This is Buzity's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
![]() |
Hi Buzity! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 01:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. I recently undid one of your edits to the article on the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 saying there were "grammar/syntax problems". You made the same changes again and wrote to "read the quotes carefully" cause that's what the sources said. Just wanted to clarify the reasons why I undid the edits and why they have grammar/syntax problems. First, your edit reads:
and your edit reads...
First, the sentence is too long. It is what it's called a "run-on sentence". Second, the word "resolved" is in past tense, which shouldn't be the case. In any case, it should read "resolving". Third, the word "issue" at the end of the sentence should be taken out cause it shouldn't read "political status of Puerto Rico issue", but "the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico". Then again, it would be redundant and it could be left as just "resolving the political status of Puerto Rico". The final part of the sentence isn't needed because it's just restating and repeating what is already inferred in the article about the consequences of the results. There is no need to repeat them. That's why instead of saying, for example, "the victory of the admission as a state of the union", we can just refer to the win of statehood. I hope you understand the reason I made the edits. Still, I will incorporate some of the changes you made, though. Thief12 ( talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't stop just inserting your "consensus proposals" into the article, I'm going to have to involve an administrator. Until they are agreed to, your proposals for major change must be kept to the talk page because a discussion is ongoing. Doing otherwise is rude as it shows no regard for the other editors who are discussing the matter with you in good faith. It is also disruptive editing, which can bring along with it a block. - Rrius ( talk) 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think mediation comes before arbitration, so I've added the section "Include Territory" summary for mediation at Talk:United States, which I hope is satisfactory. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join in the discussion about the U.S. introduction describing the federal constitutional republic “including territories” or “excluding territories” at Defining the United States of America.
The immediate concern is a section, “Questions for parties” where the arbitrator is asking for each to voice a preference a) b) c) d), and brief rationale. (For example, mine was too long, illiciting the gentle, “thanks the input” response and another request for my choice.)
An editor for accommodating territories in the lead, RightCowsLeftCoast, said of my idea to invite you, “The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 2:17 am, Today.” Please join in if you have a chance. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This is Buzity's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
![]() |
Hi Buzity! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 01:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. I recently undid one of your edits to the article on the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 saying there were "grammar/syntax problems". You made the same changes again and wrote to "read the quotes carefully" cause that's what the sources said. Just wanted to clarify the reasons why I undid the edits and why they have grammar/syntax problems. First, your edit reads:
and your edit reads...
First, the sentence is too long. It is what it's called a "run-on sentence". Second, the word "resolved" is in past tense, which shouldn't be the case. In any case, it should read "resolving". Third, the word "issue" at the end of the sentence should be taken out cause it shouldn't read "political status of Puerto Rico issue", but "the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico". Then again, it would be redundant and it could be left as just "resolving the political status of Puerto Rico". The final part of the sentence isn't needed because it's just restating and repeating what is already inferred in the article about the consequences of the results. There is no need to repeat them. That's why instead of saying, for example, "the victory of the admission as a state of the union", we can just refer to the win of statehood. I hope you understand the reason I made the edits. Still, I will incorporate some of the changes you made, though. Thief12 ( talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't stop just inserting your "consensus proposals" into the article, I'm going to have to involve an administrator. Until they are agreed to, your proposals for major change must be kept to the talk page because a discussion is ongoing. Doing otherwise is rude as it shows no regard for the other editors who are discussing the matter with you in good faith. It is also disruptive editing, which can bring along with it a block. - Rrius ( talk) 03:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think mediation comes before arbitration, so I've added the section "Include Territory" summary for mediation at Talk:United States, which I hope is satisfactory. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join in the discussion about the U.S. introduction describing the federal constitutional republic “including territories” or “excluding territories” at Defining the United States of America.
The immediate concern is a section, “Questions for parties” where the arbitrator is asking for each to voice a preference a) b) c) d), and brief rationale. (For example, mine was too long, illiciting the gentle, “thanks the input” response and another request for my choice.)
An editor for accommodating territories in the lead, RightCowsLeftCoast, said of my idea to invite you, “The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 2:17 am, Today.” Please join in if you have a chance. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America.
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)