User talk:Aneirinn

Welcome!

Hi Aneirinn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Walker Keith Baylor

On 18 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Walker Keith Baylor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Walker Keith Baylor, a strong believer in phrenology and physiognomy, determined the fitness of political candidates by measuring their faces and heads with a tape measure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Walker Keith Baylor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Walker Keith Baylor), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination of Red Brown (politician)

Hello! Your submission of Red Brown (politician) 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! Riley1012 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Gillespie (surveyor)

On 15 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Gillespie (surveyor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Gillespie became the chief surveyor of the United States boundary commission after the first surveyor was considered to be "insufferably arrogant"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David B. Gillespie. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, David Gillespie (surveyor)), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when the sources are so confused? See my change where I fixed a word in a quote, because a number of other sources had 'persevere'. Then checking further, I saw your cite (as transcribed, would love to see) really did have 'preserve'. Then I found other sources had either of those, or even worse, 'presevere'! I reverted my change, as you quoted your source correctly, but I have grave doubts about most of these sources. Shenme (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenme, what is your reasoning for these "grave doubts"? Aneirinn (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George K. Teulon

On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George K. Teulon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to George K. Teulon all of the presidents and vice-presidents of the Republic of Texas, and four-fifths of its government officials, were freemasons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George K. Teulon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George K. Teulon), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Moneka, Kansas

On 10 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moneka, Kansas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most or all of the inhabitants of Moneka, Kansas, were abolitionists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moneka, Kansas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Moneka, Kansas), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Paris, Linn County, Kansas

On 13 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paris, Linn County, Kansas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Paris was the first county seat of Linn County, Kansas, but hardly a ruin is left to tell where it once was? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paris, Linn County, Kansas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paris, Linn County, Kansas), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 12:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work improving so many articles to DYKs. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Bartram (Pennsylvania politician)

On 24 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Bartram (Pennsylvania politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Bartram was both the father of William Bartram and the grandfather of William Bartram? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Bartram (Pennsylvania politician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Bartram (Pennsylvania politician)), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Bartram (North Carolina politician)

On 24 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Bartram (North Carolina politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Bartram was both the father of William Bartram and the grandfather of William Bartram? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Bartram (Pennsylvania politician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, William Bartram (North Carolina politician)), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your use of WP:A7

Thank you for your work patrolling articles and identifying candidates for improvement. I wanted to let you know that I declined your WP:A7 nomination of Mount Sinai South Nassau as the article contained references which discuss the subject, which means A7 doesn't apply. It is possible the subject of the article is not notable, but you should first attempt to improve the article before bringing it through the standard deletion process at WP:AFD. Thanks again for your contributions to the site! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sarah McBride. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was poorly referenced? That article from the student newspaper of American University is not a poor reference. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit violated MOS:DEADNAME meamemg (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that existed. I was under the impression that its inclusion would be an improvement to the article as they are an elected official and were the president of the student government at the university. I am a fan of onomatology. I will never return it to the article. Aneirinn (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Meamemg: How specifically did it violate MOS:DEADNAME? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that Magnolia677: the edit included her deadname. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long discussion of this on the talk page. Talk:Sarah_McBride#Birth_name_concerns meamemg (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I know it can get tedious, but one good idea is to at least glance at an article's talk page before editing, especially if it has a protection/warning banner at the top of the edit page. That way you can pretty easily see what is controversial with respect to that article. Happy Editing! meamemg (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop. If you continue to make edits with misleading or inaccurate edit summaries, even if unintentional, you may be blocked from editing. All of your edit summaries are simply "ce". Ce means Copy editing, which means fixing errors in grammar, syntax, etc. Making substantive edits, such as you did here, here, and absolutely here are not copy edits. Please use appropriate edit summaries. Thank you. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was also inappropriately done here, here, and here. Some of your edits are small clarifications (not copy edits either, so stop calling them copy edits), but many of your larger edits are not copy edits. Adding sections and sentences regarding the article subject is not considered copy editing by anyone. Please clarify in your edit summaries what you are doing properly please. Thank you. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

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

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

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

Funcrunch (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns in the English language

@Aneirinn: please note that the Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) and any other organized political party are proper nouns. Proper nouns have capitalized letters. Are you familiar with proper nouns? If not, I would recommend reading about proper nouns instead of making incorrect edits as you have done here, here, here, here, here, and here. Perhaps you are unaware, but in standard American and British English, the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized. Thank you for your future adherence to correct punctuation and spelling. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 13th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style does not agree with this. Aneirinn (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aneirinn: please show me. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion for someone who may not be a native English speaker. It appears that "party" was lowercased per the 13th edition, though that was published thirty-five years ago and five new editions have been published since. Modern practice capitalizes "party" in the case of the Democratic Party or Republican Party; even the titles of those articles are capitalized. I cannot find the exact section within the 18th edition because there is no freely accessible version on the Internet. If you wish to dispute common English norms, please also see Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and a plethora of electoral, governmental, and political articles on Wikipedia. I cannot speak to why this changed over time, though it is apparent that since 1989, capitalization norms have. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: John M. Drew

Hello Aneirinn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John M. Drew, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being an elected politician is a credible assertion of importance. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being an elected county level politician is not an assertion of importance. See the guideline for politicians. Aneirinn (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is a guideline about notability. WP:A7 is a much lower bar to clear than notability. You can request its deletion using WP:PROD, or use WP:AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ruffin Gray

I wanted to touch base because you have been really territorial about Thomas Ruffin Gray. I am not sure what this issue is; I worked on the article before you and am simply continuing efforts to support the subject's notability and expand its article's content. To me, it seems like you have nitpicked every change I make, from changing correctly spelled out numbers to numeric format to the extreme of removing sourced content cited to a leading Turner scholar. You have even removed needed citations that I have identified and added, for no reason that I can fathom. Most of the time, you have not followed the practice of explaining why you are making these changes, incorrectly calling the removal of sentence or sources copy edits. I am contacting you here because this is approximating the official definition of an edit war--removing sourced content three times without discussing on the talk page. I realize I have strongly advocated for either sourcing or removing content; but that is not controversial based on Wikipedia's guidelines and does not need discussion. To keep this from further escalating, my suggestion is for us both to walk away and leave as is for at least several days. After that, any outstanding or pending issues can be posted to the talkpage; if a resolution cannot be reached via a talkpage discussion, we can ask for a third opinion. Does this sound reasonable to you? Rublamb (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for James Bunbury White

On 18 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Bunbury White, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the memorial for James Bunbury White, the founder of Whiteville, North Carolina, was knocked down in a car crash 200 years after his death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Bunbury White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, James Bunbury White), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD !votes

Hi Aneirinn. I've noticed that many of your !votes at AfD, such as Special:Diff/1299504998, Special:Diff/1299504700, and Special:Diff/1299504617, are barebones "not notable". That is not a valid argument at AfD, per WP:JNN, and they are usually discarded by closers. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]