User talk:Zia224

Please feel free to leave me a message. I'll be responding to messages on the talk page, so check back to see if I've answered. I try to be timely with this. Zia224 (talk)

Welcome!

Hello, Zia224, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

Hello! and Welcome to Wikipedia! Just wanted to give you a heads up I undid your edit at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge per WP:BLPSOURCES. I agree the edit wasn't vandalism, and as such it should probably be reported as a false positive for ClueBot NG. The Reason I undid your edit was because no where in the source provided does it state Prince William has a geography degree. If you disagree or think I have made a mistake just ping me and I'll be more than willing to talk about it.

Also did you report ClueBot NG's edit as a false positive already if not I can do it for you if you'd like. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have edited after reversion; source located here. Also, I have to thank you for telling me, others have not been as courteous to tell me or even give a reason. I didn't report it to ClueBot NG. Zia224 (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, its a page with pending changes protection, and I have the reviewer right so I tend to watch those pages a little more closely than others. I'll tag it for review with ClueBot NG's error reporting system thanks! ----Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced content added back

@Zia224: Please take a moment and go back to Online assessment. I am sorry but you you have added back uncited text. You suggested there was no explanation for its removal. Please reread the key word in my edit summary. It states, "UNREFERENCED". Your edit summary is therefore incorrect - there is a clear explanation -- but of course you may not have understood the metaphorical part of the explanation. The problem however is that you have added back uncited text in contravention of WP:V and WP:RS. Accordingly, I politely request that you go back and remove the unreferenced content in question yourself. I have made it easy for you to do this by removing the subsequent intervening edit - all you will need to do is undo your own edit, with the mistaken edit summary. Thank you very much. Happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary also had gibberish in it; "unreferenced dog's breakfast with a bunch of random veggies, egg and sausage... and cheese, and ..... fish,.... and and" is not something atypical of what an editor in good faith would write; I'm not going to hold that against you, however, because my main qualm is this:
I am not sure that the paragraph in question requires a citation; it is probably covered in common sense that the Internet and computers facilitate assessment-taking. Therefore, I did not see a reason to remove it.
It appears that you reverted your edit (which left the article as it had been before I reverted yours) simply so that I could revert mine (when you had already done so). Zia224 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zia, I reverted my own intervening edit, not your edit. I did so, as I was genuinely trying to make it easy for you. I didn't set out to offend you personally. Since that's how it came across to you, I offer unlimited apologies. I appreciate your opinion. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FeatherPluma: Thank you for apologizing to me, and I must do the same to you; I probably went a bit overboard defending myself. I thought your post was attempting to discreetly patronise me when re-reading it after taking a break shows the opposite, that you wanted to show me something. However, I still have to say I do not understand how the paragraph you removed requires citations, as it is common sense to many readers. Happy editing to you, and my sincerest apologies for this. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on the issue of whether or not to revert the paragraph, however. Zia224 (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zia224: I am glad we are collaborating and discussing the issue properly. I am not particularly at the zealous end of the spectrum about WP:V and WP:RS, or about any policy for that matter. I fully accept your point that commonsense often deserves a nod. In this case, however, the article header has had a tag from 2010 which points to the article's general lack of proper sourcing. Not only is the text in question not cited, the article is tagged for clean up. Moreover, the text we are discussing reads to me as a run-on conflation of buzz terms. The sentence in question also has unacceptably ambiguous grammar - are there implicit commas, and if so, where? When I parse the sentence I find that it is thoroughly unacceptable linguistically. I also see WP:CRYSTAL issues. All of this is what the metaphorical component of my edit summary was intended to point to - sorry it was so flowery. Given all of this, unless there is a very good reason for retaining this material, I think it should be removed. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FeatherPluma: That's a good point, but I am in favor of just rewriting it; it does make sense, although it could do with a bit of cleaning to be more logical when read. Perhaps we could move our discussion to the article talk page? Zia224 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See Talk page. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zia224: Courtesy update that the article is proposed for merger as per the linked discussion at the article. I will carry over the content you wanted to salvage to the merged article. However, after merger it may not necessarily continue unless it meets the usual pillars. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Middle Egyptian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]