User talk:Ciphers/Archives/2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Wikidata weekly summary #242

SFUSD article in Arabic

If you're interested, there's an article on SFUSD in Arabic. It could use some additions :) - Also if you want I can give you some ideas for school district articles to write in Arabic (U.S. school districts enrolling large numbers of kids from Arabic-speaking families)

If you still do photo requests in the SFO area I can give you a list of possible ideas. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #243

Studiengang listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Studiengang. Since you had some involvement with the Studiengang redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #244

Wikidata weekly summary #245

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #246

Wikidata weekly summary #247

Wikidata weekly summary #248

Wikidata weekly summary #249

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #250

Wikidata weekly summary #251

Weekly Summary #252

Wikidata weekly summary #253

Wikidata weekly summary #254

Wikidata weekly summary #255

Wikidata weekly summary #256

Wikidata weekly summary #257

Wikidata weekly summary #275

English fluency, again

I just spent nearly an hour going through the articles that you've edited in the past day, fixing grammatical errors and less-clear phrasing that you introduced. You've been asked repeatedly not to overstep your abilities in "correcting" the English of native-speaking anglophones. You are harming Wikipedia by doing so, creating additional work for better-skilled users of the English language to repair. I'm asking you again to please consider that you are not as linguisitically brilliant as you imagine, and leave the English grammar corrections to people who are in fact qualified. Magic9Ball (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ball (I've been calling you Ball, I hope you're ok with that). First of all, I really appreciate all the work you've been putting in reviewing my edits. I know some people would be annoyed by their edits being reviewed and fixed, but I find a great value in having an extra set of eyes (and hands, if that matter) on my work. As you know, I never claimed to be a native English writer. The English I use is mostly influenced by the scientific English I've been using throughout my research career, which is internationally influenced. N I'll be looking forward to working with you to build a better and inclusive Wikipedia. PS: When you review my edits, could you please trust my scientific knowledge on the articles I edit? I'd appreciate you doing so (unless it's your area of expertise of course). note: as a token of good faith, I took the liberty to make a few edits to a few articles you've contributed to. Thank you. --Ciphers (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ciphers, it's concerning that you're still engaging in high levels of English-worsening in your edits after the now-archived discussion we just had, at the end of which you said you understood and were going to be more careful about this sort of thing. And please don't fool yourself that your English errors are due to differences between scientific English and non-scientific English, or between international English and American English. The following are the English errors in your post above, none of which are due to such differences:
"Ball, I" → "Ball; I". "ok" → "OK" or "okay". "find a great value" → "find great value". "if that matter" → "for that matter". "N" → "". "to build" → "in building" or "to help build". "and inclusive" → "and more inclusive". "PS:" → "P.S.". "expertise of" → "expertise, of". "note: as" → "NOTE: As" or "Note: As". "liberty to make" → "liberty of making".
And before you say, "Well, I'm much more careful when editing actual articles," that has not been my observation, nor has it been the observation of the other editors that have been trying to get you to see reason on this and to stop attempting so much English copyediting. As for your request to have your scientific knowledge trusted on your edits, that's not how Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your edits need to be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. What trust anyone might or might not place in your scientific expertise is immaterial. Although some of your edits have been valuable, you're really going to need to take less of a "bull in a china shop" approach. --Dan Harkless (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't thank me for fixing your mistakes, Ciphers. I'm not doing it for you, and I'm not here to be your ESL tutor. I am specifically here on this page to complain, and to ask you to stop victimizing Wikipedia with your incompetent copyediting. You can't gain "near-native" competence from reading scientific literature, and your chronic screw-ups demonstrate that. If you see something that looks like a grammatical error in the text of an article, leave it. It probably isn't an error, but rather someone writing at a more proficient level than you. If you want to improve your English, look at these as examples to learn from, not opportunities to pretend you know better. If you were simply making mistakes in the process of adding new material to Wikipedia, that wouldn't be a problem; lots of people do that. But you're replacing correct English with incorrect English, and that is a problem. The fact that you've been told that it's a problem, and persist, is a serious problem. Magic9Ball (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #276

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #277

Wikidata weekly summary #278

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #279

Wikidata weekly summary #280

Wikidata weekly summary #281

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #282

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #283

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #284

Wikidata weekly summary #285

Wikidata weekly summary #286

Wikidata weekly summary #287

Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #288

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ciphers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #289

Wikidata weekly summary #290

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #291

Wikidata weekly summary #292