User talk:Akaza/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Signature contrast

Hello, I'm Femke. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if you're signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I have revised it accordingly. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 22:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks so pretty now! Thanks :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And in broadly GA-adjacent colours. Fitting. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 22:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Giraffer (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: failing to leave edit summaries for nearly 8 years. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 14:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today a great singer, pictured on my talk twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt Interesting. That's actually really cool.

Apologies for the late reply. I am once again rather busy IRL. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 14:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries. - Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt have you ever covered Shostakovich? I have a particular fondness for his works. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 09:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The user knowing most about Shostakovich is User:CurryTime7-24. I like his music and wrote most of The Gamblers (Shostakovich). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I really need to listen to some of his works again, haha. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 09:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Do so! - On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS James Gayley

Hello! Your submission of SS James Gayley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

My story today is about a composer and his ballerina wife, pictured as I saw them in 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you thought about publishing a classical music newsletter? Haha. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 19:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I publish my stories, one per day, and whoever wants can read on my pages or in the list ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Today another giant's music: Canto General. Listen if you like it really big and emotional, with the composer as the conductor, in Chile, after years of suppression. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The one featured on the main page the other day?

I'll take a look. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 13:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I enjoy a DYK that pictures a person together with achievements in art. - I have a FAC open, for Christmas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As you will know, Arvo Pärt is 90 today. Did you know that it took me some trouble to get him to the main page? Listen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh? Did anything in particular make the process particularly taxing? ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 13:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No, just that he was removed twice without giving a reason, and when I asked I was told that (way down in the article) there was tagged paragraph with missing sources, which took some time to fix. Worth it ;) - Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt missing sources are the bane of my existence on here, especially when a website not acknowledged as "reliable" contains interesting and valuable info listed in a comprehensive manner, which I then need to track down and summarise myself.

On a happier note, my first DYK in years was featured on the main page on the 18th, reaching nearly 18,000 views, a record for a hook of mine lacking an image. Let the spread of maritime history continue! ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 13:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Saltymagnolia. Thank you for your work on Newell A. Eddy (schooner). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to create the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 07:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Saltymagnolia. Thank you for your work on PS Benjamin Franklin. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to create the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 12:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Article request

Do you have any intention of creating the article for the newly discovered Frank D. Barker? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Knowledge Pirate it's not on my immediate list of projects, but if the wreck is listed on the NRHP, which seems likely, I probably will create an article about her. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 10:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Saltymagnolia. Thank you for your work on SS Messenger (1866). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write this article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Saltymagnolia. Thank you for your work on John J. Audubon (brig). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 11:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK for SS James Gayley

On 18 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS James Gayley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS James Gayley. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SS James Gayley), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits to SS D. M. Clemson (1903)

There are now 6 Harv warnings in this article's Bibliography - Dwight Boyer(1966) , "Clemson in Hard Luck"/Detroit Free Press/1903, James L Donahue/1989, Al Miller/2000, Lake Captain/Organized Labor/1903, & Julius F. Wolff Jr/1972. You reintroduced these issues with this edit. I'm just wondering exactly why, since the article has now been put back in to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. This issue can be seen with the WP-system's tag of Tag: harv or sfn error in the article's edit history.
I can see these Sfn & Harv cite issues because I have User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed on my common.js page. This particularly useful script & its installation instructions can be found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors. - Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I am presently working to expand the article. Other than the Marine Review Source, where I accidentally tagged a sentence with a different source by the same published from 1903, all of those sources will eventually be used. I have already planned, and prepared all the sources and their designations outside of the article.

Since I am not exactly blessed with the luxury of abundant free time at the moment, work is moving at a slower pace than I necessarily would like. Although I do expect to have it ready by the end of September. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 04:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

So you intend to leave that article in the Sfn/Harv Errors Category until maybe the end of this month... Got it. - Shearonink (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Autumn Online & In-Person MN Wikipedia User Group Meetings

You're invited to both events
	ONLINE Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting	TRIVIA NIGHT! with the Trivia Mafia	IN-PERSON Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting
	Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2025		Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025
	Time: 7 to 8:30 PM		Time: 6 to 8:30 PM Location: Surly Brewing Co. 520 Malcolm Ave SE, Minneapolis
	Meet and converse online with your fellow Wikipedians from across Minnesota. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome.		This in-person meeting will be at Surly Brewing We will be meeting a wee bit early and will go over the agenda items. The rest of the night we will be cleaning up in Trivia using our Wikipedia Super Powers!
	If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.		If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Saltymagnolia. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination of SS D. M. Clemson (1903)

Hello! Your submission of SS D. M. Clemson (1903) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Robert C. Pringle (tug) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Robert C. Pringle (tug) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Robert C. Pringle (tug) is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Robert C. Pringle (tug) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

"SS Toledo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SS Toledo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19 § SS Toledo until a consensus is reached. Lyndaship (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS William C. Moreland is under review

Your good article nomination of the article SS William C. Moreland is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS William C. Moreland is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article SS William C. Moreland has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS William C. Moreland has passed

Your good article nomination of the article SS William C. Moreland has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Coldupnorth -- Coldupnorth (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Ships Barnstar
		Well done on getting SS William C. Moreland to Good Article status Coldupnorth (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you @Coldupnorth:! ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 14:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

October thanks

story · music · places

Congratulations, and thank you for improving article quality in October! My latest: Roberta Alexander, - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Ooh! Thank you.

Feels nice to finally have my first article reach such a milestone. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 09:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's excellent! - Today's story is about a happy poem that a friend set to music for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

300 years ago: another one, Gott der Herr ist Sonn und Schild, BWV 79, on the occasion for which it was written, Reformation Day - it's not only Halloween today. You are invited to the peer reviews for another candidate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt I'd happily take a glance, although recently my confidence as a writer has been shaken somewhat, so it might have to wait a little. ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 12:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Take a glance just at the four questions open from the FAC, and if you have little time, just at the source question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Robert C. Pringle (tug) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Robert C. Pringle (tug) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

DYK for F. J. King (schooner)

On 28 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article F. J. King (schooner), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the schooner F. J. King, lost for 139 years, was discovered after a two-hour search in 2025? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/F. J. King (schooner). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, F. J. King (schooner)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,516 views (729.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

DYK for SS D. M. Clemson (1903)

On 1 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS D. M. Clemson (1903), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the freighter D. M. Clemson (pictured) was one of the largest vessels on the Great Lakes in 1903? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS D. M. Clemson (1903). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SS D. M. Clemson (1903)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for an interesting DYK! - Today I remember a singer who impressed me on stage. - Thank you for participating in the PR! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Happy to help. — ❆ 鬼 SALTY 鬼 ❆ 12:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Sister Stan today, with a docu by RTÉ --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have three biographies on the main page today, miss a fourth one, nominated a fifth, that means little time for other matters. My places now include La Scala, - see music, Verdi three times, and twice in my story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations @Gerda Arendt! That's quite the achievement, even if it wasn't precisely the outcome you were hoping for. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 13:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and for support in November! - On St. Cecilia's Day - patron saint of music - I remember a composition by Benjamin Britten, and have a woman on the main page who illustrated songs, with a sense of humour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I keep trying to get my Christmas present ready: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110/archive2. If you have the time, please check it out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really have time to edit at the moment. I have become unexpectedly busy IRL. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 11:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS James Gayley is under review

Your good article nomination of the article SS James Gayley is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS James Gayley is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article SS James Gayley has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS James Gayley has passed

Your good article nomination of the article SS James Gayley has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Akaza! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 13:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

DYK for SS William C. Moreland

On 17 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS William C. Moreland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stern of the wrecked freighter William C. Moreland was used in the construction of another ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS William C. Moreland. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SS William C. Moreland), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Launchballer 00:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen wow! Thank you. This just made my day. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 00:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Akaza. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Akaza 🎉

Hey @Akaza. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 8 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia 25th Anniversary, Minnesota User Group Celebration - January 18

You're invited to the
Wikipedia 25th Anniversary Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Celebration
Celebrate Minnesota Style with Tater Tot Hotdish
	Date: Sunday, January 18, 2026
	Time: 1 to 4:30 PM Location: Lake Monster Brewing 550 Vandalia Street #160 Saint Paul, Minnesota
	Come meet and celebrate with fellow Wikipedia enthusiasts at this in-person meeting at Lake Monster Brewing. For those new to editing Wikipedia this is the perfect time to attend and learn more about Wikipedia culture and how to get involved. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Organized by: Wikimedians of Minnesota User Group
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

December thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in December! - The 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't ;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Laughter for Christmas: thank you for participating in the peer review, and enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

DYK for SS James H. Reed

On 14 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS James H. Reed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the freighters James H. Reed and Frank E. Vigor sank in separate collisions on Lake Erie on the same day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS James H. Reed. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SS James H. Reed), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Online Minnesota User Group Meeting - February 10

You're invited to the
	ONLINE Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 Time: 7 to 8:30 PM (CT) Meet and converse online with your fellow Wikipedians from across the state of Minnesota. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome.	Stay home, stay warm, attend online.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS D. M. Clemson (1903) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article SS D. M. Clemson (1903) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheUltimateGenealogy -- TheUltimateGenealogy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"PS Seabird" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect PS Seabird has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1 § PS Seabird until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Precious

Great Lakes ships

Thank you for quality articles around Great Lakes ships such as SS Edward L. Ryerson, SS Choctaw, SS S.R. Kirby, SS James Gayley and SS D. M. Clemson (1903), for "Let the spread of maritime history continue!", - better late than never: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 3017 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much! This has made not only my day, but my week. As I've been unable to edit much lately thanks to a depressive resurgence, such gestures are much appreciated. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 09:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in February! - My story today is again about Percy Grainger (FA by Brian Boulton), this time with a video that surprised me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

(unarchived to continue:) I have a GAN open, would you have time to review? I'm heading towards FAC, eventually. A quick read with copy-editing and suggestions on the talk would also help. --

I find myself a little strapped for time at the moment. I can barely focus on my own projects. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 10:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS D. M. Clemson (1903) has failed

Your good article nomination of the article SS D. M. Clemson (1903) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheUltimateGenealogy -- TheUltimateGenealogy (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

"List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8 § List of shipwrecks in Lake St. Clair until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Saturday, March 28, 2026 Art & Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Macalester College Library

You're invited to the
Art & Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Macalester College Library
	Date: Saturday, March 28, 2026
	Time: 11 am to 3 pm Location: DeWitt Wallace Library, Macalester College, 110 S Macalester Street, St. Paul, MN
	Celebrate Women's History Month at the Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon! Macalester College Library will be hosting and all are encouraged to attend. Join this global campaign to connect, have fun, and help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of women, art, and feminism.
If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

Myotus (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

March thanks

Thank you for improving article quality in March! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. Happy Bach's day. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 12:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

April thanks

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"SS Kearsarge" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SS Kearsarge has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 28 § SS Kearsarge until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for SS Hippocampus

On 29 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SS Hippocampus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the freighter Hippocampus was sunk by fruit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SS Hippocampus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SS Hippocampus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Great Lakes museum and historic ships

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Great Lakes museum and historic ships, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Sunday, May 24, 2026 MN Wikipedia User Group Meeting

You're invited to the

IN-PERSON Minnesota Wikipedia User Group Meeting Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 @ 1 to 3:30 PM (CT) Location: Lake Monster Brewing, 550 Vandalia Street #160, Saint Paul, Minnesota Meet, converse, and have a refreshing beverage with fellow Wikipedia editors and enthusiasts. All guests are welcome. If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please remove your username from our invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"SS Preston" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SS Preston has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 26 § SS Preston until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are you removing my edits on premidiently the Great Storm of 1913, some of that's actual new information, allow me to keep it in there, you haven't done your research

Why are you removing my edits on premidiently the Great Storm of 1913, some of that's actual new information, allow me to keep it in there, you haven't done your research ~2026-26151-24 (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not up to me to prove the validity of the information you elect to insert. The onus of adequately sourcing new additions rests with the editor adding them, which you have consistently failed to do. I am more than aware of the validity of some of the info, notably the detail surrounding the $35 dollars mentioned on the page about the Plymouth. In fact, I discovered this article, confirming a version of the note deviating slightly from the one you inserted. Wikipedia maintains a very strong policy against original research by editors; see WP:OR for additional details. I have stated my reasons for reverting multiple times in the edit summaries, and even sent a message to one of your temp accounts. You're lucky I didn't report you for persistent disruptive editing.

Cite your sources, and I won't revert any of it. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 04:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

SS Plymouth

This is a B-rated article from 5 years ago, if you want to add new information or correct certain sections, go ahead and edit it, but don't delete it without discussion. You already pulled this stunt when I made an article of SS James H. Reed and I was willing to let you do it because I had freshly written the page and you added more information about it, but felt that it was unnecessary to hoard the page for your own in order to do it. With this article I'm putting my foot down as it just looks like you're trying to create a monopoly on Great Lakes Ships and I don't stand for that. Edit it all you want to create a better article, but don't delete it without discussion by masquerading it as a redirect. Thank you for your service on Great Lakes Maritime history, but don't discard other people's work as if they have no value as I see you've done this many times before. Sincerely - Indylover2010 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I provided my rationale for turning it into a redirect in the edit summaries. I have looked through the publicly sources you cited in the article, including those dead links archived on the Wayback Machine. There are numerous holes in the article, with some claims either entirely unsubstantiated, or not reflected by the sources cited inline, with a lone source almost always representing a single paragraph. For the "B-rating" you tout, the criteria for a B-class article per WP:SHIPS stipulates that an article must be:

1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

Thus, the article automatically fails #1, one of the most important criteria. It is not unheard of for a mistaken assessment to be given. If you choose to take issue with my bold merge, I will nominate it for a merge instead.

In interpreting the merge of articles as "discarding other people's work as if they have no value", you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the concept that articles posted here are not owned by the creator. Merging flawed articles into a larger list to ameliorate said flaws is common practice, and does not mean it "masquerades as a redirect".

Having glanced at several of your other maritime-related articles you have created, this seems to be a recurring problem, and I recommend you work on it. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 02:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If there is an article for a topic, it makes no sense to have a redirect for an alternative name for the topic redirect to a list entry instead of the article, no matter what class the article is. The list article should link to the redirect, not the other way around. If the article needs improvement, then improve it. If there is disagreement, discuss on the article's talk page. If it's a case of WP:TNT, then take it to AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the issue this user was commenting on related to the specificity of the redirects themselves, rather the article they created being merged into a larger list, and converted into a redirect which would link to a subsection within the list. While my comment about class assessment related to the apparent fallacy of class exempting articles from such scrutiny.

I have attempted to engage with the editor via my edit summaries, one of which specifically requested reasoning for the reversion without providing any reason. I am tempted to go down the WP:TNT route, as that article has seen an abnormal amount of instability (unregistered accounts also adding info without citing sources), in addition to the aforementioned sourcing deficiencies. I have yet to check Earwig's, but shall be doing so after this. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 03:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I agree wholeheartedly with Mdewman6. It doesn't make sense to redirect to a list when the topic already has an article, especially considering the B-rating required suitably references. So you not agreeing with the first point of the article assessement is your opinion, not the law. As Mdewman6 and I myself previously suggested, you can improve the article through editing it with new information. If you want to take it to WP:TNT to discuss this, then so be it. If not, then please improve the article with whatever information you have on the subject. I would really appreciate it if you can tell the story of Plymouth more accurately in memory of the ship and the lives lost on her. Sincerely - Indylover2010 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Concerning the issue surrounding the assessment, that is very much not the case. The guidelines set out by WP:SHIPS are very clear, and apply to every article under its umbrella. My issues with the references aren't arbitrary nitpicking, and were in fact the crux for my idea to merge. The very fact you are still applying the B-class rating as an argument against my idea, while claiming it must have been appropriately sourced to deserve such a classification makes me believe you haven't been listening to my points at all, and have no actual intention of addressing any of the substantive criticism I've presented. The referencing of the article is not up to snuff; not even remotely, and your cavalier attitude on the matter is vexing to say the least. Coupled with the legion of similar instances across your repertoire, this concerns me.

I will have a go at telling the story at some point. After all, I am rather passionate on the subject, and have already invested thousands of hours over the course of the preceding eight years into researching obscure regional esoterica, apparently to built a monopoly. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 11:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel that there is a misunderstanding at hand. My point remains: There is no reason to delete the article without discussion when you can simply improve it by editing it. This has happened to other articles I created, and I've always been very thankful for those who have access to more sources than me for improving the article I started. Not once has one of my articles been so carelessly cast aside because a self claimed expert thought it wasn't good enough. Every piece of information in that article can be found in the sources I cited as required by Wikipedia standards. If you have more sources that I don't have access to, then nothing's stopping you from simply adding them. This reminds me of when I created the article SS James H. Reed and you pulled the same stunt and removed all my work just to hog the page for yourself and only adding construction information to the article that could've easily been added in a simple edit without erasing my name and work from the article altogether as if it were worthless. I don't know what your issue is against editing to improve other people's articles. It's almost as if you're jealous when other people create an article about a Great Lakes ship that you called dibs on and want to remove anything relating to the original author. This is, in my eyes, extremely unprofessional and disrespectful. The only question I have for you is this: Why must this article be deleted if you can simply edit it to improve its quality? That's what this is about, the article is accurate and received a B rating because it met the 5 criterea points, so I don't see the need to discard it. Just edit it, you have my blessing and you won't explode if you choose that route, so what do you have against that option? It really comes across as if you want a monopoly on Great Lakes ship articles because they're listed in your future projects box with countless redirects and can't handle someone creating it before you could. That's the main reason why I stopped creating Great Lakes ships articles, you killed my motivation for it as I know you'll just erase it all, so why bother. I'm sorry that I have to be so blunt about this, but you're leaving me no option as you stubbornly refuse to see the point myself and Mdewman6 are making: the article already exists, there's nothing wrong with it, and if you want to improve it then go ahead and edit it. Wikipedia is a group effort and I welcome you to join in with your expertise, but not in the disrespectful way you're currentlty handeling things as you're not the king of the Great Lakes ship articles. I hope I made my point and I hope we can work together and leave this little argument behind us as your tireless and thorough work is really admirable and I love to see someone so passionate about maritime history. So once again, just leave the article up and edit it to improve it, it doesn't need to be deleted or redirected to a list, it just needs the love of those who are passionate about this subject and preferably have access to more and better sources than I have. I wish you the best of luck on your projects and I hope I cleared things up. Sincerely - Indylover2010 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse here, mate. For the third and final time, I looked through the sources you presented in the article, and they were frequently aligned with the wrong paragraph, or do not feature the information they claim to cite.

E. g:

Plymouth started her career as a Cargo steamer on the great lakes on 12 May 1854, but the ship was quickly plagued by a series of accidents. The first of these occurred on 29 October 1855 when Plymouth ran on a reef near Racine, Wisconsin on Lake Michigan, but she managed to be refloated and returned to service. A more serious accident occurred nearly a year later on 20 September 1856 when Plymouth collided with the Oswego (New York) bound 3 masted barge Colonel E. Camp near the Manitou Islands, North and South, in Lake Michigan. The barge sank in a few minutes, but the number of casualties or survivors are unknown. The first reported deadly incident occurred on 2 September 1859 when Plymouth was caught in a gale off Point Aux Barques in Lake Michigan, resulting in the death of one crewmate.

This paragraph is not represented solely by the source you provided, which is also present in the last revision of the page attributed to you. Furthermore, the source, goderich.ca (archived here on the Wayback Machine), makes only one mention of the Plymouth regarding the collision with the Col. Camp. There's nothing about any other detail surrounding the Plymouth's career.

Yes, I could have handled this better, and for that I apologise. But you are ignoring the very real issues I have mentioned. I have raised a valid point, and you have repeatedly ignored it. This is in no way relegated solely to your work in Great Lakes maritime history, by the way. Your reticence towards actually debating my issue, and instead relying on faulty circular reasoning lead me to believe there was something else. I've looked through your back catalogue, and found a great deal of articles with inadequate referencing.

Also, there was no stunt surrounding the James H. Reed, as your aspersions seem to claim. I had been working it as a natural continuation of my project on SS D. M. Clemson (1903), the sister ship of the James H. Reed, which I had planned to release late in November, or December. I created the redirect in 2022. You could have expanded that, rather than creating a page with an unnecessary DAB date in the title. There has never been another ship with such a name, making a date in the title pointless.

While we're on the subject of aspersions, or behaviour you have deemed "extremely unprofessional and disrespectful", you have a lot of nerve leveling accusations at me, when you are falsely claiming credit for a GA on your userpage. From your article page, I'm guessing this refers to the French submarine Charles Brun, which was promoted to GA by Sturmvogel66, not you. This is further evidenced by the fact the FAC and GA check shows no evidence of a single GA to your name. Say whatever you please about me, I at least put in the work, rather than engage in these dirty acts of stolen valour. It makes me wonder. If I were to put in a bunch of hard work into improving an article like the one covering the Plymouth, would you do the same?

Don't bother responding here again, at least until you finally decide to discuss the issues surrounding the references. I'm not interested in conversing with someone who defaults to personal attacks, rather than actually engaging. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 03:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just want to clear a few things up here. 1: I created the James H. Reed article because it showed as a red link on the Great Lakes shipwrecks list, whoever created that red link IDK, but you having created a redirect years earlier that I couldn't have known is what I refered to as calling dibs. 2: The sources are perhaps linked to the wrong paragraphs, but if you'd read every source I provided, you'd find every bit of information of the article is present in them so the only thing we'd have to to is properly link them to the right information, that hardly calls for the whole thing to be tossed out. Even your example for the information that you couldn't find about Plymouth's career, I found it in Source No. 2 that was referenced (https://greatlakeships.org/2906342/data?n=3) so I must've made a mistake in using reference No. 3 when it should've been No. 2, which is an easy fix. 3: I believed creating good articles is a group effort and everyone who worked on it deserves the credit, if it truly only belongs to one single editor then I'll just get rid of the GA credit on my account, that really isn't a big deal to me but more a personal reminder that we can all contribute to better articles on wikipedia as a group effort. 4: I never personally attacked you, I just stated my opinion of how your behaviour comes across to me. And 5: If the only things bothering you are that the sources aren't properly placed, then why haven't you changed it through a single edit? I'll go ahead and check up on the article and see which sources are misplaced. My original point stands that throwing out the article for a few misplaced sources is quite the overreaction, especially considering you didn't send me a message that you had an issue with the page so I could resolve it. The fact you didn't enter a discussion is what bothered me. So I'll go to the plymouth article and see what I can do, I guess my history professor's ways rubbed off on me as his weakness when writing historical papers was also always citing his sources properly. I'll do my best on the page, feel free to check it and if you find any hiccups, you know how to get in touch. I really meant it when I said I admire your work and I never wanted to make you feel as if I personally attacked you. I truly apologise if it came across that way. Anyways, I hope this issue can be resolved quickly and I wish you a great day. Sincerely - Indylover2010 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please put paragraph breaks into your messages numerically outlining points of discussion. The current format makes reading the points harder.

1. I have always aspired to create comprehensive lists of Great Lakes shipwrecks, but for various reasons, have not been able to get around to it until recently.
2. I know. Like I said, I have gone through the references in the article, and outlined that one of the major issues was the misplacement of references. As for why I didn't fix it? I'm rather busy, and that article needs a lot more work than that, which I will get around to.
3. GA accreditation exists to recognise those putting in the hard work to increase article quality, i. e. the users who have taken the initiative to work on them to achieve GA, or higher. If we were to apply this principle to both GA and FA, people who published the first draft of an article years before it reached new heights would be eligible, which makes no sense. And as someone who has on multiple occasions spent months dredging up information to increase the quality of an article with GA or FA in mind, I find your appropriation of the credits quite insulting.

As stated above, I have uncovered an emerging pattern of issues in the maritime articles you have created, some of which also have a tenuous, or nonexistent conformity to the general notability guidelines. I have also taken a cursory look at some of your biographies, many of which also contain problems of a similar nature. As you are a veteran editor, I should not be the one informing you of the severity associated with violating the biography of living persons policy (which also applies to deceased individuals born within the last 115 years), especially since it appears in a red box when editing a biographical article.

I will be looking further into what to do about it, since I have developed tangible concerns about your ability to conduct yourself proprietously when writing content. Depending on the further issues I find, I will be consulting a third party or two about whether or not this merits further investigation, or a report for disruptive editing. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 10:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's very weird considering I've been here as a page creator for 14 years in which most of my pages were reviewed by other editors, yet you are the first one who brings up these apparently reoccuring issues. I've taken every message that was send to me about a certain rule I wasn't aware of or how to improve an article to heart and have come a long way since creating my first article and am more than ready to keep improving. But this feels like you want to get back at me because I took issue in you circumventing any type of discussion and outright deleting the content of Plymouth for a very minor reason. As I stated, I do not have access to the archives or publications that I would prefer to work with and so am dependent on what I am able to find or any info that is already available on wikipedia. Many an editor have aided my articles by adding reliable sources that I don't have access to. Every piece of information in my articles are always found in the sources, even when they might not all be alligned precisely to the letter, and I always create my pages without bias as that is something that I take very seriously. Any article of mine that didn't pass notability guidelines has been discussed and a consensus reached that I never appealed as I respect the professional proces and those who took part in it. And considering 95% of my articles were created because I saw these articles show up as red links in other articles or lists, I would argue they warrented a page because if this wouldn't have been the case, then they wouldn't have encouraged people to turn that red link blue. As you clearly made no effort to start a discussion on Plymouth, which is a first in all my time on wikipedia, I was highly offended and made sure you understood why this was the case, which you apparently took as a kind of personal attack on you, which it never was. Look, if you want to waste a third party's time in a needless discussion about material that has already been reviewed and improved by helpful editors, knock yourself out. But if you're only doing this because you're angry at me for protesting your silent deletion of Plymouth, then I encourage you to reconsider as that would be quite an overreaction. I consider my contributions to wikipedia to range from average to good and always in line with the rules and guidelines I'm aware of, so for you to accuse me of disruptive editing is highly offensive to me and seems as if you've taken a personal vendetta against me or something. Would you rather see all those links returned to red because I do not have access to the better sources I'd rather use, even though the ones I did use are perfectly fine because those that weren't were brought to my attention or deleted by those who reviewed the article. Or do you take offense when people who do not have a lawyer's amount of knowledge of wikipedia rules and might be a bit too naive for their own good create an article to the best of their ability and in complete good faith. You know, this whole thing could've been avoided if you'd just send me a polite message on my talkpage regarding Plymouth and started a discussion about it on the article's talkpage. Considering you're the first one to not show me that courtesy, can you blame me for not being in the greatest of moods when you then demanded I send you a message. I'd really hoped we could move on from this after simply discussing the Plymouth article with perhaps the aid of a third party, but it seems as if you decided to take things personally and question all my work unwarrented in an act of revenge rather than genuine concern. Is your aim really to bully me off of Wikipedia because I don't have the financial or personal capability to provide my articles with better sources, alongside my personal area for development when it comes to placing every reference in the correct position. You're the first editor who has treated me this way and I sincerely hope it'll be the last as your conduct does not at all come across as being in good faith. I hope I'm wrong on that, but you're really not helping your case by taking this away from Plymouth, where the discussion should've been about in the first place. Also might I suggest using words that I've seen at least once before in my nearly two decades of learning English, as the current format makes reading the points harder and just encourages misunderstandings. Sincerely - Indylover2010 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Not possessing the resources to write a comprehensive article is completely fine, and not something I can fault anyone for doing. However, you often do not cite sources properly, or add information which wasn't in any of the sources. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they were in a source you mistakenly forgot to include, but the fact it has occurred repeatedly is concerning. It's not about them "not being aligned to the letter" or being written without bias, although the latter is important, it's about misrepresenting facts.

I acknowledge the merging of the Plymouth was handled inappropriately by me, and for that I have already apologised. I should have handled that significantly better than I did, and any future deletion discussions of larger articles will be taken straight to AFD instead. The Plymouth situation has been well and truly resolved now.

It's worth noting that red links can exist for absolutely anything. Their presence does not automatically indicate notability. The very reason I am now undertaking this is as a result of my examination of the article, and its issues, which prompted me to look at the others you have written.

As for your point about acceptance by user reviewers indicating automatic quality, let me introduce you to the case of Doug Coldwell. Doug was a highly respected contributor on Wikipedia between 2006 and 2022, with hundreds of GAs (and other high quality articles) to his name. I even got to work with him a few times, and everything seemed fine. He appeared professional, and extremely knowledgeable in the history of Michigan.

In all that time of appearing on Wikipedia's active boards and lists of the most active editors, nobody noticed anything amiss. However, in 2022, it was discovered that Doug had, for years, been violating copyright and verifiability requirements, among other things.

Never previously having anyone pick up on mistakes is not an excuse, and is yet another example of circular reasoning. "Nobody has had an issue with this -> it is qualitatively sound -> nobody has any issue with it -> it is qualitatively sound..."

Doug was an extremely high profile editor for over 16 years, and it still took that long for anyone to pick up on his dubious practices. Flying under the radar does not by any measure exonerate anybody from being scrutinised.

It's not about possessing an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules and guidelines. I don't have that, and don't know anyone off the top of my head who does. But verifiability and BLP are elementary tenets of Wikipedia. Articles must be referenced, and biographies must be properly cited and 100% verifiable. The latter is extremely important, because BLP violations, especially repeated ones, can, and frequently do result in permanent bans. This is non-negotiable, and taken extremely seriously. This could be forgiven if you had been here for a maximum of 5 years, but you have been active for 12. You should know about this by now.

As for "Is your aim really to bully me off of Wikipedia because I don't have the financial or personal capability to provide my articles with better sources, alongside my personal area for development when it comes to placing every reference in the correct position", your "personal capability" towards sourcing, and correct sourcing that is the precise reason I am looking into this. Not a petty vendetta, nor anything else you might claim. I am genuinely concerned you are unable to work within the requirements of Wikipedia.

For example, I've taken a look at the recent articles you created about Titanic lifeboats. Two of them (Titanic Collapsible Boat A and Titanic Lifeboat No. 14) contain large swathes of text unsupported by citations. Additionally, I have a referencing script on my account, which has detected the same error on all four of them; they all contain references to various authors (Bartlett [2011], Butler [1998], Eaton & Haas [1994], Gill [2010], Wormstedt & Fitch [2011]). Who are these people? What are you citing, and where did it come from? A book, journal, pictorial, etc...? We don't know, because you haven't included the source work among the references.

It is for this very same reason (in addition to the possible BLP violations) that this might constitute disruptive editing. Your problems attributing the correct references to the relevant paragraphs or including them at all puts a strain on the people who will inevitably need to rectify them in future; and will hinder those who may come to rely on these articles for information, be it in a school project, newspaper, or otherwise. If these articles were stubs, they would be given a pass. But these are substantial articles, which for all intents and purposes, contain material which might well be fictitious. And just for clarification, I mean they do not contain the refs which would verify the claims, and thus, we are unable to substantiate them.

I am not by any means bullying you. Scrutiny and bullying are not the same, as any fastidious FA reviewer will tell you. You have been editing for 12 years, and should be aware of at least some of these policies, especially BLP, since it is one of the most important on the entire project.

Also, please explain to me how I'm supposed to modulate my texting in accordance with your knowledge. I am not aware of the canon of words or phrases you are familiar with. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 12:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your thorough understandable explanation. I would like to emphasize that I've never added fictitious information to an article and every piece of info can indeed be found in the references I cited. For the book citations you adressed on Titanic's lifeboats, I can see what went wrong. Those are all citations that came from other wikipedia pages that held referenced information regarding the subject of the article and that were helpful to include in it. It seems I forgot to add a bibliography to support them as I was too focused on creating the best article I possibly can, but I've added them in the meantime. I think the main issue is the contrast between my education on creating historical essays versus how wikipedia handles it. When writing historical essays during my training, all that was necessary was to include all the references used at the end of the article in alphabetical order. With wikipedia, it seems like I have to match them to a specific sentence or paragraph which tends to confuse me as I've seen many articles not do this and I'm not certain what to do if a sentence holds information from more than one source that I've woven together to create a more fluent and comprehensive article. Do I have to reference all of them or cut the sentence into pieces or add them all at the end of the paragraph or is that overkill? I've been attempting to make the switch between my traditional education and wikipedia, and genuinly believed I was working within the standards and requirements that were set. Whenever I comb through ship articles on wikipedia to see where I can take on inspiration to improve my own articles, I sometimes stumble onto pages that hardly have any information or sources and I legit wonder if it passes notability standards. That's why I only make pages on topics that I believe would pass a notability discussion and don't just willy nilly fill in red links to topics that I believe don't warrant its own article. For no one to have brought to my attention that I've been doing this wrong despite having informed me of other mistakes I used to make in the past, makes me wonder why that has been. It also makes me wonder whether Doug Coldwell was ever made aware of his mistakes by other users and given the chance to rectify them and grow from the experience before being banned, but I have no idea who this person is or what exactly happened and I don't want to assume anything. Might I ask which biographies include violations, as I have modeled the make-up of my biography articles on the general structure that most biographies seem to follow, and I have always been unbiased in my articles as I always state the facts I've found in the sources I cited. Is it simply another case of a reference containing the right information yet being misplaced in the text or is there something wrong with the sources cited altogether? I would love to take this opportunity to rectify and improve my articles as I always have when an editor points out a mistake, and if you believe that the best way for this is for a third party to investigate this and supply me with a summary of handlings I need to better myself on, then by all means do, I would really appreciate the help. I have always created articles in good faith and taken wikipedia's standards to heart as they're the same as when I studied under published historians, always write noteworthy articles from a neutral POV and supply it with the most reliable sources you can find. The one and only difference is where the sources should be placed and I seem to need to improve the placements of them on wikipedia. As I've stated earlier, you brought up a piece of info on the Plymouth article that was accidentaly cited by reference number 3 while it should have been number 2. This means the info was indeed in the references but was just credited to the wrong source, which is not that difficult of a fix that I can simply do myself now that I've been brought up to speed. It even seemed like that was just one of only two wrongly placed references of the 8 total on the page, so it's not like most of the article was poorly cited. I honestly feel like misplacing a few sources because I'm not used to this method does not warrant deeming those errors as disruptive editing, escpecially as I can just check the pages myself when I'll have the time later as I'll be very busy until halfway June and won't be able to edit wikipedia during that time. So in summary, thank you for notifying me on this and I truly apologize for misunderstanding your earlier concerns. I'll take a closer look on my earlier articles when I have the time and seek out any wrongly cited info so I can replace it with the right reference. As a ps, you have my gratitude for your recent corrections to the Titanic lifeboats as I had overlooked those two book sources on the collapsibles. I'll be sure to do a full review of the articles when I have the time at a later date. Indylover2010 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can recall three such instances, all issues varying in magnitudes.

For example, the first biography, Norbert De Cuyper. The first paragraph is supported by one source, linking to what appears to be the self-declaration of his values and the length of his tenure, with little to no mention of the info in the paragraph. The second paragraph is supported by a source which only vaguely skims the transition of power from De Cuyper, to his successor.

William George Bowdon Jr., one of the more recent bios you created, is almost completely uncited, save for a single sentence in the lede, from a source of questionable reliability. As Bowdon was born within the 115 window, this article is BLP compliant, and per current rules, should be completely removed, based on the lack of references.

With Ichita Kobashi, I can see the info is in source #2, but it is only included at the end of one paragraph.

Emily Ryerson and Marjorie Anne Newell both feature similar issues. They both cite either large, or many sources, but on both there are paragraphs which are unsupported entirely, or by sources where the info is missing. The former also seems to contain a few bizarre errors, where one source I checked redirects to a dubious webpage.

Generally, I think your Titanic-related articles are reasonably well-written, save for the referencing issue. On Wikipedia, a single source representing an entire paragraph is generally discouraged, and only acceptable when the info therein is represented in its entirety in the reference cited. Normally I would question whether online databases (e. g. Encyclopedia Titanica) open to community interference would be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, but they do list all their sources.

I appreciate you taking the initiative to listen to my critiques. I am aware my standards are high, perhaps a little too much so for some, but I have fought an uphill battle to get Wikipedia recognised as a reliable source for years in my chosen field, where I am probably the single largest contributor on the platform. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 16:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll let you focus on improving your articles, but want to re-work the three Great Lakes articles you have created, as they lie within my scope, and I have the resources to deal with them.

I don't believe SS Toledo (1854) is notable enough to warrant an entire article, and will be taking it to AFD. She's an obscure ship, referenced sparsely in historical accounts, with only Wisconsin Shipwrecks presenting any apparent accounts of substance.

As for the other two, I want to re-write them from the ground up, and get the ball rolling on advancing them qualitatively. Appreciating your concerns about "erasing" your contributions, I would include a prominent banner on the talk page and a note (and link) in the edit summary, pointing to you, as a show of good faith. If it helps ease the tension and animosity between us, I have done something similar on SS James H. Reed, which I am currently in the process of expanding again. The instability of the pages Plymouth (schooner barge) and SS Isaac M. Scott (by which I mean the continued pattern of editors adding and removing information without regard for referencing), would make this an attractive possibility to gain a fresh start with reliable info.

I am satisfied you have taken my advice on board, and will be doing your best to improve. For now, I will be holding off from submitting any reports. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 16:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and useful examples. In the mean time I've been reading up on pages such as Wikipedia:Citing sources and will take a hiatus from creating articles until I've reviewed and fixed the references and citations on my pages. I would also like to take the opportunity to again sincerely apologize for my previous interactions with you as they have been far from civil. I sadly mistook your genuine concerns for personal attacks, and I'm very glad you pointed the referencing issue out to me. In the case of the Great Lakes pages you brought up, by all means go ahead and improve them as I have been thoroughly impressed by your work and would be proud to see them handled by such an experienced editor as yourself. With regards to the "erasing of contributions", you shouldn't be worried about that. I was too protective of my pages despite them obviously not being my property, so that was a severe overreaction on my part. I don't know how many pages I'll be able to review before I'll be AFK for a few weeks from late May to mid June, but I'll be sure to tackle all of them as soon as possible. I guarantee that any unsourced information will be deleted if I'm unable to find any reliable sources to support it as it always should have been. For me to be this mistaken in the working field that I feel so proud to serve in, is quite embarrassing just as my behaviour has been towards you. Don't worry, I don't hold any resentment towards you and absolutely respect your high standards as they do you honour. Again my sincere apologies and thank you for your help and advice. I wish you the best on your future projects and I hope you have a great day! Indylover2010 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Indylover2010 don't worry about it. I initially probably did a poor job at explaining myself anyway, and also probably misconstrued your tone as well. Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the depths of my obsession, I'm on the spectrum, and have genuine difficulty determining the tone in someone's tone purely from their writing, especially if they aren't native speakers and may phrase things differently.

I am going to include attribution regardless. Call it an olive branch, of sorts. Good luck. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 00:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, given the section title SS Plymouth, I only looked at the history of the redirect, not fully realizing your primary dispute is about the article at Plymouth (schooner barge). I now see it was boldly merged into List of shipwrecks in Lake Michigan, then reverted and reinstated twice. First, when doing a merge, for attribution you must link to the where the merged content came from and where it is going in the edit summaries, per WP:CWW and WP:MERGE. Second, if there is disagreement about the merge, it should either be discussed on the article talk page, or better, taken to WP:AFD, per WP:BLAR. This discussion on a user talk page is not going to get anywhere; other's perspectives are needed to reach a consensus, which can be found at Afd. For now, I am retargeting SS Plymouth to the article Plymouth (schooner barge), as that was the status quo ante. But I do recommend a discussion at Afd if there is disagreement about whether the article should exist or not. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Double Shuffle (Canadian political episode)

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Double Shuffle (Canadian political episode). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#85.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS D. M. Clemson (1903) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article SS D. M. Clemson (1903) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanderwaalforces -- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	To Wikipedia's resident expert about ships in the Great Lakes! GGOTCC 01:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I am truly honoured to be considered this way. ❆ AKAZA ❆ 01:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of SS D. M. Clemson (1903) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article SS D. M. Clemson (1903) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanderwaalforces -- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)