User talk:CaptainEek

CaptainEek hunting for vandals aboard one of their favorite ships, the IJN Yamato.

Editor Feedback, Talk, and Sea Shanty Singing Area

All Hands on Deck! There's conversation to be had with other editors!

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.

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 [1]? 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 [[2]]? 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, [3], [4], 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. [5]. Same goes for Porygon2: [6] 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 [7], 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)

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)

Empire knowldge trophies

Thank you for your answer, I will find other sources and articles. By the way, the photo is a personnal photo taken the day of the event in 1956. PatmanSA1 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

PatmanSA1, A personal photo you took? That family took? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes family picture taken by family  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatmanSA1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 

Joining Eek's Crew (Adoption)

I'm a fairly new wikipedian as I've only had an account for a month, although I've been reading for quite some time. Saw your name on the accepting adoptees list and you seem like an all around wonderful captain. I am a professional at swabbing poop decks and am a graduate from the International Poop Deck Swabbing Academy (IPDSA). I plan to stick around for a long time- and I only wish I was here sooner. I recently just made an article, but I still need some navigating around the Sea of Wikipedia Articles. Have a wonderful day, Flalf. Flalf (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Flalf, Howdy hello Flalf! I'd love to take ye into my crew. Finding qualified swabbies is bloody difficult in these waters, so glad that you come with a certification ;P If you could answer a few questions, that would help me to help you.

1. What are your interests in terms of topic areas?
2. What have you liked in editing so far?
3. What would you do on Wikipedia?
4. What would you like to get out of adoption?

Feel free to add the template Template:Adoptee on your userpage, which would look like {{Adoptee|CaptainEek}}. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm honored captain, here are my answers:

1. I currently enjoy editing historical/political articles. Specifically I've found enjoyment editing articles on secessionists states.
2. I edit whatever I find interesting or anything with a typo. So far though, most of my main edits are on Ambazonia, which still isn't in good of a state that I would hope it would be in. I have also created Volodymyr Bidyovka and Fongum Gorji Dinka, both of which are secessionist politicians in Donetsk and Ambazonia respectively.
3. My goal on wikipedia is to increase the accuracy and quantity of articles, specifically I'd like to make more coverage on current events ::that aren't quite as well know.
4. I would like help learning the ropes of wikipedia and figuring out exactly how the systems work, as many of the policies are very ::confusing. I would also like how to learn to be independent and to write well by myself.

Thank you so much again, Flalf. Flalf (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Klepetan and Malena

On 21 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Klepetan and Malena, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Klepetan and Malena have been described as "Croatia's most unusual love story"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Klepetan and Malena. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Klepetan and Malena), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

draft:David Corke

thanks for feedback. Two editors now have said it looks like a resume rather than an encylopedia. Is it the lists of films/books that cause this impression? Would it be better if these were references rather than lists? I'm happy to improve the article but I need actionable feedback more than impressions or opinions. Thanks. Peter.corke (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter.corke, Presenting it as prose, rather than a list, would help. Just bullet points is a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Also, probably not all of those points are relevant either. Only some ought be covered in an encyclopedia, though which ones I'm not sure. We should give things the weight the sources give them. If a source spends 80% on one film, we talk about that film more. Also, make sure you have a source for every claim. IMDb does not count. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Captain! The article has been considerably changed. I would appreciate comments on the present form and actionable advice on how to improve further. Thanks. Peter.corke (talk) 09:57, 26 January 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)

re Draft: Ann Mikolowski

Hello CaptainEek! Thank you for your specific and detailed comments. I'll address them and resubmit as soon as possible, and be in touch if I have questions. Hope to join your crew next, once I get my Wikipedia sea legs. Best regards! Rebeccamchung (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahoy there!

Ahoy User: CaptainEek!!! Fair winds and following seas to ye!!! I just happened across your user name at WP:Teahouse. I thought I might drop anchor and say hello!!! I admire your exploits on the high seas of Wikipedia. thanks for your cool user page!! I'll learn a lot here about seamanship and the lore of the seas, methinks. I just joined Teahouse as a new host. It is nice to meet a fellow Wikipedian who brings a lot of energy to this. feel free to sail through our waters any time. and here is some ale for ye. avast! thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Well met matey! Thanks for the kind words, and good ale to warm me seafarin' bones :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Aye, Captain!!! A glass of grog will warm many a blustery night upon the stormy high seas!! avast to windward!!! we'll steer her through through the bounding main yet!! avast!!! arrggh! cheers, matey!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Righto, hope ye enjoy yer time at the 'ol Teahouse, we do be needing more and more quality hosts! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks! will do. see ya!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Re:A brownie for you!

Thanks a lot for the brownie, although just yesterday I started a diet! :-) If you liked it, maybe you will be also interest in this one, which I created two weeks ago. Cheers! Alex2006 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahoy matey

Ahoy there, Captain Eek!! Top of the mornin' to ya!!! and how are ye this fine morning!! ah, the fresh salty sea air does a man's lungs good, I tell ye!!! I hope ye saw the flock of gulls off the portside bow. quite a stirring site on the open main!!

By the way, Captain, sorry about all the hammering belowdecks. me and the lads have been fixing up the aft wardroom, to provide a new workroom where the newer hosts can get their sea legs. it's quite a job. no sense in letting a bunch of landlubbers on deck before they've learned the difference between a belaying pin and a bollard!! we found a wardoom already set up, but it was no longer in use and was stricken from the active list. so me and the hands decided to set up a new one. it's not open to the whole ship's company yet, as we wanted to get the Captain's say-so before summoning all hands. could you please take a look and let me know what you think? thanks!!!

• Link to draft page for updated version for "host lounge": User:Sm8900/host_lounge_2

by the way, to get the scuttlebutt on this new assay, you can visit the quarterdeck in the section below. me and the officers have been having a palaver over some of the ins and outs. by the way I had to cut down on the sea lingo there. not all the crew has been to sea like you and I!! anyway, hope the new place is to your liking. I'm sure you'll give it the once-over with the eye of a real sea dog!! cheers matey!!

• Link to talk page section : Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#do_we_have_an_"about"_page_for_the_Teahouse?

--Sm8900 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, Thats a good page, I think it could be worth reviving. And I appreciate the sea-lingo, I think you've finally out-lingo'd me! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Aye, Cap'n. Glad it's to your liking!!! as far as the sea lingo, well....arrrggghhh!!! if we're going to have anything better than bilgewater in the lower deck to man the hansards and raise the jib, we'd best have a shipshape foredeck, and bosuns that know what they are about!! the hands will know what a trim mainsail looks like, or else I'm no first mate that ever strode a quarterdeck under the billowing stepsails of a merchantman on the Spanish Main!!! nothing is too good for Captain Eek and his loyal crewhands!! arrgggh!! avast matey!!!

all lingo aside... thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek!! I am going to revert to my landlubber lingo for a moment. we have plenty of our own jargon here at Wikipedia, enough to go around! I wanted to ask, if you like the draft that I created for "Host Lounge," then could you please go view the discussion of this draft at the Teahouse Talk Page, and add your comments there? I really would like to get the Host Lounge page reinstated. I don't know of any other page that serves a similar purpose. i feel that we need one central resource page, that is able to serve as a genuine resource page, to help new Teahouse Hosts get fully oriented and up and running.

I think the page is a major and hugely beneficial resource to everyone in the Wikipedia community; so therefore, just imagine how much it could do even more, if we provide a readily-available easy-to-read help page, where newcomers could get oriented!! so could you please add any comments that you may have there? Obviously, my main goal is to build consensus towards getting the Host Lounge page re-activated, using the draft that I have provided. However, if you have any comments, feedback, or input, on any items you'd like to see added or revised on that page, then I'd welcome that as well.

Please feel free to comment, whenever you wish. thanks!!!

• Discussion of draft for updated "host lounge": Wikipedia talk:Teahouse section

--Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / 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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Note from a friendly IP

Hello, how are you, how did you go with the filmography for voice artist Margie Hines, i see you like the color Purple, it suits you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Howdy hello! I love purple a lot, thanks! If you'd like me to format a filmography, you'll need to get me a list of films in the first place. If you can get me a bulleted list of titles and dates, with any notes, I can turn it into a template no problemo. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

re Draft: Ann Mikolowski

Hi CaptainEek! I've revised. I feel confident about the substantive revisions. If tone or other adjustments are still needed, I'd appreciate hearing it from you, or someone, before I resubmit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ann_Mikolowski

I'm in the process of securing a license to use a photograph of the artist on the page. Waiting for file upload from photographer.

Thank you for your help! Rebeccamchung (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rebeccamchung, Very nicely improved! I have approved it from draft, and published it into the mainspace. You are free to keep working on it, and improving it. Some main points: as I have tagged, the article uses too many quotations, such quotations should be paraphrased in. Also, parts of the article remain too promotional or unencyclopedic. Saying that she was kind or warmhearted is better suited for an obituary. Wikipedia does not embellish its subjects, or paint them in a nostalgic light. We present a factual account. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, CaptainEek! Will continue to revise and improve. You have a good eye and know how to make me see what you're seeing. Yay! Rebeccamchung (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ann Mikolowski is deceased, not a Living Person. There's a notice on the edit source section. How do I remove? Rebeccamchung (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rebeccamchung, I think I've dealt with it? If not, let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It has to do with how the assessment templates on the talkpage are formatted CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

regarding Margie Hines

i don't actually have a book about her as such, it is more likely snippets about her career would be including in a publication regarding the voice characters she played like Olive Oyl and Betty Boop, you could use IMDb for a list of films, although it may not dictate the final sources as it is not referenced, kind regards.

You may misunderstand: I can help you format things, but I've not the time to research the list myself. Film/Tv etc is not my main subject area, so while I'm familiar, I don't spend tons of time there. If you can come up with a list, I can help you format it. You seem to have a good idea of where to look luckily! IMDb shouldn't be used as a source on Wiki, you're right. But it can be used as a starting point. It should give you a list of films that you can then find other, better sources, for. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, i didn't mean i expect you to do the work, because i am the one asking for the tabulated list, and i thank=you for your help as you are so nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Hello again, i actually did manage to find a very good site fleischerallstars.com/margie-hines.html, where there is a film list, and even some really good clips of where she sings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Feedback (if possible)

Hello CaptainEek. I was hoping to possibly get some feedback on an article I created. It's currently in the queue to be reviewed and while waiting I wanted to see if there were any problems I missed and could fix by getting feedback from a few people. I'd hate to have it deleted over a simple mistake I could have fixed (or a big mistake I wasn't aware of making). The article is Bibliography of the Russian Revolution and Civil War. I'm sure you get a lot of requests, I understand you're busy and appreciate any time you can spare.   // Timothy :: talk  19:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, It is very nicely done, and I have reviewed it. I have no feedback at this time. Its length seems appropriate, I see no obvious formatting or other blunders, and the list seems to be neutrally compiled. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek Thank you for your help (and the Barnstar :) Have a wonderful day.   // Timothy :: talk  19:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sylvie Bornet

Hello!

I'm an educator working to have my freshman and sophomore students create pages on Wikipedia for missing female and African athletes. The page for Sylvie Bornet is a description of a French athlete who won the French national championship marathon title along with other first place finishes in international marathons, meeting the criteria for notability far more than other athletes on Wikipedia (such as a third string linebacker for a college football team). She already has a substantial page in the French Wikipedia. Part of the goal of several Wikipedia projects (the athletic project in particular) is to create English Wikipedia page for athletes who already have achieved notability status in French or Swahili (language of Kenya and Ethiopia) Wikipedias. We would appreciate your help in creating this page for a French National Championship Marathon Runner. Another part of the goal of this project is to have students see Wikipedia as a place where they can participate, write and collaborate. Many students currently have the idea that Wikipedia is the opposite: it is a place where they aren't supposed to add anything, touch anything, and that they don't belong unless they are technically elite. Thanks for all you do on this site, and please let me know if you have any questions.

Comm260 ncu (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Comm260 ncu, Howdy hello! I would be glad to be of assistance. We're glad you're editing Wikipedia, and having your students do the same. We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we're glad to get more folks involved! I sure wish my college professors had used Wikipedia in their assignments.

I see you've had a bit of a trial by fire, hope you'll excuse the mess :) With luck we can get you up to speed real fast, and make sure your students are making excellent content. You mention being busy during the semester, but over the summer you should definitely make sure to reach out to and engage with WikiEd. They have a lot of great resources, templates, and software built just for educators. They also have a staff that works with educators. I highly encourage you to work with them, they help coordinate tens of thousands of student editors every year.

For the Sylvie Bornet page I have made a few edits to clean things up, mostly formatting. The content seems solid though! For new editors, we care about content most, and can easily polish up formatting. As a teaching tool, you may wish to find Featured Articles and show them to students, so that they have an example to work from. FA's are our best work, and will follow our manual of style, writing and sourcing conventions, and other requirements, almost perfectly.

A technical note: I see that you've been moving pages out of draftspace into the mainspace. If you're going to do that, you may wish to become a reviewer at the Articles for Creation project Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so that you can get access to the AfC helper script, which makes approving draft articles a breeze. It also gives tools to decline work with a variety of explanations, as well as some other handy features. Your account is still fairly new, so you might not get approved for it, but its worth a shot! If you don't do that, you'll need to make sure you cleanup the pages after you approve them, mainly remove the AfC template.

If you have other questions, want me to look at specific pages, etc., just leave a note here and I should get back to you within a day! Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodness! This is wonderful. Thanks for your courteous and gracious reply, and thanks for helping the page out with a few edits! I have put it on my calendar to work through WikiEdu in the future. This has been fun, but much more work than a simple worksheet! Keep on the strong edits, my fellow shipmate.Comm260 ncu (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

List is available

Hello, my friend di you receive my message , you should find it here https://fleischerallstars.com/margie-hines,html, there is only a very brief list there, but at least it is cited, regards.,

Link gives me a 404 error? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry , i type it as fleischerallstars.com/margie-hines.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable of a site that is, it seems fan-made. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Captain Eek, This is Pam Anderson replying to your comment!

Thank you for the feedback. I've had a couple of 'deleted' messages for my attempt to get Joshua's site on Wikipedia, yet you're the first person to actually explain how the idea of notability. Initially, I was deleted due to problems with 'promotional,' which my wording probably was. Anyway, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjanderson47 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pjanderson47, Glad to be of assistance. If you have any other questions, please ask here, and I'll do my best to explain in-depth; I know Wikipedia can be a bit daunting to the un-initiated :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [8] 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)

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)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for the welcome!!! Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 05:31, 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. [9]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)