User talk:Mx-STEM-editor

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your note! As a new Wikipedia editor, I appreciate you linking resources for me to review again. I edited the copy to be more objective and from a neutral perspective. Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. This was exactly the same problem on the same article as last time. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrOllie, yes, I revisited the text and see what you mean. I'll do further research in the Wikipedia styleguide for clarity to ensure I'm accurately meeting and following the established standards. Thank you Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie, are you willing to review the Draft:CACI International to ensure it's not soapboxing, advertising, or promotion? I want to ensure the copy is written objectively, uses independent sources, and is from a neutral perspective before I try to edit the main CACI page again. I'd be most grateful for your review and guidance. Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the AFC queue rather than seeking out individual editors. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that after a quick look it still looks like an advertisement. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie, Thank you for your reply. I submitted it to the AfC queue, and it was declined: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at CACI instead." Because of your experience, interest in the page, and the fact that you've already seen previous copy, I thought it would be appropriate to ask your guidance. I'm sorry I misunderstood. If you do review the page, I'd be most appreciative if you could point out the gaps so I can address them. Thanks again for all you do! Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole draft is written like an advertisement, from top to bottom. This is less about gaps than a fundamental disconnect with what Wikipedia is. MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heard. I scrapped that draft and began again. Thanks, once again, for your time. Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SHE4SHIPS and revert your changes Lyndaship (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, there's a long history of debate on this. I'm personally on the "it" side of things, but Wikipedia works on a consensus-based model and so far that consensus has fallen on she. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed reply! I appreciate the insight. I understand the need for consistency and using a consensus-based model makes sense.

If you don't mind me asking---how often is this topic discussed and a new consensus reached? Honestly, I'm quite surprised that the Wikipedia standard doesn't align with current published language and style guidance. I know I'm only scratching the surface on how much time and energy goes into this work, so I'm not sure how long it takes for current language usage to reach Wikipedia best practices. I reviewed the links and it seems, to a newer editor, that the consensus was reached 10-plus years ago and has yet to be revisited. In 2025, I don't know of a language style guide (other than Wikipedia's) that calls for gendered pronouns to be kept in use for objects, particularly in instances like this that reinforce objectification and sexism. Thanks again for your note and the resources. Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the guy who rewrote the article in question and got it promoted for GA and DYK, SHE4SHIPS gets kicked up every few months. The link from Ed is used to represent the current consensus as that discussion generally outlines the topic and further debate usually winds up repeating the same ideas over and over. Wikipedia does not abide by a single style guide as this site is an online enclopedia with a massive scope in both topic and viewership. The styleguides you mentioned is aimed at American jornalism, which is inappropiate for Wikipedia. The current Wikipedia Styleguide is based on older consensus that recognizes that two preferences can be equally true. Personally, I support the SHE4SHIPS status quo as it allows whoever puts in the effort of creating/remaking the article to pick the pronouns while preventing pointless edit wars over personal preference. This issue is, at its heart, an issue of preference as both feminine and neuter pronouns are commonly accepted for ships in the English-speaking world. GGOTCC 23:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC, thank you for the time and thoughtful, patient reply. I'll do more regular study on the Wikipedia Styleguide and community conversations to deepen my knowledge. Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thank you for being so open. Cheers, GGOTCC 04:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for directing me to the link and resources. As a newer Wikipedia editor, I appreciate the guidance! Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Mx-STEM-editor/sandbox. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at CACI instead.

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:CACI International 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mx-STEM-editor! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by CACI International Inc. for their contributions to CACI (client). Mx-STEM-editor (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]