User talk:Mitch Ames

Galup v Lake Monger

This edit is problematic as the area was actually Galup, it wasnt until the Monger family had established themselves that it became known as Lake Monger. The exact timing of that is difficult to pin down, nor if it was called Galup by Europeans at that specific point in time. Not sure how to deal with it, but the "it was called Lake Monger at the time" isnt right. Gnan garra 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think this is the right approach. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

looks good thanks. Gnan garra 10:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I just want to take the time to express my sincerest gratitude. You have been nothing but helpful during my editing process. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris_(Deltarune) has an RfC

Kris_(Deltarune) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Carcinology Barnstar
		For being the glue to the king crabs' toothpicks. In all seriousness, you've done enough work that I can't thank you proportionately. *TheTechnician27* (Talk page) 15:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical commas

I see that you undid my correction, with the summary "no closing parenthetical comma is required". I would like to know why you think this is so. Deb (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally hit "Enter" before I finished typing the edit comment. No closing parenthetical comma is required because "Diana, Princess of Wales" is the full name - "Princess of Wales" is not a parenthetical disambiguator. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Princess of Wales is very obviously a disambiguator. Deb (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]