User talk:CaptainAngus

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CaptainAngus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome+

Hello, CaptainAngus, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 09:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Added note

Hello, yes... I've added an additional 'welcome' template, but I felt the added information and links it contains would be of benefit. At this point, you are what could be considered a "Single Purpose Account", which is not necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on what your intentions are. So far, as of this posting, you've made 10 edits, all completely identical, where you have changed the word "manned" to "crewed" in various articles, along with the edit summary, "Changed [or] Updated 'manned' to 'crewed' in support of gender neutral language". In some cases this may be appropriate, even necessary, while others may be just the opposite (and then some may be considered somewhere in between). Some here may applaud your changes, while others may be more critical. You may hear of project guidelines such as "Righting Great Wrongs", or perhaps "No Advocacy", which is part of the larger policy "What Wikipedia Is Not". Or you may receive no feedback at all.

I am not here to take a position, just to inform. I hope you will take the time to through the information that has been provided here. It may seem like a lot, but some of it is important, and will help you with your contributions. If have any questions, you can contact the help desk.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and have a nice day. - wolf 09:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lankaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Null. 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) 05:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Manned" and gender-neutral language

Hi Cap'n Angus. I've reverted a couple of instances of your changes back to "manned" for the reasons stated. But it's raised an interesting issue which I've flagged up at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) where editors are commenting. So it would make sense not to delete more instances of "manned" until some sort of consensus is reached there. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Bermicourt, I was waiting for that thread to ease down, which it seems to be doing. Appreciate the discussion and the head's up. I did chime in once but I think it got buried in all the activity. For my original edit on Baltic Sea watchtower, Kühlungsborn, I agree the change I made was a bit too sloppy and imprecise. One of my main takeaways from the Village Pump discussion is the importance of precision in edits like this, which is something I've aimed for and need to work harder to improve. Appreciate the collaboration! CaptainAngus (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I'm not against gender neutral language in principle, except where it changes the original meaning. In writing e.g. card game articles, I try to minimise the use of "his" and "him" provided I can find a clear way to explain the rules. Unfortunately, our English language, wonderful though it is in many ways, is just not geared up for this and so some sentences are virtually impossible to render accurately in a gender neutral way. If we're really serious about this we almost need to come up with new words for "he or she" and "him or her". Bermicourt (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could stop mass-changing instances of "manned" at least until our discussion has concluded. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a lengthy note just above regarding this issue ten months ago. It included links to information to help you understand when and where such changes may or may not be appropriate. It would probably be best if, as MSGJ requests, you refrained from making any further changes of this type until there is clear guidance on the issue. (jmho) - wolf 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: @Thewolfchild: I appreciate discussing this issue with both of you. I am confused on the issue of 'clear guidance'. The edits I've done are in-line with the Manual of Style of gender-neutral language (MOS:GNL). I won't deny being a relatively new editor (ten months now), but when I joined Wikipedia, I had no plans to go after edits like we're discussing. However, new users are immediately pointed to Manual of Style and encouraged to work through anything on the page as a starting point. This includes cleaning up the word 'Manned' specifically: [Guidance on Manned]. This leads me to my confusion: Wikipedia itself suggested making these edits, so how is that not clear guidance?

Two other final thoughts:

• This issue has been debated very recently here: Village Pump
• To the specific edit in question, the suggestion driving the revert was due to how 'staffing a lighthouse' sounded compared to 'manning a lighthouse'. But my argument for the 'correctness' of the change is that a lighthouse needs to be 'occupied and overseen', something that is in-line with the word 'staffing'. I'd love to hear other suggestions, but I don't feel that 'staffed' is a poor replacement for 'manned' in this instance.

This is great discussion! Thank you both! CaptainAngus (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a minor point but, the "typo team" is just one of the many (2000+) WikiProjects here, it is not an actual policy or guideline page. Changing things "per the typo team" is not same as changing it, for example, per WP:NOT, or WP:RS. You would be better off using actual WP:PGs to support your edits, as they are vetted and supported by the community at large. If your edits are challenged, (which some appear to have been) using the typo team is not really a defense. Some people actually get put off when editors use local project guidance as a reason to support edits (especially when mass-changing potentially contentious content). It would be wise to slow down, discuss and learn more first.

But that aside, do you have any other interests in Wikipedia other than chasing down "non-gender-neutral" words? It seems that the large majority of your edits and interactions are focused solely on that, which means you should probably give WP:SPA a read before continuing. (This is not any kind of judgement or admonishment, just an observation and advice.)

WP is a huge project... surely there are other areas of interest you would like to edit? Articles you would like to write? Or just improve in other ways? There are various maintenance efforts as well, that you might like to participate in. Basically, what I'm saying is, take a look around and see what, if anything, catches your fancy. - wolf 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: That is great information, and I need to continue to soak it all in. But I am still confused. I would firmly say I'm not a SPA: I've made a lot of edits in support of the typo team's misspelling workoff page, not just cleanup of non-gender-neutral terms. Given the cited guidelines, as well as the recent discussion on the Village Pump, I don't feel like I'm coloring outside the lines here.

In the case of the original edit that drove this discussion, I changed the word 'manned' to 'staffed' on the Haig Point Range Lights page. I recognize there is some historical style present, but I would still claim this edit is factually accurate: a lighthouse does not need a 'man' to run it, it needs a person. 'Manned' is, if nothing else, a restrictive definition as to how a lighthouse can be run.

You suggest helping out in other ways, including with the 'various maintenance efforts'. But given that cleaning up the word 'manned' is on one of the pages of the maintenance efforts, I'm still struggling to understand the pushback. I would say I'm doing exactly what you recommended above.

To really summarize all my confusion, if I'm following the guidelines, and I'm making edits that increase the accuracy of the articles in question, and I'm contributing to a maintenance project, what am I holding off for? I just don't follow. CaptainAngus (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no "push back" here and I've not accused you of any wrong-doing (or "coloring outside of any lines"). I offerred no opinions in support of or against any specific edits you've made (eg: you mention Haig Point Range Lights and I've never edited that article or its talk page (afaik).

You keep mentioning "guidelines", but linking to the "typo team". I'm not sure if you read everything I wrote above or not, but the typo team's own WikiProject "guidance" is not the same as Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Again, if you are involved in any kind of dispute, Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines trump any local WikiProject guidance. You would be better served to learn and cite Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines to support your edits as opposed to any WikiProject. This is not to diminish the work or value of any WikiProject in any way, just to try paint an picture of the hierarchy of rules here.

If you want to focus on gender-neutral language... go for it! But if you get actual pushback to your efforts, you really should consider pausing, or "holding off", and discussing (eg: as MSGJ requested of you just above). I don't think I have anything more to add than that. Good luck - wolf 21:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thank you, I appreciate your response and I appreciate the context you added to this discussion. I don't know if I fully grasped the distinction between the Manual of Style and WP Guidelines. I won't deny it is a bit daunting to dig through the "Wikipedia:" type pages. I will do some deeper digging. CaptainAngus (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Outwordly"

Hello Captain, I want to challenge this change, but as I'm not a native speaker, I'm doing it here: The original "outwordly" seems to fit better to me - it's not from this world. I googled around and there are some uses of this word, not too many though. "Outwardly" doesn't catch what's meant. --Eike sauer (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)