Please read WP:CIVIL (and abide by it) before editing this page, and feel free to tag me so I'll be notified.

Thanks for the "Fighting the Good Fight Barnstar" you gave me in May, "For resisting those who would like Wikipedia’s capitalization rules to resemble a corporate brochure or a government press release". I do keep up that fight, but there are often not enough people who care about style to overcome the specialists who like to cap their own stuff. If you'd like to be part of the solution, monitor WP:RM and/or WT:MOSCAPS#Current to find open discussions, and weigh in. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder to monitor those pages. I will keep an eye out. All the best, Wallnot (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you recently figured out that User:SLOTUSFLOTUS was a sockpuppet of banned User:Carmena Seoul. It looks like User:Green News Verified is a new sockpuppet. I'm unfamiliar with the policies and procedures for reporting this, but the user's talk page lists many of the articles the banned users edited, and some of the edits have the same grammatical errors (using commas to break up sentences in unclear ways). So I thought maybe you could take a look and see what you think. Thanks. - Special-T (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Special-T:, thanks so much for pointing this out. One of Carmena Seoul’s calling cards is capitalizing titles in violation of MOS:JOBTITLES, which this user doesn’t seem to be doing. Then again, an account focused solely on editing FLOTUS and SLOTUS pages is pretty niche, so I will keep an eye on it and refer to WP:ANI if needed. Wallnot (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, the talk page states they're a fan of the same American first ladies AND Kim Jong Un's wife. Edits don't seem actionable so far, but, like I said, I don't know policy/procedure here. - Special-T (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Special-T: amazing how persistent this user is. If they persist editing at the IP they’ve been using since you alerted me to their new account, I’ll refer them to ANI again. I don’t think there’s any way to deal with a super persistent sock except by playing whac a mole. Wallnot (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I still think the account I mentioned above is a sockpuppet of those other two. There were many illiterate edits by the previous accounts, but, after being told many times, the editor changed some of the small things (job titles, simple past tense, etc.) but kept making non-constructive edits. That's consistent with this new account and the IP. - Special-T (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Special-T: I made a report at ANI. Feel free to chime in, though I don’t anticipate too much trouble getting a sockpuppet banned. Wallnot (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I re-opened the SPI case because there seems to be a new sockpuppet account. Not definitive, but suspiciously similar enough to report, I think. - Special-T (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can Stoltenberg be defined as a (current) Norwegian politician when he has not engaged in Norwegian politics for almost an entire decade? I think that the description "former politician" is more accurate in this particular case. Ordnerud (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction at Karine Jean-Pierre [1], especially the edit summary mentioning MOS:JOBTITLES. From time to time, our MOS looks weird to me (I am an older person), but I am happy to comply with WP standards...if I know what they are! So many to keep track of/learn. You did me a great service by teaching me, very kind. Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: You’re very welcome. Thank you for your kind note. Wallnot (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wallnot, having read your gracious reply, I visited your Userpage. I see that some others find our MOS:JOBTITLES "weird"! Now I feel less like a US country-bumpkin dinosaur! However, this is Wikipedia, not "Tribe of Tiger Pedia". As a new editor, I had to learn (at least, some!) MOS conventions/standards. Otherwise, I would have made a hash of article titles & section headings! MOS is valuable for providing continuity, site-wide. Linking to a WP MOS reason, as you have done, provides a learning opportunity for fellow editors. You are doing valuable work, so thanks again! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: yes, it’s very normal not to be aware of JOBTITLES. What it boils down to is this: in common usage people nearly always capitalize job titles. But publications, including the reliable secondary sources on which Wikipedia relies (eg, NYT, CMS, AP, Britannica, etc), nearly always lowercase them unless before a name. Hence the confusion you see I’ve excerpted on my user page. I appreciate your openness and willingness to learn; unfortunately many editors, including some of Wikipedia’s most experienced editors, reject both the rule and its rationale, despite the fact that it is entirely uncontroversial to writers and editors at other publications. Wallnot (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United States Secretary of the Navy and my edit which fixed multiple redlinks in the Secretariat section. Your comment of "Fix it properly or don’t fix it at all" in your reversion of my edit is not clear. I had fixed the redlinks, which is exactly what my edit summary stated. Exactly how was that "not properly?". If a link is fixed from a redlink to a blue link, is that not proper per WP:REDLINK? Please advise, else the the redlinks will be re-repaired in an attempt to improve the article. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

those job titles should be lowercase under MOS:JOBTITLES. The red links were due to the fact that the lowercase form of the titles failed to redirect to the relevant articles. To fix it properly the links ought to be piped. Hope that helps. Wallnot (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the situation at Karine Jean-Pierre and giving a policy-based assessment [2]. However, presenting it as a dispute between two editors encourages further WP:BATTLEGROUND and other behavioral problems. It could also be seen as dismissive of the many editors who have worked to resolve the dispute. Those problems aside, I believe your comments will go a long way to help settle the content dispute. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Hope it proves helpful. Wallnot (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again [3] --Hipal (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa is wrong, so Viriditas should be able to show that without all the name calling and with reference to actual policy instead of their feelings. Regardless, all I suggested they do is stop reverting. Wallnot (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's heating up. Others' poor behavior shouldn't be an issue. The article is protected now. --Hipal (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your fixes of the capitalization of "United States Attorney" are breaking categories for subjects in Category:United States Attorneys. If you believe that the category should be renamed, please file a request for this at WP:CFD. BD2412 T 02:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up. The category should be renamed per JOBTITLES though I anticipate some pushback on that as always. In the meantime I’ll revert those case fixes as soon as I have the chance. Wallnot (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Created a discussion thread at Talk:NATO over the map caption. Would love your perspective since I get the sense we've got different perspectives! Garuda28 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think you're right on this. Both users make disruptive "copyedits" to the pages of U.S. presidents, U.K. prime ministers, first ladies, etc., often in violation of MOS:JOBTITLE. Most recently, they've been adding grammatical errors like this and this. Both editors seem to have an interest in Korea and the Kennedy family. Do you think it would be worth adding to the archived sock page? I reported them at WP:AIV yesterday but directed to WP:ANI. Novemberjazz 20:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account is three years old, which makes even older than Carmena Seoul, but the similarity in editing behavior is too much to ignore. I absolutely think it is worth reporting at ANI. The only reason I haven’t done so yet is for lack of time to collect diffs. You might have luck checking other articles on first and second family members. Wallnot (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novemberjazz: A heads up that I just added a report to the archived SPI page here. I'd welcome your comments on that page, especially since as we discussed the pattern of behavior is clear but it is tricky to find diffs that exactly parallel previous known socks. Wallnot (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bit late getting back to that discussion (I don't edit every day), but I appreciate you pointing out the difference between stating Andrew was "accused" and later settled out of court, and stating that Andrew was "guilty of". I restored the wording back to the lead; I believe I was careful to only state what the sources state. Please review it and let me know if I've done right by it. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I aware that you probably already bored to read it or answer me, but I genuinely don't understand why you wipe my edit contributions, especially, considering that I already fixed its grammar issues that your claim was a main issue.

Why its so hard to understand significance of my eddits? For example, do you know that no women have sat on the Federal Reserve Board from its establishment in 1913 to 1978, and even then no more than one female served at once. That seat probably considered a female quote because all its subsequent holders to date were women. And in 1994 both Phillips and Yellen were appointed at the same time as third and four governor, with addition of Rivlin, it increase the number of women to three. That record 3 to this day don't improved (26 years after and counting). Do you know, for example that other countries do little on the front of female representation in central banking. Bank of Japan appointed the first female governor as early as 2020, Saudi Arabia appointed first woman in 2022. ECB allowed multiple women to sit on its monetary ruling board for the first time in 2019. This list can go on and on. So please explain why you single handedly decide to dismiss this information as insignificant (and I already try to explain it to your friend User:Julietdeltalima)

About that second edit, its just little funny fact that her peers don't considered her worthy of a school title for "most likely to succeed" when in fact she probably achieved the most among her felow students. + if make improvement in that article is sacred, without a PhD in English and Economics at the very least I assume, so why its not closed.

Why you don't do any contributions to article yourself but jump to remove that of other users? In my experience with wikipedia, I've seen tons of terrible sourced and poorly grammarly edited pages that are in no hurry to fix, yet you remove my contributions under false excuses. So explain please, it is your personal issues with me or it is a general policy of wiki administration to all new users? Because it seems like some sort of witch hunt as "Grammar crusade" if you can call it that.

And last, your unjustified attitude makes worthless any futher contributions at least to this article and probably all (if this removal without explanations is common thing at this site).

@LordTort: A few things. First, you originally posted this message on User:Wallnot. That is my user page. Messages for me should go on my talk page; in general, only the owner of a user page should edit it.

Second, please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end.

Third, you actually did not fix your grammar issues: in your last edit to Janet Yellen, you copy and pasted the following text from Julietdeltalima's talk page, where she had typed it to explain to you the grammatical errors in your original edit: Your syntax and punctuation are wrong. "The subsequent. In doing so, you not only transferred Julietdeltalima's commentary—Your syntax and punctuation are wrong—which was intended for you alone, into the article; you also deleted the end of a reference, leading to a broken reference error in the rendered article. This was careless. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia; that includes mastery of the English language. If your contributions require other editors to spend time cleaning up after you, they may be reverted. The fact that many articles have existing grammar errors is no justification for allowing you to introduce new ones. Wallnot (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. But may I ask why you delete, for example, my edit about Yellen's inclusion in Barrons 2022 list of most influential women, among "unnecessary and ungrammatical" edits? what's wrong with that particular information? LordTort (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That information isn't noteworthy for someone of Yellen's professional history. Wallnot (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know that. But why you don't also remove all the other listicles from the other publications if they don't make any sense? That's the rhetorical question when it's not your intention to rewrite the whole article. LordTort (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LordTort: you have persisted in introducing grammar errors into articles, as you did here and here. When you introduce errors in this way, you create work for other editors. If you are not able to edit without introducing errors, I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia in your native language. Wallnot (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind suggestion. But if you really pay attention what I'm doing with that edits, it's just return numeration (without so called errors) of IMF directors. It's clear that you pick me as some kind victim for bulling. Seems that you want erase all that I contribute for no reason except your ego. You have "black list" for people that you don't like and put me there for stalking? LordTort (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my reverts are solely due to the fact that you seem unable to contribute to Wikipedia with the required level of mastery of English. For example, in your edit to Rodrigo Rato that i linked above, you wrote He previously hold several posts…. That is a very, very basic tense error; it should be held. In Per Jacobsson, you wrote He has appointed as the managing director. That is another very, very basic error. Introducing these errors creates extra work for other editors and shows either carelessness or inability to understand your mistakes. If you continue to introduce grammar errors after having been warned, you will be reverted, and may be blocked from editing.

Please also read WP:NPA. You have an unpleasant habit of lashing out at others to accuse them of bullying or stalking when they explain to you why you’ve been reverted. Such personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and you may also be blocked for continuing to make them. Wallnot (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if i offended you somehow. It was not my intention. LordTort (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you not to continue editing unless you can do so with the required level of competency. You have continued to introduce errors at List of female United States Cabinet members. For example, you wrote Term of office indicates that position elevated to cabinet-level status thereafter officeholder initial appointment, which is not grammatical English. Even worse, you wrote Susan Livingstone becomes the first woman to serve as the acting Secretary of the Navy in 2003 (and variations in several other places). If you do not understand why it is ungrammatical to use a present tense verb to express a past tense fact in that fashion, you do not have the required level of competency to edit English Wikipedia. If you continue to create a mess for others to clean up, I will report you to WP:ANI, and you may be blocked from editing. Wallnot (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SW1APolitico: Why would a reader need to distinguish between a "formal" and "informal" title? To the extent that there is a need, why does the fact that each article begins with the full, formal title not resolve your concern? Finally, I'm not sure why you think this is the correct forum to ask this question: the guideline is what it is, and arguing against it on an individual user's talk page is unlikely to get you anywhere. Wallnot (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply for the purposes of research, information, and the gathering of historical fact. I'm not arguing against the guideline, I was asking for clarification. Given your significant investment in the guideline, and your recent edits to an article, I directed the question at you. I hope you have a pleasant rest of the day. SW1APolitico (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My questions are not sarcastic—I'm trying to understand the concern you raise. What is the need you perceive to distinguish between formal and informal titles? Wallnot (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, to understand whether their position is official and has status within law, or is unofficial and has no status within law. For example, Nadhim Zahawi has described himself as the "chief operating officer" of the UK Government. Without being able to distinguish between formal and informal titles, one may assume this title has recognition within government. Of course, a lengthy explanation could make clear to the reader the status of this title, but I would believe capitalisation would fulfil this and ensure brevity. SW1APolitico (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think readers are generally capable of understanding nuance and recognizing when a speaker is using a title or other phrase figuratively (e.g., Zahawi saying that he serves a function analogous to a corporate COO in the UK's government). Context can help even without a lengthy explanation. Wallnot (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" ... it may appear in a slightly different form" does not mean that it has to.

Also, why don't you change the info box too? HandsomeFella (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may; JOBTITLES says that it must. But FIRST is a response to the argument "the job title must be capitalized in the lede because it is capitalized in the article title".

Great question! One of the most important aspects of JOBTITLES is that it calls for capitalization when a title is not preceded by a modifier, including a definite or indefinite article. In the infobox the job title lacks an article, same in the article title, so these are capitalized. In the lede the job title is preceded by an article, so it is lowercase. Wallnot (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]