User talk:Chuntuk

Hello, Chuntuk, and

. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Gilfillan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Robert Cornewall, Chuntuk!

Wikipedia editor IagoQnsi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

maybe divide the article into sections, but otherwise looks good!

To reply, leave a comment on IagoQnsi's talk page.

Learn more about

.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Cornwall (died 1569), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Lawley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chuntuk! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:27, Monday, November 2, 2015 (

)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Thanks

Just noticed some cleanup and expansion on your part of George Cornewall. It's nice to see someone else working on obscure Revolution-to-Reform British political figures. Wikipedia is a lot bigger and lonelier than when I first started, so I thought I'd say hello and wish you good luck with the work. Choess (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I partially reverted a recent edit you made, with the edit summary "Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references -- it misleadingly lights up diffs, like a christmas tree, when the article's intellectual content remains unchanged".

There is an engineering principle, "if it is not broke, don't 'fix it'." In my experience most rewriting of references lapses from this principle. These unnecessary fixes can introduce errors. Worse, they erode the value of diffs. I've often written about my frustration, when one of my google news alerts advises me of a new development on an article I started, or worked on years ago, has a new development that merits an update. I can't tell you how many times I have returned to an article, years afterwards, requested a diff comparing the last version I looked at, which would be the last edit I made, to the current version, and found that practically the whole article has been changed. Maddeningly, when I step through the diffs, one at a time, I frequently find that dozens of contributors have made changes to the article's metadata, or its internal appearance, but no one had changed a single word of its intellectual content -- what it actually tells our readers.

I am very careful, when I edit, to make changes in ways least likely to light up diffs. I don't change line endings, merging paragraphs into one long logical line, as this tricks diffs.

If I have to repair a bad reference I try to do so while leaving it in its original form. I find references where all the fields are on a single long logical line hard to read, and hard to repair. Nevertheless, I leave them in that form, so I won't erode the utility of diffs for anyone else.

WRT to the archiveurl fields. Yipes! Your edit summary said: "Removed archive URLs from non-dead news URLS - no need to further clutter an already busy references section." The whole point of archiving a reference's original URL, when one populates a cite template for it, is that the disappearance of the reference's original URL happens without warning. I know, from experience, that some publications only keep their articles online for a brief period, or that they obfuscate them, behind a paywall, relatively soon after their publication. Populating the archiveurl field is extra work. They are not "clutter".

It is pretty common for sites to undergo a big, huge, reorganization of their archives. And, it is pretty common for sites that totally reorganize their archives to not bother to leave their equivalent of a #redirect when they move their articles to a new place in their newly organized archive. The Associated Press used to only keep articles available online for three or four weeks.

So, please don't remove archiveurl fields.

WRT whether author's names should be cited in surname first style, please see my comments at Talk:Libby Garvey#Surname last... or surname first... Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

diff erosion

I looked at half a dozen of your most recent edits.

In this edit you create new {{

}} templated references to replace the use of bare-url references. That is an excellent thing. But, in the paragraph that starts with "Most historians", you seem to have introduced an unnecessary newline character. That single character makes the diff engine think you replaced one paragraph, with two shorter paragraphs. When you didn't change a single word of the article's actual content. Add a few more copyediting changes, and a few more edits to metadata, and it will be very difficult to recognize that the article's actual content hasn't been changed.

I'll remove the confusing newline, this time.

While I try to leave references alone, as much as possible, for the reasons I explained above, when I clean up after a bare-url, I find it simplest, and least error-prone, to give it a name, and move the body of that reference to within a {{Reflist}} template. That makes it easiest to make sure I haven't inadvertently added a newline that confuses the diff engine.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2016 (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 (☎) 16:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding John Nevell article. --SealMan11 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi Chuntuk! You created a thread called Citing a source's source at archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Many thanks for your work to help rescue WP:FAR. What a great example of collaboration and Wikipedia at its best! - Dumelow (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello and thank you for your kind attention to my edit. I must have had a momentary brain lapse considering how I entered the citation which you properly corrected. Thank you for your edit and doing what I should have initially done. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message