User talk:AlsoWukai

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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JC7V-constructive zone 03:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's confusing and might not be a good idea.. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are invited to participate at Talk:Steve King#RfC: Most openly affiliated with white nationalsm. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I really appreciate it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, AlsoWukai,appreciate for the correction. AbDaryaee (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlsoWukai, I wonder if you would mind looking in on Multihull#Four and five hulls 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)[reply]

Hi AlsoWukai,

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

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.

• "sound-rage" was changed to "sound rage". The former is the term used in the source as well as in the infobox.

LMK what you think.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please refer to the discussion at: User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Reference_Citation_to_Ilhan_Omar_Statement. Thanks in advance, Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks!AlsoWukai (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit.Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Lol, no worries. AlsoWukai (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Noam Chomsky Day!
	Hi AlsoWukai, wishing you a Happy Noam Chomsky Day. Thank you for the work you have put into maintaining the Noam Chomsky article throughout the year and on its road to GA. Our resource helps 1.7 million annual viewers learn about a living humanitarian who's done so much to promote human rights and understanding. Happy editing, czar 08:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiHelper26 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You're the best! Marquardtika (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I would just like to thank you personally for assisting in my efforts to expand the page on Lee Hsien Loong with your valued copyediting. Please continue! Seloloving (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

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)[reply]

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

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1] Gandydancer (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		You're amazing. Thank you for all the clean-up and readabilitating. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Grammar.AlsoWukai (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Grammar). Wukai (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to 2020 United States Senate elections does not have an edit summary. 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:

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 Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

How does it sound wrong? AlsoWukai (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of thanks for your editing assistance -- it is appreciated. --104.15.130.191 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. ^[1] 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. ^[2] 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. ^[3]

Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. ^[4] 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. ^[5] What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of what policies best improved public health outcomes. ^[6]

Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. ^{[7] [8]} Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns create other medical problems, especially in mental health. ^[9] 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. ^[10]

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. ^[11] 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). ^[12] 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. ^[13]

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. ^[14].

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. ^[15]. Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", ^[16] 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)[reply]

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. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... Why may we not – all the way up to ninety-nine? --Oblio4 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words AlsoWukai (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again [at the MOS], and I'll rephrase ... --Oblio4 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

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.

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)[reply]

Hi AlsoWukai! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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)[reply]

Hi, Bagumba. The edit in question did not change the meaning of the sentence. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I recommend Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar!

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)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Vnosm (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's nothing ungrammatical about "stating", but it is needlessly stilted.AlsoWukai (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amen

~ Wordsmith (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. (full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. (full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. (full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. (full results) Other news Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

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

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Your revised version is acceptable. AlsoWukai (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

It just seemed obvious that 2000 – 112 = 1888. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to provide a link to the article. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 09:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have come up with an ingenious solution. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your copyedits and other edits improving the QAnon article during the GA process! AFreshStart (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I've seen you around on my watchlist, and your copy editing always seems to improve the articles quite a lot. Thanks for the work you do! Endwise (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Grammar, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So what? Lemme be. jlog3000 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Discussion closed. See below.--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up for our July Backlog Elimination Drive, 18 copy-edited, between them, 116 articles. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Blitz: Participants in our August Copy Editing Blitz copy-edited 51,074 words in 17 articles. Of the 15 editors who signed up, 11 claimed at least one copy-edit. Barnstars awarded are noted here. Drive: Forty-one editors took part in our September Backlog Elimination Drive; between them they copy-edited 199 articles. Barnstars awards are noted here. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz begins on 16 October at 00:01 (UTC) and will end on 22 October at 23:59 (UTC). Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 303 requests for copy edit – including withdrawn and declined ones – since 1 January. At the time of writing, there are 77 requests awaiting attention and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,759. We always need more active, skilled copyeditors – particularly for requests – so please get involved if you can. Election news: In our mid-year election, serving coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tenryuu were returned for another term, and were joined by new coordinator Zippybonzo. No lead coordinator was elected for this half-year. Jonesey95, a long-serving coordinator and lead, was elected as coordinator emeritus; we thank them for their service. Thank you to everyone who took part. Our next election of coordinators takes place throughout December. If you'd like to help out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself or other suitable editors (with their permission, of course!). It's your Guild, after all! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tenryuu and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Baffle☿gab 03:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Unsourced. AlsoWukai (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film is mentioned as a notable example of it on Slow cinema#Notable slow films. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dates are an exception to that rule. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you have a source for this rule? Most articles here violate it. AlsoWukai (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

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.

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. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:AN/3RR. (talk) CastJared (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi AlsoWukai,

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

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)

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:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Citation needed. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page Membership news and results of elections Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The sentence in question was unsourced and does not belong in the lead paragraph.AlsoWukai (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That "'percent' is commonly used" does not mean that "%" is incorrect. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very well. AlsoWukai (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Organical Branstar
		Am often impressed how your copy edits improve articles by combining clarity with brevity. Hope you stay regular with your cereal (serial) contributions. Cheerio! BBQboffin (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are recipient no. 2845 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, thank you for noticing! AlsoWukai (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. AlsoWukai (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybongo. *All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"But" is preferable to "however". Please see Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar. AlsoWukai (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No other sentences in the article start with "However". AlsoWukai (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please use those when you edit articles to help other editors understand what you are doing. Also, consider making an edit like this [5] 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)[reply]

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

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [6] left something to be desired. I tweaked it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 Wolfdog 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 EEng 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 Gråbergs Gråa Sång 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)[reply]

• Additional data point: AlsoWukai, your edit summary here [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

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)[reply]

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

Thanks. Jruderman (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your persistence in high-quality copy editing substantially improves Wikipedia in readability, precision, clarity, and neutrality. Thank you for your work here! Daask (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi user:AlsoWukai. I saw your changes to my edits to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. While most are great, I'm not sure that changing the period placement to after the close quote in the below line is correct.

he "[doesn't] know what's going on in [Kennedy's] head, but it's not good".<ref>

Would you mind sharing a resource with me that shows this conforms to appropriate copy editing guidelines? RyeCityRoller (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LOGICAL. --Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that my writing can be bad and I do recognise that but you just delete it which is frustrating. Edit it yourself but the work I do is sourced and correct so do not just remove important information for kicks. You have done it three times to my edits and you do not offer an alternative. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was a mistake. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "But the apartheid question in the OPT will return before CERD. The Committee will have to engage with this question in the reporting or other procedures, with little assistance from the Commission findings, although it will surely draw on the ICJ Advisory Opinion"

Kindly self revert (if you don't like the wording you can change it, what I wrote was not wrong and is in the source).

Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the sentence I deleted was supposed to be part of the quotation. Will fix. AlsoWukai (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You reverted my addition but now the sentence doesn't make sense:

This at minimum finds Israel to be committing racial segregation, but there is not yet consensus as to whether the discrimination also amounts to apartheid; some judges in their separate opinions were split on the question.

to

There is not yet consensus as to whether the discrimination also amounts to apartheid; in separate opinions, judges were split on the question.

What does also mean?

Your edit summary says this change is copyediting, but it isn't. Please self-revert. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the "also" was superfluous. Fixed. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the information you deleted isn't. Do you have any reasoning for removing it? Bitspectator ⛩️ 04:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was superfluous, as it repeated the content of the previous sentence. AlsoWukai (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Court of Justice in its 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories constitutes systemic discrimination and is in breach of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid.

This at minimum finds Israel to be committing racial segregation

If the second sentence were:

This at minimum finds Israel to be committing apartheid

would that also be a repetition of the first sentence? Do you believe all three of these sentences are saying the same thing? Bitspectator ⛩️ 05:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So if it isn't a repetition, it shouldn't be deleted for being superfluous. Please self-revert. Thanks. Bitspectator ⛩️ 05:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is. The court found that the occupation is in breach of Article 3, but not that it constitutes apartheid. That means it constitutes segregation. AlsoWukai (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court found that the occupation is in breach of Article 3, but not that it constitutes apartheid.

No. Read the next sentence:

There is not yet consensus as to whether the discrimination amounts to apartheid.

But if there is consensus that it's at least segregation, we should say that. Bitspectator ⛩️ 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It follows from

(A) the occupation is in breach of Article 3

and

(B) the court did not find that the occupation constitutes apartheid

that

(C) the occupation constitutes segregation.

And (B) is true, even though the court also did not find that the occupation does not constitute apartheid. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the article currently says. If you think (B) is true then replace:

There is not yet consensus as to whether the discrimination amounts to apartheid; in separate opinions, judges were split on the question.

with

The court did not find that the occupation constitutes apartheid.

And the argument is flawed for another reason. A reader could come to the conclusion that the court didn't necessarily find it to be apartheid or segregation. It's not a given that because Article 3 prohibits segregation and apartheid that means you can't violate Article 3 without committing segregation. It's infinitely better to display the conclusions of reliable sources rather than assuming the reading is doing your specific OR argument of (A) -> (B) -> (C).

Enough now. Please self-revert. Bitspectator ⛩️ 06:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the court did not reach consensus on apartheid means that it did not find apartheid (and also that it did not find an absence of apartheid). So there is no need to reword that sentence. But, to mollify you, I will make explicit what is now only implicit. AlsoWukai (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's ambiguous as to whether they found apartheid. Some RS say that they did. Bitspectator ⛩️ 06:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]