Thisedit 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.Gnangarra13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

looks good thanks.Gnangarra10:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You have recently edited a page related togender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

• adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicablepolicies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain fromgaming 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 topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. 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 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 thediscussion page. Thank you.Eldomtom2 (talk)01:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		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]

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 closingparenthetical 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]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.FaviFake (talk)13:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedSean Buckley (entrepreneur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageBuckley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Mitch Ames (talk)08:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]