User talk:Augnablik

June 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Language demographics of Quebec have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Language demographics of Quebec was changed by Augnablik (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.918174 on 2022-06-15T12:26:52+00:00

Welcome!
Hi Augnablik! 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:

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:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! TJRC (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * About having to type four tildes to automatically insert my username and the date: I see that the automatic insertion is happening even without my typing the tildes. So why would we want to bother typing them? Augnablik (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:34, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:35, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Augnablik! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:02, Wednesday, April 26, 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

 * I wish I had seen this question so I could add this information, but once it is archived, it's not really supposed to be edited. I do it to change links to information that no longer work, which is probably all right.


 * I've heard of WP:TNT and that's similar to what you were looking for.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"them" vs "him or her"
Hi Augnabilk. Thank you for your copy editing work. Please don't continue to change "them" to "him or her", or make related pronoun changes, in our policy and guideline pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So, then, does Wikipedia require "them" to be used now with third-person singular pronouns? Although I know many people do it these days, it's so confusing and we already had a perfectly good way to differentiate third-person singular and plural. Augnablik (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, if a page uses singular they, there should be a presumption (in the vein of a guideline on English varieties, MOS:RETAIN) that there is consensus for it, and that changing that requires a demonstration of consensus against singular they. This applies doubly for our policy and guideline pages, which reflect site-wide consensus. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi Augnablik! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Theooolone (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If I made such an edit, could you point it out to me? I certainly didn't mean to do that. Augnablik (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Theooolone, are you going to leave me in permanent suspense about what this edit of mine was that you're describing as a misidentified minor edit? Augnablik (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , or rather passerby. Augnablik, if you ping User:Theooolone by for instance linking their username, they'll be alerted that you have a question for them. There, I've done it now. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC).
 * Hi! Sorry for not replying to you, I hadn't subscribed to this thread. I was most likely talking about this edit, which adds a new sentence.
 * Also, this edit to Camp Fire (organization) would not be considered minor as it rearranges much of the page content, and removes around half a paragraph in the Camp and environmental education section. Theooolone ( Talk ) 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Algonquin Hotel, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Greatpopcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you be specific here? If I had the example you're alluding to, it would help, as I am not aware of ever changing a US or British usage. If you perhaps mean single and double quotation marks, all my changes were for the sake of consistency — the author switched around between the two formats considerably. Augnablik (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The specific issue is that you, indeed, did change the US spelling of "story" to the British spelling "storey" in the Algonquin Hotel article, which is about a hotel in the US. The latter is generally considered incorrect (or at least uncommon) in American English. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, for instance, uses the word "story" to refer to floor levels. In the future, please do not change spellings from one variety of English to another if there is already an established variant of English already used on an article, or if the subject has ties to a nation where a particular variant of English is used per MOS:TIES. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am humbled as well as astounded to discover that STOREY is, in fact, considered a British rather than American spelling. That (STOREY) is what I learned as an American child in an American school many long years ago!
 * With that in mind, I went to the Oxford online dictionary when I saw your reply to me about this issue to point out triumphantly what I expected to find. To my horror, the entry said it's British. A rush over to the Collins dictionary met the same fate.
 * Having recovered from my shock, all I can say is, "At least the edits were not intended to de-Britishize the formatting of the original article."
 * That's my storey … oops, story. Augnablik (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand why you made these edits now. To be honest, I would have been really surprised if Americans used "storey" as a spelling, as I was taught (in an American school) that it was spelled "story" and that there was no such word as "storey". When I found out that "storey" was an actual British word, I was as surprised as you just were. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 😂 Augnablik (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Help me!
My questions are in connection with an existing article about my undergraduate school, Trinity Washington University: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University#History

I did a number of minor edits, but realized — as other editors have also observed with requests for better documentation iin the article — that quite a bit more substantive work needs to be done, updating of information and verification stated facts with citations. I don't have access to this sort of information, but as an alumna of the school, I knew I could get it.

Then I realized that perhaps just by being an alumna, this puts me in COI status, even though I've simply done minor proofreading and editing so far. I was about to write the president of the school, who I know, and ask if she could put me in touch with someone on the staff who could provide me the information. Would my alumna status be problematic?

Another related question: how does Wikipedia's preference for third-party references hold up when the article is about an organization and third parties simply wouldn't have desired facts and figures, like for instance enrollment as of 2024 and changes from earlier enrollment figures? Surely it would be okay to consult the organization directly for that sort of information, wouldn't it? Augnablik (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Augnablik. Simply put, no, it wouldn't. On Wikipedia, any information that you add must be verifiable from published, secondary and reliable sources. Word of mouth/email from the company would fail all of these criteria. We also have a policy about original research (which basically says that you should not add information that you know, even if it is true). Hope this helps!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, now I'm curious. How would articles about organizations like schools, companies, and countries ever get ahold of certain basic facts like enrollment figures if they can't contact knowledgeable staff? Where else can Wiki editors go to get it?
 * I fully understand the need to avoid conflicts of interest and bias in writing articles, having long done academic and journalistic writing. But I must say, I'm beginning to see some "Catch 22" situations in writing and editing Wiki articles.
 * Rest assured, though, that I won't take my work on the Trinity Washington University article further, in light of our conversation. And thank you, @Cocobb8, for your quick feedback.  Augnablik (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Augnablik, see Jim's comment below for COI, and for places to find sources :). Let us know if you have additional questions. Cheers!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just noticed it. And what I was about to write him was this, which I'll run by you now because you got back to me with an invitation to ask additional questions:
 * @Jmcgnh, your comment, "Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings," even if we can't contact the school for details directly, seems to counter to what @Cocobb8 replied to me above. Can you help put it all together here? Augnablik (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Augnablik You should probably limit it to minimal information, such as the current principal. A controversial statement for which a primary source might not be used would be something like "this team won this award against this other team and beat that record of some sort". Do you see the distinction I'm making between a controversial vs not controversial statement?Also, the problem with just using an email as a source is that it is not a published source. However, using the faculty's official website for non-controversial statements would be fine (as long as it remains limited and that there are more secondary sources than there are primary ones).  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the distinction — that's all I had in mind doing. There are a number of previous references in the article that need backing up, or updating figures like enrollment beyond the ones last provided.
 * Glad to see that you and Jim are on the same page after all, or so it seems. Augnablik (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're both referring to Wikipedia's policies :)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Opinions vary about whether being a student or alum of a school is considered a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed. Err on the safe side?
 * If you are contacting the school for the information you wish to add, then that certainly puts you in COI territory. If you were disinterestedly adding information from third party reliable and published sources, most people would give you a pass on COI.
 * Non-controversial facts can be cited to primary sources, such as the school's own website or regulatory filings.
 * Wikipedia's preference for third-party sources is especially important for notability. It's also a consideration for whether a particular statement or fact is noteworthy.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you, @Jmcgnh ... please see my second reply to @Cocobb8 above, because I folded in your earlier reply in my new question. Augnablik (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll respond down here to try to make a more linear thread.
 * Yes, there's a distinction between what Cocobb8 said and what I said: published, but primary, sources are allowed, just not preferred. It is not always necessary to cite a third-party, secondary source when the facts are not likely to be contested. You still need to cite a published source, though, so 'private communication' citations and similar non-published sources - which are allowed in some academic circumstances - are not allowed for Wikipedia.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. That was never part of my confusion.
 * Really glad to see a way around what seemed an impasse for getting usable information for articles about orgsnizations! Augnablik (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)