User talk:CaptainEek

❧

Wikipedia

CaptainEek hunting for vandals.

Editor Feedback, Talk, and Sea Shanty Singing Area

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

Question from 1FatHiker (22:31, 1 November 2025)

Hi, I have a new entry awaiting approval. May I share my work with others in order for them to edit my initial work? --1FatHiker (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 November newsletter

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

  1. Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
  2. English Island, South Australia Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
  3. Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
  4. Canada History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
  5. Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
  6. Oklahoma TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
  7. AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
  8. Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

  • Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
  • vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
  • TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

  • English Island, South Australia Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
  • Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
  • AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
  • Canada History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
  • Oklahoma TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
  • Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Question from Techstep ASA (11:15, 3 November 2025)

Hi! I'm creating a company page on behalf of the firm I work for. After watching a few YouTube videos, I'm a bit worried about whether the page will be published or not seeing as the requirements (10 successful edits) is something I do not fulfil. Is there another way around this obstacle, or should I now focus my time on making some valuable changes to other pages before trying to publish my firm's page? Thank you so much for your help! --Techstep ASA (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Techstep ASA you can submit drafts to WP:AFC for review even without meeting the requirements. What is the company you're writing for? May I suggest you read WP:BOSS? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Melanie adamo (19:27, 3 November 2025)

I want to write a cover page for my husband's memorial --Melanie adamo (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Melanie adamo Hi Melanie. Sorry for your loss. As a practical matter though, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We only write about subjects that are independently notable, i.e. have been the subject of significant press/media coverage. Was your husband ever the subject of significant coverage? If so, can you link some examples? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

added Toadspike
removed

CheckUser changes

added asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Huberman on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your close at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi @CaptainEek!

I respectfully disagree with your early close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jimbo Wales; IDHT, inability to DROPTHESTICK, COI, and abusing his position as founder for self-promotion. While the discussion was certainly not the most productive, it was still ongoing, and the community was pretty divided over whether Jimbo should get a formal warning. I don't think it would've necessarily led to one, but I believe that difficult cases like this should be left to develop and settle down into a more constructive discussion. Closing it with nothing besides a WP:TROUT for the filer can easily appear to be a supervote, and lead to a chilling effect in similar future cases. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone needed to step up and point out the obvious—there would be no benefit from continuing a pile-on of outrage over polite comments on a single talk page. People can continue on Twitter or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The cleanest close ever? Unfortunately not. Necessary? Yes. As for leaving it to become more constructive...there are few discussions that become productive again after having become unproductive. Could it make filers reconsider casting aspersions? I surely hope so. Folks were agreed that insulting Jimbo's book or accusing him of being friends with Netanyahu was bad form. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree that the aspersions were certainly quite counterproductive, even though a part of them was later struck. I do like the last sentence of your close, You don't have to insult Jimbo's book or social membership to raise valid concerns about his conduct, and I hope it minimizes the chilling effect when bringing legitimate concerns without the aspersions part in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was on my way to the discussion to oppose any action against Wales, despite the fact that I vehemently oppose his views, which our article Gaza Genocide demonstrate are contrary to scholarship and fact. It's common for online discourse to devolve into extremes, and this happens at Wikipedia too. Even if Wales is wrong, he has been relentlessly polite to editors disagreeing with him on the talk pages. We need to take a breath and give him (and ourselves) some grace. Thank you CaptainEek. -Darouet (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Your close was deeply inappropriate; the discussion was in-progress and could not reasonably meet any of the conditions under WP:WHENCLOSE this early on. But your revision to re-instate it was far worse. Early closes like these, which make no effort to assess the consensus and which fail to make any effort to meet any of the criteria on WHENCLOSE, being based purely on the judgement that a particular discussion is unproductive, are WP:BOLD / WP:IAR actions, not proper formal closures, and can be reverted by any editor; the idea that such actions must go through a formal review process to be reversed doesn't reflect policy or practice and would cause untold problems, since anyone could determine at any time that a discussion ought to end and then demand a formal discussion before they could be reversed. It's extremely common for people to attempt an early bold "trouts for everyone" sort of close on WP:ANI and to be reverted; re-instating the close, when discussion has clearly not run its course, is not the appropriate response in that case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    You confuse me for Polygnotus's close, fairly reverted, which was a trouts for everyone that had no substantive assessment. And I disagree that my close was an IAR close, it followed the third prong of WP:WHENCLOSE: When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    no substantive assessment Thus allowing people to save face. Polygnotus (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The rest of that prong makes it clear that that's for when consensus is clear, or when it's obvious no consensus will be reached; neither of those can reasonably apply this early on. It's not for "I don't think this discussion is productive", which would obviously always be a WP:SUPERVOTE - a valid close must summarize the discussion, after all, not simply dismiss it based on your personal opinion. And I see no substantive assessment, and more importantly no attempt at substantive assessment, in your closure - you made no attempt whatsoever to summarize or assess any sort of consensus; nor did you even attempt to assert that there was a lack of consensus or that consensus couldn't be reached (which is good as far as it goes, because obviously you wouldn't be able to conclude that this early on, but per WHENCLOSE that would obviously be a reason to leave it open until a consensus could be reached.) It was simply not a formal closure; it expressed nothing beyond your personal opinion on whether this was a worthwhile topic to discuss, and your personal preference that we stop discussing it (and your personal judgment of some WP:ASPERSIONs, which to be fair it's reasonable for you to enforce as a standard admin action - but it is not a valid close because it doesn't make any effort to actually summarize the discussion, and therefore should have been handled separately and not by shutting down a discussion with no effort to summarize the consensus.) EDIT: I should add that in retrospect, I think the part of my close that bothers me the most is that you said that This discussion alone should serve to remind Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia is a community, and that changing the community's mind requires working with it rather than against it. But he hasn't even weighed in! You unilaterally shut it down before he had a chance to weigh in. It's not a summary of any part of the discussion, it's just... your vague wish? That's not, to me, part of an attempt to close things, that's you saying "yeah we should probably stop talking about this and here's why." It's an argument you're making about how you see things going or about how you'd prefer things to go, not a summary of the discussion and not derived from anything present in the discussion. If you feel that that aspect is important, please at least re-open it until Jimbo weighs in on it? I don't see how you can close it with "Jimbo needs to acknowledge X" before he's had a chance to weigh in at all - that's something that requires a response from him, at a bare minimum. --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
@Aquillion I do agree it would be nice of Jimbo to at least say something on the matter, and you are free to ask him to do as much on his talk. But the discussion proper need not be open while we wait for him to chime in. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I have asked him (as have numerous people throughout this incident) and as far as I can tell he has shown not the slightest hint of regret or even recognition that the backlash against his actions could be in any way legitimate; in fact, as far as I can tell he has not even acknowledged that the backlash exists. That was part of why ANI was resorted to in the first place. If he continues to take that stance, what exactly do you propose people do? You've attempted to short-circuit the only clear mechanism we have to call him to account, and without even attempting to assess the consensus in the process. I would say that by a rough eyeball there's the start of a consensus there that his actions were at least inappropriate - it seems hard to imagine, if it had continued, that he would have escaped a trouting or perhaps a logged warning at the bare minimum. While you declined to outright say that in your closure, you still seem to basically agree with that assessment, if you feel he ought to weigh in. So if he continues on this course... how do you picture us continuing, if Jimbo doesn't back down? You seem to acknowledge (though you tiptoed around actually saying it in your close) that the community roughly thinks Jimbo should stop what he's doing and not do things like this again, but at the same time you've shut down the one conversation that might have lead towards a formal conclusion to that end. I don't know what to make of that; unless Jimbo magically has a change of heart, which seems to be made less likely by shutting down the only process that might have called him to account, I don't see how it's a position that could possibly improve anything. Yes, obviously a discussion at ANI that aims to call the founder of the site to account for alleged misconduct is always going to be at least somewhat messy, but we manage messy discussions all the time, and eventually properly close them, with a proper assessment of their consensus. Shutting it down early without a proper assessment of its consensus like this isn't going to make those concerns go away, it's going to cause them to fester without an outlet. --Aquillion (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
People are allowed to fix a problem without providing a solution for another problem. without an outlet Quite a few outlets that aren't ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:WHENCLOSE: not too soon, when the discussion is stable, when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful. Filibustering discussions, undermining highly contentious community debates, by channelling them through closure review and discussion on your own talk page sets a dangerous precedent. I would implore you to use your administrators' rights more thoughtfully, especially when closing a discussion can create even more strife than had existed before. Should we throw a blanket over every contentious discussion we disagree with so people can cool down and inevitably care less about some of the very real substance presented? I would like to add that trouting the filer was unnecessary; all claims were backed up with diffs and sources—whether you feel they were legitimate or not—and were thus not WP:ASPERSIONS: without evidence.
Were some statements a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:PA? Yes. The fair solution to this, instead of collapsing their concerns altogether, would have been imploring the user to additionally strike their comment on the book—not close the discussion altogether over a disagreement of their framing. They were absolutely right to address the WP:CANVAS violation and are within their rights to open a discussion on the "founder" matter, as evidenced by the number of support !votes. The COI accusation was unfounded and promptly struck by the filer. For the record, I support a lot of Jimbo's concerns with our application of NPOV and have been working to address such matters on contentious articles for years—our 'impartial' coverage of U.S. politics, in particular, is a stain on the project—but those are unrelated to the alleged canvassing and abuse of his title, which deserve discussion with a wide community input. My vote would have simply been a canvassing warning, as it is a textbook violation to seek votes from your friends and followers. Nobody is above policy bar the community as a whole; this supervote undermined that process and only served to protect the founder of Wikipedia from concerns addressed by their own institution. MB2437 02:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Broadly agree with Aquillion and Chaotic Enby, though probably not on every detail. This wasn't a good close and reminds me of the times that admins have closed discussions early regarding admin conduct in a way which feels like closing rank. I know Jimbo is not an admin anymore, but this does give that impression given his WMF status even if that's not the intent. Personally I hadn't commented in the discussion yet as wanted to see how it would develop and the opinions of some more experienced editors, specifically those not involved in the dispute. I was also hoping we would hear from Jimbo to see if he had reconsidered whether he was canvassing or not, which is one major concern that I was hoping could be knocked on the head at minimum. Overall I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the discussion being unproductive when solutions could of arrived from Jimbo's side to commit to avoid blundering around in PIA among other things. While I agree that the filer deserved a trout (as did Jimbo who has since informally received one), there was so much more wrong with Jimbo's behaviour that you failed to even acknowledge in the close; partially due to lack of input from the community with the topic only being open for all of 5 hours, but otherwise by excusing it with "You don't have to insult Jimbo's book or social membership to raise valid concerns about his conduct" instead of actually describing that behaviour. For example "ruffled feathers" is merely describing the reaction from the community, not the problematic behaviour from Jimbo, while overblown only serves to minimalize legitimate concern, even if that's not the intent (I'm assuming it's not). So respectfully, I strongly disagree with the early close, both the interpretation of consensus (or lack of) and language used to describe events. I would like to also put it on record how intimidating it feels having to come to your talk page, in order to express my disagreement, rather than being able to do so in the ANI topic. Not everyone will feel comfortable having to approach the closer in order to express this, much less so than at ANI, which is another key reason to keep discussion open for longer if indeed the discussion has more legs (here we are). CNC (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Posting here just to note I have WP:BOLDly unclosed the discussion this is about, since it's pretty clear there's still strong objections to closing it. Loki (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    That's been reverted by Polygnotus. Maybe we could wait for Eek to reply further before starting an edit war over the close. CNC (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    In some cases it can be wise to respect a decision you disagree with, even if you disagree with it. For example, I disagree with Jimbo Wales, both on content and on form, but I am not gonna crucify him. A tiny vocal minority always thinks they represent 100%, because the large silent majority has nothing to complain about so they don't complain. Polygnotus (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    Polygnotus the whole thing was a mess if the first order, and there were so many posts that I unsubscribed too it, reminded me of the wild and whooly days of usenet Jp33442 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Captain, may I suggest, please, that you reopen the discussion in the continuing interests of transparency. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Hold your horses for a moment, I have a solution here, give me a few minutes to implement it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    See Special:Diff/1320611695 for my solution, one that I hope will significantly narrow and focus discussion, while allowing an outlet to discuss the issue identified as outstanding. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think he did get trouted already, and all sides are always in agreement that trouting Jimbob Whaleman is a good idea and a lot of fun. Retrouting the trouted is usually poor form. Polygnotus (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Polygnotus I could see the closer of this discussion finding that the trout he has been given to be sufficient; indeed you could suggest as much at the discussion. I was remiss to reopen it, but could not ignore the many voices and the leaking discussion underneath the ANI thread. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    Ah no worries. I suggest we keep the nautical theme going with captains and w(h)ales and trout and all that. Polygnotus (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    Well there is Template:Whale... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah but you never throw whales on Wales, that would be overk(r)ill. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Sometimes discussions are just over you know, and then you have to move on. Helping people with that is a brilliant idea. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Closer's Barnstar
Your ANI close was a tough but necessary thing, and I commend you for being bold enough to be the admin that basically said "let's take a step back and put this in perspective". Not a lot of admins would have done what was necessary. For this, I award this barnstar. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 17:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Good job on that ANI close, particularly the closing comment/summary. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your politeness and consideration, including the half re-opening, which was closed again promptly. Dgw|Talk 01:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Uvarosade (01:36, 11 November 2025)

About how difficult would you say it is to make an entirely new article? To specify further, this article is about a very niche topic without a lot of info about it out there. --Uvarosade (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Psycho-Cosmocide (05:21, 14 November 2025)

Hi, recently I have tried to send my first time ever wiki draft but it was rejected. Just wondering if you could guide me through and try second time. Cheers --Psycho-Cosmocide (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Psycho-Cosmocide A few issues. For one, you don't have any sources that aren't written by him. We don't generally rely on memoir/self reports. You need news articles about him, that aren't written by him. Second, its not written in the style of a Wikipedia article. You've written it rather as a sort of personal essay on his ideas, rather than a third party observer's neutral assessment of him. Lastly, it looks like you've used AI to write this, which should be disclosed if so, and probably avoided. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Ok thanks. So what do I have to do now to fix and improve Psycho-Cosmocide (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@Psycho-Cosmocide well you need to find some reliable sources and rewrite the article from basically scratch, relying on the reliable sources that discuss him, but are not written by him. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you so much. I will do that. Psycho-Cosmocide (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 08:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Sgramirez05 (17:31, 14 November 2025)

Hey there, my question for you today is actually how to locate a recently submitted article for review. I'm very new to this process. I drafted an article and submitted it for review but can't seem to find where to view the status of it. Thanks! --Sgramirez05 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sgramirez05 you can see all the pages you have edited at Special:Contributions/Sgramirez05. I suspect you want Draft:SouthEast_Bank. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Yoichiber on User:Yoichiber (16:52, 15 November 2025)

Je cherche du boulot --Yoichiber (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Biba10588 (17:24, 17 November 2025)

Greetings! I have a question about an article I edited before but now the page is protected because of my "vandalism" The page is "siege of Goražde" i changed the result/outcome section to "Bosniak victory", I put this because Bosniak forces defended the town and stopped the Serbian attack, hence the Bosniak victory. But the edit was removed and the page was put under protection. I would like to know why and how was I in the wrong? And if there is anythinf you could do? Thanks in advance --Biba10588 (talk) 17:24, 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) 00:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Question from Theangrymoms (14:15, 25 November 2025)

Why was my submission rejected? What did I do wrong? --Theangrymoms (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Theangrymoms. Your draft is not a valid Wikipedia article, it's just a list of people who have signed a petition? Go to a social media website instead if you want to get people to sign a petition qcne (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red - December 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357

Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from TheOrion124 on List of Star Wars species (U–Z) (14:29, 29 November 2025)

How to I create a citation, and would you mind linking related pages within my edit? I’m not sure how to link the page for Mandalorians, etc. --TheOrion124 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@TheOrion124 see Help:citation for introduction to citations. For linking between Wikipedia pages, it looks like you figured it out with your linking of Mandalorian? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)