Hello, Caleb the 1st, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

You might want to gravitate to Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. I appreciate your thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second. Thanks for the thanks. AceTankCommander (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb the 1st! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cleebadee! 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.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 04:21, Sunday, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found it necessary to revert your recent grammar correction in this article because, though the correction was fine, the bad grammar had been in an edit made by an IP editor. The article is under pending changes protection. I am a pending changes patroller, one of the many editors with the minor ability to accept or revert edits made to protected articles by editors who do not have at least ten edits and three days as a registered editor. This is a rarely used form of protection; it is designed to prevent disruptive edits on select articles.

I apologize for reverting your edit; I think that was the only way I could revert the non-conforming edit by the IP (if the edit had added a new, verifiable source, I would have approved it.

Your edit to the article also was pended since you do not have the pending protection patroller right yet.

Thank you for contributing to the world's largest encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC) —[reply]

No problem! I hadn't realized the info wasn't backed up yet. Someone else attached a source to the information, so it looks like it's good now. Cleebadee (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]