User talk:SailingInABathTub

Your submission at Articles for creation: Myrciaria vexator has been accepted
 Myrciaria vexator, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Myrciaria_vexator help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Myrciaria delicatula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambuí.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious
How is it that you found your way organically to an AFd on an article you’ve never edited in any form, after we had a discussion on your alternate account. Quite curious, isn’t it? CUPIDICAE💕 00:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean while I was contributing to other AFd discussions from today, for other articles I've never edited? SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * those were only after the fact. I’ll note you still haven’t properly disclosed either. CUPIDICAE💕  01:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Len Fisher
Hi SailingInABathTub. I quite enjoyed reading your recent article on Len Fisher. I wanted to let you know that I nominated it for WP:DYK, as I think the bit about Fisher's 1999 Ig Noble Prize makes for quite a catchy hook. Feel free to add any comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Len Fisher. Thanks! – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I’m glad that you enjoyed it. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Len Fisher
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Angelica Inacio
I saw that you removed the WP:HOAX tag and WP:PROD from the Angelica Inacio article, with the explanation: "This person did exist, and some parts of the article are verifiable, inaccuracies can be corrected."

"Inaccuracies can be corrected"? Did you even read the first line of what I wrote in the talk page on why it should be deleted? Maybe discussing the issue there would be appropriate before reverting other people's edits, don't you think?

Nearly everything in the article is made up, and everything that makes it notable is. You won't find any source mentioning some Angelica Inacio as a "Champion of abolition". If we "corrected the inaccuracies", remaining verifiable information would be:


 * Her birth place/date and death place
 * She was a slave
 * She married an Italian man
 * Names of her children

By keeping only what is verifiable the article would not have notability, and would need to be deleted anyway, as Wikipedia is not a family tree website. By the way, judging by the hoax image (which you removed yourself), that was even uploaded with false description and no source, it couldn't be less than obvious it was created in bad faith.

So, what do you think? Should the article be nearly blanked and nominated for deletion for failing WP:NBIO criterias, nominated as it is (WP:HOAX), or should a false biography be kept on Wikipedia? Excommunicato (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC) "[9]" is the citation of a post-graduation thesis in anthropology from the UFRGS, a reliable reference, but when you read the full thesis online, just by using Ctrl+F, you can see there are no results in the cited text for "Angelica", "Inacio", "Pastorino" or "1887". I can't see that as anything other than bad faith. So trying to use reliable sources to support fabricated facts, plus making false image attributions, justifies using the PROD process. Excommunicato (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction was the same as yours. You can even note that I tagged another article by this user as a suspected hoax for the same reasons that you tagged Angelica Inacio (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francesco_Pastorino&oldid=1017346916 )
 * While it was clear that that the images used on both articles were wrongly attributed, and the pages themselves (there are others!) are not written in an encyclopaedic tone, I could not determine that the content was false, and the more I researched the article the more corroborating information I found (this book for example). I cannot see that that any of these articles are blatant hoaxes and therefore I de-PRODed on that basis. The articles certainly require better sources to back up their abolitionist related claims. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think this bundle of articles (Francesco Pastorino, Angelica Inacio, Manoel Inacio, Casal dos Inacio, all by the same user) are not blatant hoaxes, otherwise they could be nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G3, because these were indeed real people, even if most of the claims in the articles are ficticious. I tried that way and (unsuccessfully) proposed Manoel Inacio for speedy deletion, but I recognize that was exaggerated and SD isn't the case. However, I don't see what goes against using PROD here, and the least we should do for now is tag them as suspected hoax. About the book you mentioned, the only facts it corroborates are the basic ones I listed above, and that Angelica inherited her husband's property, nothing special. At no point it claims that she was one of the first free woman of colour in Brazil or a champion of abolition. The book only asserts non-notable facts, not relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article about them. There are also some "placeholder" citations, for example, in Angelica Inacio, section "Her Abolition Legacy" the quote:""In 1887, per a statement on her Italian husband's testament, sealed by the Catholic Church, Angelica Inacio dei Pastorino became the first woman of color to become a plantation owner in South-Eastern Brazil.[9]""
 * I don’t dispute that the quality of the article and the sourcing is poor. But the mere fact that the family history a 19th century free person of colour is being documented in a contemporary source leads me to believe that the article deserves a proper review, rather than being summarily deleted. If she was involved in the first court action against the republic to grant citizenship and land rights to people of colour she is likely to be notable, and nothing that I found confirmed that this is false. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Vertical and horizontal market
Thank you for adding better sources to Vertical and horizontal market! Hopefully there will be consensus to keep the article now that it has more substantive info in it. White 720 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you now believe that the article should be kept you can also withdraw your nomination per WP:WDAFD. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm Duke of Geography and I noticed the note that you left on my talk page as well as the reverted edits to the Pinheiros article. I had translated a sentence out of an unsourced paragraph from the Pinheiros Wikipedia article. I will look for a source for that information and continue making edits. Thank you for the feedback regarding minor edits.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voadeira has been accepted
 Voadeira, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Voadeira help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about contested prod
Hello. When you contested the prod at Gacha (apps), you cited multiple sources found per WP:BEFORE. I am having trouble finding reliable sources specifically about this franchise. Were those sources about to the franchise by Lunime, or were they related to Gacha game more generally? If the latter, do you have any tips on how I could find them? Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sources to the article, but I didn't find any sources for the history section. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Valve exerciser
Can you please put some of this SIGCOV that you located in the article? Even on the talk page as a source dump? I was not able to find anything that wasn't a commercial listing or a trivial mention. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm doing it now. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Westinghouse whatever
Thanks for finding the sources. I merged the two articles and added what you found. If you wanna take another look and maybe harmonize it a bit more, go ahead. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Quantum boomerang effect
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Legally recognized cities
How do you check/know if a place is a legally recognized city. I made a page about Rincón, Cuba and they made it a draft, and I want to make it back into a main wiki page. CubanoBoi (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reliable source that verifies the place's existence, and that people live there. Such as a newspaper report talking about someone from the place, a census, a municipal website referring to the place, voting records etc. Appearing on a map alone is not sufficient. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What counts as a reliable source? Does tierra.tutiempo.net count as a reliable source? It’s the only one that I could find that isn’t just a map. CubanoBoi (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS and WP:RSP for guidance on reliable sources. tierra.tutiempo.net says at the bottom that it is based on Wikipedia, so it is not a reliable source. I found a couple of book sources on google books - try there. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again it seems that Draft:Rincón, Cuba is administratively part of Vega Alta, Cuba and so probably will not warrant a separate page. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Rincón is only a part of Vega Alta politically. It’s a part of Vega Altas People's Council. But other then that’s it’s its own town. CubanoBoi (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, you just need to find a reliable source evidencing that then. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it already has a Wikipedia page in a different language can that help make it into mainspace? CubanoBoi (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the other language page has a reliable source that you can use, then yes. Otherwise no, as the different Wikipedias have different inclusion requirements, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it’s on a government map on a government website does that count as legally recognized? CubanoBoi (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All maps are typically seen as reliable sources of information, but they don't count towards notability for populated places, per WP:NGEO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Historic value for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historic value, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Historic value until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I’ve made Draft:Sur (San José de las Lajas) and it’s 100% a legally recognized place. But it’s still a draft, can you help me? CubanoBoi (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. SailingInABathTub 🛁 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Since you’ve been doing many favors for me you can ask me some and I might help if I know how! CubanoBoi (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Auctor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instigator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sintered polyethylene for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sintered polyethylene, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Sintered polyethylene until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2022 (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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, SailingInABathTub. Thank you for your work on Jesse Dufton. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   01:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

 * Hello, we need experienced volunteers.
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
 * If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
 * Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi SailingInABathTub. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for maintenance so that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
 * Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
 * Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Habib Hasim
Hello, you recently placed a WP:G4 tag on Habib Hasim. As an uninvolved editor, I removed this tag because the AfD was closed as "soft delete," meaning it is treated like an expired PROD. My understanding of criterion G4 is that articles deleted this way remain eligible for recreation. If I made a mistake here, feel free to revert. Thanks! Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 17:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

SP-Arte
Dear SailingInABathTub, Thank you for reviewing the SP-Arte page I contributed to : ) I am requesting some assistance if you are available to help. I have two main questions: 1. I included 6 primary source references. This is in comparison to only 1 primary source reference on the Portuguese page, which in total only has 2 sources. Also, in each case the primary sources I selected to only convey information and not opinions. What would be a more valuable primary source than information from the different branches of the fair? Perhaps a print publication from the fair? 2. After reviewing the sentence by sentence brackdown, I believe the only sentence that could be seen as containing opinion is this one: "São Paulo's International Art Fair also known as SP-Arte is one of Latin America's most important art fairs." In truth, SP-Arte is known in the art world as the most important latin american art fair, and not by a small margin. I wanted to remain impartiality, so I wrote "one of the most." Is this statement OK, or would "an important art fair" or "a large-scale art fair" work better in your opinion? Thank you kindly for your insight and support in helping this article reach its full potential. Kind regards, RR  Raining rane (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * 1. It seems that most of the primary sources can simply be omited. In hindsight this means that the article does not rely on these sources and I will remove that template.
 * 2. Please read WP:PEACOCK, your suggestions are still subjective, and the language you use here to describe the subject is also very subjective. You may want to consider whether you are too close to the subject to write a neutral article on it. There is still a lot of promotional language in the article - such as "large-scale", "historic", and "significant platform" in the lede paragraph alone.
 * SailingInABathTub 🛁 13:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear SailingInABathTub, thank you for your time and support. I had a closer read at information on Peacocking and adjusted the tone. I see that the issue is not that one would deny the work of Oscar Niemeyer, known as one of the most widely-recognized and influential architects of all time, as "historic," but that calling one of his buildings "historic" is not essential information and can be construed of as promotional, trying to influence a tone, the same for "large-scale." I've amended such utterances. The primary sources however are there to support information without which claims would not be supported. Your help has certainly made me a stronger writer and I will take these lessons seriously so as not to tax people's time uneadedly in the future. Best regrads Raining rane ~ Raining rane (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

English Teacher
Thanks for adding all those tags to English Teacher (band)! Vajzë Blu (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2.50.191.75 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Moles (nightclub)
—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!
Welcome, welcome, welcome SailingInABathTub! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SailingInABathTub&action=purge refresh via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)