User talk:AlsoWukai

I have undone your revision of my edit on Keith Ellison of which no reason was provided. Sources are accessible and only facts were posted. It is improper to remove relevant and verifiable contentJohnnytucf (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For what reason was my link deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamid riyaz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't allowed to add one's own research.AlsoWukai (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, AlsoWukai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Keith Ellison. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JC7V -constructive zone  03:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Corey Stewart
You removed a piece of info from the Corey Stewart page and said it wasn't sourced. It was already sourced in the body of the article. Please read MOS:LEADCITE for more on this policy. Thanks, Amsgearing (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You're still editing from User:Wukai but you say you can't edit from that account
That's confusing and might not be a good idea.. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I couldn't edit from that account on my laptop or desktop. I still can on mobile devices. Eventually I'll probably stop using it, but it has the watchlist I've compiled over the last decade, upon which I rely.AlsoWukai (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Steve King
You are invited to participate at Talk:Steve King. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

All of them, or none of them
Get an RFC going in the appropriate place, to settle which to use in the governors & lieutenant governors bio articles, concern capitalizing or not capitalizing. PS: See message on your other registered account. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all the CE
I really appreciate it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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: 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)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Keith Ellison
Could you clarify how this qualifies as a copy edit? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Heidi Heitkamp
Hello, AlsoWukai,

Please stop warring on this BLP. As I advised you, MOS:JOBTITLES requires lower case on this title. "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." This rule has also been applied throughout the article.

MOS:CAPS also says: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence."

But since you disagreed, I replaced it with "congressman" capitalized and, for some reason, you still reverted. So I'll use the abbreviation of "Rep." which refers to the title and is also the beginning of the sentence. If you still disagree, please discuss your concerns on the BLP's talk page. You may also ping me. But this slow-moving edit-warring without explaining your position isn't accomplishing anything. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Jim Inhofe
Hi, AlsoWukai, Would you please explain the reason you remove this paragraph, since the Content with valid source. AbDaryaee (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, AlsoWukai,appreciate for the correction. AbDaryaee (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with a word
Hi AlsoWukai, I wonder if you would mind looking in on Multihull where another editor and I disagree on whether a word is sufficiently widely understood for use in Wikipedia. We both agree that the word is correctly used in the sentence. I'll leave it to you to find any word that you decide is amiss. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Common English usage misconceptions
Hi AlsoWukai,

You reverted my edit. Please, see the article's talk. Vikom talk 03:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your ce on misophonia
Thanks for your ce on my edit. There are a couple of points I think may be relevant to the edits.


 * In the Etymology section, the translation "strong dislike (hate) of sound" was removed & "hate of sound" was left in. I had included the former since that was the (very deliberate/specific) translation given by the Doctors who coined the term in their explanation of it:
 * "The task was to find a term which would be sufficiently general to encompass these various emotions, while specific enough to describe the situation in an adequate manner. To describe this situation we decided to use dislike of, or aversion to sound. After reviewing various Latin and Greek prefixes, and consulting with a distinguished expert in classic Greek and Latin from Cambridge University UK, we selected the term “misophonia” which translates into “ strong dislike (hate) of sound”. As such it is close to the patients’ description of their symptoms and can encompass a variety of negative emotions generated by the sounds in question."
 * So, perhaps that should be left in and the other removed?


 * The linked terms "hyperacusis" and "phonophobia" were already linked earlier in the article.

LMK what you think.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "sound-rage" was changed to "sound rage". The former is the term used in the source as well as in the infobox.
 * I reverted the last two edits you mention. But "misophonia" does literally mean hate of sound, even if the term applies to mere strong dislike. AlsoWukai (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Without any attempt to engage with the changes that had been proposed on the Talk page over three weeks ago, or improve what was there, you reverted.

Do you consider this a good way to encourage editors to improve an article?

Which part of the following aim do you disagree with? Or do you contend that the aim wasn't achieved?

"Aim was to improve legibility and accessibility whilst removing jargon, non-essential information and the barely comprehensible quote in the old second paragraph. Also to refer to scientific conclusions associated with Dunning-Kruger without actually declaring them as such. The style guide is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section" WykiP (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Presumptuous Edit?
Please refer to the discussion at: User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof. Thanks in advance, Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)  בס״ד

edit about comma
You undid the change I made to correct the Justin Amash quote from the idiot president. It said "such and such is a loser", -- comma following. Then I changed it to the comma inside the quotes. In mainstream publications, the comma is always inside the quotes. Usually dummies put the comma after the quote, like they often capitalize common nouns (as Trump does). You sound like a Trumper if you like bad grammar. It should be thusly: "Justin Amash is a loser," said Trump. Any major publication would quote it that way. If wikistyle is such as "loser", comma following it is incorrect.Jazzbox (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia style differs from mainstream publications' style on this matter. Sorry you don't like it but that's how it is.AlsoWukai (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I hafta say I found this a surprisingly pointed, personal attack on somebody over something as subjective (and honestly, in the big scheme of things, inconsequential) as a "misplaced" comma. While yes, it is most often seen as being placed inside the quotations, grammatically there are arguments for both keeping the comma within and without the quotations. A cursory Google search bears this out - therefore, I would suggest, Jazzbox, that before you go around firing off your ad hominem rocket launcher, you might want to do a bit of research. I mean, being informed is what Wikipedia is all about, right? BeepThisIsNotaTest (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I hafta say I found this a surprisingly pointed, personal attack on somebody over something as subjective (and honestly, in the big scheme of things, inconsequential) as a "misplaced" comma. While yes, it is most often seen as being placed inside the quotations, grammatically there are arguments for both keeping the comma within and without the quotations. A cursory Google search bears this out - therefore, I would suggest, Jazzbox, that before you go around firing off your ad hominem rocket launcher, you might want to do a bit of research. I mean, being informed is what Wikipedia is all about, right? BeepThisIsNotaTest (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

June, 2019: Michele Bachmann
Hello, AlsoWukai. Enormous thanks are due you for your recent edits to Michele Bachmann. Wikipedia is riddled with (and consists largely of) substandard prose. If you were a bot and could run 24/7, that would be my dream.--71.36.97.107 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!AlsoWukai (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit.Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

Unfortunately, it seems this user misunderstands the use of commas. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to join the GOCE
Hey there, I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of copy editing on Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to join the Guild of Copy Editors, a WikiProject focusing on copy editing and improving prose around Wikipedia. We aim to edit Wikipedia articles to make them clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent; to make them say what they mean and mean what they say. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about your "thank you" for edit
I've only made a few edits on Wikipedia and I've never utilized the "Talk" part of Wikipedia before now so forgive me if this is the wrong place in which to do this (and also for accidentally double-posting my response in one of your other "Talk" pages - I scrambled around trying to fix it, to no avail), but I was curious about the notification I received stating that you had "thanked" me for the edit (fixing a typo) I made to Eric Greitens' Wikipedia page. I've never seen that before and wanted to know more about it - like how did you know I'd made the edit (given the relative size of the edit's overall impact haha) and what prompted you to thank me for such an especially unglamorous edit? I know it might sound like a weird question (looking a gift notification in the mouth haha) but I guess I'm intrigued because I've made less than a dozen small edits like that and had no idea anyone could even notice, let alone that someone actually did. So don't get me wrong, I appreciate the gesture - I'd just like to learn more about it and, I guess, more about the culture of Wikipedia in turn (as I've yet to really participate in that aspect of the community). To be honest, I've probably avoided it thus far because of previous negative experiences with forums (mostly way back in the day) - in fact, I'm probably breaking some number of rules for Wikipedia talk pages right now (or, at the very least, committing a devastating faux pas). So again, let me apologize in advance if this is me riding a winged-horse named Taboo off into an active volcano with my pud out - I would appreciate your taking it easy on me if that is, indeed, the case. BeepThisIsNotaTest (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you click on "View history" at Eric Greitens or any other page, a list of every edit will appear, along with the option to compare any two versions. If you compare successive versions, the option to thank the user who made the edit will appear. I had copy-edited the page and failed to notice the mistake you fixed, so I thanked you for it! Welcome to Wikipedia. AlsoWukai (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fred Rogers
I just reverted your punctuation change to this article. As my edit summary states from the similar edits you made to the article from your other account, the punctuation was discussed on its first GAC. I also find it very interesting that you only made the edit once, when there are at least dozens of the original use. Please stop, or it'll be reported as an edit war. If you disagree with the consensus, please take it to the article's talk page, as per WP:CONS. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit you repeatedly reverted was one in which I changed "Rogers'#" to "Rogers's". I still believe the "s" was an improvement on the "#", and I'm not going to back down from that position. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your position, since both uses are grammatically correct, but as I said, the consensus is "Rogers'#". I request that you respect that, as per the also above-mentioned policy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What?? "Rogers'#" is not English. You realize that's a pound sign (octothorpe) after the apostrophe, right? AlsoWukai (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Eric Greitens Page
Please explain your reverted sourced material on Eric Greitens' page. It seems to be in direct violation of both WP:AVOIDVICTIM directly and WP:WELLKNOWN indirectly.

The woman in question did not want to have the details of the affair spread over the news. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article194480934.html This comes into direct problem with the WP:AVOIDVICTIM clause "including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced". It seems like the material you are wanting in the article creates that situation - where the graphic details of her alleged assault are put on display for the public shame of a politician. Do you believe the interest of having this information written out is beneficial? Do you believe it is harming the woman at all? Do you have a personal interest in seeing this information be kept on the page?

Indirectly this may be a matter of WP:WELLKNOWN as well. Since there was not a conclusion to the judicial matter, it may likely be best to either leave salacious text out of the article or rewrite it(simplify it) for neutrality.

I do not want to get into an edit war with you over this matter, and figure it best to settle the matter here. Lets figure this out, okay?

Best, JackL — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackL1951 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the page Bernie Sanders
Hello, I see that you have reverted my edit here on the article Bernie Sanders. While you deleted the change I made stating that his grandchildren are non-biological (along with the source I provided), I included that they were non-biological because of a clarification needed note regarding his grandchildren (you can find that here) asking whether his grandchildren are "biological or through his stepchildren?". Please elaborate a bit on the edit note you left. I did not revert your edit lest I am in the wrong. Regards, DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨  —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the page Bernie Sanders
''I see you didn't reply to my post before, so I am assuming you haven't seen it yet. If you don't reply to this one, I I'll take it as a no explanation and revert your edit on Bernie Sanders. Thanks. '' Hello, I see that you have reverted my edit here on the article Bernie Sanders. While you deleted the change I made stating that his grandchildren are non-biological (along with the source I provided), I included that they were non-biological because of a clarification needed note regarding his grandchildren (you can find that here) asking whether his grandchildren are "biological or through his stepchildren?". Please elaborate a bit on the edit note you left. I did not revert your edit lest I am in the wrong. Regards, DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨  —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Woody Allen
Hello AlsoWukai

Yua have edited/deleted my lastest two contributions. Please, let me explain why I think you are wrong.

Regarding the first contribution, the text can be read now is

"When Farrow asked Dylan about it, Dylan allegedly said that Allen had touched Dylan's "private part" while they were alone together in the attic" But that is factually wrong. As can be seen in the court ruling Dylan did not say that when she was asked, but "over the next 24 hours"

"... Ms.  Farrow  videotaped  Dylan's  statements.  Over the  next  twenty-four  hours,  Dylan told  Ms.  Farrow  that  she  had been  with  Mr.  Allen  in  the  attic  and  that  he  had  touched  her privates with his finger. "

As the same court ruling says ", the videotape compromised the sexual abuse investigation

"Her decision to videotape  Dylan's statements,  although  inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable."

And the expert hired by Mia Farrow said in the trial that

"Dr. Herman noted that it was "unfortunate"  that Mia, and not an objective  and trained  evaluator, videotaped Dylan's testimony, mainly because the way she focused on specific things could possibly "set a tone for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties of a child." In short, he said, "I don't think it helps matters, I think it complicates  matters."

This is what the expert hired by Mia Farrow herself said, nor even the conclusions of the experts of the prosecution or the experts hired by Woody Allen.

You may think that these facts should be expressed differently in wikipedia, but the current wording of the article is seriously inaccurate and gives the impression of a spontaneous Dylan testimony that did not exist.

Regarding the second one, you said : "netrality, rv original reserch" I know wikipedia does no admit (an must not admit) original research, but we are talking about testimonies that were made in the trial, that all of them have been published in books or newspapers to which everyone has access.

Regarding neutrality, I must beg your pardon, but I can not see the point. All of them are testimonies that were said at the trial and collected in the press or by the same people who did them. In what sense to say it is a lack of neutrality. I am especially struck because the wikipedia article has been years without clearly picking up that the allegation of abuse was rejected by the judge and that does not seem to have caused concerns about its neutrality. I beg your pardon if this is not the right place to ask you these questions and I hope it is possible to comment on it and reach an agreement.Tais de Atenas (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Still so grateful...
I wanted to again take a minute to tell you that I am so grateful that you come along and followup on my edits and make them sound so professional. Sometimes I am aware of how twisted my edits are but as often as not, no  more often than not, I am unable to figure out a different way to say just what my source says and after getting  edits that I worked very hard on get deleted  a few times I've grown to live in fear that I'll get that dreaded note on my talk page...so I just do the best I can. Gandydancer (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edits, apology
I had written numerous edits to a part of the Tenure section that I'd written in the Bradley Byrne article, but I hadn't gotten around to posting them. When I was doing so, I looked your edit and only noticed that you'd made a change to the election section, so thanked you and then published my post. After doing so, I realized that I'd stepped on some of your helpful edits, and went back and tried to reconcile the two versions. Please take a look and see if you think they're okay. The only part of your edits I differed with you about was my having added the adjective "effective" before Kurdish resistance. I restored the word because, given the wide audience of Wikipedia, some readers would likely not be aware that the Kurdish forces were the main actors and made the most sacrifices in rolling back ISIS. Activist (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just went back and deleted the CNN reporter sourcing in text from another story about the incident. Thanks again for the edits. Activist (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Third time's a charm?" So I went back to your Elizabeth Holtzman edit as I had updated Elise Stefanik's page as she is no longer the youngest woman to be elected to congress. I fixed that citation and then looked at the Holzman article to which it had referred. I went to thank you for you edit to the "escaped" comment that page, and after hitting "thank" and going to confirm it, I accidentally hit the "rollback" link next to it. I reverted that to restore your edit. Maybe I need to slow down or turn in my mouse. Activist (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol, no worries. AlsoWukai (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

El Segundo
I see you're not a fan of English and MOS75.111.203.5 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorabji
Hello AlsoWukai, I have created a discussion at Talk:Kaikhosru_Shapurji_Sorabji that you may be interested in contributing to. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
WikiHelper26 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell reversions
Hi, AlsoWukai. You recently removed a dating maintenance tag and restored an improper "see also" entry in this edit. Not sure why you did that, but I have reverted your changes and restored just the copyedit you made. In the future, you may want to preview edits before you accept them to make sure you are not changing unintended aspects of a page. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It appears you're using two accounts, which is fine but makes it harder to know which page to discuss. Please don't use edit summaries such as 'no'. Many of the edits were good and I have kept them. The edit I don't agree with is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_McCartney&diff=prev&oldid=959739056

The past perfect works well here as the main verb is 'moved' in the past simple, and they lived in the old place before they moved, so past perfect is correct. 'Latter' is better than 'last' as the songs aren't the last songs, but the latter three. Finally, the scriptwriter is going to be in the business of selling scripts to people, so the placement of that object works better. An egg seller 'sells eggs to the hungry', a feeder of the hungry 'sells the hungry eggs'. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It is perfectly OK to use 'which' for defining relative clauses in British English.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Keith Elliot
Hello! Yesterday I added factual information (based on reliable source) that Elliot was involved in Nation of Islam and Million Man March. You deleted this saying it is out of chronological order and already covered elsewhere in the article. But it is covered much later and much further out of chronological order. Can we have it restored please? You can place it where you think it belongs according to chronological order. I thought where I put it was close in time, but if you know better, please correct it rather than remove. - BorisG (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

George Shultz
I can understand that you removed my categorization of Schulz's recent talk as "remarkably clear-sighted," since it is not neutral and not sourced, but listen to the talk; it really is clear-sighted. I unsucessfully tried to find a mention or review of the talk that could be cited. Any suggestions? B.T.W., I am not a Hoover Institution fan, but do like to get different points of view (and have admiration for Schulz - what a difference with our present SecState!), so I listened to this talk. Stephengeis (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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: 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) 03:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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:. Mz7 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

copy edit please
Wukai, it would mean so much to me if you would do a copy edit on my very first article. The refs are all OK, it just needs to be polished, which you do so well. It is here:  Gandydancer (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you did it again and possibly even better than ever. Editor North8000 helped me thorough this and wrote the lead as well.  North reviews for GAs and FAs.  As I read through all your improvements my head was literally moving from side to side in utter amazement as I saw how you turned it from amateur to professional writing.  I can't write but I'm not one bit dumb and I was truly amazed with what you did with the article.  You can see my comment on the talk page and North's as well.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Block notice
I have blocked this account indefinitely. You state on your user page that you are the user and that you created this account because For unknown reasons I am no longer able to log into that account on my desktop or laptop. This is clearly false because you have continued to edit actively using the Wukai account. Editing with multiple accounts without good reason is undesirable because it splits your editing history and makes it more difficult for fellow editors to scrutinize your editing. This is especially important because you have active editing restrictions on your Wukai account, and you used this account to evade those restrictions. Editors other than me have previously complained to you about your use of multiple accounts, see. If you have a legitimate reason for using multiple accounts, you'll need to disclose it here if you want to continue doing so. Mz7 (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized I may have misconstrued your statement on your user page. I thought you were trying to say you were locked out of the Wukai account completely, but it seems it may be the case that you are only locked out on your desktop and laptop. You have, however, continued to use that account on your phone, it seems. Please try again to log into the Wukai account on your computer. If it doesn't work, I would be willing to unblock this account if you agree to stick to just this account moving forward. Mz7 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your editing restriction on Lee Zeldin (Special:Diff/981769599), you have been blocked temporarily from editing. 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:. 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.  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." I originally blocked this account indefinitely because I misunderstood the reasons why you were using multiple accounts. I had found it quite tedious to have to block two accounts in order to enforce the editing restriction that I placed on you last month regarding the Lee Zeldin article. However, after further review, I now believe it was unreasonable to block this account indefinitely—you had previously acknowledged your use of multiple accounts here. I apologize for this error, and I have amended your block to match the one I recently placed on your Wukai account. Please do not edit the Lee Zeldin article again without attempting to seek consensus on the talk page first; you were initially restricted from that article as a result of your long history of edit warring on that article. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Lange
Hello AlsoWukai,

Just wanted to send you a big thank you for the editing and cleaning up you've been doing on Lange's Wiki. I like and more importantly, respect the work you have done. Also, keep an eye out for vandals on the page. There are a few questionable editors who come on, usually via random IPs, and purposefully add misinformation and dead links. Just an FYI. Once again, thanks for your contribution.

Carly Marshall (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib
I really don’t see the point in reverting my edits to this article, which were improving the grammar. Starting a sentence with “but” is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s house style. The extra comma just helps with readability. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please cite your source for your claim that starting a sentence with “but” is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s house style. I believe that is a misconception, as documented at Common_English_usage_misconceptions.AlsoWukai (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, the reversion itself was unnecessary, IMO. See “Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary “Bad reasons to revert”: “For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.” Moreover, see the section “Explain reverts”: “What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.” My edit did not make the article worse, and you didn’t provide any reason for your reversion. This is also something on which others have previously disagreed with you about. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/807261121&type=revision It may not actually be part of the Wikipedia manual of style, but in my experience, it’s far more common to find articles here in which sentences are not started with “but”. It sounds too informal to me, or more like journalism, rather than a historical record. Wikipedia falls into the latter category, I would say. I’ve undone your reversion, and feel it should be left as it is for now. TrottieTrue (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're needlessly insisting on fancy over plain (not "informal") language. "There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as 'and', 'but', or 'so'. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice" (Common_English_usage_misconceptions). Wukai (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There’s no need to be rude (I’ve noticed your abrasive edit descriptions). You’re missing the point. It’s not that it’s incorrect, it’s that it doesn’t fit the tone of Wikipedia. It’s unhelpful to revert the edit yet again using your old profile. I refer you to Revert only when necessary. My edits doesn’t actually make the article worse - therefore, there’s no need to revert. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your sense of the "tone of Wikipedia" seems to be nothing more than a misguided aversion to beginning sentences with conjunctions. Please get over it. Wukai (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--TrottieTrue (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to 2020 United States Senate elections does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seemed self-evident that the word "being" was superfluous. I don't understand why it keeps getting restored. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "...Democrats underperformed, failing to flip several seats in races that were considered competitive, with their only gains (...) in Arizona and Colorado..."? How exactly does that sound right? Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it sound wrong? AlsoWukai (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gretchen Whitmer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You have already been recently warned about not using proper edit summaries. You have repeatedly removed qualifications from the subsection title, and repeatedly changed verb tenses to make it appear that a mere resolution introduction during a lame duck legislative adjournment has a lasting legal effect, contrary to multiple editors, and discussion on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Allen Simpson (talk • contribs)

Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
Just a note of thanks for your editing assistance -- it is appreciated. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
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: 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. The page to which I am referring (in case it is not obvious) is the Werner Erhard article. DaveApter (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Removal of doctor title on doctors
Hello. You removed the "Dr." title on the doctors that are on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra#Notable_people. Could you please tell me why? --Mark v1.0 (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the also Wukai did so well:
 * Dr. Full_Name is a popular pretension arising perhaps only in ignorance that has no proper place anywhere on an envelope, a business card — or in a list.
 * Dr. Last_Name is proper, as a form of address in any context — including your note on the back of her business card.
 * ~ Wordsmith (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2021
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your CE
I like your way with words. Thanks for the edits. Mcb133aco (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We are trying to get peer reviewed science on this page; why are you fighting us?
Several of us, including a 40 year public health professional in Gainesville with 20 years of experience in coronavirus management, starting with SARS in 2003, MERS in 2015, and now COVID-19, are trying to get peer reviewed science on this page; why are you fighting us?

We notice in your latest edit, you claimed that Florida had become a "global epicenter" for the pandemic. This false, unsubstantiated, and does severe damage both to public health, and the reputation of Wikipedia. You are killing real people by spreading misinformation about the Florida experience with the pandemic. Are you aware of this? Or do you think that it is OK to kill people just so you have have your political biases reflected on Wikipedia?

Here are the facts:

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide began a program of peer-reviewed research to assess the value of different public health measures taken to manage the pandemic. This was challenging because CoVID-19 virus behaved in many ways differently from previously seen coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses that caused SARS 2003 and MERS. Especially important for its facile transmission was the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have an especially high risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death.

Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, while much of the rest of the economy remained open. What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of what policies best improved public health outcomes.

Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns create other medical problems, especially in mental health. This required that as the pandemic progressed, each jurisdiction made guesses about how to proceed, with those guesses becoming increasingly informed as the world-wide efforts were comparatively evaluated.

In Florida, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected by restricting visitors, and ensuring that no individual hospitalized with COVID was released back to such a facility. More broadly, DeSantis chose to minimize lockdowns, stating that his goal was to balance economic damage, direct medical damage, and collateral medical damage.

As of March 2021, Florida strategy can be evaluated, especially in comparison with medical and economic outcomes in states that chose alternative pandemic management strategies. First, Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as the Washington Post had predicted in July 2020. On the contrary, as of March 2021, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida (8734/100,000) was quite similar to other large states where lockdowns had been aggressively pursued, including California (8805/100,000) and New York (8337/100,000). Further, the number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). As Florida ranks second (after Maine) in its proportion of elderly, and as elderly individuals proved to be the most susceptible to severe disease and death, this performance is noteworthy.

These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, they suggested that lockdowns did not have large impact on public health outcomes.

Florida's strategy can also now be evaluated based on economic, educational, and other non-medical metrics. For example, Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%. As of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate. .

Scientific analyses also remarked on the degree to which pandemic response policies were politicized. This also did not occur with previous pandemics and pandemic threats. Most major news outlets did not endorse DeSantis in his election campaign, and several wrote "news" pieces criticizing his policy that made transparently false allegations. . Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", the Brookings Institute remarked on "partisan gaps", including politically motivated pieces that assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "scientifically correct" response to the pandemic, "even though they reflected … distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute also noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level."

Indeed, because of his policy disfavoring lockdowns, DeSantis was the target of much criticism from sources that opposed him politically on other matters, including the Sun Sentinel and the Washington Post. In many of these, the science and data that motivated the DeSantis policies were not mentioned. Instead, the attacks claimed that DeSantis was not relying on science and data in guiding Florida's pandemic response, and that DeStantis got his pandemic response advice from sportscasters, family members, and discredited experts for pandemic management advice. For example, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Uh
... Why may we not – all the way up to ninety-nine? --Oblio4 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers AlsoWukai (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please look again [at the MOS], and I'll rephrase ... --Oblio4 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We may use words rather than numerals, but why would we? It takes up so much more space. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Shooting of Breonna Taylor. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. ''There's an ongoing discussion at its talk page. You are expected to reach a consensus there.'' —Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi AlsoWukai! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Shooting of Breonna Taylor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bagumba. The edit in question did not change the meaning of the sentence. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021, Anna Eshoo Edits
Dear AlsoWukai, Thank you for fixing my additions to Anna Eshoo's page. I didn't realize I made so many spelling and grammar errors and I appreciate you refining the information that I added. -NEC
 * You're welcome! AlsoWukai (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Judge edits
I was going to post a huge number of edits to a section of the ABJ article when I got attacked by a virus attempt. I tried to send the edits from my laptop to my PC without downloading the virus, just to preserve the edits, but that didn't work. I ran scans on both computers to make sure there wasn't a problem. I called a friend who is a computer geek and got advice from him, and finally returned to the article, and found you'd made edits to the article section that I'd been working on. I'm going to revert your edits, as it would probably take hours to integrate what I'd done with what you'd done. I don't think I had any serious problems with your edits, but I don't have the time to sort through anything with that complexity. After I do that I'll try to go back and restore your edits unless you want to just do and/or redo what you feel should be changed in my intended version. Let me know. There's probably some text in my revised version that wasn't part of your intended changes that you want to change or discuss. I hope that's okay with you. Activist (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to argue over the use of "However," vs. "But." I figured I should be on solid ground, though, so looked it up and found a cite that said "But" was okay, maybe preferential. It sounded very authoritative.  So I copied that to your talk page in blockquotes with an apology, and hit "publish" and got a "conflict," message. So I tried to repeat what I'd left, and used a different search term, I guess, that produced a different opinion, that "However," was better."We use ‘but’ and ‘however’ very often in the English language to express an exception.  The two words are similar.  It is important to remember that ‘but’ is a conjunction, so it joins two sentences.  It is incorrect to begin a sentence with ‘but’.  “However” is an adverb.  You can begin a sentence with ‘however’.  When we begin a sentence with “however”, it is followed by a comma."

...and from the alternate universe, found it... ‘And’ and ‘but’ Why it’s okay to start a sentence with a conjunction ‘You can’t start a sentence with “and” or “but”!’ Heard this before and thought it wasn’t quite right? We agree. And so does any grammar guide—they all say it’s absolutely fine. (See what we did there?) Here’s all the evidence you need to prove them wrong: ‘And the idea that and must not begin a sentence, or even a paragraph, is an empty superstition. The same goes for but. Indeed either word can give unimprovably early warning of the sort of thing that is to follow.’ Kingsley Amis, The King’s English (1997) So it would be hard to argue that either was incorrect, I guess. So you can change it if you like. I'll get back at making those other changes. Activist (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend Common_English_usage_misconceptions!
 * I reread the "Twitter" comment I think my phrasing is better. Let me know if you differ. Can you think of any other way the article can be improved?  Thanks. Activist (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Vnosm (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stewart Goodyear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santana. 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) 06:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverting referenced texts with no explanation
You currently appear to be engaged in multiple incidents of edit war without actual contribution, and the same pattern traces back to the account setup in 2018; that means that you have reverted hundreds of entries including their quoting references to how you would like it to be without leaving an explanation in the summary title nor in the discussion section, sometimes up to dozens a day. 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: If you find an editing dispute, please use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can also 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. - Mickie-Mickie (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

"Saying" vs. "stating"
Just curious, why do you insist on changing every instance of the word "stating" to "saying" instead. Is there some reason it is grammatically incorrect or is it just a personal preference?--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ungrammatical about "stating", but it is needlessly stilted.AlsoWukai (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Amen
 * ~ Wordsmith (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, was just wondering. "Stating" sounds more natural to me in most situations but I don't really feel strongly about it so if you change it I wouldn't normally have a problem with it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mankato
When you have a moment would you look at the last delete on Mankato. You have edited on Wikipedia more than I and I am curious what you think. Thank you for your time and trouble. Mcb133aco (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
Do not WP:EDIT WAR. If you make a change, and another editor disagrees, do not just go back and make the same change. Instead, if you wish to press the point, go to the Talk page and start a discussion per WP:BRD, to see if you can gather a WP:CONSENSUS for your change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Gary Locke
I've started a discussion on Talk:Gary Locke to try to end the edit war going on between you and Maggiccat. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pinchas Zukerman. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You are absolutely right. The same thing happened with me. Bergmanfan123 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Settling disagreement
Why did you remove information added by me. It was 100% correct and was taken from Entertainment weekly and premiere magazine. Do you still see something is wrong? If yes I'm ready to correct it. If you don't have any problem then what do you think about adding the review of Liv ullmann's performance from entertainment weekly? As she got praised too and that should be added. Bergmanfan123 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your revised version is acceptable. AlsoWukai (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay so I'll revise it. Bergmanfan123 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

2000 election
Why the revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_United_States_presidential_election&diff=next&oldid=1036202546&diffmode=source may I ask? I figured if it referenced that election, may as well add a link to it Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 04:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC). Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 04:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seemed obvious that 2000 – 112 = 1888. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is to provide a link to the article. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 09:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

S.D.
Thanks for all your helpful edits on the Noem article and on so many others. I am restoring the reference to Ravnsborg, as "Republican," as I think it may assist casual readers of the article. Rather than have them possibly assume or wonder if the friction between the two is mainly politically partisan, it would save them looking it up, and is clearly more personal. I also looked him up, and there's a link to the 911 call he made, after killing Boever, and he identified himself to the operator. I had no idea of the correct pronunciation of his name, but it sounds like he pronounces it soft "R" and the "avns" as "ow-nz," a Danish surname and place name. Activist (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Mikado. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus on Talk pages, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please use the Talk page and stop this behavior.

Points to note: 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. You have been warned about edit warring numerous times. If you continue to engage in edit wars, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Birthday
Ummm, why has his birthday always been listed as December 1st (as it remains EVERYWHERE ELSE but here)? Were editors privy to some sort of secret birth record? This was kind of shocking to me. 104.174.113.48 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ely, Minn article
Hi there, as usual I'm blown away by your seemingly effortless efforts as you turn average copy into professional-looking wp article pages. I try to follow your lead when I do my edits but it still does not turn out very well. Thanks for watching over Twin Metals and I am wondering if you would ever have time to look at the Ely, Minnesota article. Best, Gandydancer Sectionworker (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of Nancy Mace article
You reverted my recent edit to the Nancy Mace article that added the year to the date in text. WP:DATE recommends including the year with the month and day for clarity for dates in Wikipedia articles. Although I understand your reasoning that the date in question is under a 2018 heading, if someone were to copy the sentence without the year and use it somewhere else, the date would be ambiguous. That is precisely why WP:DATE recommends including the year with dates. Yes, the year may be redundant in this case, but there is a legitimate reason for including it. Please note that much Wikipedia text is copied into High School and College papers (appropriately cited). I decline to get in a possible edit war. Would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You will find countless cases like this, including in the Elections section of most Congresspeople's pages. When a series of events during a single year is recounted, the year is not included with every date. To do so would be redundant and tiresome. I am not worried about high school or college students writing that Mace won the "November 6 general election." It should be obvious to them that the year of that election must be specified. If it is not, they deserve a lower grade. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Madison Cawthorn
I'm not sure which is better. I see that Wikipedia is not specifically saying it can't be done, but I just think it looks better. We'll leave it up to others, I guess.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
Hi, I see you reverted my change. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Ventura&oldid=prev&diff=1063485446) By his own admission, and by definition he is not a career politician, so I believe it should be statesman.
 * "Politician" doesn't mean career politician. Having served as a mayor and a governor, Ventura is (or has been) a politician by definition. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Duluth article
Wukai, when you have time could you look over the "Duluth Superior Sea Port" section that I just added. For one thing, as bad as I've always been at doing good phrasing I am now shaking in my boots because I have been told by the woman who seems to be our chief copy police person that if I have one more copy vio I will be barred from posting. (I don't think that six notices in fifteen years is so bad for all the very difficult articles that I've worked on.) Plus, in the editing for this new section I learned some new stuff, like about Lakers and Salties, and other  things, so  it was some fun and I hope I made it understandable. Sectionworker (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hermann Bahr
Hello AlsoWukai, I noticed that you deleted all of the contributions I made to English Hermann Bahr article.

You remarked that my contribution was "unencyclopedic, often unsourced original research" so you deleted the all of my text passages. I actually translated sections from the [|German Hermann Bahr Wikipedia article] so I didn't do "unsourced original research". Would you be okay with me putting my contributions back into the article and references, among them English ones and the German sister article of course? I would also post on the article's talk page, that it's a direct translation from the German sister article.

Looking forward to your feedback! HopingToSoundSmart (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Talkie commie?
Really? Who knew?


 * I prefer not to use wikimail. I made the edit you asked about because it is nonstandard and unencyclopedic for us to classify elected officials in subjective terms like "progressive" and "centrist." I know you gave sources in which the officials in question were so labeled, but that does not make the subjective terms sufficiently neutral to be encyclopedic. Perhaps something like "X saw Y's working with J and K as a rare example of cooperation between progressives and centrists" would achieve your aims. I would not object to that. AlsoWukai (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ellipses
Please don't remove non-breaking spaces before ellipses. They are there deliberately to prevent line breaking per MOS:ELLIPSES. DrKay (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Marco Rubio
I don't like to undo undos, but that's an independent clause following the conjunction and requires a comma. It's pedantic grammar policing, but grammar's what I know, so that my main contribution to the Pedia. Huskerdru (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have come up with an ingenious solution. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me 👍 Huskerdru (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Kathy Hochul
Hello, I saw that you reverted my edit on Kathy Hochul. I just wanted to say that the edit wasn’t original research. I simply rewrote it to make it sound better. If I am wrong, I am sorry, I don’t really know what original research is. You should tell me what it is on my talk page. Anyways, please try to review the edit I made again and let me know about what your verdict is. Cheers! BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit contained a list of facts about Hochul. Some were unsourced, which means they were presumably facts you had discovered yourself ("original research"). Beyond that, some were too trivial to be worth mentioning. If you would like to mention the more significant of these facts, feel free to try again, but be sure to include sources. AlsoWukai (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I have no problem doing that. I didn't come up with this myself, it was on there before, but I changed it up a bit and separated the facts, so as to make it look less cluttered. These are historic feats that haven't been accomplished in almost a century, I just want you to know that. Anyways. I'll try again and fix it with the proper sources. Thank you, and have a great weekend!BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Kottabos / TCD
Dear Friend,

you removed my edit on Trinity College Dublin, with the summary that it was superfluous. Can you please explain that? As you can read in the article on Kottabos, where I'm working on right now, this is sometimes seen as "perhaps the cream of Irish academic wit and scholarship." The magazine existed for many years and had many important contributors. Apart from that I think it is a bit unfriendly (to say the least) to remove an edit of an other Wikipedian, who tries to advance the quality of the encyclopedia (and who wants to give some historic backgrounds) for many years already, without any notice or message. It does not help to create a good working climate. It would be great if you could apologize for that. Many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Hedberg
Why did you twice revert the changes I made to the Mitch Hedberg page? Are his widow and his friend not considered reliable sources: https://workingitout.libsyn.com/67-lynn-shawcroft-how-mitch-hedberg-wrote-jokes

The article that is referenced to back up the claim that Mitch had stage fright does NOT even mention stage fright or fear: https://www.popmatters.com/in-memoriam-mitch-hedberg-2496156399.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahnach (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on Katzenberger Trial
I sent a “thanks” to you for your last reversion by mistake, so I thought I’d write here to note it - I certainly did not want to thank you for that edit. It is inaccurate to state that the edit warring was started by me on 25 May. I was improving the Katzenberger Trial article with that edit: you then proceeded to start reverting these changes back to how it was when you introduced the sentences starting with “but” (which weren’t in the article before). We’ve been through this issue in the past, when you’ve previously started edit warring with me over it. I acknowledge that starting sentences with conjunctions such as “and” and “but” may indeed be correct grammar usage, but that is not the final word on Wikipedia. Quite simply, it doesn’t sound right when used on an encyclopaedia, and it’s unusual, in my experience, to find high-quality articles here which do so. Recent featured articles use “however” to start sentences, not the “but” which you inserted. This style makes it read like journalism, not an encyclopaedia. Moreover, two other users have reverted your changes on this article, only for you to continually revert it. This is edit warring, which you’ve been warned about before. There is no consensus for the article to keep your grammatical changes, so please stop this reverting. It suggests that you can only accept your version of the article. That isn’t how Wikipedia works. Thank you. TrottieTrue (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You just assert that "quite simply, it doesn't sound right" to start sentences with conjunctions, claiming that to do so is journalistic, not encyclopedic. Mere assertion is not evidence. I pointed to Common_English_usage_misconceptions, which quotes the Chicago Manual of Style noting that "a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions." Is first-rate writing not encyclopedic? As far as I can tell, you're taking a personal preference for fancy language ("however" over the plain "but") and making it an unsupported value judgment. That is distasteful. Please accept my version and stop insisting on pompous phraseology that has no advantage. AlsoWukai (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Why should I accept your version? Two other editors have reverted it back, so there is no consensus for your version. You might find it “pompous”, but that is how Wikipedia articles are normally written. Encyclopaedias have their own style. It isn’t the norm for Wikipedia to have sentences starting with conjunctions. It doesn’t sound professional for an encyclopaedia to use the more informal “but” to start a sentence - the same goes for “and”. You might find “however” more “fancy”, but Wikipedia has far more of the latter. It isn’t “distasteful” at all. Please accept what others have done to the article and stop insisting on “your” version.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You should accept my version because the Chicago Manual of Style says your objection to it has "no historical or grammatical foundation", Garner's Modern American Usage calls your objection "rank superstition", and Fowler's says your objection has "no foundation". In response to these experts, you claim without evidence that my version "doesn't sound professional" and isn't "how Wikipedia articles are normally written." There is just no contest here. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

About my edits..
About my edits on the Viterbo and Waldorf universities articles: a.) What is your problem? b.) Why did you revert them? I was properly doing based on my ability on how each school's sub-sections were expressed in case they don't have its proper article for their athletic teams. jlog3000 (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "I was properly doing based on my ability on how each school's sub-sections were expressed in case they don't have its proper article for their athletic teams" is unintelligible.AlsoWukai (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? Lemme be. jlog3000 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Journalistic integrity
While I applaud your skill in highlighting mostly good information, I think your Murdoch approach to truth from time to time discredits you. By no means am I a fan of the fringe maniac Marjorie Taylor Greene, but making claims about what she said with a citation she said something and that does not actually detail what she indeed said is loose at best. Dont hate your reputation away. 2603:8000:3300:C985:30C2:1849:B33C:96EB (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're referring to. I think you think I contributed something I didn't.AlsoWukai (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert
Hi AlsoWukai,

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edits to the Lauren Boebert article. I changed the terminology as it "Gender Affirming Treatment" is not terminology which is used in the respective article on Wikipedia, that terminology is "Sex reassignment surgery". As "Sex reassignment" is more commonly used than "Gender affirming", and is used far more often in an official medical sense, as well as the terminology Lauren Boebert herself uses, I cannot see why the edit was reverted. Perhaps you could shed some light on your reasoning.

Thanks, Bunkshield (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My reasoning was that "sex-reassignment" is a somewhat outdated term, with "gender-affirming" preferred by those who undergo it. But I take your point about the title of the Wikipedia article, and no longer object to your edit. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your understanding. I'll restore the article to my version if it has not been restored already. Bunkshield (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion closed. See below.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverts
Please don't revert without a proper explanation, as you did here and here. In addition, it seems like these edits were retaliation for the ANI thread that User:TrottieTrue started; please don't give us the impression that this is the kind of editing you engage in. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Terms
Not trying to be argumentative, but there's nothing wrong with listing how many terms one has served in office, years are fine, but the years are accumulated differently in different parts of the government.

Serving 8 years in the House means 4 terms, 8 years in the Senate means you're in the early part of your second term, and 8 years as POTUS = 2 full terms.

So listing the terms gives perspective, which is why they should be noted.

Vjmlhds 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Vjmlhds 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hyphens
On the page Suicide of Amanda Todd, you reverted my edit so that it says "15-year-old Canadian student". The hyphens are not correct in this case. Ages are hyphenated to indicate the phrase as a noun. So if a "15-year-old" is the subject of the sentence, that's correct. However, the noun/subject in that sentence is "student" and "15 year old Canadian" are modifiers of the subject. 19:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Kirby777 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Edited for typo. Kirby777 (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, "15-year-old" is also hyphenated as an adjective. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, I looked it up on a WP page, and I see it's okay either way as long as it's not in the predicate of the sentence. My apologies.  I'll undo it, if  you haven't already done so. Kirby777 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ro Khanna
On this wikipedia entry, you removed biographical background information regarding the subject's father-in-law. The information was salient and was properly sourced. I am curious what was wrong with that information, and what the best way to go about putting the information back up in a respectful way? Yamazaki442 (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think a lot of detail about his father-in-law's activities is appropriate for Khanna's page. It would be if those activities affected Khanna, but there is no indication that that is the case. AlsoWukai (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Ro Khanna's father-in-law didn't make his money as a head of an investment firm. His money came from starting a business as an entrepreneur as opposed to being a hedge fund manager. His principal money for the investment firm came from founding Transtar. If we can't put that fact into the page, perhaps it would be more appropriate to not mention his father-in-law at all? But we mention him, it is important that the information be accurate. If not we should just take out the reference of him altogether. What do you think the best course of action for this is? Please let me know and I can update the page. Thank you very much for this engagement! It is very much appreciated. Yamazaki442 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says nothing about how Khanna's father-in-law "made his money". It simply gives his occupation. That is not inaccurate or misleading. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this help -- really appreciate you taking the time to explain. I have found a few articles that expand upon Mr. Ahuja's career and how he founded Transtar right after graduate school, and will revise the section to note the facts without editorializing and will cite sources, and will keep the section very brief. Thank you so much again! Yamazaki442 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Goodbye to Language
The reason I partially put it back (and the reason it was first included in the article) is its relevancy to the film. If you read the Godard quote in the Plot section, Roxy is meant to help the two couples communicate when words are no longer useful. Now admittedly I never got that from viewing the film myself, but Roxy's presence in the film is meaningful. And I believe including the content that Godard and Melville were no longer living together but still a couple is important if slightly confusing in regards to what we know about his biography. Perhaps he was merely being poetic in the interview and the journalist took him literally, I don't know.

So I do see the hint of a problem in the content, but I think its important because it enhances the meaning of the film. I think its his love letter to Melville. But I leave it up to you. 97.113.237.45 (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein
This article is under a 1RR restriction. I've self-reverted my 2RR edit, but you still have a 2RR edit, whidh is a violation of the 1RR restriction. I suggest you self-revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles
Hi! Just a heads up that I reverted some copyedits you made to this article since some of them completely changed the meaning of certain sentences and made some others feel a tad too terse. No pressure as most of them were helpful with straightening prose ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍  ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 04:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Why did you revert this edit of mine? –Fpmfpm (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Unsourced. AlsoWukai (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The film is mentioned as a notable example of it on Slow cinema. As such, it's appropriate to mention that on the film's page as well, as it's one of its defining qualities. –Fpmfpm (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some more examples of it being cited as an example of this genre all over the web: 1, 2, 3, 4. –Fpmfpm (talk) Fpmfpm (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why did you revert, here, my edit to the Deb Haaland article? "November 3 general election" is not terribly grammatical. If it is important enough to mention that an opponent ran in a previous election (against someone else), isn't that she lost that election important enough to mention? --Bejnar (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that someone ran in an election without identifying them as the winner implies that they lost. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an unthinkable assumption, but gives some of our readers more credit than Wikipedia clarity guidelines usually do. Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language and structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting. I will fix the grammar issue again. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you not like the grammar correction? Cardinal numbers indicate an amount — how many of something we have: one, two, three, four, five. Ordinal numbers indicate position in a series: first, second, third, fourth, fifth. --Bejnar (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dates are an exception to that rule. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When written as a date that is true, but when used in a sentence the rule applies. Thus,"On 3 January, the marshal shot McCallister." The sentence in the Deb Haaland article is currently ungrammatical. The "November 3" is used as an adjective to specify a specific election, it is not used as a noun. A specific date, or a range of time, is a noun. A number is just a number.  --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this rule? Most articles here violate it. AlsoWukai (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

*See, for example, Garner's Modern American Usage (2009) page 226. But, see here. --Bejnar (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That page of Garner doesn't address this particular usage at all. And grammarphobia discusses only giving dates in speech, not in writing. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit War Warning (to add to your collection) on "James Comer (politician)"
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on "James Comer (politician)". This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

User:AlsoWukai -- you've now deleted and simply re-reverted a section of this article - which is non-trivial, newsworthy, properly cited and reasonably written. You've not provided tags (e.g. NPOV or other WP:(violation)), or comments as to your decision to just erase the section. I'm going to revert your reversion, which I believe was without merit, and was done without explanation or justification. I'm not an expert WP user, but I understand we're getting close to a "bright line" of the 3-reversion WP edit war rule, here, if you just re-revert it with no comment, again. Please provide justification/explanation for deleting the entire section, rather than simply deleting it - and at this point just saying "it's NPOV" or some bald assertion without explanation as a CYA is not enough - I'm happy to throw good time after bad figuring out how to get a human moderator involved and taking a close look at your behavior if that happens.

Again: I'm not a super-experienced WP user on these things, so I hope I'm doing it the right way, and invite any moderators to consider that. I also note, AlsoWukai, that you've got rather a string of revert-war complaints above, so...while that's not "direct evidence" here, it's certainly a pattern for you that is hard for me, and others (ahem) not to notice. So: please, stop, and either make a positive constructive contribution, or go find some other page to troll. A Doon (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Calling an edit "reasonably written" does not make it so. The burden is on the person who makes the edits that violate WP:SYNTH to defend them. Until such a case is made on the article's talk page, the status quo ante shall stand. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude - I'm totally done dealing with you. You've got TWO *current* edit war warnings - this one and one on Josh Hawley (below) - that's a PATTERN. And looking over your 14-year history, the word "revert" comes up - a LOT. You're just....yeah, I'm gonna ad hominem, here: WP:TOXIC. And I'm not gonna bother with you. You go ahead and spend your 3AM hours tussling with people over tags and whether you're righteous; I'm gonna go do actual work out in the world that's rewarding, vs. fighting some troll-boy to get a paragraph on a bad politician accepted back in. I'm done - and if I sound fed up - yup, you "won". And even more to the point - I'm kinda done bothering helping/editing WP (and I've been a donor, too) - that's what folks like you do to well-meaning people who want to help - then just effing give up after being abused enough times. G'bye. A Doon (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Josh Hawley. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Josh Hawley) for a period of 1 week 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:. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you previously warned this user (under his old "Wukai" account) about warring, as well as using multiple accounts (apparently "Wukai" was deleted). He seems to have a LENGTHY history of .... colorful ....WP behavior besides that: many, many complaints of edit warring; at least probably a couple-dozen auto-generated warnings for adding spurious "disambiguation" links that are obviously "topic-trolling", and far, far more. Look: it's pretty obvious if one goes through the Wukai and AlsoWukai Talk pages (and his revert-war record) that this guy has a personal agenda and a long track record of bad behavior. There are WP contribs who people LOVE -- then there are people who have a 12 year record notable for complaints about x:RR, warnings, and a canceled account. This guy needs some high-up attention, beyond YET another warning or even block, imho - but what do I know (and sorry for this probably being the wrong way to go about it - I'm not a WP pro.) Thanks - AbDo A Doon (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Public city
I have a question on Talk:Folly Beach, South Carolina. 2601:640:4000:3170:0:0:0:F6D3 (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
See WP:AN/3RR. (talk) CastJared (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Refrain from vandalism
I undid your edit on Noam Chomsky. Cease your vandalism.

Silver163 (talk) Silver163 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLE & MOS:CAPS on Barry Loudermilk
Hi AlsoWukai,

I restored edits you changed on Barry Loudermilk. Please review MOS:JOBTITLE & MOS:CAPS. X4n6 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Biden
I'm not trying to argue with you, but it isn't trivia to point out someone holding political office for 50 years or more.

Trivia is something insignificant like "On June 8, 1978, Biden had a steak for dinner".

Having a political career spanning into its 6th decade is hardly trivial.

Vjmlhds 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. ElKevbo (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

The -
Hey, re-elected has a hyphen in it. Look it up if you don't believe me WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have. You're wrong. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Some words you might use in postelection coverage: runoff, recount, re-elect. We follow our primary dictionary. The hyphen (-) is a mark that joins words or parts of words and is placed directly between letters and with no spaces. Literally these are from the first 2 articles that pop up WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Citation needed. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.polyas.com/election-glossary/re-election

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/re-elected

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/re-elect WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reelect
 * https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reelect
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/reelect
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reelect AlsoWukai (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so they're both correct. So can we just stop this edit war that's been going on? WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Molly Crabapple
Hi. Regarding this edit and your revert of it, what is the rationale for your revert? Do we know that the portion of the quote added by that IP editor is not in the cited source? Since it's a book I wad considering purchasing a copy to verify this. Do you have one? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

dell rapids
why did you get rid of the sports accomplishments of our town on the wikipedia page? 2600:1014:B1E2:A762:B012:1EE:7255:A21A (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question was unsourced and does not belong in the lead paragraph.AlsoWukai (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:%
I see this is not the first time someone has left a note on your talk page about edits you make that are contrary to the MOS on a small issue.

I know that this is the opposite of what Chicago and APA say, but it's our style. Please follow it ... you do a good job copyediting otherwise Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That "'percent' is commonly used" does not mean that "%" is incorrect. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording of the policy notwithstanding, the word is much easier for readers with less-than-ideal vision than the sign (the same reason we now prefer the frac template and have deprecated the ASCII fraction characters). Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You really just hate hyphens, don't you?
Anyways, here's my proof

2022 Alabama gubernatorial election

2022 Michigan gubernatorial election

2022 Wisconsin gubernatorial election

2022 Minnesota gubernatorial election

2022 Ohio gubernatorial election

2022 Iowa gubernatorial election

2022 California gubernatorial election

2022 Colorado gubernatorial election

2018 South Dakota gubernatorial election

2022 Oklahoma gubernatorial election

2022 Idaho gubernatorial election

2022 Georgia gubernatorial election

2022 South Carolina gubernatorial election

2022 Alabama gubernatorial election

2022 Texas gubernatorial election

2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election

2022 Alaska gubernatorial election

2022 New Hampshire gubernatorial election

2022 Maine gubernatorial election

2018 New York gubernatorial election

2020 Washington gubernatorial election

2020 North Carolina gubernatorial election

2022 Kansas gubernatorial election

2019 Louisiana gubernatorial election

2014 California gubernatorial election

2018 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election

2020 United States Senate election in Texas

2014 Georgia gubernatorial election

2014 Tennessee gubernatorial election

2018 Nebraska gubernatorial election

There are so many more articles, too. Keep in mind that the Senate and congressional articles are the same as well. So now knowing this, will you stop reverting my edit with the hyphen ONLY on the 2022 Tennessee gubernatorial election please? I won't be responding until tomorrow because it's getting late WikiFazBear1984 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (play)
Hello! Thinking I'm doing something welcome, and in a spirit of collaboration, I inform you that I asked for an opinion on your criticisms (without mentioning you) of my recent changes, on the Talk page of the article. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2845 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My goodness, thank you for noticing! AlsoWukai (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Before before before
Hi, would you mind if I revert this edit of yours? I try to accept your edits, generally speaking, but this one creates a paragraph in which three consecutive sentences begin with the word “before” which does not seem like good writing to me.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

GLENN GOULD
You undid my edit in the first paragraph of this article, describing it as "puffery." I don't know who you are, but I believe that my language is clearer than yours, in conveying the independence of voices, for which Gould was greatly admired. I have no interest in getting involved in an edit war, so I will not attempt to undo your silly reversion. This is why I edit Wikipedia so rarely; there is almost always someone who thinks that he knows better and maintains a proprietary attitude to an article, insisting on preventing improvements. Calling my language "puffery" and restoring unclear language only hurts future readers of the article. 207.96.123.119 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

KOSA
Not sure if it is, but at any rate it needs mentioning considering he's a co-signer, no? So, can you possibly add something on it? 92.21.83.108 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
@AlsoWukai Thank you for your attentive copyedits to my writing on the article for Clarence Thomas. No matter how much I revise and rewrite my work, a better way to phrase a sentence will always escape me. Your copyedits have certainly helped illuminate that ideal. GuardianH (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Arleen McCarty Hynes
First of all, I'm grateful to you and to any editor who volunteers time on Wikipedia. It's only good because of people like you. However, I wonder if you would reconsider your deletion of my mention of Arleen McCarty Hynes on the J. F. Powers page. You wrote that she wasn't notable, probably because someone nominated her for deletion. However, there was a lively debate after that, and group consensus concluded that she is indeed notable. The discussion is at the link below. I won't undo your edit at this time, because I want to keep my own record clear, but I would entreat you to at least consider reverting it for the sake of women's history. She and her husband are all over Powers's letters, he stayed at their farm, and they were an important part of his Catholic formation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arleen_McCarty_Hynes Fortunaa (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

DeSantis
Your edits were reverted as collateral damage since I couldn't undo the other editors changes. If you want to restore your edits please feel free. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hi, thanks for pointing out that rule about dates on the Kaufman article. I’ll follow it but I don’t get it; do you know if there’s a specific rationale for it? toobigtokale (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Nash (politician)
I'm OK with the reversion on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Nash_(politician)&curid=47317574&diff=1174164268&oldid=1173871590. Does non-RS mean non-reliable source? My intention was to provide a link to the source of the information that Jim Nash depended on, not necessarily an objectively reliable source. Faolin42 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick note about numbers
Please remember that our guideline about dates and numbers says that "comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Season 3 Only Murders in the Building
Hello!

Can you please stop constantly reverting sentences in the episode summaries to your own choice of words? Like replacing the however to but, even at the beginning of a sentence, which is not really preferable to start a sentence with in writing. Or replacing the "believing the one could be the killer" clause to the "believing they could be the killer". Since in the previous clause, it says "which cast member", "the one" word refers to that perfectly, there is no need to use "they" as a plural pronoun. I also find pointless from you to hold on to the "30 minutes" over the "last thirty minutes". Spelling out numbers in writing is more stylish, of course, there are exceptions but not in this case.

Thank you for your understandinng. Ertonien (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a singular "they". AlsoWukai (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Season 3 Only Murders in the Building
STOP removing the word "however" from the episode summary and altering clauses that I strongly asked you to not alter! Or at least, try to be a reasonable editor and respond to my messages, so we can discuss this.Ertonien (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "But" is preferable to "however". Please see Common_English_usage_misconceptions. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So, based on these statements, you're going to change the texts, replacing all "however" to "but" at the begining of the sentences, and starting sentences with an "And"? Because if that's your intentions, fine, be my guest, but then don't just stick to changing two sentences in a single article. Alter ALL of these "misconceptions" in every single article. I'd be surprised if I'd be the only editor who do not automatically agree with you on this point, but who am I to stop your revolutionary intentions as a linguist? Ertonien (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No other sentences in the article start with "However". AlsoWukai (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep removing every occurrence of the word in Season 3 episode summaries, that's also my problem. Ertonien (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And another thing: why do you have a problem with "recreating the last thirty minutes"? Because emphasizing the word "last" is important, cause they're not just recreate any "30 minutes", they recreate "the last 30 minuites" of Ben's life. The "last" word is important. Ertonien (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Breyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief judge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Saint Paul, Minnesota, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 01:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy edits at climate change denial
Thanks for your copy edits at climate change denial. Much appreciated! (That article needs a lot more work to condense and cull it and to make it more global.( - In case you have time, could you also please look at biodiversity loss? I've recently reworked that article and tried myself to get its reading ease score up (it's hard because biodiversity is already a 4-syllable word...). Perhaps you could have a go? EMsmile (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

wikilink of holier-than-thou
In your recent edit of Norman Finkelstein, you removed the wikilink of holier-than-thou.

I presume you did this on the basis that it's a disambiguation page, but did you remove the wikilink without actually looking at the holier-than-thou page? Fabrickator (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Cindy Hyde Smith
Greetings. Can you elaborate on the reason you reverted my edit on Cindy Hyde-Smith? I removed the word “falsely” because if the federal bill became law, it would likely have been a split decision in federal court in weather the state law is compatible. Cannolorosa (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary
Please use those when you edit articles to help other editors understand what you are doing. Also, consider making an edit like this not all at once, but section by section, to make it more viewable to others. In such contexts, a "Reverting unexplained changes" revert is a fairly likely reaction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies, you did write an ES, I just missed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

As copy editing goes...
This left something to be desired. I tweaked it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Inland Northern American English
Hi, we discuss when we have disagreements. What's your problem with my current wording on the Inland North page? Ping me when you respond please. Wolfdog (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What's your problem with my wording? AlsoWukai (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your copyediting and responsiveness to concerns
Hi AlsoWukai, thank you for breaking up your latest editing at Memorial Hall (Harvard University) into smaller chunks, and providing specific edit summaries. Thank you also for not repeating the incorrect removal of one of the commas around "and the associated 155-pound (70 kg) bell-clapper". However, what you are doing is not really copyediting. Changing "fifty years" to "50 years" is a matter of stylistic taste, not correctness (see MOS:NUMBERS: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred).), as is making a new sentence for Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.'s composing a hymn. Removing linebreaks, which constitutes the majority of your changes in both this set of edits and your previous repeated "copy edit", is not only a matter of personal taste, it doesn't affect at all how the article displays to a reader: WP:COSMETIC. "Cosmetic" changes like that are discouraged; they are pointless and clutter up the diff for anyone who has the article watchlisted and clicks to see what was changed. (Also, some editors, for whatever reason, find it easier to edit and to understand diffs if the text is broken up like that in wikitext, or if the citation templates are vertical rather than on one line, etc. It doesn't hurt others to leave such things alone.) Moreover, with all the articles tagged as needing copyedits, and untagged articles with spelling and grammar errors, I have to ask why you are copyediting articles like this, with clean English, and while doing so, spending time on such trivia as line-breaks. Let alone edit-warring over your copy-edit.

I also see on this page a number of editors raising issues with your copyediting. While you were correct regarding MOS in the section "edit about comma", your response above to is completely unsatisfactory, just throwing back their question, "What's your problem with ...?" (You also ignored their request to be pinged.) Your previous edit summary in reverting at the Memorial Hall article was equally unhelpful and uncollegial: he had used the edit summary "stop edit warring and gain consensus for your changes on talk" and you simply echoed this, "Stop edit warring and gain consensus for your changes on Talk". EEng opened a section at Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University) to discuss your changes; I included "See talk" in my edit summary reverting you; however, you have not edited there. Your failure to discuss is also uncollegial, and the lack of collegiality is a distinct issue from the edit warring.

I'm also concerned by the diff that posted above on 22 April. Objecting to "In addition," and "US", you changed a grammatical sentence to one with an ungrammatical verb form and a missing object. That and the misplaced priorities at the Memorial Hall article and at the article Wolfdog was asking you about, Inland Northern American English (your edit changed "towards" to the more American "toward", but also changed "However," to "But", a purely stylistic change; there was no compelling need to copyedit the article just to make those changes), suggest to me that you should not be doing roving copyedits, but instead search for particular solecisms or common spelling errors, look at particular classes of articles that tend to have English errors, or indeed confine yourself to the category of articles tagged for copyedit. You don't appear to have a good sense for what needs fixing and what's just a stylistic preference. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional data point: AlsoWukai, your edit summary here shows a serious misunderstanding of MOS, in particular WP:ENGVAR and even enwp's style for punctuation marks. You need to slow your roll. EEng 01:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fact checking edits
Regarding your edits to Britt's article, before I made mine I read about two dozen articles regarding her contention in her SOTU response, which was largely panned by Democrats, Independents and no small number of Republicans, as well as being prominently lampooned by SNL live in its "cold open" a few days after those remarks were made. When I made them, I wondered if I could call the support for the Border bill "tripartisan," but I wasn't sure if that was a word. I checked the alternate WP definition (as "Tripartism") which made it clear there wasn't in the encyclopedia, in the sense that I sought. So I identified the three Senators by their political affiliations instead. Reading that much is difficult for me as my eyes have recently been getting very tired fairly quickly. If you think that this is an issue that should be addressed in the section, I hope you feel free to substitute another way to express the nature of the compromise which its three authors created over a period of many months. I was a bit dismayed to see Langford, who is a very decent representative of his constituency, seemed personally quite hurt by Trump's demand that killed the proposed immediate solution to the current US/Mexico border difficulties with his demands for rejection of the proposed legislation in order to keep the issue prominent through November 5th. I'm certainly not wedded to keeping the word "overwhelmingly," but Trump clearly was drawing a line in the sand, one that few if any Republican senators currently running for reelection would dare to overstep, given his notorious vengefulness. I just watched a long interview with Mitt Romney, for whom I've always had considerable respect, and he discussed these sorts of dynamics, a circumstance that might have influenced his decision to not run for reelection this year. I've read your edits for decades and can't remember ever being uncomfortable with any prior ones, though there might have been some that piqued my interest. Activist (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Okay. Don't get smug.

Took me a while to find it.

"If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark."

Later: Activist (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Punctuation in "Existential risk from artificial general intelligence"
You reverted my edits to Existential risk from artificial general intelligence. In my edits, I moved punctuation inside a full-sentence quote and outside of two partial-sentence quotes. All of my changes were made in accordance with MOS:LQUOTE:

"If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark."

Please restore my changes or explain your reasoning. Jruderman (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. My mistake. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jruderman (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe do David Hume too?
I saw your excellent copyediting on Ilya Sutskever, maybe give David Hume a look? It needs a lot of help! I've done some edits but it needs more work. Kfein (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)