User talk:Caelo2023

Hello, Caelo2023, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Caelo2023, good luck, and have fun. User:Hoary (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

architect and Architect[edit]

Hello: only after doing some minor work on Draft:Jacob Owen (architect) did I notice the existence of Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect). I haven't read the latter, but it's newer and, at a glance, superior.

If the latter is preferable, it will have to be retitled as the former. I can do that, but before doing so I have to make way for it by deleting the former. Perhaps you'd like to look at the edits I made to the "(architect)" draft, and, where they could be applicable and you agree with them, make them to the "(Architect)" draft. When you've done that, say so here, and I'll do the necessary shunting around. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or of course you could work on the "(architect)" draft so that it incorporates the improvements you've made to the "(Architect)" draft. Just work on one or the other and say which one is superfluous. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jacob Owen (architect) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jacob Owen (architect). Thanks! Hoary (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caelo2023 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Hi thank you for this note. In my confusion working in sandbox for the first time, I thought the earlier version Draft:Jacob Owen (architect) had been lost and so started the newer Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect) version. This is more up-to-date and fixes some problems with the earlier draft.[reply]

So, in response, yes the latter is preferable, thanks, and the former can be deleted. I have looked over your amendments to the older Draft:Jacob Owen (architect) and these look applicable to the latter “(Architect)” draft too. Shunting around appreciated. Caelo2023 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect). Thanks! Hoary (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the clarity of those reviewing this thread, the up-to-date version Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect) supersedes the older version Draft:Jacob Owen (architect). Caelo2023 (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for some, shall we say, superclarity: What was Draft:Jacob Owen (Architect) has now been tweaked and renamed Draft:Jacob Owen (architect). -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Owen (architect) has been accepted[edit]

Jacob Owen (architect), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is just boilerplate, of course. Still, it's true. And now, this is a human writing. Well done with the article Jacob Owen (no "disambiguation" was necessary, as there's no article on any other Jacob Owen): it's unusually well done for something new. However, it does leave me wondering: After her prodigious labours, did his wife survive into old age? -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good question - the bios of a lot of these old architects leaves out any mention of women's lives/ contributions. There's more in Fred O'Dwyer's work so I'll see if anything more can be dredged up to drag it into the 21st century. Caelo2023 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Jacob Owen—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did it "not appear constructive", JalenFolf? (Although I would have formatted it differently, it looks constructive to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in your definition of constructive too, User:JalenFolf Caelo2023 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me if there was any error in my rollback. Huggle only allows me to look at one revision at a time, so it only showed me the specific linked edit above rather than the whole edit here, the former of which made me misidentify the edit as vandalism, having seen common "hit enter in the middle of a paragraph"-type vandalism before. My sincerest apologies for any inconvenience. Feel free to revert and continue, but please consider using Page Preview whenever possible. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Lloyd (naval architect) (September 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Star Mississippi was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please review referencing for beginners

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Thomas Lloyd (naval architect) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Star Mississippi 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the missing closing tags that you are referring to in the submission. I have made a few changes to the citations in any case and will resubmit. Caelo2023 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the ones I just combined, and see where else you can do these. I'll leave review for someone else, but I'm concerned about the sourcing Star Mississippi 03:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caelo2023! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Star Mississippi 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Lloyd (naval architect) has been accepted[edit]

Thomas Lloyd (naval architect), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth School for Boys[edit]

Hi, thanks for adding a few alumni to the above. Can I ask two favours. When adding a cite, can you format it, so that it’s not a bare url. And can you ensure that each new entry does have a cite - Leonard Clark currently doesn’t. The problem with Alumni sections is similar to that of Popular culture sections - they are a magnet for uncited/non-notable additions. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation for Clark. I can't see any particularly consistent citation style so I have left it as a bare URL. The existing Wikipedia entry for Clark should be sufficient evidence of notability. Caelo2023 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]