User talk:CaptainEek

Hello there, I have been editing for some time now, and I have created a lot of pages, however, quite recently, all of the sudden, three of them were nominated for deletion, by an editor. Even the one, I am certain fulfills WP:N, and WP:verifiability. has been flagged as if it doesn't. I am also certain that I might have misunderstood the policies. I could use your help. Thank you. RaynorRaider (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@RaynorRaider I see some of your company pages have been nominated. Writing about companies is tricky because folks I think assume that company pages are promotional. It also is harder because you're writing about AI companies, which are widely despised. Now, that doesn't mean that you should assume bad faith, you should assume the nominators good faith. But I understand it can be frustrating. The right thing to do is let the deletion discussions take their course. The result of those discussions may be instructive. If they get kept, I'd say keep doing what you're doing. If not, or there is a mixed result, let me know and I can try to give some more targeted advice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Thank you for your response. Sorry, I was away for a while. The page I am confused about if Kodiak AI. I have linked it's deletion discussion. The page has been deleted, after a consensus. Would you please advice me in this regard.

As for the good faith, I always have good faith towards other... Because with my mental health issues, about 99.99% of the time, I end up on the wrong side... :D So, it won't be any surprise for me if I have misunderstood or forgot something.

Thanks again for engagement, really appreciate the learning. RaynorRaider (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

O @CaptainEek, my Captain. RaynorRaider (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@RaynorRaider given that it has been deleted after a deletion discussion, recreating it will not be possible until the company becomes notable, i.e. there will need to be more significant media coverage. Creating pages from scratch is somewhat difficult. But there are millions of extant pages that could use your help too! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek You are right. Thank you. Really appreciate it. RaynorRaider (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Wheeler/Wallowa on a "History and geography" 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|contribs) 16:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There are some temporary account constantly engaging in promotional edit, they are using university rankings as citation and changing content to promotional tone in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Can you protect that page for a few days.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 17:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@KEmel49 Done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CaptainEek! I have a small question. If you edit an article, how long does your edit stay in said article? --DizzyBlams (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@DizzyBlams it remains until it is removed, which could be...forever, or like just a few minutes. Without knowing more details about your question I'm not sure I can give a better answer :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

How do I add a row to the Alumni section so I can add another alum? --GigEmAggies29 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@GigEmAggies29 which alumni would you like to add? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reverend Frederick Haynes III, Dallas pastor and candidate for Democratic primary for Texas’ 30th Congressional District. GigEmAggies29 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@GigEmAggies29 so that page is using Template:alum. To add another alumni, you just add another instance of template:alum, but with the parameters changed. Templates can be a bit fiddly, see Help:Template for documentation. If you still have questions, let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello how do I create --Tamara6372 (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tamara6372 what would you like to create? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello what next to do --Business Minded Growth (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Business Minded Growth can you clarify your question please? Do you mean you want to edit multi-level marketing? What would you like to say if so? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Re:

The Spell-Checker Song: Owed to a Spell Czech Her (Ode to a spellchecker)

Eye halve a spelling chequer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my Rhea view,
Miss steaks aye Ken knot see.

Iran this Poe Em threw it.
Your shore lee glad two no.
It is core wrecked in every weigh,
My chequer tolled me sew.

A Czech her is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right stiles ewe can reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Eye strike a key and type a word.
And weight four it two say.
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait aweigh.

Each frays come posed up on my screen,
Is trussed two bee a Joule.
The check Ur pours o'er every word,
To Czech sum spelling rule.

As soon as a mist ache is maid.
It nose bee fore two long.
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Bee fore a veiling cheque curs,
hour spelling mite decline.
If wee R. lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid two wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling,
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den,
With words sew fare too here.

2 rite with care is quite a fete,
Of witch won should bee proud;
and wee mussed dew the best week Anne,
Sew flaws argh knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays.
Such soft wear four pea seize.
And why eye brake in 2 averse
With righting sure too please.

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon oh I chortled the whole time I read it, that really made my day. But seriously, I think AI is causing spell checkers to become more aggressive! Now they think they know what you mean from context--and they're so wrong. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m trying to share a reference that San Julian, Jalisco, Mexico has a flag. https://sanjulian.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Ordenamiento-sobre-los-s%C3%ADmbolos-oficiales-del-Municipio-de-San-Juli%C3%A1n-Jalisco.pdf --Jrm5440 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hello, lol I didn't notice I had a mentor here. I am pretty new to Wikipedia. I made some mistakes. I won't make them again. Thank you.

Eya --Eyaura1 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Eyaura1 Wikipedia only includes information that comes from reliable sources and which is not original research. Generally, that means that first hand accounts from game developers, blogs, X, Discord, etc. are not appropriate sources. Further, if you have a conflict of interest, its best to not edit the page directly. Rather, you should use the article's talk page (at Talk:G String (video game)) to make edit requests (you can use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard). Its best to propose changes in a "change X to Y because Z" format. Attaching a reliable source that supports the change also makes things much smoother. I'm happy to help you out here, just ask me any follow-up questions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. :) Eyaura1 (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello please publish my news write below 👇 --BBC NEWS AFRICA (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What do I do --Fab2017 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

May I ask your advice? My wife is Deirdre Clancy. I act as her archivist. She has an outdated and slightly inaccurate wikipedia page. After having failed to persuade other authorities to update it I did so with referenced data, but was flamed when I revealed my connection - tho there were no disputable facts given as a reason. How can I amplify the information in her entry without being controversial? --MMSteer (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@MMSteer Well the issue is two-fold. First, you needed to have declared your connection, which you have now done. Generally, those with a conflict of interest should not edit articles directly but instead make edit requests on the talk page, using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Second, I'm afraid your edit was not appropriately sourced after all. Each claim needs to be cited to a reliable source. You only had a couple of sources, and it wasn't obvious that the material came from those sources. So, every sentence must cite to a reliable source. If you can't find a reliable source that says it, you can't include it. I'm happy to help you update the page, but you'll need to do some legwork on sourcing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. When I have time I will return to this edit. I am grateful for your advice MMSteer (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @CaptainEek, I'm seeking your advice regarding the article Draft:Flirt4Free, which you deleted in 2020 for advertising/COI reasons.

I am primarily active on Simple English Wikipedia (see my work at SWEP), where I recently created the article Flirt4Free as part of a research project on the adult industry. I want to clarify that I have no connection to the subject or the previous editor (User:Eloravsmedia) and have no conflict of interest.

Given the previous deletion, would you recommend I move my version to Draft space here on ENWP for review, or do you believe the subject still fails our notability guidelines? I'd appreciate your thoughts on the best way to proceed. Dysonneons (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dysonneons it wasn't deleted on notability grounds, it was deleted because it was just straight up promotional spam. But you seem to know what you're doing, so I think you'll have better success. Although you only have a few edits here, so you can't make a page directly in mainspace yet anyways. So either make a few more edits, or just create a draft and have to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. If you have further questions, let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)