User talk:ArthurPlummer

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Changing "British" in 'BritishAdmiral' to be red-coloured and "Admiral" in 'BritishAdmiral' to be blue coloured. BritishAdmiral (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG for more information, but basically you will need to wrap each part of your username with a <span>...</span> set for the colours desired. On a related note, images are not allowed in signatures, so you will need to remove the Fxemoji from yours. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your help! BritishAdmiral (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Testing.. BritishAdmiral (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Testing BritishAdmiral (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to do with the red white and blue, but white text on a white background is effectively invisible. You'll have to find some other way to represent this, I'm afraid. Please see the guidelines on signature appearance and colour for important considerations. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so with the fact the whiteness looks like there's no link to the talk. BritishAdmiral (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I actually wanted to ask you for advice on whether if I am too new to start patrolling Special:RecentChanges (since I do want to get Rollback in the future). BritishAdmiral (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the colour from the link to talk so it should be reset back to default now. BritishAdmiral (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Brightened the blue in Admiral. BritishAdmiral (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks better! As for recent changes patrolling, that's a good way to get experience. Do read the advice at Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and at Wikipedia:Vandalism as well, because vandalism has a specific definition here. And from personal experience, I'd also suggest that you continue making improvements to articles that interest you at the same time. If you spend too much of your Wikipedia time on cleaning up after bad actors, it's easy to get burnt out. (I learned that the hard way.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

From what I see in the request for permission page; most successful requesters have at least a month experience in patrolling, So I think starting early (rather than waiting until I'm extended confirmed) is a good idea. Thanks for the advice! BritishAdmiral (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I will not focus and concentrate all my brainpower on one editing type (patrolling recentchanges) as that would result in me getting bored and burning out quickly. Instead, I'll patrol and do suggested edits at the same time. BritishAdmiral (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the review would take long, can I create new page with more reliable source? Or can I move it to mainspace again while waiting for review? What would be the recommended way?

Draft:BILLIONS (agency)# Yuhyu078 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend moving it to mainspace as even if you created a new page with more reliable sources the review would still take long. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 02:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the swift help! Yuhyu078 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Yuhyu078 No problem, you can always come again :) AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 02:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Admiral,

I noticed on Yuhyu078's talk page that you had answered a help query on notability, by saying that "Any topic is notable as long as it is not excluded by the What Wikipedia is not page and it follows the General notability guideline." This isn't entirely true, as for example recognised species are considered notable as long as their existence can be verified from at least one reliable source. Politicians elected to national-level legislatures are also notable without any GNG-compliant sources. There are also other such cases.

I see that in the section above, you also encouraged Yuhyu078 to move their draft into the main article space past AfC. While this is technically allowed, it isn't a good idea unless the editor is confident that the draft is ready for publication, eg. that notability has been established. In this case, there was no evidence of notability, and the article is now at AfD for a deletion discussion.

It's great that you're keen to help, but please only answer questions that you really know the (correct) answer to. As someone who has only been editing for two weeks, you still have a lot to learn yourself – as indeed do I, and I've been here for years! – and I would therefore suggest that for the time being your focus ought to be on learning more about how Wikipedia works, rather than advising others.

That said, thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, we all make mistakes and no one is perfect, but thank you for the advice. AdmiralCarl (talk) | :) 19:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi AdmiralCarl! (Cool username btw!)

I saw you answering a few questions that you didn't quite seem to understand at the Teahouse- I appreciate your enthusiasm to roll up your sleeves and help, because I think that shows a great community spirit! However, as you see with things like the question where someone said they were "blocked" but they actually meant their edit was autoblocked by a filter, the Teahouse can be a lot more complex to answer questions at than it seems. I read it every day, and the long term contributors there are very good at figuring out quickly what new editors really mean with their questions, so it's good to leave unclear ones to the experienced hosts!

That being said, I took that opportunity to look at your recent contributions. Overall you are doing great (and heck, you are WAY ahead of me in actual edits- I did a lot of copyediting as an IP account over the years but I'm a little scared to jump in and make changes before knowing every single detailed rule, lol).

However, I noticed one recent "rewording" edit that I had to fully revert, as it changed the writing from proper English to something that didn't make sense at all, and actually indicated the opposite of what was being said. (If a sentence says someone has "little experience," and you remove "little," then it goes from emphasizing that they have almost no experience at all to saying they are generally experienced.) There was also another "rewording" edit that was overall positive, but I had to re-add a word ("superfreighter") because the grammar didn't make sense without it.

If you were making more mistakes than improvements with rewording, I would suggest you slow down on that and focus on the removal of overlinking (in which every edit I briefly looked at was perfectly aligned with WP:OVERLINK guidelines, great job!) But honestly, most of your rewording edits have been great- you seem to have a wonderful intuition for what veers into PEACOCK prose or puffery.

So I don't want to discourage you at all, instead I'd like to recommend something I do myself: when you're removing or replacing more than one word in a sentence, once you click into the "Preview" stage of the edit, try reading that sentence aloud (or like in your head, word by word, as if it was out loud, if that makes sense?) to make sure you didn't accidentally break the grammar. I've done it myself, especially cos I'm still kind of boxing myself in with editing from the mobile app, and it's easy to mistype on a phone! However, if we catch it during preview then no corrections are needed after the fact.

Finally, thank you for using such great and useful edit summaries to describe your work. I personally feel that good edit summaries are a crucial part of collaborating, and save us all a lot of time in understanding why others have made changes.

I'm going to take inspiration from your BOLD contributor spirit, and try to edit article space more instead of letting myself feel overwhelmed by allll the rules and WP:MOS that I've studied. You've really given me an example of someone who is jumping in to help fast and with much energy, and I hope in turn my well-meaning advice here can help ground you in further great practices along your editing journey! Sophiatries (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sophiatries Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if they prevent you from editing, and thank you, I am actually waiting on action on my rename request to ArthurPlummer, and I'll preview going forward.

I don't know much about filters so yeah... AdmiralCarl (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome AdmiralCarl!

Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Ad Orientem, it means a lot. Since you are an administrator, I was hoping you could offer some advice on fighting vandalism, rollback (specifically if I should request it), and patrolling recentchanges. Thanks again! :) AdmiralCarl (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You can check out WP:TWINKLE. That's a very useful tool kit for editing. We can always use extra eyes at WP:RCP. As for rollback, generally you need to be an experienced editor before requesting that. However there are functions on Twinkle which are pretty close to rollback. Happy editing... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be rude, stubborn, or anything, but I have three out of the four things successful rollback applicants usually have:

• Over 200 mainspace edits (611+)
• A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits.
• And No recent (in my case, none at all) history of edit warring

Do you think if I waited until I've patrolled RecentChanges for 1 month then I should request rollback? AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd personally wait until you have been here for at least three months and have WP:Extended Confirmed status. One thing you want to be careful about, is the appearance of hat collecting. I applaud your enthusiasm, but take a deep breath. Burnout is another common problem with new users who discover the project and go all in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

No, no, no, I don't collect hats (Nor want to), I want to (in the future at least) use user rights to improve and benefit the encyclopedia (such as blocking vandals, sockpuppets, etc, denying inappropriate pending changes, among others), not boost my own ego and show them off to others. To avoid burnout, I plan to, alongside rollbacking vandalism (or patrolling rcent changes), do other things:

• Stop by the Teahouse, like I have been doing recently
• Or by the Help desk
• And do suggested edits

And continue that until I start creating new articles, and I go on from there.

Thank you for the advice, I will accept it and wait until I am extended confirmed and three months have passed since I created my account (17 April). AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd take a look at WP:PERM to get an idea of what other admins typically are looking for when granting advanced permissions. Have a good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Kurds and Kurdistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Additionally, the following restriction(s) apply to this topic area: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Due to your comment here. Please note that as you are not extended confirmed, you are not permitted to edit in the topic area. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, appreciate it!😅 AdmiralCarl (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed you reverted the blanking of a user talk page. Note that per the talk page guidelines, blanking your own user talk page is allowed, and a reason does not need to be given to do so. This is taken to mean that the user in question has read the warnings, and isn't usually an effective way to hide critical comments, as they can be retrieved from the page history. With this in mind, there are still certain elements that should not be removed from a user talk page, such as declined unblock requests, and it is perfectly okay to revert to include these again. Thanks! Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did read that, no worries. AdmiralCarl (talk | contribs) 02:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts -- they have not gone unnoticed :) tony 02:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

My first barnstar!!! Thank you tony!!! :) ArthurPlummer (talk | contribs) 02:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, I've noticed you answering questions about drafts on the Teahouse and I just wanted to make a request: please don't advise editors to move their draft directly into mainspace, especially if they're newer editors. What often happens when new editors do this is that the draft is seriously flawed and ends up at WP:AFD, which can be a really demoralising, high-stress experience for them and also makes it harder for them (or anyone else) to recreate the article later. AfD is not gentle and articles get thoroughly dissected and judged. It's usually better for them to go through WP:AFC instead, where experienced reviewers can point out problems and offer advice and the editor can work on their draft without any time pressure. Meadowlark (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark I think another editor said the same thing but thanks for the advice. At least I know I can never advise a person seeking tea to move their draft to mainspace again or their Wikipedia tenure will go diabolical. ArthurPlummer ( :) | talk | contribs) 04:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, diabolical might be a bit far...I like to think we don't actually turn people into supervillains, even in the most strenuous circumstances! But thank you for listening.

If you haven't encountered it yet, one thing I always find to be useful advice to give new editors is WP:42, the 'golden rule', which lays out the requirements for a good source really clearly. Effective whether they're trying to create an article or trying to edit one with the unimpeachable source of 'I read it somewhere'! Meadowlark (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

When you find that an article has a link to a site that's been usurped by a spammer, you don't need to remove it right away. You can check to see if archive.org has a copy of the original; if they do, link the article to that instead. DS (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, great to know, thank you! ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 22:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and make sure that what got archived is in fact the original website, because archive.org will sometimes keep archiving copies of a site even after it gets usurped. DS (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 01:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ArthurPlummer, can you please explain the edit you made here, where you reverted a seemingly legitimate comment by an IP and tagged it as vandalism? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not see that it was a Talk page, I originally thought it was an article, that's my bad for 1) reverting and 2) labeling it as vandalism. ArthurPlummer (talk | :) 00:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)