User talk:Nhtpaf: Difference between revisions

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

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.

Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nhtpaf! 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! Endrabcwizart (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nhtpaf

I changed Grey Town back to Greytown because the two word name is rarely used, and the title of the piece has Greytown as one word.

I also added back a sentence deleted at the beginning that said: “It was formerly a Nicaraguan port and then part of the United Kingdom’s Mosquito Indian Protectorate, with which it still had close ties.” I felt this was crucial to the narrative. Perhaps you could explain your thinking as to why you removed it.

I kept the change under ”place” where Nicaragua was changed to Kingdom of Mosquitia. And I added the name Miskito to the description of the Indians preparing the tortoise shell for export.

I tried to leave a long note like this in the edit summary box, explaining why I undid some of your changes but not others. It would not let me add to the summary that was already there, saying I had undone your changes. I went back a second time when that box was cleared and tried to put this in again but it would not take all of it.

I hope in the future we can exchange thoughts this way on your talk page or mine before we make any more changes in this regard.

Thank you. Will-DubDub (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Will-DubDub,

Thanks for your message and for explaining your reasoning behind the edits. I appreciate your efforts to maintain historical clarity and context in the article.

Regarding the sentence stating that Grey Town was “formerly a Nicaraguan port,” I removed this phrase based on concerns about historical accuracy. Several 19th-century legal and diplomatic sources, including Costa Rica’s 1887 Reply to the Argument of Nicaragua submitted in the arbitration before the US President, present strong evidence that Nicaragua did not historically exercise jurisdiction over the Atlantic coast — including the area around the mouth of the San Juan River where Grey Town is located.

For example:

“There is not a single commission, a single royal ordinance, extending the jurisdiction of Nicaragua, during the XVIth century, to the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.” (p. 14)

And:

“It is known that the Nicaraguan limit, on the east of the Lake, was within fifteen leagues of the latter, and did not comprise the Mosquito coast or the mouths of the Desaguadero.” (p. 21)

Because the article currently does not cite sources asserting Greytown was part of Nicaragua prior to the 19th century — and substantial historical evidence suggests otherwise — it seemed more accurate to omit that claim.

List of excerpts from ‘Reply to the argument of Nicaragua’; filed on behalf of the Government of Costa Rica by Pedro Pérez Zeledón; 1887.

“There is not a single commission, a single royal ordinance, extending the jurisdiction of Nicaragua, during the XVIth century, to the coast of the Atlantic Ocean” p. 14

“A historical error is committed by saying that Columbus discovered Nicaragua in 1502 when he travelled along the coast from Cape Gracias a Dios to Cariay or to the San Juan river. In doing this he did not reach Nicaragua, nor New Granada either, but he only went along the coast of [Moskitia].” p. 14

“The demonstration of this truth is simple. Twenty years before the discovery of Nicaragua those coasts were known by the name of Veragua, from Cape Camaron to the Gulf of Darien or Uraba.” p. 14

“It is known that the Nicaraguan limit, on the east of the Lake, was within fifteen leagues of the latter, and did not comprise the Mosquito coast or the mouths of the Desaguadero” p. 21

“The proof that none of the three mouths of the Desaguadero belonged to Nicaragua is furnished by the Royal Ordinance of Philip II of February 10, 1576, directing the Andiencia of Guatemala to enter into an agreement with Captain Diego Lopez to conquer and people the Province of Taguzgalpa, that is to say, the part of the old Government of Cartago which was not included within the limits given to Artieda. The Audiencia entrusted Licentiate Diego Garcia de Palacio, one of its justices to enter into an agreement in the name of His Majesty with Diego Lopez.

“Article 1st of that agreement reads as follows: “Firstly. His Majesty will appoint him his Governor and Captain-General for the said Province, which is all the land included between the mouth of the Desaguadero and the Camaron Point on the northern side, where the Province of Honduras begins; and from there towards the interior, the whole territory ending at what is now the limit of the jurisdiction of the Province of Nicaragua and Nueva Segovia, and also of Honduras.” p. 27

“From the documents and facts above alluded to it appears to be evident that in 1576 the Province of Nicaragua did not exercise any jurisdictional rights over the mouths of the Desaguadero, or over the coasts on the Atlantic side; … Nicaragua never established any colony on the southern bank of the San Juan river which was never occupied by her. On the northern bank she founded Jaen, on the outlet of the Lake, at the place where Fort San Carlos now stands.” p. 27

That said, I agree the sentence’s role in situating Grey Town within the Mosquito Protectorate is important. A revised version might read:

“Located at the mouth of the San Juan River, Grey Town formed part of the Kingdom of Mosquitia, a former British protectorate.

Happy to discuss further — and I appreciate your collaborative approach.

Best, Nhtpaf

—-

Nhtpaf (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nhtpaf,

Your research on the 16th century history of San Juan de Nicaragua and the Atlantic coast of Central America was very impressive. But I don’t see how it is germane to what happened in the 19th century, especially when you state yourself that my article “does not cite sources asserting Greytown was part of Nicaragua prior to the 19th century,” implying it was part of Nicaragua during the 19th century.

I think it’s only relevant to the article that Nicaragua gained control of Greytown by the 19th century. In 1841, for instance, according to historian John Bigelow, an English force from Belize landed at San Juan del Norte, carried off the Nicaraguan port commandant, and “abandoned him on an uninhabited coast.” The object “was to assert the majesty of the Indian King as sovereign over the Mosquito Coast, including the mouths of the San Juan.” The Nicaraguans later ousted the Mosquito forces, but the English seized San Juan del Norte again in 1848, then renaming the port as Greytown. See: John Bigelow, Breaches of Anglo-American Treaties: A Study in History and Diplomacy (New York: Sturgis & Walton Company, 1917), 51, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.hx4h21?urlappend=%3Bseq=63%3Bownerid=27021597768403678-71.

Also, when you omitted “that claim” (that asserted Greytown was part of Nicaragua), you also omitted the end of the sentence, “with which it still had close ties.” Given that you acknowledge that “situating Grey Town within the Mosquito Protectorate is important,” I’m surprised you would excise that “close ties” passage, too.

I thought about using part of your revision suggestion that reads: “Located at the mouth of the San Juan River, Grey Town formed part of the Kingdom of Mosquitia, a former British protectorate.” But “United Kingdom’s Mosquito Indian Protectorate” is more of its official name, although Kingdom of Mosquitia is used interchangeably a lot. (Also, using the official name, would help the reader, early on, understand much better what it was.) And finally it was not a “former” British protectorate at the time.

It was nice exchanging these thoughtful comments with you. Good luck with your Wikipedia projects in the future!

Best, Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nhtpaf. Please be aware that the topic of the Mosquito Coast has been disputed in the past. If you find that any of your changes are contested by others, use the normal steps of WP:Dispute resolution to reach agreement. If you have previously used a Wikipedia account that is now blocked, you are expected to go through the proper steps to be reinstated. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magdala Moravian Church is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdala Moravian Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

fr33kman 13:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nhtpaf,

Thank you for creating Pearl City, Nicaragua.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I couldn’t find any source that aadresses the topic directly and exhaustively. Some of the references included in the article don’t even mention Pearl City.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|JohnMizuki}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JohnMizuki (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nhtpaf,

I just undid your change of the name Greytown to Grey Town in the article Bombardment of Greytown. This is the second time that you have turned the name into two words and the second time I have undone it. The first time I undid it I explained to you on your talk page that, “I changed Grey Town back to Greytown because the two word name is rarely used, and the title of the piece has Greytown as one word.”

You did not seem to object to this.

Please, I’d appreciate it very much if you don’t make anymore changes to this page without consulting with me first. Thank you. Will-DubDub (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, EdJohnston, I saw your note in Nhtpaf’s talk in re the Mosquito Coast. He has just made a change to the article Bombardment of Greytown in which he changed the name Greytown to two words: Grey Town. This is the third time he has made this change. Greytown is rarely seen in the historical record as two words. Even its name in the title of the Bombardment article gives it is one word. I have undid these changes the first two times (see my note to him in his talk), but I thought I’d contact you before I undo it a third time, to see if you might recommend an alternative or additional action. I have copied him this note to you. Will-DubDub (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Will-DubDub and @EdJohnston, thank you both for your attention to the consistency and historical accuracy of the article.

Regarding the spelling of Greytown versus Grey Town, I understand that the one-word form has become the more common modern usage, especially in English-language secondary sources and historiography. However, the two-word form Grey Town is not without historical basis. It was the original official spelling adopted by the Council of State of the Kingdom of Mosquitia when the town was formally named in the mid-19th century. That decree explicitly spelled the name as two words.

Given that the article in question—Bombardment of Greytown—deals with events very close to the time of the town’s founding and naming, there may be an argument for preserving or at least acknowledging the historically accurate two-word spelling in that specific historical context. That said, I agree that consistency is important, and if the consensus leans toward the one-word form for readability and common usage, I’m happy to defer—perhaps with a footnote or parenthetical mention of the original spelling where relevant.

I appreciate your reaching out before reverting again. Perhaps we can find a compromise that balances historical fidelity with established editorial norms. Open to further discussion. Nhtpaf (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nhtpaf. The complaint about your edits can now be seen on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#Nhtpaf keeps changing Greytown to Grey Town in Bombardment of Greytown. Please be aware that if you don’t defer to consensus you might be blocked from editing this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @EdJohnston, thank you for the note.

I’ve reviewed the concern and your comments, and I understand the importance of maintaining consistency and deferring to consensus in article naming and content conventions. My intention in using “Grey Town” was to reflect the historically accurate spelling as used in the official decree of the Kingdom of Mosquitia at the time of the town’s naming. That said, I recognize that “Greytown” is the more widely recognized and commonly used form on Wikipedia and in most secondary sources.

To avoid further disruption, I will defer to the established consensus and refrain from making that particular change again in the article. If appropriate, perhaps we can note the original spelling “Grey Town” in the body or a footnote for historical context, without altering the article title or prevailing usage.

Thank you again for your attention and guidance. Nhtpaf (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, thank you for responding so quickly. I was about to go in and change those Grey Town spellings back to Greytown — and add a parenthetical that the name was (sometimes spelled Grey Town) when I noticed that Nhtpaf had on Aug 2nd made another change. This time he substantially changed my opening paragraph without informing me. (Improved the head or initial paragraph with cited articles/books.) This, even though I had asked him, after the two spelling disagreements, to please get in touch with me if he wanted to make any new changes.

His new lead to the story contains an error. He claims the Greytown at the time of the bombardment “was then under the nominal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Mosquita.” This is incorrect. In 1852 the town had declared itself an independent city state and this change was acknowledged and accepted in two Anglo-American agreements, one in 1852 and the other in 1853. (This is reiterated later in the piece.)

My work on this article has been gone over by three senior editors there: Hawkeye7, Donner60, and Grutness. And another editor, named Historyguy1138, awarded me an Original Barnstar “for tireless research, willingness to listen, and significant improvement on a niche, but valuable article. Namely the Bombardment of Greytown.”)

I have not made any changes yet. I have copied Nhtpaf this note to you. Will-DubDub (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Foreign relations of Mosquitia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and is possibly AI generated.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 07:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Foreign relations of Mosquitia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Royal Commission Constituting the Council of State of the Kingdom of Mosquitia (1846). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nhtpaf, just a quick note to let you know I’ve started a discussion on the Talk page of the Bombardment of Greytown article regarding our Greytown/Grey Town spelling dispute and your recent changes to the lead. (I have reversed your latest changes. The article is now back to the way it was before your changes — except for the fact that near the beginning, after a mention of Greytown, I have added the parenthetical (sometimes spelled Grey Town). You’re welcome to join the conversation here: Talk:Bombardment of Greytown#Dispute over spelling of “Greytown” and recent lead revision. Thanks! Will-DubDub (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EdJohnston,

Since my last note to your talk page on August 3 entitled, “Nhtpaf has just made more changes to the Bombardment of Greytown” (see: User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53#Nhtpaf has just made more changes to the Bombardment of Greytown), Nhtpaf and I had a couple of good exchanges where we came to a consensus that favored this editor’s inputs.

But about an hour before I could inform the subject of a most recent agreement (and just three days after receiving the ideas), I discovered that Nhtpaf had again made unilateral changes to the lead of the piece without informing me — even after signing off on this input with the words: “I await your reply and further input.” (See diff of Nhtpaf’s lead change: diff and my reaction to it on this article’s talk: Talk:Bombardment of Greytown — search for: *I was just this hour…*)

I let Nhtpaf know that if further unilateral changes were made, I’d escalate the matter through normal dispute resolution processes. I thought I’d try you first, given that I had an open invitation to do so. (See your reply at the end of my “Nhtpaf has just made more changes…” message, linked at top, where you say: “Let me know if this is still an issue.”)

Nhtpaf also tried to delete a phrase without seeking consensus. This involved my reference to Greytown as a “city-state,” comparing it to Bremen. But the edit somehow failed. Although Nhtpaf successfully removed the phrase (diff), Nhtpaf then unintentionally restored it — except for the hyphen in “city-state” (diff).

See my reaction to Nhtpaf’s city-state intent: Talk:Bombardment of Greytown — search for: *I also see that you’ve properly…*. Notably, Nhtpaf chided me for not removing the “city-state” phrasing myself — when in fact this was the first time Nhtpaf mentioned it to me.

I have not yet undone the change to the lead mentioned above, but I will soon. And if Nhtpaf reinstates the change involving “city-state,” I will undo that too. I thought researching my “third party” options and then drafting this message took priority.

I will copy this to Nhtpaf’s talk page. Will-DubDub (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nhtpaf. Thank you for your work on Award of Vienna. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it currently has one link to a primary source, and not other references or footnotes. Please add more independent sources – primarily secondary sources – and establish WP:Note. I will be moving this article to draft space. Please feel free to republish once the above criteria are met. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the page was not moved to draft but was completely deleted. The page was just created and was being improved; a deletion was not necessary. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be in draft space until they are ‘improved’. If you are uploading an article with one/no source(s) (or an article entirely written by AI, for that matter), don’t be surprised if it is deleted or moved. Aesurias (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Territorial evolution of Mosquitia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it consists of machine-generated text.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Aesurias (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Constitution of the City of Grey Town, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can’t be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I’ve moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of “Draft:” before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the “Submit your draft for review!” button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Council of State of the Kingdom of Mosquitia, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can’t be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I’ve moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of “Draft:” before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the “Submit your draft for review!” button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, thanks. I will be adding more citations in the coming days. Nhtpaf (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my talk post very carefully before making ANY change to Mosquito Coast, Nhtpaf.

If you want your changes to go through, which I’m sure took you considerable time and energy, your best option is to follow my advice and not make any change whatsoever to the article for the next six days. Do that and my trust in you will be intact, and you are free to move on.

Insist on making ANY edits to the article despite being reverted (by me) and engaging on talk, and you risk changing my perception of you from an editor in good standing. Just me having to go here to your talk makes me realize you are already having trouble following our process (given the number and nature of earlier messages above), so you would really benefit from showing an ability to collaborate with me in this case. The changes are so substantive that I feel community input is mandatory in this case.

Please now heed my advice and leave the article completely alone (no editing at all) until the community has had time to provide input. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Council of State of Mosquitia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because AFC drafts must be reviewed by AFC reviewers..
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Conquest of Boca Toro has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Postal services in Mosquitia has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m SuperCode111. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sukianism 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. SuperCode111 (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SuperCode111. Please not that I’m the one who created the entire article and have been developing the same based on sources related to it. The new edits were about to be cited before you removed them. Nhtpaf (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it seemed to assert religious beliefs as factual. Wikipedia summarises verifiable information from reliable sources and does not endorse or reject any belief system. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS for guidance. SuperCode111 (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperCode111 the neutrality and reliable sources policies have been adhere to. I also failed to see where it “assert religious beliefs as factual”. If a few words were off then it’s understandable to change or adjust them; but really no need to revert everything entirely. Remember that a missing citation template can also be added. Nhtpaf (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I might have been wrong with that, it was pretty hard to read in the diff. (Ps I originally meant to do the NPOV warn template not the advertising one) Sorry for bothering you. SuperCode111 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nhtpaf,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Panapana for deletion, because it’s a redirect from an article title to a namespace that’s not for articles.

If you don’t want Panapana to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don’t remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Zzz plant (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Zzz plant, I have no dispute against it. Nhtpaf (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchitown (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miskito people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chontal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grey Town. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is a misunderstanding. As the edit history of the Grey Town article shows, I am the one who originally created the page and have consistently developed it using reliable sources and in adherence to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. I therefore do not understand the basis for characterizing my edits as “unconstructive” or “disruptive.”

If there are specific edits you believe violate policy, please point to the exact diffs and the policy in question (e.g., WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR). I am always willing to discuss and improve content collaboratively, but vague accusations without reference to specific issues do not help resolve anything.

I also notice that you have been changing the name Mosquitia to “Mosquito Coast, Nicaragua.” This is factually incorrect. The historical Mosquito Coast (or Mosquitia) has long been described in contemporary sources as extending from Caxinas Point to the Chagres River.

Given that geographic span, it is impossible for the region to be “entirely in Nicaragua,” as your edits suggest. This is a straightforward geographic error and alters the meaning of the term as it appears in the historical record. Nhtpaf (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) and 2) It doesn’t matter that you were the one who started the page. Deleting the country where the city is located is disruptive editing. I reverted the deletion of Nicaragua on other pages (whereas in the Edit summary you falsely described it as “infobox update”), but you didn’t stop continuing it.

3) I don’t know exactly which page you’re talking about, but, but Mosquito Coast is the name that we use on Wikipedia for the region per the consensus, not Mosquitia. If something isn’t completely in Nicaragua, make it complete (e.g. “in Nicaragua and Honduras”). Refer primarily to countries that every average user knows, not a historical region. FromCzech (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the use of the name itself, as the region has been referred to by several terms historically. The real issue is the attempt to reduce its documented geographical extent. Multiple contemporary sources (already cited in the article) consistently describe Mosquitia as extending from Caxinas Point to the Chagres River. Given that span, it is not accurate to describe the region as being “in Nicaragua and Honduras,” unless one also includes Costa Rica and Panama (“in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama”), which would make it unnecessarily long and cumbersome.

For the sake of readability, accuracy, and fidelity to the historical sources, it is best to use the term Mosquitia without trying to retroactively confine it to modern national boundaries. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: I don’t known about which specific page do you talk about, so I can’t respond. Once again: this is just your opinion, the consensus is to use Mosquito Coast, not Mosquitia. FromCzech (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the issue is not the use of the name itself (Mosquito Shore (Coast) or Mosquitia), as the territory has been referred to by several terms historically. The real issue is the attempt to reduce its documented geographical extent from Caxinas Point to the Chagres River to “in Nicaragua and Honduras”. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the historical perspective of the 18th and 19th centuries is not important for today’s definition. In modern perception, only the region in Nicaragua and Honduras parts are considered the Mosquito Coast. FromCzech (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you suggest that the 18th–19th century definition is not important for today’s understanding, this is not accurate. Both Nicaragua and Colombia continue to rely on the historical definition of Mosquitia in their modern territorial positions, particularly in disputes concerning the western Caribbean.

In fact, both states explicitly claim that the Mosquito Coast (Mosquitia) historically extended as far southeast as the Chagres River, and they reference this same historical geography in contemporary diplomatic and legal arguments. These modern disputes demonstrate that the historical extent is still legally and politically relevant, not merely an antiquarian detail.

Therefore, the historically attested span—from Caxinas Point to the Chagres River—is not only what contemporary sources describe, but also what modern states continue to assert in their geopolitical claims. Therefore, reducing Mosquitia to only the territories of Nicaragua and Honduras does not reflect either the historical record or current state practice. Nhtpaf (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My claims are supported by credible independent sources, and other editors see it similarly. So I’m sorry, but no, today only the coasts of Nicaragua and Honduras are considered the Mosquitia Coast. Historical perceptions of the demarcation may be mentioned, but not confused with the modern view of the matter. FromCzech (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that “today only the coasts of Nicaragua and Honduras are considered the Mosquito Coast” is not supported by the modern states that actually assert jurisdiction over the region. Both Nicaragua and Colombia continue to reference the traditional extent of Mosquitia—from Caxinas Point to the Chagres River—in their contemporary diplomatic positions, territorial arguments, and international submissions. These are not “historical perceptions” but current state practice, which under WP:RS and WP:NPOV must be represented.

When two governments formally maintain that the Mosquito Coast historically extends to the Chagres River, it is inaccurate to present the narrower Nicaragua–Honduras definition as the sole “modern view.” At minimum, Wikipedia must reflect that multiple modern positions exist, especially when they are grounded in official state documents.

The broader extent is therefore not simply a matter of historical demarcation but remains relevant in modern geopolitical contexts. Reducing Mosquitia to Nicaragua and Honduras alone risks misrepresenting both the sources and current state usage.

If you have contemporary sources that explicitly redefine Mosquitia more narrowly and reflect a recognised modern consensus, please provide them. Nhtpaf (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When governments define territory in their contemporary diplomatic positions, they are not reliable independent sources (RS/NPOV). We do not write that Ukraine is part of Russia just because Russian sources publish it. So you can mention government positions and different ways of defining the region, but certainly not as part of the lead. FromCzech (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly my point — the territorial extent is relevant because both governments continue to base their modern diplomatic claims on that historical definition. Acknowledging that fact does not mean stating that the region “belongs” to any state, nor framing it as exclusive territory. It simply reflects the reality that these claims persist and influence how the area is described.

Government positions should not be treated as independent sources, of course, but they can be mentioned as part of the region’s competing definitions. That’s different from asserting ownership, and it’s appropriate context — just not framed as POV. Nhtpaf (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. FromCzech (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not reverting edits, I am simply reorganising the information on the article to give it better readability and even neutrality. I’ve also added footnotes to include or explain summarised information. If you take the time to read the article and review the footnotes and citations you would see that these aren’t edits revisions but rather improvements (organising the structure and flow of the information). Nhtpaf (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to make consensus with you on this earlier but you chose to revert almost all the improved edits, which is inconsistent with your own advice that “You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved.”

My point is that the idea around the subject matter should not be that it (the region) belongs to any one or another country but is rather a historical region in Central America as a whole. I find this to be the most neutral position. Nhtpaf (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned on the Talk:Mosquito Coast page that your edits and opinions are not WP:NPOV and to stop, but you continue to do so. You don’t care about the majority opinion and just want to assert your own opinions, thereby violating the basic principles of Wikipedia. FromCzech (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert my personal opinions into the edits. I reworded content from original, verifiable sources and added it to the article. Then, all of a sudden, you began reverting these contributions. When I attempted to adjust the text to an even more neutral point of view—as I just did in the Mosquito Coast article—you reverted them and claimed that I was the one being disruptive and engaging in edit-warring. I must say that I find your practice extremely unreasonable. Nhtpaf (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech: FYI… Taichi (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Bluefields Lagoon. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nhtpaf. Thank you for your work on Bluefields Lagoon. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please try to show wider coverage in secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:GEONATURAL. Thanks and have a good day!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop this nonsense you’re doing. The name “Golfo de los Mosquitos” is registered with the Tommy Guardia National Geographic Institute of Panama, only from Península Valiente to the waters of Coclé del Norte river… it’s on official Panamanian maps! You can’t just take it and move it to another part of the Caribbean.
If you persist in altering it, disregarding official documents and maps of the Republic of Panama, I will consider it an affront and report you. Enough of your personal crusade… Taichi (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve cited and added múltiple sources that shows this to be completely inaccurate. You have clearly disregarded those sources. Nhtpaf (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert the changes until we can come to a single understanding of the facts. I will provide further sources to show this if you wish. Nhtpaf (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite clear you’re not interested in official Panamanian cartographic sources. Are you aware that this anti-Panamanian sentiment, this insistence on pursuing your crusade, could result in sanctions? I repeat, do you have any current sources to back this up? I don’t want a 200-year-old map; the maps I presented are from this decade. Taichi (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn’t important to you, then the problem will fall solely on you. You can’t just ignore the Panama’s Cartographic Authority… This will be my final response. Anything I do from now on will be reported to you. Taichi (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you’re not interested in historical facts. The Gulf of Mexico cannot automatically become the Gulf of America because the USA says so. The name Gulf of Mexico is historically relevant. This same logic applies to the Bay of Mosquitia, formerly known as the Bay of Matina and Bay of Guatemala. Nhtpaf (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you ask me for sources, I show you official cartographic sources, and now you jump on me with a WP:WHATABOUT. Are you a teenager? Don’t talk to me about other bodies of water, I’m talking about the Golfo de los Mosquitos. That body of water has been in use in Panama for decades, and now you in 2025 come with an arbitrary custom to change it just like that because a 200-year-old map tells you to do so superficially. Taichi (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to “change” anything arbitrarily. I’m pointing out that the term Bahía de los Mosquitos / Mosquito Gulf has historically referred to a much broader geographic feature than the modern Panamanian usage you’re citing. This isn’t WP:WHATABOUT—it’s addressing the core question of what reliable sources say the gulf actually includes.

A key example is Diccionario geográfico universal (Vol. VI, 1832), which defines the Bahía de los Mosquitos as the south-western entry of the Caribbean Sea, bounded from Punta del Cacique near Portobelo in the southeast to Cape Gracias a Dios in the northwest, a span of roughly 120 leagues. Within that gulf it lists, among others, Pearl Lagoon, Blewfields Bay, the San Juan River, and even the Chagres River, along with the Mosquito/Miskito Cays and San Andrés Island. This description explicitly includes coasts beyond Panama alone. By the way, this is a description from a Spanish perspective, how could that really be wrong?

From Diccionario geográfico universal dedicado a la Reina Nuestra Señora. Vol. VI. 1832:  “Mosquitos (Bahía de los) entrada de la parte S. O. del Mar de las Antillas al E. del país de los Mosquitos y de los dep. De Nicaragua y Costa Rica, en Guatemala, y al N del dep. del istmo, en la Colombia. La Punta del Cacique, cerca de Porto Belo, al S E. y el Cabo Gracias a Dios, al N. O. determina su entrada, que es de 120 leguas de ancho, tiene de seno 48 leguas. Las costas son generalmente bajas y muy escotadas, formando la bahía de Arena, la Laguna de Perlas, la bahía de Blewfields al O., y la Laguna de Chiriqui, al S. O. Recibe el Yare, el Tonglas, el río Grande de Perlas, el Blewfields, el San Juan, que sirve de derrame al lago de Nicaragua, el Chagres, etc. Contiene muchos islotes, escollos, y bancos de arena, particularmente hacia el O.; pudiendo citar la Grande y la Pequeña Mangle, el banco y las rocas de los Mosquitos, y la isla San Andrés.”

Later cartographic works follow the same broad definition, such as McNally’s Improved System of Geography (1864, p. 50) and Cornell’s Grammar-School Geography (1878, p. 64), both of which map the Mosquito Gulf/Bay as a large Caribbean embayment extending well beyond the present boundaries of Panama.

None of this conflicts with modern Panamanian usage. It simply shows that the historical term described a much larger geographical feature, and reliable sources reflect that. Nhtpaf (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Outline of Mosquitia. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FromCzech (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FromCzech: I have replied to your statement there. Nhtpaf (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing the page Gulf of Mosquitia for disruptive editing. You may still edit the talk page, and any other page on Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions on this page.