel free to be in touch. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Final installment in my troika

Hello CaptainEek, I published the final installment of my troika of bibliographies on Soviet history. Its at Bibliography of the Post Stalinist Soviet Union. You've been with me since the first one, hopefully this last one will go as well. Hope this finds you happy and healthy.   // Timothy :: talk  03:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I went and corrected the caps in section headings in the previous two bibliographies. Thank you again for your time.   // Timothy :: talk  05:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Niamh Algar, and the not formatted properly references

The sources are reliable. If the references are not formatted properly isn't that something you could fix in a jiffy, and having formatted it quickly and correctly I'd see what you'd done and see what you mean by formatting correctly. If thats too much hastle/hassle? just delete it. She will get an article soon enough. Filmmoonshot (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Filmmoonshot, Howdy hello! So one of the issues remain that I'm not sure that she is notable. She is a rising actor, but shes certainly not famous yet. You aren't required to be famous to be notable, but there is a minimum standard. WP:NACTOR is a good and reccomended read. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Geological Perspective Correlation

Sir,

1. Following your recommendation I went tp the wiki article Earth to learn about the construction of the lead. Unfortunately, I found that the matter of this article is of different style then my one. The “Earth” is a list of different aspects of the object Earth without logical connections. Describing a theory demands not only description but explanation as well, and this is an inalienable feature of a lead. So, I go to the article “Quantum mechanics” and follow its logic. It starts with the definition (as you demanded from the very beginning), and I literally translate it from quantum mechanic” to “geology”. The result was: “Geological Perspective Correlation is a theory in Geology describing geometrical regularities in the layering of sediments.“
2. I ad a number of references to support the valuable statements in the article.
3. Concerning your last point: is Haites the only person to ever talk about this theory? Of course, he is not the only one. My comment on this matter was wrong worded. It is true that Haites published only one big paper on this issue, but it was published in thr highly respected magazine of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and immediately had a positive response (1964) followed by discussions in USA and Russia. The theory was tested in different geological regions, and allows correcting results of traditional approach. The theory received a strong support from the method of “graphical correlation” developed in the neighboring area of geology – the biostratigraphy – an experimental discovery that become populsr in oil and coal industries. As a matter of fact it is grounded on Haites’ theory. All this you can find in the references in my article. Nabatoff (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to thank you for your guidance and patience that allows to publish this article about the only mathematical law that describes geological objects. Sincerely Nabatoff (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi

I saw you on helping page. Can i ask you something?

I write my first article. Did I do it more or less right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michel_v._Tell Thank you!

Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Timi!Tim!11, Howdy hello! I took a look at your draft, as well as your addition to Harley-Davidson LiveWire. I gave the addition a copy-edit, and it seems to be good. The draft however falls short. The issue is notability. Its not clear that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. If he's notable only for a single event, then he probably won't get a standalone article. Being included as a note in another article is probably as much as one would get. Also the grammar and spelling is questionable; if English is not your first language, you would probably be better off writing in your native language version of Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi captain :)

Seams you are funny. Thx for reply :) Let me ask u some stuff bcause i reeeealy wonder. 1 You say - that one event? Is not nearly every wiki article based on one event? 1 time win a gold medal, one time discover america, one time win an award or someting? 2 he did a movie with a very famouse person some years ago. see imdb. this makes notable also - on its own - as i read that right 3 global press makes notable as i read that right. i find 30 - articles from 20 countries just from last week. should also make notable alone for itself 4 world record makes notable as far as i know? like winning a table tennis cup or something. 5 he got 10 million views on you tube, so many fans. and had a lot of celebrity guests in his show.

i wonder very very much when you say u are not sure if this is enough because i allready saw much less interessting people on wiki? people where the only point is "write 3 unknown child books "nobody" knows or buys". or something like this and there is not eaven 3 small articles aboit this books, this award, this sports person or anything. Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Timi!Tim!11, I could be mistaken about the notability. Regarding the "one event", please read WP:BLP1E to get a feel for what I'm talking about. But regardless, the sourcing needs to be better. IMDb, the subject's own YouTube, those are not reliable sources. If there really are 30 articles? Include more of them. But make sure they're from high quality sources and not just click-bait stuff. Once you've improved the sourcing, you could submit the article for review to get the opinion of an AfC reviewer, who will either accept it, or decline it with an explanation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I read it. but i still wonder a lot. he does movies with very popular people, he is imdb listed, he got a own show 20 000 people watch allways since many years, there are many articles from all over the globe, from more then one event,he payed pro baseball, he made a world record. normaly i would guss. every single one of this points would be enough and you dont see it is enough together? i dont realy get this?

you know its enough to be in 3rd league of panamas most worse foodball club? there are 10000 unknown writer, sports people and so on. i realy dont get how you eaven think about it couldnt? :/ but ok then i stop wasting my time here.how can i delet the draft? thx for your time Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Timi!Tim!11, Based on what you're saying, he seems like he could be notable. But the quality of the article needs to improve before it can be published, and that means including better sources. If you'd like to delete it, you don't need to do anything, drafts get auto-deleted after 6 months of inactivity. If you'd like to improve it, get some better sources, and perhaps ask for assistance at the Articles for Creation help desk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

what kind of better sources? most articles i see just got 2 or 3? i allready took 2-3 nearly behind evey sentence :) is there a place where we could ask and then 2-3 admins just say yes or no? as far as i understand the rules normaly a record should be enough at all. specialy if it gone global. and then there are some other things in witch support it. YT channel with 10 million views, IMDB, Movie, other big newspaper article about something else. and so on. all with source. Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Timi!Tim!11, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In terms of sources, as I said, IMDb and YouTube are not usable as sources, they are not reliable. Remove them and the information they support. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

thats the first point i can understand. but u sure know its not THAT hard to get in. if i rememder right it is enough to play female football in panamas 3rd leauge eaven in panama just 5 people know you :) so there is no place where i can ask 2-3 leading people to get a clear and final answer? Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Motorsports

Point 8 - hope you support me finaly right now :) Timi!Tim!11 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Timi!Tim!11, The way to get an answer is to submit it for review by pressing the blue button that says so on your draft, and then waiting for a reviewer to look at it. But I can already tell you that even if he is notable, the article's quality is so low that it won't get accepted. The sourcing has issues as I've said above, the writing is...not great and full of spelling and grammar mistakes, and its tone is not the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It nearly seams to me you dont like the article? All the time u tell me all of this is not enough now i find what i said as a noob at the beginning in the rules and you dont say. hey great then its no problem. then you start with maybe but - and start with other things? but anyway. thank you for your time. 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Timi!Tim!11 (talk)

Komei Abe's Divertimento

Reviews from AllMusic, Musicweb International, etc. don't count as independent reliable sources? Why? Also, Morihide Katayama isn't some Naxos employee, he's a musicologist and politologist that has written books on the topic of 20th century Japanese classical music like this. It should count as an academic assessment.

Frankly, and with all due respect to football fans, Wikipedia setting as encyclopedic material anyone that has played one game in the English fourth-tier and unencyclopedic one of the first (if not the first) Japanese compositions for saxophone and orchestra, and an excellent one while we're at it, is just ridiculous. Actually, it's mostly sad. Punk Hazard (talk)

Punk Hazard Perhaps I've missed something, but could you point out what part of the music notability guidelines this subject meets? The sourcing is questionable to me, as the websites look mostly like blogs, not professional music review sites, but I could be wrong on that point. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at the AFC Help Desk, or ask for some guidance at WP:WikiProject Music.

While I quite agree with you on the footballer point, that is a bit unrelated. I do think that standard should be changed, but it reflects the fact that society as a whole puts more emphasis on sport than most other things, and Wikipedia reflects the bias of the real world. From our perspective its a bit odd that so many footballers get articles, but to footballers it seems logical. Alas, we aren't going to just change that on a whim, there would need to be a contentious process to alter football notability standards. Regardless, football and art are evaluated on different metrics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Their is an ANI disussion you may have been involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This was because you were previously been concerned about my conduct on NHL Hockey related articles a year ago. Please remember to be civil if you wish to comment on the appeal. Thank You NicholasHui (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Dedicated and inquisitive user wants to join YOUR crew!

Hi Captain, I hope you're well.

Researching, creating and editing content on wikipedia, I believe, is a way of helping and serving others. I also believe that you can help me in the areas of research, content creation and editing articles. Please adopt me and help me learn the ropes.

Kind regards, CM Manjunath (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)