User talk:Zppix/2016/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please comment on Talk:Theresa May

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert at Islam El Shehaby

Hi Zppix, I've undone this revert. While your edit message fits, it fits your edit, not the edits you reverted. I suspect you misclicked somewhere, or were overly conspicuous with an IP editing a controversial article. However, the edits look quite good to me. Please explain the edit on the talk page if you plan to re-do it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Misuse of Huggle

You used Huggle to leave an inappropriate message. That edit consists of additions (and improvements). It does not at all consist of blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia. Please be more careful in using tools. If you disagree, we can ask for review of your use of Huggle.17.255.236.41 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my talk page again... It is not inappropriate for me to revert and warn an VANDAL. Any further attacks will be taken to ANI and reported to the administrators. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

AIV reporting - a couple of tips

Hi Zppix,

Just a couple of things in addition to JamesBWatson's wise words at WP:AIV. Firstly, please can you try and pick a maximum of about 5 vandalism edits per report (the worst recent offending edit(s))- looking through 20 marginal edits is a waste of everyone's time. Secondly - please try to add more than the stock 'vandalism' wording if it's anything even slightly ambiguous, it'll make the life of whichever admin deals with it far, far easier. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Safari Trek

Hello...regarding the safari trek motorhome page...I am not making destructive edits..I am adding information. i am the originator of this page...thank you for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by King e (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing content about Louis XVIII.

Hello,

to make it short.. yes you did a mistake and yes I explained myself but have sadly NO clue about the much to complicated system her on Wikepedia I'm sorry... I explained my action here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_XVIII_of_France And so I'm going to delete it again if you wont change your actions back than yourself. Thank you. Cheers et au revoir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarice (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

atone

Saying that kapporeth = atone is factually incorrect & poor scholarship. Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.76.42 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

18:51:43, 21 August 2016 review of submission by Chsanford

Chsanford (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Positional Distribution Analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Zppix! Thank you for reviewing Draft:Positional Distribution Analysis. I noticed that you rejected the article for the reason that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. We had previously submitted the article, and it was rejected with the same message. We tried to edit it to make it more understandable, but it sounds like we're not there yet. Do you have any advice regarding what we can do to improve the article? Thank you! Chsanford (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Zika virus epidemic

About [this] The article is outdated, imprecise and made bold claims without support. Can you explain me how it was better before?

[This change] is improves the reference and adds data.
[This change] reflects what the reference says. The article is very focus on El Salvador.
For [this change], the bold claim that "widespread sexual violence results in many women getting pregnant against their will" is ridiculous. It's plain wrong to assume that there is "widespread sexual violence" Latin America. I would be okey with a citation here.

Thanks!

--Lucianobello (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry, I'm new, I wasn't trying to vandalise anything, I was trying to add the link to the update I did, I apologise for any harm I did. I just wanted to make my edit the right way, I didn't know you had to add links and I was just trying to figure out how to do that properly. Any help gratefully received. Thanks Laura. Lozjayne (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries... Feel free to ask questions at the Teahouse Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

PEMS edits

Dear Zppix - I made edits to the PEMS page to streamline the content, and also added more details. I have been in the PEMS business since 1999, and (in fact) was the first developer of the PEMS addition to Wikipedia back in 2007. I would greatly appreciate it if you could resore your changes - as it will make the content that much more accurate and less like a bedtime story. Many thanks - feel free to get back to me if you have any additional questions on this particular topic - I have plenty of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonBlue (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zppix - I made the changes, and added the justification that was asked of me. Good call - I am willing to provide more justification - if you feel it is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonBlue (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zppix - sign like this? --LondonBlue (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please create new sections for different topics, however. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:GOCE/REQ copyedits

Spending one and four minutes, respectively, on two GANs is simply disrespectful to the requestors. This, combined with your April RfA, makes me wonder if you're WP:HERE; please convince me that you are. Miniapolis 19:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Interstate 440 (North Carolina), editors don't go to the trouble of requesting a copyedit if they can just run a script themselves. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to and WP:COPYEDIT, and let me (or another experienced copyeditor) know if you have any questions. Miniapolis 19:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I dont just use scripts i went through it with visual and source editor... I'm not stupid... In fact if you have an issue on how I operate then check my copyedit for yourself... My copyedits are within guidelines of enwiki... Just because I don't spends months on a copyedit doesnt mean I dont put effort into it. Please AGF. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I owe more good faith to the requestors. Miniapolis 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Zppix, I suggest you take Miniapolis' comments on board rather than argue against them. The fact is, it is near-impossible to complete a decent copyedit, even of a short article, in less than 5-10 minutes. Mike1901 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Mike, I do, I also have a right to defend my actions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. FWIW, I can only average about 2,000 words a day (which takes a couple hours). Zppix, if you don't have the time to put into the requests there's always our humongous backlog. Miniapolis 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm closing this before it gets heated and for my own good (I really do not wanna fight about this) --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There's not much defending or "fighting" to be done. Your copyedit of Interstate 440 (North Carolina) took you less than two minutes from the time you marked it as "in progress" to the time you marked it as "completed". Let's be generous and say it took you 15 seconds total to navigate to the article when you started, navigate back from the article, and post that you had completed the request. Let's also be generous and say it took you only 15 seconds to run the script and review its results. That leaves you with 1.5 minutes to read through a 1894 word article exhaustively and look for positive changes. When reading for comprehension, not for nuanced copyediting, a college professor can usually read at 675 words per minute. You allegedly managed to go through at a rate of 1,262 words per minute while looking for possible improvements in prose, and that's based on extremely generous assumptions of how long you spent on the copyedit itself. This is simply impossible. Not even a speed reader (who typically reads for comprehension at a rate of 1,500 words per minute) could check the quality of prose at the rate you went.

You can choose to go about this two ways. First, you could take this very legitimate criticism into consideration and either refrain from copyediting entirely or significantly alter your practices to thoroughly review each request. Second, you could brush the criticism off and ignore it, continuing to rush through copyedits at a speed above what a speed reader could accomplish. The latter option will likely eventually wind up at WP:ANI. I believe you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia, so I hope that doesn't happen, but you will rapidly exhaust the community's patience if you don't change anything about how you're doing your copyedits. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I refuse to stop copyediting.. Ill starting taking more time however, talking about me behind my back is disrespectful and not even proper... If you have something to say about me say it... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is talking behind your back. Miniapolis 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit, as is anyone with the competence to do so, but if you do not actually edit the prose of an article to a high standard, please do not mark an article as copyedited at the GOCE Requests page. This is what it took to copyedit the I-440 article. That work took me about an hour. It needed a lot more than the three unneeded spaces that you added. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So, be careful. I wouldn't really copyedit if I were you, as you don't seem to know how to do one very well. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan Health Research Council

Thanks for moving the article. --113.203.139.174 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Firelog.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Firelog.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)