Encyclopedia Lu, you are invited to the Teahouse
 |
Hi Encyclopedia Lu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Lindy Li
I liked your edit at Lindy Li, but please check WP:RSP to make sure your sourcing hasn't been forbidden. Far-left sources often get a nod, but most sources that lean even a teensy bid right are "unreliable". The source I used, the Washington Examiner, is ok. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are you collaborating with @Magnolia677to make Li look bad? I am just curious why the two of you are bent on including quotes from minor interviews. Do you do the same for other commentators? Why are you targeting Li?
- Is there an impartial arbiter to whom we can appeal? I feel like you are vandalizing her page, with all due respect. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t speak for Magnolia, but I’m not trying to “look bad,” unless you believe that expressing conservative-leaning views and explanations for why President Trump was re-elected makes her “look bad.”
- Also, you keep hitting on this “minor interview” point, here and elsewhere. Fox News is the most influential conservative paper and news outlet in the country; it’s not minor, and Fox reporters have specifically printed articles about Ms. Li’s interviews, when they don’t for most who appear on the channel. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can we please come to a consensus here? I think including the entire transcript of a throwaway interview is a bit over the top. You don't do this for anyone else. Why her? She's gotten so much abuse for these interviews. You are essentially directing more harassment and abuse at her. Simply look at how many times she's been called a w-- and a c-- on X this week. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’m sensitive to anti-Asian racism as a second-generation Chinese American, and although linking my Twitter account to my Wikipedia account may well be used against me sometime in the future (I am a Democrat who is generally supportive of Democratic policies), here is a tweet in which I responded to a reply unjustly referencing her Asian descent.
- As you can see, I’m not personally a fan of Lindy Li. I’m sure you’re also on Twitter coming to her defense, assuming (and let’s just say it openly) you aren’t Lindy herself. It’s okay for Wikipedians to have opinions, but we should try to set them aside when editing. And I don’t feel like you’d done that here.
- I’d also add that the more extensive portion of the interview Li gave that I added was embedded in a footnote. Only three short sentences were included in the main text. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, so you called her an "opportunistic grifter" on a public forum. You openly admit to harboring animus towards her (and no, I am not Li). For that alone, you shouldn't be eligible to edit her page. I haven't posted anything on X about her.
- The footnote you added is highly prominent given the brevity of her page. You are obviously doing everything you can to damage her reputation. And the fact that you admitted to it is the scariest part. Respectfully, you should really abstain from sabotaging her page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can we please come to a consensus here? I think including the entire transcript of a throwaway interview is a bit over the top. You don't do this for anyone else. Why her? She's gotten so much abuse for these interviews. You are essentially directing more harassment and abuse at her. Simply look at how many times she's been called a w-- and a c-- on X this week. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring
You've been here long enough to know not to violate 3RR. But I don't see any warning about your recent edits, so I'm writing one now. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. I’ll leave Lindy’s page with her latest edit for the time being, and others who believe my inclusion of her interview comments was reasonable as opposed to “sabotage” can make edits if they choose. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org.Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Contentious topics alert
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi EncycloDeterminate. I can only find one contentious topic notice in the logs, though you've been alerted to more. Apologies if you've already been notified, but Arab–Israeli conflict is a contentious topic. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Interview with Jeffry Sachs by TC on Dec. 16th 2024
Dear colleague, please note, I agree with you that the interview should be mentioned on the BIO page of Jeffry Sachs.
I did write in the talk page: So, dear Encyclopedia Lu: It is clear that the interview is noteworthy
More see please here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Interview_on_foreign_policy_16._Dec._2024 —
FrankBierFarmer (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Careful
We don't know what the outcome of a post-redistricting election would have been. Probably, yes, but that's not enough to say it would have happened. I've replaced "that would eliminate" with "intended to eliminate", because that was the stated intention. DS (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that’s fair. Thanks for your scrupulousness on this item. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Minor edits
You've been editing for 12 years. It's thus about time that you learned what a minor edit is; you can read up on it at Help:Minor edit. TL:DR – do not mark any further edits as minor until you've read that page. Schwede66 19:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- I’m aware it’s a bit of a judgment call, and that my latest edits might have landed on the wrong side of it. Assuming you’re mostly referring to the pair of New Zealand-based edits, my rationale was that the sentence I removed was redundant given the previous one, and that the two words I replaced with synonyms could have been improved uncontroversially. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Louisiana v. Callais schema
Greetings, EncycloDeterminate. I reverted the edit you made to the image caption in the Louisiana v. Callais article back to its correct order left-to-right. You might want to re-check it. -The Gnome (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad—thanks for the correction. That was a bit confusing, since I read that the Fair Representation Act called for multi-member districts. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)