| Revision as of 23:25, 16 January 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →Your recent edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:54, 17 January 2015 edit undoAndyjsmith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers37,702 edits →Sloppy editing: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| That didn't change the meaning at all. if i say "I am making a statement of something" you are setting something. when you say "goals" as plural it's implied there is more than one so saying " a set of goals" the "set of " is redundant. I find that business articles as a fluffy science that draw from fluffy sources tend to give fluffy wording. but that doesn't mean that we as Wikipedians need to emulate their fluff. we distill the fluff into the facts. my changes are true to the sources. my definition was based from the source materials. ] (]) 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | That didn't change the meaning at all. if i say "I am making a statement of something" you are setting something. when you say "goals" as plural it's implied there is more than one so saying " a set of goals" the "set of " is redundant. I find that business articles as a fluffy science that draw from fluffy sources tend to give fluffy wording. but that doesn't mean that we as Wikipedians need to emulate their fluff. we distill the fluff into the facts. my changes are true to the sources. my definition was based from the source materials. ] (]) 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Sloppy editing == | |||
| Please stop your slash and burn approach to editing. I just spotted one at ]. You objected to his being characterised as one of the most prolific writers of all time. Fair enough but it is incumbent on you to either challenge the statement by adding <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> or to fix it by finding a reference. I simply searched wikipedia for "Prolific Writers" and instantly found an article listing Asimov as one of the most prolific writers! Why couldn't you have done that? | |||
| Seriously, if your editing doesn't improve I'll have to do something about it. Some of your edits are fine, some are so pedantic that they harm the article. | |||
| In this particular case wikipedia has a very clear guideline at ]. I suggest you familiarise yourself with it. ] (]) 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:54, 17 January 2015
Dota 2
Hello Bryce,
I'm posting on (and starting) your talk page because I am very impressed with your recent work on the Dota 2 page. You see, I created that page over four years ago and have been its top editor ever since, bringing it all the way to Good Article status and it is now on the cusp of Featured Article status. However, I cannot continue editing Misplaced Pages regularly, which is why I am looking for a successor for taking care of the page and bringing it to FA status. Would you be interested in undertaking this task? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey!
I could definitly look at taking a look at the Dota 2 page. the main things I see that keep it from FA quality is the overall tone reads like an advert to me, I've taken down a lot of the peacock phrases to try and help bring it to a more NPOV that could score QA status. but I think there might be some larger problems as well ( structure of the article as a hole ) but I'd be happy to continue to try and help get it to QA quality. I'll read all the QA articles for other sportsgames and see what motiffs we can emulate to get it to top notch.
-Bryce Carmony
Not vandalism
I've removed my vandalism complaint at ARV in the light of your recent edits, most of which seem reasonable if somewhat pedantic. The problem is that your edits have a tendency to be aggressive rather than bold and when you make mistakes - as you have done - it looks bad. For example, removing an "unnecessary" use of the word "rather" in Business plan when the word is definitely necessary because it's clearly being used disjunctively. Your subsequent change to "instead" isn't needed, as the two words are synonymous given the context, but does no harm. I'm also not convinced about a couple of your edits on Executive summary which do seem very much like warring but I'll let it pass for now. andy (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The two sentences made sense without the rather. if I say "dogs are not humans. Rather, they are dogs" or I say "dogs are not humans. they are dogs" both of them work equally. the difference is one has an unneeded word and the other doesn't. the strength of Misplaced Pages is that there's a variety of editors. without the people like me of the wikiverse we'd be drowning in unneeded words. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually data storage is cheap, as are words. One should reduce verbiage as much as possible but no further. In this case the disjunction is necessary because it isn't verbiage - it adds to the meaning of the paragraph. The purpose of a disjunction is very real and important. My dictionary says it "expresses the relationship between two distinct alternatives". Its use here is to not merely state the two options but to point out that they are alternatives to each other. Thus "A is not B, A is C" leaves open the option that A could be both B and C; whereas "A is not B, rather A is C" shows that B and C are alternatives A cannot be both, rather it must be only one. andy (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please see my latest edit to Business plan. Yet again you changed the meaning of the sentence by tweaking it to be shorter and look nicer. You turned a set of goals into goals that have been set, which is far from being the same thing especially in the context of planning. Please be more careful - I'm getting tired of tidying up after you. andy (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That didn't change the meaning at all. if i say "I am making a statement of something" you are setting something. when you say "goals" as plural it's implied there is more than one so saying " a set of goals" the "set of " is redundant. I find that business articles as a fluffy science that draw from fluffy sources tend to give fluffy wording. but that doesn't mean that we as Wikipedians need to emulate their fluff. we distill the fluff into the facts. my changes are true to the sources. my definition was based from the source materials. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Sloppy editing
Please stop your slash and burn approach to editing. I just spotted one at Isaac Asimov. You objected to his being characterised as one of the most prolific writers of all time. Fair enough but it is incumbent on you to either challenge the statement by adding {{citation needed}} or to fix it by finding a reference. I simply searched wikipedia for "Prolific Writers" and instantly found an article listing Asimov as one of the most prolific writers! Why couldn't you have done that?
Seriously, if your editing doesn't improve I'll have to do something about it. Some of your edits are fine, some are so pedantic that they harm the article.
In this particular case wikipedia has a very clear guideline at WP:VERIFY. I suggest you familiarise yourself with it. andy (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)