This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andyjsmith (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 16 January 2015 (→Not vandalism: more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:56, 16 January 2015 by Andyjsmith (talk | contribs) (→Not vandalism: more)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
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)