User talk:Chenzw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation
This is the User talk page for Chenzw, where you can send messages and comments to Chenzw.
User talk

Tech News: 2018-19[change source]

16:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed Aboutrika[change source]

Hi, I really don't think the language was complex. I did simplify every sentence I took from that I thought needed so, and there are a lot of sections there that I ignored because they were hard to simplify. I'm not a native English speaker BTW, I may have an advanced level, but me not being a native speaker and being able to completely understand what is written, I guess that makes it simple. I asked for an opinion from another user here and he agreed. I think "not showing many signs of conversion" isn't enough reason to judge it as complex, with my regards MohamedTalk 15:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Simplification is not a mere matter of replacing words and skipping/ignoring the parts you are unable to simplify. In this version of the article, almost every sentence was of the same structure as was the case on EN. Another editor has separately expressed interest in further editing it, so I have restored the page to their userspace at User:Vermont/Mohamed Aboutrika. Chenzw  Talk  16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, more than half of the article is statistics and achievements, the leading section can't possibly be made simpler, then there is only his personal life, I did replace many words like you said without much change to the structure, but that's because I didn't think the structure was complex (or that I needed to change it anyways to make it just different), There are also some qoutes that I thought shouldn't be changed, I don't know if simplification applies to quotes too or not, thanks MohamedTalk 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Quotes, by definition, should not be modified. Again, I have to reiterate that simply substituting words is not simplification. Chenzw  Talk  16:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
well, I just would like to know how to make it simpler, I know of course simplification of sentences and grammar is as important as that of words, but I don't think in this article there is much to simplify. apart from unmodified qoutes, the leading section and statistics, there are only 4 or 5 small paragraphs, I don't think they can be simplified also without removing a part of the info given in the sentence or breaking the sentence into parts (which I don't think would make it better, it would be like replacing: " In Gaza, Palestinian people went out, raising Aboutrika's photos thanking him and appreciating what he did" to " In Gaza, Palestinian people went out. They raised Aboutrika's photos. They thanked him. They appreciated what he did", thanks MohamedTalk 17:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are some examples (not exhaustive) that get in the way of understanding:
  • "Mohamed Aboutrika came second in the African Footballer of the Year award in 2008 after Emmanuel Adebayor, and was one of five nominees for the 2006 award, and one of the ten nominees in 2013 for the award." (note my emphasis)
  • "One of Aboutrika's soccer role models, is the Egyptian player, Mahmoud El Khatib. while, off the pitch he takes the Prophet Mohammed as his role model."
  • "He was given a yellow card for breaking FIFA's rule against displaying political slogans during play, but CAF didn't give him any punishments." - not only does this simplification consist of only word replacement, it also removes the nuances reflected in the EN version. Notice that in your attempt to simplify, you completely removed "and was said to face possible further sanctions". That clause is a crucial detail.
I suggest you get in touch with Vermont, who has a copy of the article in their userspace. Also please be mindful of WP:NPOV. Chenzw  Talk  17:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
First (altough it has nothing to do with the reason of deletion (as in the QD summary)): I am mindful of Neutral point of view, I took all the info from (which obviously has no reason not to have neutral point of view. Tho ONLY info that needs verification is about what the people of Gaza did after his act (and there was actually a source but I removed it because it became a dead end)
  • The first point you mentioned is what I just said in the last message, If the sentence is broken to more than one, It would have to many "He"s insted of too many "and"s
  • yes, off the pitch is probaly complex, but I didn't give this one much importance
  • I don't see the problem in removing "and was said to face possible further sanctions" as long as the next sentence is there, the next sentence gives an idea that he may have been punished. and I don't see what that has to do with being simple or not.
  • Finally, Iam really assuming good faith and really just trying to help, I guess you didn't do the same when talking about neutral point of view. I don't need to praise him, there is nothing controversial here, and as I said, I didn't add a single piece of info from outside (in which I didn't contribute to the article), thanks MohamedTalk 17:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
As a direct response to your points:
  • I didn't say that you must split the text into numerous short sentences. However, what I quoted contains two conjunctions within the same sentence. This one sentence could be split into two sentences.
  • Well, if you believed that it was not important, then we shall agree to disagree.
  • In your attempt to simplify (which is a poor attempt, by the way, due to the aforementioned mere substitutions of words), you removed the fact about further sanctions being considered for the offense of displaying political symbols. This changes the meaning significantly:
  • EN's version: he broke FIFA's rule (for displaying the symbols), and CAF was considering further sanctions, but ultimately decided not to.
  • Your version: he broke FIFA's rule, but CAF didn't punish him at all.
  • Cherry-picking content from the EN article to include in the article here is itself a form of bias. I note that the EN version had a section describing his asset freeze (which is not in this version), and am merely asking you to be mindful of this. I find it strangely ironic that you are accusing me of not assuming good faith when you yourself are not assuming good faith (by accusing me of not assuming good faith).
If you wish to dispute the deletion further, please make a new request on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Chenzw  Talk  18:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, you are the one who is not assuming good faith, and it's not ironic at all I didn't "cherry-pick", I didn't even know the part of asset freeze existed in (and BTW, if you search the subject well, he was removed from terror list in Egypt a few weeks ago (but this isn't yet on but I can give you sources here if you are interested)). I am not obliged to add EVERY part of the the subject, I just took the first part of the article and personal life because I found it short then added the statistics and honours because they don't need simplification (and again that has Nothing to do with the reason of QD), I am not the one assuming bad faith.
although I don't think these minor observations are "crucial" and without them the article is "complex in language", would the article be restored if I follow them? MohamedTalk 18:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chenzw! I've done a bit of removing and rewording with the article, and think that it's ready. As you were the deleting administrator, I'd like you to clear it before I move it to the mainspace. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

well, I didn't know simplification = removing, there is nothing left in it now except for statistics and achievements. Again, about neutral point of view (which has nothing to do with the reason for deletion), I DiD Not add a single piece of info other than what already existed in, so if you think there is a "NPOV" problem (although I don't think so), I guess that should refer to the authour, and there are actually sentences that have citation needed template and that happens, not every single info is sourced even in MohamedTalk 23:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There's multiple issues with the article you created in the mainspace. Just one of which was it's deletion reason; that it was essentially the same as the en.wikipedia article. Another was the NPOV issues, which are present in the en.wikipedia article as well. When you simplify an article from the English Wikipedia, you should not be blindly copying and rewording. Rather, you should be writing the article as though you were writing it yourself, making sure to follow guidelines and policies as one would if writing it themselves. Blaming it on the article's writer is pointless; we are not here to discuss the merits of that article, nor are we an indiscriminate translation of English Wikipedia articles as is implied by you saying "I guess that should refer to the authour..." Regarding your assertion that "simplification = removing", I removed content that was poorly sourced and promotional, as well as self-promoting quotes that don't belong in the article. Thank you, and happy editing. Vermont (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just to be clear, it is 100% acceptable to copy an enwiki article exactly if two conditions are met: 1) the enwiki article is already in simple language (some are, although not many), and 2) you give appropriate attribution. That is the whole point of the licenses Wikipedia operates under. Mohamed, if you haven't already done so, I recommend reading Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia to learn more about the kind of simple writing required here. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
user:Auntof6, that was my point in the first place (Not showing much conversion isn't enough to judge it as complex), before it became all about my bias and NPOV, anyways thank you all, I don't like that kind of long pointless discussions and maybe never had to go through them, I'll try to be better at simplification, you must be more experienced than me in that and have a point, thanks MohamedTalk 10:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reporting mistaken revert and comment on notification[change source]

I was surprised at this revert. I suspect it was because it was my first edit on this encyclopedia. I normally edit on the English Wikipedia.

It's not clear from your {{Usertalkback}} notice if you support using WP:Notifications to let editors know about your replies on this page. The {{u}} and {{ping}} templates make the process easy. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Yes, the bot takes only the edits on this wiki into consideration when evaluating the edit. I have added this false positive to the training database. I don't typically use the notifications system because this is a small wiki and most editors watch each other's talk pages. However, I will do so since you prefer that. Chenzw  Talk  07:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-20[change source]

22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello[change source]

The page you recently deleted about 'mike dichen' has notabilit Hear is the link you can check he is an actor

No, it doesn't. It merely asserts his existence as an actor. Notability is more than that. Chenzw  Talk  02:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you want any addtional links2409:4070:2007:B26B:7FED:2027:2A9E:1DAA (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not responsible for writing your article, so giving me links achieves nothing. Chenzw  Talk  02:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Very rude reply then you deleted my artical which i have contributed with reference and telling i am not responsible i have gave you the reference from top site (imdb)and you are telling there is no notblity

I am merely stating facts. The existence of an IMDB page tells us nothing about notability. It looks like you are equally rude since it is obvious you haven't read our guidelines on notability yet. If you have read the guideline, you would have known that mere existence as an actor does not immediately confer notability. I have no desire to continue this discussion further. Chenzw  Talk  03:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-21[change source]

17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)