User talk:ChamithN/Archive 10

Happy Lucia!


Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning" ChamithN: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia! 13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day! – w.carter -Talk  00:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you and wish you the same W.carter . Have a great day!-- Chamith  (talk)  01:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted verified edit to Pineapple Express article?
Hi! I feel that my edit to the Pineapple Express page was legitimate because my source clearly had content from a senior meteorologist stating that the December 2014 storm was *not* a Pineapple Express. This was not my personal opinion; the article that I referenced in the ref tag: (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/california-bay-area-storm-floo/38828635) has this text directly on it's page:

7:55 a.m. Friday: As persistent, heavy rain swamps California, 'pineapple express' trends are appearing across numerous social media outlets. This setup is not that of pineapple express, however, AccuWeather.com Expert Meteorologist Bernie Rayno explains. "A pineapple express is a continuous surge of tropical moisture extending from near Hawaii all the way into a storm," he said. "While this storm certainly had a tropical contribution at times, it is not being driven by tropical moisture. It was driven by dynamics, or wind."

Is this material somehow not legitimate enough to be present on the article?

Thanks! Velocitay (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi You have copied those content directly from the this link. It's a copyright violation. You shouldn't copy-paste content into Wikipedia. You have to write content in your own words and they must be properly cited-- Chamith   (talk)  05:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And also about reversion I made, the source you provided says "it is not that of a pineapple express". He doesn't confirm that it's a not a pineapple express. He just says that it doesn't really look a pineapple express. In fact it's controversial. So it needs more verification from different sources before going into an encyclopedia.-- Chamith  (talk)  05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantine edits
Hi ChamithN,

I received a note about an edit I performed on the (>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantine<) page. I made a minor edit to the syntax, to correct the terminology. The term "Marconi" used to describe Bermudian sail type is incorrect. The term Marconi is slang for the use of wire rigging and was applied at the turn of the 19th to 20th century to all rigs, gaff, Bermudian or other wise. The recent wholesale switch from natural fiber rigging to wire rope rigging, made them appear much like the so called Marconi telegraph poles, that were popping up all over the modern world. This term has loosely stuck into modern times, to describe Bermudian rigs in general, though gaff and other rigs where also said to be "Marconi" rigged, if wire rope was employed. The proper term for a triangular sail is Bermudian, with jib-headed and Leg-o-Mutton also be used, though these are more dependent on sail proportions, particular with the Leg-o-Mutton sail.

This is an easy enough set of terminology to verify, though all versed designers and NA's will confirm the point I raise here. In fact, Wikipedia has this terminology sorted out on (>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_rig<) page. I'd like to clean up this page as well, with other minor edits to insure clarity and accuracy.

I've also received a similar note on a the "Schooner" page, making the same type of syntax edits. Maybe those making these "decisions" should be versed on the subjects they think are being "attacked", before wholesale rejection of obvious syntax and terminology changes.

Best Regards,

Paul (PAR) Riccelli Yacht Design & Restoration

paryachts.blogspot.com

PARyachts (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey it's not about the syntax change you made. I reverted your edit because your additions were not mentioned in the given citation. Also there is no need to add things like (jibheaded) sail(s). And you broke the paragraph into two parts which is unnecessary. Those kinds of edits are considered as test edits. I also noticed that an automated bot did the same reversion to another edit by you. Cheers!-- Chamith   (talk)  05:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Unity#PC_reception
Hi, please can you help with my query about Assassin's Creed Unity and gaming reviews in general. Thanks Dvdfever (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sean O'Pry
Hi there ChamithN. Regarding your tagging the article as outdated, what information could we possibly add? I checked the internet today, and the most recent news refer to his appearance in Taylor Swift's music video, which is already added in the article. If you think the article is no longer outdated, please advise if the tag can be removed. Thanks! --Efe (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didn't notice that the information about Taylor Swift's music video was added. It was my mistake. I should have read the article properly. I'm going to remove the tag now. Thank you very much for noticing me. Regards.-- Chamith  (talk)  13:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome ChamithN. Thanks for removing it. Good day. --Efe (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse/Questions
I don't know what you did with this edit but you managed to delete most of the page content. Easily resolved. Nthep (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OMG, What the! I didn't do that on purpose. I swear. How the hell did that happen. I have no idea. I'm trying figure it out. When I tried to respond to the question there was an edit conflict so I refreshed page and copy-pasted my answer. I think something might have gone wrong when I did that. It was really stupid not to check the page afterwards. Thanks a lot for restoring the content. Even after I made that mistake I had no idea what I've done. This is terrible. Thank you again.-- Chamith   (talk)  08:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, we've all done it at some point. I've learnt never to trust what I'm seeing after an edit conflict and always carefully check the whole page before saving or often, copy my text, cancel the edit and start again but at least this time all I have to do is paste my text. Nthep (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Signature
I am actually considering making a template of some sort saying: "Yes, ChamithN has a very nice signature, please don't just copy it, try to make something original yourself." Well, let's just say that you have "user page" "talk page" and "contributions" to go with, most computers have about 300 fonts in common, and let's stick to 256 original web colors, then there is the regular, bold, italic, underlined and crossed over, plus the Caps, no Caps and combo, and you can get shade/background in 256 colors (not counting the reversed). So right there you easily have about 300x256x5x3x256= 294,912,000 ways to make your signature. And let's say that about half of these are not so good or impractical, that still leaves roughly 147,456,000 combinations! So, why oh why, must everyone copy yours? :) Best as always, w.carter -Talk  10:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC) (aka Guardian of ChamithN's sign)
 * *Laughing out loud*. Thank you for looking after my signature W.carter. It means a lot to me. I was thinking about the same thing. Why do they always copy mine? Anyways as long as you are here to guard my sign I have nothing to worry about. -- Chamith  (talk)  03:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown
I removed it because it's disputed as BLPREMOVE-able, like a lot of content in the article. This is the second time we've had to RFC to determine if keeping it out is justified, and I erroneously voiced that in my edit summary. Sorry for doing that and for taking up your time with this. --RAN1 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for explaining-- Chamith  (talk)  22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So I took another crack at this. Here's why I did what I did.SaintAloysius (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello ChamithN, I took another crack at it, trying to follow the guidelines you referenced. I went over some parts of the film to make sure of things and it turns out I had made some mistakes of my own. Still I think there are things that needed fixing, so I tried to fix. What follows is almost a change-by-change explanation/justification/defence. I honestly did try to take your advice to heart. I think "alienated" is closer than "fatalistic." I changed "ceases" to "has stopped," feeling that "ceases" is more of a legalistic register. I think that George either "feels" that everything is meaningless or that everything "seems" meaningless, but not both, so I rewrote to get rid of one of them. A cut: I don't think we need to introduce his academic probation with "As a result." I felt that after George "goes up" to the school roof, the teacher shouldn't "come up." The word "up" ends up having two possible meanings, so I changed it to "appears." I think "takes the blame" isn't really what George does. He's not being blamed for the actual situation (Sally smoking), he's acting as a decoy. It seemed awkward to have Sally "meet" George to thank him; likewise it seemed unnecessarily repetitious to have the words "to her" at the end of two clauses one after another. Wiki's style guide says to capitalize "holidays" and Wikihow says "public holidays." I don't think a school career day is either of those, so I removed the capitals again. I really think it's better to say that Dustin finds Sally attractive rather than that he "likes" her. "Likes" is kind of a teenage code either for finding someone attractive or having an actual crush on them; I think we're supposed to use neutral, adult language, even though we're talking about teenagers. I think "puke" is inappropriately colloquial ("vulgar" they used to say) in an encyclopedia article. "Vomit" might be okay, though maybe too technical, so I went with "throw up." I think the scene where Sally takes George to her place and puts him on the pull-out is quite pivotal, and George's better school performance needs to be mentioned to make sense of things later on. I tried to be brief and objective about them, but without them things get confusing later on with George's relapse, the ultimatum, and further consequences. Again, I tried to add less to the Valentine's Day scene, but it seemed misleading just to say that Sally "asks him to have sex with her." In fact, that was the line that moved me to revise the whole thing. Unfortunately my previous impression was a little off--I had thought she didn't even ask the question, but of course she did. But (as I'm sure you know), she kind of blurts it out as maybe a bumbling attempt to say that she "likes" George, and then panics and doesn't know what to do. So I tried to frame the question so it wouldn't be too confusing. I know we're producing a summary, so I tried to be more factual. I think I took some adjectives out of the previous (your?) text. Moving right along, I don't think it's accurate to use the word "instead" for Sally's relationship with Dustin. When she runs into him in the street she's trying to phone George, and when they do get together they start out talking about George. Specifying that George "doesn't do his English term paper" seems like unnecessary detail and could be confusing, so I made it more general. The clause "do every piece of undone homework for the year" is a little unspecific. "Undone" often means that something that was "done" has been "undone," and "for the year" could mean various things. You can figure it out, but it's slightly awkward. I thought "make up all the homework he has missed all year" was more specific. I know we're supposed to be very factual, but I got the impression when I read "At home, George confronts his stepfather about lying about work" that George initiated it all, but the incident actually comes about when George's parents confront him about his assignments. I was also trying to reword to there wouldn't be two "abouts." Talking about a "physical" fight struck me as strange. The basic meaning of a fight is physical, and an argument shouting match is derived from it. I think saying that the stepfather attacked George eliminates any confusion and is more natural. I think the idiom "but Sally breaks it" is wrong. A person "breaks away" or "break it off." I also thought the word "revealing" wasn't quite the right word, because it implies deliberately displaying or disclosing something, whereas Dustin is just there and we see it and I don't think we know what Sally would like to have happen. I think the saying George "completes his assignments" is confusing. It sounds like he's done, so that when he "triumphantly turns in all his assignments" I thought "Didn't he do that already?" I'm going to jump ahead a bit because I'm getting tired (while you, if you're still reading, are likely bored to tears.) When Sally and George meet in the bar, I again find "reveal" kind of coy. I think it's better to just say "tell" or "says that," otherwise it seems like we're saying she's trying to be dramatic. Maybe she is and maybe she isn't, but we're not supposed to be interpreting. In the last paragraph I think it's wrong to say that George's art project is (which is what a colon means, right?) "Sally's smiling face." To be objective, we should just say it's a portait of Sally (or a painting or whatever). "Sally's smiling face" even sounds like it could be the real Sally, or who knows? Likewise if we say that Sally comes into the room, we know what the viewer of the film knows. Last thing: I associate to "opt" with easy choices that don't perhaps carry much weight. You often see it in advertising settings and I don't think it really fits here. Anyway I promise to read any rebuttals you want to send me. I'm sure too that I made some mistakes (again!) in my revisions and I hope you'll fix any you find. I think the rewrite is still an improvement (shoulders of giants and all that) though, and I don't think it should be simply cancelled away.
 * Wow thank you for your detailed explanation. Not many people read guidelines before reverting edits. So I guess I should be grateful to you for being bold. I will look into it when I have time. And don't worry I won't revert your edit again, if there are errors in it I'll fix them myself. Cheers!-- Chamith  (talk)  07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Good faith edit
Don't try to hide the truth, this material belongs on the article. It is a good faith edit. MediaWiki:Bad image list 109.78.90.170 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You make no sense.-- Chamith  (talk)  18:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)