User talk:Matz44

June 2016

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Flying Witch, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. —Farix (t | c) 15:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is a very very late response

I am responding to acknowledge my acceptance of this mistake (I did realise my mistake at the time when this was placed on my talk page but I didn't know how to properly respond). I tried to thank you @TheFarix: by thanking you on your edit but now I know my mistake, what a reliable source is ,and how to properly respond on a page. I am simply here to end this so that when people look at my talk page they do not think I could be continuing to regularly use unreliable sources in the future. Regardless of whether they were done in good faith or not.

P.S.: I'm sorry I wasn't more concise with how I worded that and the fact that I took so long to respond Matz44 21:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing resources

Hi, Matz44! I saw you've signed-up for the August GOCE blitz and I wanted to make sure you have these resources:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to has tons of help. I particularly recommend Tony1's exercises.
The Manual of Style is Wikipedia's house style guide. It is full of guidelines developed specificially for the purposes of writing on Wikipedia.
- The simplified Manual of Style are the essentials for starting-out. (The main page is huge and has dozens of sub-pages.)

Copyediting requires a lot of focus and attention-to-detail, checking every comma, every capital, breaking down every sentence and making sure that it's as clear as possible. Wikipedia's mandate gives us additional concerns like making sure it's formatted for screen-readers, uses Plain English for ease-of-translation, and has neutral point-of-view.

There's a lot to learn, but do go ahead and start an article – there are many short biographies to work on this week. If you have any questions, give me a {{ping}}. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Thank you for the resources, I'll make sure to go through the ones I haven't read yet. I actually do have some questions, if I want my edits to count towards my total for this blitz is it a problem if it improves other non-copy-edit portions of the article? My other question is what constitutes as a major edit for copy editing. Completely unrelated question but since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to post a reply to this. Matz44 23:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so sorry that I missed this yesterday! You replied in the right place, it's my fault for missing it. If you want quicker replies on a blitz, you can ask questions on this month's blitz talk page where any number of the experienced editors and Guild coordinators will see your posts.

The blitz total is based on the word count of articles you copy edit, and those articles have to be from the list at the top of the blitz page. To answer your question, some parts of the article are not counted by the wordcount script. The script only counts the prose, and won't include any words in wikicode or generated by a template.

You are allowed to count extra words if there are extensive lists, tables, picture captions, or section headers in need of copy editing. With some of these smaller biographies, there may be only a couple paragraphs of prose and then a big list of works or awards. So yes, if you copy edit those, you can credit those words to your count for the article – so long as you complete the copy edit before the end of the blitz. (Let me know if you want help figuring out the count.)

On the other hand, non-copy edit work does not count toward your copy edit total. Adding an infobox, putting references into citation style, adding references, and other non-copyedit cleanup does not count as copy editing. You can do this sort of cleanup if you want as a general "tidying" or improvement of the article, but you don't get extra credit for it on the blitz.

I hope that answers your question. As for major/minor copyedits: minor ones are usually casual, fixing something that was noticed while reading an article, some typos or an awkward sentence. (I did a lot of typo fixing before I joined the Guild.) A major copyedit is a thorough analysis of the entire article, which is enough to remove the {{copy edit}} tag as there should be no additional copy editing required. The Guild considers a copy edit to be "complete" when the article is free of grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, and compliant with the major points of the Manual of Style. I also like to watch for clarity, conciseness, consistency, and tone.

P.S.: I noticed you were new, which is why I jumped in to offer help. Don't worry about it, we were all new once. I've only been doing this for a little over a year and now I'm a know-it-all. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:You (Novel)

Hello, Matz44. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "You".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:A Closed and Common Orbit (Novel)

Hello, Matz44. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "A Closed and Common Orbit".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hhkohh (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]