User talk:Nonsequitrist

Raman Raghav 2.0
Hi, I recently noticed how you removed some simplified sentence and then re-wrote them, making them sound not-so-neutral. For example, "Miss Earth India 2013, Sobhita Dhulipala made her acting debut with this film. She had got a call for audition from the casting director of the film Mukesh Chhabra, where she was eventually selected." This sentence was rephrased as "Sobhita Dhulipala was a successful pageant contestant, earning the Miss Earth India title in 2013, as well as a successful model, but had never appeared in a film or even auditioned for a role before Raman Raghav 2.0. After being asked to test for the role of Smrutika by Mukesh Chhabra, the film's casting director, she auditioned for the role and secured it the same day." It's clearly exaggerated with non-neutral words like "successful". Same thing happened with other sentences as well. I admit the points that you have raised and I will clear them out myself. I really appreciate all the efforts that you put into editing this article, but I think it kind of worsened the prose quality. I don't mean to demean you, more power to what you do. But, I have decided to withdraw RR from the goce and I'll edit it myself now. Thank you for your efforts. No ill wills. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * [User:Yashthepunisher|Yashthepunisher], whether the actress in question had a successful career before participating in the film is a matter of fact, not a non-neutral assertion. The sentence you're complaining about tells us of the success of her pageant career, but a clarifying reference is probably in order to support the assertion about her modelling career. A larger problem, I'm afraid, is that the "simple sentences" you seem to prefer are quite uniformly closely paraphrased, often ungrammatical, and frequently contradictory. As an illustrative example: you prefer following "Filming began in September 2015 and was completed on 22 November 2015" immediately with "the filming was completed in 20 days". Note, however, the number of days between those two dates cannot be made to equal 20, even if weekends are excluded. Clearly both sentences cannot be accurate. You've already restored several instances of close paraphrasing, any one of which will bar the article from GA status. Finally, I'll point out that effective prose does not rely on simple sentences, but on, among other things, a well-understood flow that is prevented by a series of short and choppy sentences that are not effectively linked. Certainly I will refrain from further efforts with the article, but as the Revision History reveals you are responsible for many of the problems present in the article, I recommend you not rely on your efforts alone.Nonsequitrist (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I rephrased several sentences yesterday that you still call "paraphrasing", when they were entirely written by me. The 20 days bit is result of different references. One that states that the shoot started in late september and was completed on 22 november. The film wasn't shot in a non-stop 20 days schedule. It took them nearly 20 days for the entire filming. If I were "responsible" for deteriorating any article, I wouldn't have managed to take several articles and lists to GA/FL status. On the other hand, you have only made 46 edits. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of edits on this account, or any account, is not a useful index of competence at English composition. I'm afraid that the number of closely paraphrased sentences is considerably greater than several. Many of the sentences entirely written by you are the problematic closely paraphrased sentences, and some are nearly word-for-word copies of the text found in the cited sources. I'm aware that Kashyap said the film was shot in 20 days in several sources, but providing that information without explaining how it fits with the immediately previous sentence makes for an obviously confusing text. Your contributions in the article and here make it quite apparent that assistance with copyediting is still needed. Nonsequitrist (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Partial revert at Horse
I have partially reverted your edit to Horse. Consider, is it the horse's ability to jump that aids them? Or a horse's ability to fly away? Or perhaps that terrible roar combined with those nasty fangs. The hooves might give one pause, but it is the ability to run away and outdistance predators that works for them. Your change removed important information and introduced ambiguity. Shenme (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the humor in your reasoning, please consider that two out of three of your supposed interpretations of "quickly escape" are equally ambiguous in your preferred "make use of speed to escape." A clueless reader might suppose that speedy jumps were being referred to in your text, or speedy flight. And your third supposed interpretation ignores my use of "quickly" to imagine fangs, but is disabused of the notion of fangs by "speed"? While I cannot bring myself to imagine that when copyediting we must always keep in mind the deficiencies of those whose imaginings have nothing to do with the text, as with the fangs issue, I can see that both my and your versions both lack detail. Also, the version I supplied was faulty in at least one other way: what is a reader to imagine give a horse the ability to move quickly if not the horses physical traits? Making explicit reference to the horse's anatomy is just allowing pointless filler words. A third version is in order. Nonsequitrist (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)