User talk:Wysprgr2005/Archives/2014/July

Brazilian Portuguese: Please don't mass-revert
(1) Briefly, my constructive intention with that edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Portuguese&oldid=615077546) was to give the reader a previewing indication that the European languages in question would include English, French, German, and Italian. Prior to my edit (and now since your reversion), it is not clear whether "especially words connected to technology, modern science and finance" refers only to English or to all the European languages that were alluded to (but not named). The reader has to go through the long list of English words before reaching any indication that there were also contributions from French, etc. To me it seems clearer to begin the paragraph with a general statement (naming all the languages briefly) before going into the details about each one. (2) The paragraph that initially seems to be about the French contributions, as it now stands, begins with a sentence fragment, which gives the article an appearance of being not well planned, and written from a stream of consciousness. (3) To keep the reader oriented, a paragraph should begin with a topic sentence, stating in a general way what the entire paragraph will be about. This one that begins about French seems to drift into German, then Italian, then Japanese, then back to German, then again to Italian. What's the unifying theme of this paragraph? Lexical borrowing? No, the final sentence brings in the influence of Italian prosody. Please rewrite this paragraph (as more than one) in a better-organized way, if you feel up to it. (4) The same paragraph contains a sentence that begins "Scholars affirm" without any documentation of what scholars or where their affirmations are published. Wikipedia policies clearly say this kind of statement is subject to deletion if it cannot be supported by evidence. (5) "Brazilian Portuguese tends to adopt French suffixes as in aterrissagem, differently from European Portuguese." Differently in what way? This vague statement needs an example or two in support. (6) The term "diaspora" is misused. It refers to the scattering of a people to many places, not the immigration to a single country as we are discussing in the case of Brazil. (7) Abbreviations such as "BP" and "Pt." are inappropriate in the encyclopedia. "Portuguese" should be spelled out. (8) The "Southern and Southeast[ern] states" has a specific reference to regions defined by Brazil's Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, which may not be clear to most readers without the link that I inserted.

Please deal with each of these points separately, rather than reverting the section en masse. It is not fair for you to label such a mass revert as "m" for "minor edit"! Kotabatubara (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have counter-reverted. I don't want to get into a reverting war, but this seems justified in the absence of explanation for your original revert. Please say which of the above 8 points you object to.Kotabatubara (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

NOS Software
Please undo your undoing of my change on the NOS (Software) page. It made the page reflect a new peice of software called nOS.

210.246.14.106 (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

CURTISCARTER
I went back in the page and was actually was half way through placing the source on (as I forgot to include it) when you change the article.

Thanks pal, I have to do it again, much appreciated! Next time wait a few minutes as sometime people may need to come back to a page after reviewing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CURTISCARTER (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mackenzie King's racism not being "constructive."
The article seems to neglect a pretty significant part about the guy; just because it's negative doesn't mean it has no place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.223.63 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"no context"
And watch out for "no context" College of education and external studies is not "a very short article" that doesnt say what it's about The title doesn't say, but the article does; I'm moving it according;ly to a better title. Please do read WP:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

G1 speedies
Thanks for patrolling new ages, but please be careful about using WP:CSD nonsense. The specification "excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material," and someone whose English is not very good or who has not mastered how to format a page may be offended if his work is labelled nonsense. G1 is only intended for things like "'5tuZi4%^&^#Q#>$*" or "Yaaaaaayyyy LOL!!!!!"

There is good advice for speedy taggers from an experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, and keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take your advice, and not go on an anti-vandal spree during the wee hours of the morning. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"no indication of importance"
And watch out for A7 - a lot of articles arrive on NPP that should be tagged for this, but make sure that the article is totally and utterly unrepairable first. An article that may be notable, albeit unsourced, should have some sort of "hook" that will help you in a search - in the case of Golden Harvest (band), the phrase "They are best known for their lone top ten hit" means either there is a source somewhere stating that (in which case they are notable per our guidelines for musicians and bands), or there isn't, in which case its unverifiable and may be deleted. Either way, it's a decision for regular editing or a full deletion debate. A genuine A7 would be something like "Mr Rogers is the science principal for Boise Junior High. He likes trains and bowling."

The more serious problem is that, unlike some CSD criteria (such as blatant vandalism or attack page), pages that are eligible for speedy deletion via CSD A7 are often created by users in good faith, so you need to make sure you go easy on them. Sadly, years of experience have taught me that the standard twinkle templates scare off editors. I see the editor you tagged here is now marked as retired, which is worrying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tauhara College modifications
I'm not sure who you are....but I am the Deputy Principal of Tauhara College and have been asked by the Senior Staff to update the Wikipedia site for our school. The information on the site is historical and needs refreshment. I started the process last night only to have you tell me you think it was better the way it was? I do not appreciate your interference with what is going to be a long learning process for me. Mutchie57 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about this. The problem is that the controversy of the school was cited to a reliable source, The New Zealand Herald which means it can be retained in the article, although it is dated back to 2006. If the college has got better since then and has better NCEA results, we'll need a good source. The teahouse can help you learn how to locate and cite sources.

Wysprpgr, this is how you should answer a new user's question. You might have been correct to revert the edit due to problems, but don't bite them by reverting their edit on your talk page as if you don't want to hear it, because you can be blocked for disruption if it happens too often. Thankyou. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)