User talk:Wukai

Welcome!

Hello, Wukai! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Footwarrior (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Article spacing

Hi, a little buggy thing about Wikipedia is that, even though it doesn't appear to be a double-space, a space at the top and the bottom of a commented section of an article appears as a double-space to viewers of the article. I've attempted to eradicate this unattractive spacing a few times recently on The Pale King, but you've added it back a couple of times. I agree it looks strange when you're in the editing screen to have no space between the end of a comment and the next heading, however it's necessary to preserve the proper spacing in the article. Please review my edits of the article for further illustration. Ponydepression (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to John Updike. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! As a minimum, I often copy the text I have changed. Thus if I add "an" to a sentence I'll paste "an" into the edit summary and mark it as a minor edit. If I change something, such as correcting spelling, I'll often indicate it with an arrow: "teh --> the". Hyacinth (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Hyacinth (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The End of the Road

Hi. Thanks for doing those copy edits at The End of the Road. You might want to stay away from the "Plot" and "Major themes" sections, though, as I'm busy rewriting them in my sandbox, so any changes you make there will just end up be overwritten. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not "gushy," what?

If "The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys and The Shrub" by David Wallace isn't "gushy," what is the correct adjective? Bill Wyman saw fit to parody the essay in Slate magazine. Something about the essay, he thought, deserved a parody. I think it was its gushiness, but if you think otherwise after re-reading the essay and reading its parody, please insert the correct adjective. In my reading, it's "gushy." Chisme (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace concludes, "It feels impossible, in February ’00, to tell whether John McCain is a real leader or merely a very talented political salesman, just another entrepreneur who’s seen a new market-niche and devised a way to fill it." That's a long way from gushy, and to describe Wallace's attitude toward McCain as gushy and leave it at that is badly misleading. I don't see why we need an adjective at all. Wukai (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You pulled the last sentence from the flattering (I say "fawning" or "gushy" essay). (In book form, the essay was renamed "McCaine's Promise.") Wallace was famous for hemming and hawing. You caught him in his final haw. Earlier in the essay, he blushes with excitement as he imagines the great man in his Vietnamese prison cell, which he compares to a dressing room with a star on it (!). Is this passage gushy or what? (The italics below are mine.)

Your (the author's) thoughts return again and again to a certain dark and box-sized cell in a certain Hilton half a world apart and three careers away, to the torture and fear and offer of release and a certain Young Voter named McCaine's refusal to violate a Code. There was just one guy and whatever in his character sustained him. This is a huge deal. In your mind, the Hoa Lo box becomes a sort of special dressing room with a star on the door, the private place behind the stage where one (the author, I presume) imagines that the real John McCaine still lives.

Gushy and icky! I already backed away from "gushy" and "fawning." The sterile "flattering" will have to do. The essay was in no way objective. Let's leave it at "flattering." Chisme (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it's unfair of you to now take the reference to the parody out. We compromised. I dropped the adjective. You compromise too. Chisme (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Foster Wallace

In reference to this edit, go see who made it in the first place. Correct or not, such an editor is not here to improve articles. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cloud, Minnesota Notable people

Right under the notable people section header, there is this "Only list people who already have sourced Wikipedia articles." So the Jeopardy! website doesn't count and those contestants are removed....William 15:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I added[1] three persons to the St. Cloud notable people list. A former Minnesota Lt. Governor, a former Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and a former associate justice of the Minnesota State Supreme Court. All clearly notable, fit the criteria for the section, plus they don't reek of WP:recentism. The longest ever serving Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives beats a three-time Jeopardy! champion....William 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets in Ashbery

Hello there,

I may be wrong, but I believe that when a quote is split, capitalization is used whether it was in the original source or not. So the thing to do in the Ashbery article is lose the brackets entirely, and just capitalize the N.

Looking forward to your thoughts on this, poetrynerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetrynerd (talk • contribs) 23:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether that's true, but it's OK with me.Wukai (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll try that. Thanks for getting back to me. Poetrynerd (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maria Cantwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plan B (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AidanKenn is not right

Shouldn't the "Infinite Jest" article have some counterweight? Harold Bloom is an extremely well respected critic. I think his words belong in the article and I am putting them back. If you want to revert, please explain why on the Talk page. Chisme (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "reverting, as discussed" when you didn't discuss anything on the Talk page. I'm going to take the other editor's suggestion and create a criticism section. If you want to revert that, please explain why on the Talk page. Thanks. Chisme (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I didn't say "as we discussed."Wukai (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles you might be interested in reading.

You may want to peruse the lead sections of Ernest Hemingway, Spalding Gray, Gabriel Pomerand, Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, Hunter S. Thompson, James Robert Baker, and Danielle Collobert, among, I'm sure, many others. Cheers. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pomerand and Collobert articles don't have sections, and Woolf's opening section is no more detailed than Wallace's was and doesn't mention her suicide. Did you think I wouldn't check, or what? I'll let your edit stand, though. Wukai (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I had really been trying to win an argument, I could have actually looked at the articles before I listed them, and then cherry-picked the ones that best supported me. Instead, I merely named some writers whose suicides are a matter of history, presumed that you would check them out, and that you would learn something in the process. I ascertain, from your comments, that Hemmingway, Gray, Plath, and Thompson bear out my point. That's how standardized the practice is--I didn't even have to look before listing them. So don't think I believe you're "letting" my edit stand; if we went toe-to-toe, you'd lose. But think of it, you've actually won: As I said, you learned something new. I know that, when that happens to me, it always makes my day brighter. Cheers. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did learn something new; thanks. You can't seriously deny, though, that you implied the articles you listed all exemplified the approach your edit instantiates. Or that it's sloppy at best to refer to "the lead sections of" articles that don't have lead sections. Wukai (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

If this is an example of the kind of work you do around here, I'm glad to have you around. That's some nice, crisp, copyediting, something that there's never enough of on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I know that some people think that content is king (and they're right), but small matters of style not only improve readability, they help to make that content more clear. Good show. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wukai (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to thank you for taking an active interest in helping to improve Infinite Jest, and I see you have a copyedit Barnstar. Yay! Despite the style and grammar edits I've made, actual copy-editing isn't my forte, and the article desperately needs it.

I'm also glad to see that another editor, uninvolved in the debate, is currently watching changes to the page. My lack of getting whapped upside the head by a third party makes me feel a bit better about my actions re the explosion of the talk page.

Revent (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Keep up the good work.Wukai (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I wonder when The New York Times got mangled again. I remember specifically fixing that. Revent (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to bring this back up...) I was just about to award you this barnstar as well. Thank you very much for your work on Rand Paul. Thank you for your copyedits! PrairieKid (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double spaces in The End of the Road

Hi, I appreciate your copyedits, but could you please stop removing the double spaces that delimit sentences in the article? They have absolutely no impact on the displayed output, but they help me navigate the article when I edit it. Please see MOS:PUNCTSPACE. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure.Wukai (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response

If prepositional endings and split infinitives were not incorrect, they wouldn't teach you to avoid those things in English class. For that matter, teachers at every level--college Professors as well as K12 teachers--would not deduct grade points on reports for these things if they weren't grammatical errors. It's really quite simple. I'm pretty sure I've heard of reports in the business and government realms having to be edited to get rid of split infinitives and prepositional endings, too. I guess that question to ask about Wikipedia, supposedly an encyclopedia, is this: Is it a conversation which is meant to be relaxed (and thus not have to be quite perfect English), or is it formal writing? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitive: "most modern English usage guides have dropped the objection to the split infinitive." It's really quite simple! Wukai (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that article, however, is talking about conversational use. Again, this is formal writing. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're stubborn. Let's try this one: Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar (the second paragraph, but it sounds like you could benefit from the first paragraph too!).Wukai (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Cronon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Tyros1972. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tube Bar prank calls because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tyros1972 Talk 22:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wukai. You have new messages at Tyros1972's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Even though I am 99% certain Groeing based the calls on the Simpsons, I reverted back to your edit based on the article we have. Thanks for all your work with the article as it is much better now. Tyros1972 Talk 22:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Jest

It's pretty obvious that O.N.A.N in Infinite Jest is a reference to onanism. You can go to the Davis Foster Wallace wiki and see for yourself here (search for "onanism"). Or you can read this quote, from the Slate Star Codex: "So how’s this for symbolism: the book is set in a future USA-Canada-Mexico merger called the Organization of North American Nations. I originally thought O.N.A.N. was just a cheap gag, in the same way Robert Anton Wilson called his supercomputer F.U.C.K.U.P. But David Foster Wallace does not do cheap gags. The book was taking place in a society literally named for masturbation, and its entire structure was based on pleasure without purpose." Honestly, do I have to cite this. Well, I will. Please don't RV this time.76.14.66.186 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming The End of the Road for FA

Since you copyedit the article pretty frequently, I thought you'd like to know that I think I've got The End of the Road in a condition to put up for FAC. I have a couple of other articles I intend to send there first, so it'll probably be a couple of months before I do, but I thought you might want to go over the article yourself before I do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Wukai (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!Wukai (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Munro

I reverted your good faith changes to Alice Munro. I think the lead needs some work as it doesn't fully encapsulate why people think she's important, but I felt your changes weren't reflected in what the sources claimed. The NY Times that was being paraphrased in the lead was, "Ms. Munro revolutionized the architecture of short stories, often beginning a story in an unexpected place, then moving backward or forward in time." We need to say more than that she was "distinctive" to reflect what is claimed about her impact on other writers. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Redid my edit accordingly. The second-paragraph changes are justified since the quotation I removed is from a dead link.Wukai (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks for re-visiting it. Sometimes the problem with making things unarguably neutral is that we end up not saying the writing excels in any specific way. (For most writing this is fine, but it gets trickier when there's legitimately career-long critical appreciation. Then, under-stating can become non-neutral and non-representative; as in "Chocolate is liked by some people") Anyway, thanks. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page blanking

Regarding [2] - please see WP:BLANKING. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This guy, though, is like Stalin erasing his enemies from photos after he slaughtered them. Eternal sunshine.Wukai (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Scrabble Championship 2013

Hi, thanks for editing Nigel Richards. I don't know how to rename an article; perhaps World Scrabble Championship 2013 should be renamed Scrabble Champions Tournament 2013 (with a redirect from WSC 2013).

Thanks, Scrabble1968 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that either!Wukai (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edo de Waart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lerdahl

I've removed the music researcher category from Fred Lerdahl's page as it is no longer in use. You bring up a good point though - technically he isn't a psychologist. I've put a line clarifying the situation on the Category:Music psychologists page. Essentially the field is so interdisciplinary that a large amount of the research comes from music practitioners, and Lerdahl's work on cognitive representations of music theory are extremely influential in the field. I think the category page should include anyone who has made major contributions. I'll leave you to put the category tag back if you think it's appropriate. Thanks. geordie (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante, and I have returned The Rules of the Game to this condition.

I look forward to discussing your edits on the talk page. Thanks, BMK (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom Udall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PRISM (program). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You are an excellent copyeditor and it is so good to work with you! Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth

I (mostly) wrote the Duluth, Minnesota article. You're such a good copy editor--would you care to do a copy edit for it? Gandydancer (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lulu (opera), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Kraus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning–Kruger

Your continued reversion at at Dunning–Kruger effect is wrong. Here's your reversion:

Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence, and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

You are using the comma incorrectly. See, for example Comma Usage and Compound Predicates, which states, "A common mistake people make is to insert a comma between two elements of a compound predicate."

A comma is used to separate clauses:

clause, and clause

Alice owns a dog, and she shops at Walmart. (RIGHT http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html item 4)

A comma is not used to separate two objects:

Alice owns a dog and a cat. (RIGHT - compound object)

Alice owns a dog, and a cat. (WRONG)

A comma is not used to separate two predicates:

Alice owns a dog and shops at Walmart. (RIGHT - compound predicate)

Alice owns a dog, and shops at Walmart. (WRONG - compound predicate)

Glrx (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll delete the comma. Wukai (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan

Hi Wukai, Shall we discuss mentioning the International Debutante Ball on the talk page since we both disagree about mentioning it in the beginning? I think it is worth mentioning in the beginning of the article that the debutante ball exist in real life in NewYork City, which is what I did.--Creed0 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point too though by the way. You can undo my edit in the Metropolitan article if you want to keep it in the paragraph where you want to mention the International Debutante Ball.--Creed0 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll do that. It isn't the only ball in the movie, after all.Wukai (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, Wukai! I've appreciated your work copy-editing, always pertinent. If you don't read the talk page of the pages you copy-edit so well, you might not know that I'm suddenly up for the AE disciplinary board Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls. No need to intervene, you seem very peaceful staying out of the fray. Still, :( SashiRolls (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A copy edit?

Hi there Wukai, would you have the time/interest to do some of your magic at the ReZpect our Water article? Hmm, just noticed that the "our" is not using a cap. I will fix that. Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another

You did a copyedit of Scenes from a Marriage earlier this month. I just did another Ingmar Bergman at Through a Glass Darkly (film) if you can please take a look? Ribbet32 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wukai. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March on Washington

Hi there. If you are interested, would you care to do a copy edit on the Women's March on Washington article? I think it looks pretty good but a check would sure be appreciated. I'm going to ask Montana if she'd like to do a DYK for it and it would be nice to see it polished if it needs it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material and original research in Last Days

Removing original research from Themes section as having no citation. I have watched the Criterion Production short and this material is not there. Sanford cited material is retained. No material which is without a verifiable citation should be added to that section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. It wasn't I who added the stuff about the Criterion short.Wukai (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders photos

Hi Wukai, your thoughts would be welcome at a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Photos. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offices should be capitalized.

Would you PLEASE comment at WP:JOBTITLES, instead of just reverting. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Are you going to do the same for all the state governors & lieutenant governors as well? Or are you just going to concentrate on these 2 or 3? thus causing inconsistency? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Running out of sensible options for dealing with that guy. It is tempting to think he is a performance artist simulating the effect, but it's more parsimonious to assume that he actually believes his edits improve the article. It doesn't seem blatant enough to take to ANI; for now I may just step away from it for a while, and come back to clean up the mess later. Any other suggestions? Just plain Bill (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree that he probably works in good faith.Wukai (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish novelists

I looked at the category page for Danish novelists and it doesn't provide a definition. So, I was wondering, would you also categorise nobel laureate Halldór Laxness as a Danish writer? I don't think this would make much sense, however, if I understand your definition correctly, he should be because, although he wrote in Icelandic and was from Iceland, at the time of his birth Iceland was part of Denmark - making him a Danish novelist. Right? Albrecht Conz (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there's still no response from you - and no definition of what constitutes a "Danish novelist" on the category page "Danish novelists" either, I'll remove the category on the Anna Karina page. Albrecht Conz (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding. No, my logic does not make Laxness a Danish novelist. Under my definition, Danish novelists are novelists who are citizens of Denmark — not citizens of a country once colonized by Denmark.Wukai (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of his birth, Laxness was a citizen of Denmark as there was no Icelandic nation. My objection about this category is that it lacks any kind of definition - and thus the definition you make up, to me, seems to be as valid as the one I make up. There are categories that do not require further definition such as, let's say, "people born in Copenhagen". Many others however need to be defined, as otherwise they are wishy-washy and meaningless. Thus my suggestion: Wouldn't it be a good idea to resolve this issue on the talk page of the category first - and then proceed? It's not at all that I want to include Laxness in the category "Danish novelist" but as I see it, right now, all kind of novelists can be crammed into this category - be it because they wrote in the Danish language, be it because they were Danish citizens or residents at some point, be it because they have Danish parentage (even Nella Larsen might qualify). Albrecht Conz (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you're straining to perceive ambiguity where none really exists. No one believes that any novelist who writes in English is an "English novelist." There are many such in India, and they are Indian novelists. The same goes for Danish novelists; one qualifies by citizenship, not by language. I don't think this is at all controversial.Wukai (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ducey edits

I wanted to thank you specifically for the extensive edits you made to the Ducey article. They were extremely professional and it must have taken considerable time to wade through all that text. Activist (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was my pleasure.Wukai (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise links

Three of the edits you made to links in Alexander Grischuk could be improved. It's bad to change FIDE World Chess Championship 2000, FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 and FIDE World Chess Championship 2007 to piped links that hide the year. Your edits turned those into the MOS:SUBMARINE links FIDE World Chess Championship, FIDE World Chess Championship and FIDE World Chess Championship which look exactly the same but go to three different places, and none of those places is an article titled FIDE World Chess Championship. I'm not sure these links needed to be changed at all, but if you're going to make those edits it's much better to include the year in the piped text with 2000 FIDE World Chess Championship, 2004 FIDE World Chess Championship and 2007 FIDE World Chess Championship so the reader knows what to expect if they follow the links. Quale (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense.Wukai (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bohm

I want to thank you and compliment you on your excellent re-wording in the David Bohm article. I knew it didn't sound right, but I didn't know enough about the subject matter to attempt a re-wording. Good work! – Corinne (talk)

My pleasure.Wukai (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elcor, Minnesota

Hello, Wukai! You were recommended by one of my Wikipedia mentors Gandydancer as a copy editor with a gift for recommending improvements to an article. I have been diligently working on Elcor, Minnesota since 2013. I feel the article has been edited as much as possible, although I still find occasional tidbits to include. The comments I received back from putting the article out for peer review was that this article is appropriate for direct nomination to Good Article and possible Featured Article status in the future. It is well sourced, although the one criticism I received from peer review was perhaps too well sourced (when writing about a ghost town, however, I find it nice when multiple sources corroborate one another...and I have not found anything on Wikipedia with regard to source limitation). I am still waiting on GA status review, but have been working to bring it up to a FA status article. Would you have a look? Your suggestions/feedback would be most welcome! DrGregMN (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Wukai (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It reads and flows much better. You are every bit as magical as Gandydancer said! DrGregMN (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your assistance in rewording and tightening up the article Elcor, Minnesota! DrGregMN (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting sentences with conjunctions

Hi there. Please try to avoid startings sentences with "But" (as you did here) unless there's a good reason for it. See, for instance [3]. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your link says that it's fine to start sentences with conjuctions. Wikipedia agrees. See Common_English_usage_misconceptions.Wukai (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also wp:BRD. Let's not just re-revert, but rather discuss and find agreement on the talk page. But^(*) never mind, someone else agrees with my analysis. And^(*) your edit summary was inappropriate. Because^(*) "to fix" is "to repair". And^(*) there was nothing grammatically broken in the original sentence.

^(*) These four opening conjunctions are appropriate in this context, because they are slightly loaded, and serve a purpose. In my opinion these ones convey the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. Thanks for the link to Common English usage misconceptions. Interestng read! Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only kind of conjunction-first sentence your Oxford link objects to is the kind that could easily be the second half of a longer sentence. I did not make changes that involved turning one sentence into two, and I still think "But" is preferable to the dramatic, cumbersome "However,". But I see I am outvoted, yes.Wukai (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wukai has an issue with starting sentences using “however” instead of “but”, having just reverted my edit on Rashida Tlaib which removed “but”. Starting a sentence with “but” is fine in opinion prose, or even journalism, but not in encyclopaedia articles such as those on Wikipedia. The tone just doesn’t sound right. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just, like, your opinion, man. Wukai (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Cliffs of Dover

Wukai, I've done an almost total rewrite of the White Cliffs of Dover article. I'm not British so it was a fun and learning experience for me. Hopefully I got it all correct, including British spelling. Would you have the time and interest to take a look at it to do any copy edits that are needed? Gandydancer (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wukai. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Grischuk

Thanks for copy-editing the article. Unfortunately I was still working on the article at the time so I had to try to merge the edits. In doing so, I lost all my text by mistake and will have to spend another two hours re-doing all of it. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Johnson

Hi, thank you for your edit/revert on Jeff Johnson (Minnesota politician). I noticed earlier that there was a weird C left behind. Am I allowed to do the edits again? Actually. the story covered is not important and have poor sources I'll add information later as I have gathered information related to different politicians. Please guide me thank you JennyJames (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your many copyediting contributions to Wikipedia! Marquardtika (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit please

I humbly ask (and beg) you to do a copy edit on David Archambault II if you have the time and interest. Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks will ensue shortly

Thanks for the consistent and low-key improvements you've been making at Linda Sarsour. "Controversy ensued" – a new alternative to "Hilarity ensued"? Your attention to detail is much appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Politrukki (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zoë Baird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many "to"s?

Hi, Wukai. I respect your copy-editing skills, so here's a question about an edit at Meteoroid. Did the editor improve the following sentence in the caption to the top image when he/she changed it by adding a to (my emphasis)?

Previous:

From a meteoroid to a meteor and meteorite: A meteoroid enters the atmosphere to become visible as a meteor and impact the Earth's surface as a meteorite.

Current:

From a meteoroid to a meteor and meteorite: A meteoroid enters the atmosphere to become visible as a meteor and to impact the Earth's surface as a meteorite.

I'll look for your edit there or your reply, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions seem unsatisfactory to me. I'll make my own version!Wukai (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alamance County, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth by Sibelius

Thank you for changes to the Fifth by Sibelius, for most, that is. Please find a way to avoid "piece" for any major work (too small, "work" is fine, or "symphony"), and avoid to begin a sentence with "But". I would also avoid to say "Sibelius's" but that is a matter of taste ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard to refer to a musical work of any size or scope as a piece of music. And there is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "but". See Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar.

Sorry, I come from German, where Stück (piece) would never be used for anything major. I heard the same here, but forgot with which authority. Same for the other. Thank you for education. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query

What happened here? --John (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fucked up.Wukai (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Foster Wallace revert

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on David Foster Wallace. Is there a reason the link shouldn't be there? Packer1028 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed unnecessary. Why link a common term?Wukai (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to this account

You seem to be able to edit from it now. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wukai. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governors & Lieutenant Governors

Howdy. Is there a place where you or anybody can open up a RFC so that once & for all we can settle this 'bleeping' capitalize/don't capitalize argument? GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 14 July Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Salter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

Hi Wukai, you've performed good copyedits of my work at Scenes from a Marriage and Caché (film); I was wondering if you would be willing to look at Hour of the Wolf? Please let me know either way. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Richards

I do not believe WGPO is notable enough for inclusion and it should be discussed in the article's talk page. Andy Saunders (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marianne Williamson; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Hello there! With all due respect, those commas indeed are necessary. When a sentence begins with a prepositional phrase, that prepositional phrase needs to be followed by a comma. I'll go ahead and fix Bennie Thompson for you. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! GrammarDamner (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019 - Edit warring and using multiple accounts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fred Rogers; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
** Also, you appear to be using multiple accounts to edit and revert changes. Please use only your single account as your were directed by Doug Weller on 1 November 2018 - FCGreg (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of the Holy Sepulchre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholicon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question re. edit

Hello, I was wondering if you could please explain why this "undo" was performed (Undid revision 921581741 by 67.158.173.138)? I provided detailed references and am confused as to why the section constitutes original research. Many thanks for your time! Wanda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.173.138 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trempealeau County, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Andrews (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hjalmar Nygaard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sudan People's Liberation Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gary Locke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

As per WP:BRD, if your edits are reverted, you discuss. 'No' is a completely inappropriate edit summary and my reasons for reverting your edit were clear.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto^Talk 04:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kincardineshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caledonian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=

August 2020 - Edit warring and using multiple accounts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Zeldin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
** Also, you appear to be using multiple accounts (User:AlsoWukai) to edit and revert changes (WP:SOCK). Please use only your single account as your were directed by Doug Weller on 1 November 2018 - BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert: post-1932 American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Lewis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Lee Zeldin) for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that this article is now under a WP:1RR restriction—you may not make more than one revert per 24 hours on this article or risk being blocked. This is not an entitlement to a revert; you may be blocked for edit warring again even if you do not technically exceed 1 revert per 24 hours. Mz7 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for David Graeber

On 5 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Graeber, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Zeldin; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Consensus required: For a period of three months, you may not submit any changes to the page Lee Zeldin without prior affirmative consensus to do so on the article's talk page or other appropriate discussion page.

You have been sanctioned because of your persistent long-term edit war on the article, see Talk:Lee Zeldin#Edit war.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

!!!

Given the mix of incompetence and edit-warring in these edits [4] [5], I request that you refrain from editing articles on any subject in which you lack technical expertise. --JBL (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JBL (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your editing restriction on Lee Zeldin (Special:Diff/981769599), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Mz7 (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of caps for sun and moon

Wukai, would you have time to look at the Rainbow article. An editor believes that sun and moon should be capitalized at times when they should not. He/she thinks that MOS backs them up. None of our sources use caps that explain this or that about rainbows. This person claims that they are very proud that WP is ahead of all other sources in instructing caps be used. Would you have time to take a look at the article or the talk page and inform this editor that they are not correct? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]