User talk:CaptainKaptain

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monfalcone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montfaucon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion
Hello, CaptainKaptain,

Any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc.), please state this in the edit summary and post a notification on the talk page of the page creator to inform them of the tagging. Otherwise, they will have no idea what happened to the pages they created because, unless they are an admin, they can not see their deleted contributions. I recommend using Twinkle, an automated program which will post these talk page messages for you once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator". It makes things very easy.

If you have any questions, please visit the Teahouse. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Go slowly, please
As you've noticed, I've been looking at some of your other edits. It is clear that your intentions are good and that you have a lot of knowledge to contribute to the project. However, there's an appreciable learning curve and as you noticed, I found that one of your edits showed unawareness of one of our stylistic conventions (bolding a term that redirects to the page). I'd like to note another here: at Bombing of Dresden in World War II, your edit actually removed closing curly brackets that were needed to mark the end of a blockquote in the syntax used on that page (there's an alternative, older syntax using HTML brackets where it's probably easier to see in the edit window what's going on). It turned out that you had misidentified the source of the problem, which was that this edit had introduced extra closing brackets, which you correctly spotted in the text, but you didn't look for opening brackets to identify the intended function, or look at the text in preview before saving your edit and spot that these were 2-paragraph quotations.

In this light, it occurs to me that some of your puzzlement in recent edits at Talk:Germanic paganism may come from not fully appreciating the role of the introduction to an article. Generally speaking, it's supposed to summarize the contents of the body of the article. So it's not the place to say that some scholars have argued that important aspects of Germanic paganism do not derive from Proto-Indo-European religion; that point of detail should be in the body of the article, but what matters in the intro is that it grew out of I-E (for which "rooted in" is a good metaphor). How much space to assign to such scholarly arguments is a matter of weight and should be based in large part on how far such points are accepted in scholarly consensus (I've found also that some points require more explanation), but the introduction should be an overview. Perhaps that explanation helps?

I was surprised to find when coming here that the only welcome you had received was an invitation to the Teahouse, so I've put at the top of this page a full welcome template with links to our policies and guidelines as well as places to ask for help, so that you can look up some of our ways. I hope that that's helpful, too, and I'm sorry no one did this before. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass addition of Paganism template to Indigenous articles
The template documentation specifically states: "Do not add this template to Abrahamic or Indigenous religions that are not considered Pagan." I am reverting your additions. Please read the documentation thoroughly before editing and adding templates. I know you were wanting to improve the 'pedia, but this went against the consensus and wishes of the cultures in question. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, while the intention was certainly not to add non-pagan religions to the template or to add any type of insult or injury to the ethnic religions listed, it seems you have missed the point that the category where these were listed was named precisely Historical ethnic religions (existing and extinct). The different religious traditions of the native peoples of the Americas are ethnic religions, some historical, but many still existing. Ethnic religion and indigenous religion are synonyms.

Whether the cultures in question like the terminology or not (there is a whole debate about terms like pagan being considered pejorative and innapropriate or even insulting - see: kaffir - but that's another discussion), I don't think that should be the main criteria because these people may have their own current biases (some induced after conversion to non-ethnic religions) and wish to differentiate and distinguish themselves from other so-called "pagan" religions (in part in order to assert their 'uniqueness' and their own vision of 'correctness' of their beliefs). Rather I think they should be analysed from a neutral and scholarly point of view. And most of academia and sources would agree that the traditions of several people indigenous to the Americas (such as the Guarani) are "pagan" and have animistic, pantheistic or polytheistic elements (as listed in the header of the template).

Now I see that there was a warning about not adding the template to Abrahamic or Indigenous religions that are not considered Pagan, and that is fine, but to remove all Native American religions from the template isn't proper either because many (most) of these are indeed considered as pagan religions. Instead of removing all of the American continent from the template, as if Paganism had never existed in the Americas (which is simply not correct, there are many ethnic religious there, historical and contemporary), instead of removing all of the continent from the template (and excluding a large amount of content from Wikipedia), please list the individual entries to be removed for not fitting the pagan description (not having animist, pantheist, panentheist or polytheist elements) and provide reason and justification for their removal.

I will be reverting your deletions, but I will also commit myself to reviewing the entries posted and removing misplaced ones. Some entries such as Midewiwin really didn't actually belong there (I'd say it would more properly fit something like a "Mystery Religion" or religious society label). I apologize for not having noticing the warning previously and for not being more thorough in explaining the inclusion of certain entries to the template and I hope that we can make things more clear and the template more accurate.

Lastly, about Igbo and Yoruba traditions, having had contact with African Diaspora religions in the Americas - where they are syncrethized with local Abrahamic and Christian traditions - you can clearly see that these syncrethized ethnic african influences are distinguishable from the Abrahamic elements on their traditions and that they are, thus, distinctly pagan, non-abrahamic and ethnic African, thus meriting the inclusion in the template (and this is not a personal view, but is also supported by mainstream academia). These were entries that I had pondered about before adding to the template. Things like modern Yoruba people saying they were a 'traditional' and 'indigenous' religion, not pagan, can sometimes be more accurately attributed to the fact that these people are largely islamized or christianized nowadays and thus, people who cling to their ethnic traditions and syncrethized native elements within Islam and Christianity are eager to distance themselves from the pagan/idolater label and the perceived 'wrongness' attached to it by these abrahamic religions. I believe thus, that they should be included in the template (but regardless of that, just the confession that they are a "traditional indigenous" religion, as you said, would merit their inclusion in the category of the template precisely called "ethnic religions (existing and extinct").) CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No. You do not have consensus to revert this. Do not edit war over your personal misinterpretations here. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See: Template talk:Paganism. I will not make further edits on that (except perhaps on the Igbo and Yoruba religions that are not "Native Americans" and, thus, not subject to a special consensus by a group of editors about denying that paganism and ethnic religions ever existed in the entire American Continent), but I do urge said "consensus group" to reconsider the positions, as explained in the Talk Page, and be aware of the consequences of what they are doing. I have never started edit-warring (as you implied in your other post here) and I certainly haven't done that, or anything, over my personal misinterpretations (that is your judgement of it, stop acting like you're an arbiter of what is true and what is not, and acting like an inquisitor towards good-faith users. It's not doing you or this project any favors). CaptainKaptain (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Midewiwin, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you said there. I just added a template to the article. As explained, upon further pondering, that article doesn't really belong in that template. So it will be removed. Nothing to add to it. CaptainKaptain (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Paganism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''You do not have consensus for the sweeping changes you are making to this template. You are violating the template documentation and the consensus established on talk. Stop edit-warring.'' - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This seems harsh. I wanted to contribute to the template about ethnic and indigenous religions by adding more religious traditions to its list (and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one who included Native American traditions as a category on that template, I merely expanded the ones listed), but I apparently stumbled upon some "consensus" that a whole continent and its ethnic religions - and that one continent only - should be excluded from that template, as if such things never existed in such continent. I was unaware and the fact that there was such a consensus never even came to my mind. Again, I explained why that was extremely prejudicial, in the Template talk:Paganism, finished my contributions and left it to the users to make the appropriate editions. I didn't start any "edit-warring" by doing this, which was throughly explained, nor was it ever my intention to do "disruptive editing", and yet I got buzzed with half a dozen notifications in my talk page about ever touching that "taboo subject" and had administrators inquisitorially look through my edits. Calm down, I mean no harm. CaptainKaptain (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that, in all of your responses, you past-tense living cultures and their unbroken (not Pagan or Neopagan) lifeways, shows that you do not understand these Indigenous lifeways well enough to wade into the articles and templates on which you have been reverted. The other points you raise also miss the central points editors have raised with you - that you don't understand the history or current reality of how these religions are classified, both in the communities themselves and here on WP. Again, you need a much more thorough understanding of the topic, and consensus before doing any more edits in these areas. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See: Template talk:Paganism CaptainKaptain (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)