User talk:FranticSpud

Welcome!

Hi FranticSpud! I noticed your contributions to Hollow Knight and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Hello FranticSpud - I appreciate your interest in 19th-century glassmaking innovations in the United States. I reverted your edit because you made the same mistake I have made: Wikipedia article titles and section headings use sentence case, not title case. See the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Section headings or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Headings, headers, and captions. I hope this helps. TwoScars (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiar policy, best to learn how though FranticSpud (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello FranticSpud! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How should I talk?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 27)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 User:FranticSpud/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FranticSpud! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FranticSpid - I see you are having trouble with a draft article. Let me make a few easy suggestions:

Intro: The Intro should be one to three paragraphs. Bold the first mention of the title subject. Citations are not necessary in the Intro, but the reader should be able to verify any facts in the Intro somewhere in the body of the page. Same with the InfoBox. Readers with little time or short-attention spans should be able to read the into by itself and grasp the important things in the article.
Body: Sections are preferably two or three paragraphs. Have a citation at the end of ANY paragraph. Books, newspapers, and journals are your best sources. (I personally prefer citations at the end of a sentence, but some people will put them after commas too.) You will find the Library of Congress as a good source for older newspapers. Eventually you will get access to the Library. It has access to newspapers, journals, books, and other things I don't use (such as Cambridge University Press).
Images are good. Just make sure there are no copyright issues.
Find an article similar to your topic that has received a Good Article rating (little green circle in upper right). Mimic it in style. Learn some of the Wikicode used in it.
Do not make your article too long. I typically write articles over 70,000 bytes with over 100 citations. Reviewers do not like to review articles that long.

Apologies if anything listed here is stuff you already know, but I hope some of it helps, and good luck! . TwoScars (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I checked with the images and I've been using the Banded Sugar Ant article as a starting point on how to write. I doubt this article could get very long as after a good few hours of staring at 100 year old journals and books I could barely find anything of note outside of the 3 references I've already listed, though I am taking a different approach so I'll likely yield different results. Thanks for your links to the Library of Congress. I think that your response will do a great deal of help for me. FranticSpud (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stenamma westwoodii has been accepted

Stenamma westwoodii, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you greatly for approving my first article, I've spent hours on this and I'm excited to spend hours more to improve it. I extend my deepest gratitudes. I think Wikipedia is definitely a place I want to stay, the thought that I'm contributing to the world's most used source of knowledge is incredible and I can't wait to continue. FranticSpud (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi FranticSpud. Thank you for your work on Ponera testacea. Another editor, Demt1298, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing this article for Wikipedia. I am marking it reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Demt1298}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Demt1298 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi FranticSpud! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 12:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A joke, perhaps?

Hello FranticSpud, and thank you for creating Hypoponera ergatandria. Would you be so kind as to to explain this edit you made to the article around a month ago? In the middle of a constructive edit, you retargeted a link from gaster (insect anatomy) to W. D. Gaster, which is hardly relevant to an article about an ant species, not to mention an easter egg link. I've since re-retargeted the link back to how it was, but an explanation would be appreciated. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I'm a little confused. I see that your most recent edit reverted a similar change to a separate article (that you also made. Again, nice work!). Respectfully, what's going on here? Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm, that does in fact seem confusing.

i’ll have a look at it later tonight and get back to you FranticSpud (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the edit history and I cant quite be sure what happened. I can be very certain I did not link to W.D Gaster intentionally, so I can't provide a reason for why.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention however, ill try to pay more attention to what my edits changed in the future, I do deeply apologise for this confusion. FranticSpud (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it too much. Once I saw your revert, I had a feeling that the first edit must have been a mistake of some kind. Now that I think about it, you may have gotten into an edit conflict with this IP. They had made edits to the article just a few days before, and they made the edit you reverted yesterday. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]