User talk:Wizymon

Response Notice Section (To be used EXCLUSIVELY by me, The Wizard (aka Wizymon))
(Thanks for your expansion of the Grammar section of the English language article) This is the Wizard (aka Wizymon) responding to WeijiBaikeBianji: your question has been answered by the Wizard (aka Wizymon).-- Wizymon (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your expansion of the Grammar section of the English language article
Hi, Wizymon,

I appreciate seeing expansion of the Grammar section of the article English language, as that kind of article improvement was called for by the last GA review and last peer review of the article, but no one else had stepped up to do it. I like the interesting examples you have added to the article. What are some of your favorite sources on the topic of English grammar? See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, WeijiBaikeBianji,


 * The Language Network book series is one of my primary sources for English grammar.-- Wizymon (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Wizymon, I have started a discussion about how to write the section on English syntax at the article English language. I, and two other editors, are undertaken a concerted effort to make this article live up to our standards for good articles. Like WeijiBaikeBianji, I appreciate your additions to the article, but I think they have some problems for making the article conform to our standards. Specifically I think that it gives undue focus to the question of V2 relics in the syntax, which is a very minor topic in the literature on English syntax when taken as a whole. And secondly the information you have added is not supported with citations to reliable sources. A requirement for good articles is that they stay on topic without unnecessary detail in niche areas, and that all information is supported with citations to reliable sources. My personal opinion is that the section on V2 syntax is probably not appropriate for this article, but would be better placed in the article on English clause syntax, where more detail can be provided about this kind of niche topic. But you are invited to the talkpage of the article to discuss how to approach the section with the other editors, so that we can reach a consensus about how best to improve the article. I hope you will participate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Why?
See my reply at User talk:Pfold. There are a lot of things that need improving and tidying up on WP, but it makes no sense to spend time "correcting" other people's grammar if the original formulation is in fact grammatically correct. --Pfold (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've answered you again on my talk page.--Pfold (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at The Land Before Time, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce jokes into articles, as you did at King of the Hill (season 2), you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Your recent editing history at Argument from ignorance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: please do not make "grammatical corrections" to standard English expressions as you did here. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool Cats
ᚼᛟ ᛏᚪᛟ ᚴᛕᚳᛏᚺᛞᚵᚵ ᛕᛚᛟᚱᚫ ᚼ ᛂ ᛞᚫᚵᚮᛟᛒᚪᛚᛚ ᛊᚥᛕᛙᚱ

ᚼᚵᛟᚮᚱᚫᛟᛣᛙ ᛘᚫᛚᛚᚪᛣᚷ ᛣᚪᚱ ᛂᛒ ᛏᚼᚴ

ᛚᛕᚱᚱᛘᚴᛟᛞᛂᛣᛙᛗᛒᛙᚱᚴᚫᚱᛏᛏ

Elder Futhark Runes

Wizymon (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Note: please do not make "grammatical corrections" to standard English expressions as you did here. There is nothing grammatically wrong with "vacuum" without an article. Check the literature. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The dose makes the poison
There is a common expression -- "the dose makes the poison" -- and there is the correct translation of the German and Latin originals. Both are worth mentioning. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Both are already included:
 * "The dose makes the poison" (Latin: sola dosis facit venenum 'only the dose makes the poison')

... right in the first line. --Macrakis (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)