User talk:GastonN'estPasBon

Gratitude

Thanks for helping me on the Tuskaloosa chiefdom page, I really appreciate it. Cheers! TJ Kreen (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waccamaw, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mississippian period was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of religions and spiritual traditions

added a link pointing to Chen Tao

North Carolina

added a link pointing to Waxhaw

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brooke Bauer, a link pointing to the disambiguation page York County was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please help. Angry editor for Grand Kankakee Marsh and Great Black Swamp on WikiProjects Environment talk page.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm reaching out to get some additional eyes and editorial input on the Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh. I added them to the WikiProject Environment page just two days ago, and I received some replies from an editor named Reywas92 on the Environment Talk page. It is regarding ongoing discussions about Indigenous historical context and visual sourcing.

Recently, the editor raised concerns and suggested removing documented historical presence, treaty contexts (including the 1833 Treaty of Chicago), and 19th-century ethnographic visuals, characterizing these verifiable historical additions as "Righting Great Wrongs" (WP:RGW) and mere decoration.

I am concerned that invoking WP:RGW to strip out verifiable Indigenous history risks creating a one-sided narrative and leaning into historical erasure, rather than maintaining neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and proper due weight (WP:DUE). Furthermore, the discussion has involved aggressive tone and assumptions about my identity rather than focusing strictly on source text (WP:CIVIL). He assumed that because of the way I wrote, I must be an AI program. I am not. I am clearly human.

I would really appreciate it if fellow editors could review the WikiProject Environment talk page thread, check the inline citations for both Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh (WP:V), and offer their input to ensure the article maintains a complete, academically rigorous, and neutral historical record.

Thank you for your past edits on both Great Black Swamp and Grand Kankakee Marsh. Please know that I am trying to keep a balanced history of both places. Erasing information or images related to the Indigenous nations that lived there, or simply removing context, is harmful to both articles. It is personally concerning for me that the editor is focused strongly on Black and Indigenous history. They seem unaffected by the European and White history.

Thanks for your time and guidance.

GeoFAXsafety79

GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

As long as each source mentions both the swamp and the indigenous nation(s), there's no grounds for removal. Just keep the conversation narrowly on what the sources cited in the article say and how its reflected accurately in the article. Removal of sourced and notable content is inappropriate. Also would be good to post this on the talk page for the wiki project to get extra eyes on the page and this conversation. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I read a lot of the context now. A lot of their criticism seem to be fair, even if they don't present it nicely. Good to keep in mind if you have sources or information that aren't relevant to that specific article, they can always be moved to more relevant articles. That way more people see them and important info can be spread all around the encyclopedia.

In regard to images, its similar to the sources, just make it clear why x image is relevant to the swamp. Also, you do have a lot of images, I would recommend checking out Template:Gallery. Sorry for the double messages GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Truly. I deeply appreciate your guidance and agree with all of your points. I will endeavor to improve the article, and make appropriate changes. Thanks again. If you can suggest anything else to improve the articles, please let me know! GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Reywas92 is back. He posted an angry message on the WikiProjects Environment page. He is editing both articles. He is trying to start an edit war, probably. Please help. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I gave you all the advice I can give, it should be enough. Wikipedia is collaborative, they're absolutely allowed to edit the page, pages are not owned. Undo and invite them to the talk page to discuss it if they're removing stuff that violates Wikipedia's guidelines otherwise, there's no reason they can't edit it. Try to avoid making accusations, keep discussions constructive and assume good faith. GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. GeoFAXsafety79 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orbelian dynasty, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waikerí, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropological Linguistics was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

thanks king GastonN'estPasBon (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)