User talk:Mapsax

Summarize Fact Check

Thanks for your message. That close in time does sound a bit suspicious. Let's rewrite with what can be sourced - I'll try to have a look later today. Tacyarg (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: Well, I might not get to it right away (WP:VOLUNTEER), but I have some leads: ISBN 9781570032073 and ISBN 9780738517056, plus The Sun News might occasionally have a story. [Obviously I meant "copypaste", not "copyedit"; I can do an insert/delete on your talk page] Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The article Joseph Lulloff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of bridges known for strikes, a link pointing to the disambiguation page WKRC was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. However, the section had just been tagged as an "example farm", meaning that examples are egregious and need to be removed. The example you added was also clearly not about the section's topic, tourist spectacle. That insect masses can be a bit of a nuisance is a commonplace; that does not make them tourist spectacles except in very special cases like the one instance cited already. Sorry to have to revert your well-intentioned efforts but we clearly can't accommodate the addition given the tag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[Addressed at Talk:Mayfly § Example farm concerns] Mapsax (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm reaching out to get some additional eyes and editorial input on the Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh. I added them to the WikiProject Environment page just two days ago, and I received some replies from an editor named Reywas92 on the Environment Talk page. It is regarding ongoing discussions about Indigenous historical context and visual sourcing.

Recently, the editor raised concerns and suggested removing documented historical presence, treaty contexts (including the 1833 Treaty of Chicago), and 19th-century ethnographic visuals, characterizing these verifiable historical additions as "Righting Great Wrongs" (WP:RGW) and mere decoration.

I am concerned that invoking WP:RGW to strip out verifiable Indigenous history risks creating a one-sided narrative and leaning into historical erasure, rather than maintaining neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and proper due weight (WP:DUE). Furthermore, the discussion has involved aggressive tone and assumptions about my identity rather than focusing strictly on source text (WP:CIVIL). He assumed that because of the way I wrote, I must be an AI program. I am not. I am clearly human.

I would really appreciate it if fellow editors could review the WikiProject Environment talk page thread, check the inline citations for both Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh (WP:V), and offer their input to ensure the article maintains a complete, academically rigorous, and neutral historical record.

Thank you for your past edits on both Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh. Please know that I am trying to keep a balanced history of both places. Erasing information or images related to the Indigenous nations that lived there, or simply removing context, is harmful to both articles. It is personally concerning for me that the editor is focused strongly on Black and Indigenous history. They seem unaffected by the European and White history.

Thanks for your time and guidance.

GeoFAXsafety79 GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@GeoFAXsafety79: I would consider raising the issue at WP:ANI if the lack of civility escalates. Mapsax (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Reywas92 is back. He posted an angry message on the WikiProjects Environment page. He is editing both articles. He is trying to start an edit war, probably. Please help. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)