User talk:Zachary Yan

Can you please make an effort to write in grammatical English? c.f. [1] Jonah (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2014 (PST)

Sorry about my lack of English skills... What exactly is grammatically incorrect, everything makes sense to me. Also I'm revising it right now.--Zachary Yan (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2014 (PST)

I mean, do you want an itemized list of the mistakes? Here you go (not necessarily exhaustive):

• "among those individuals named was Andy Watkins" should not be preceded by a comma; a semicolon would be technically correct, but separate sentences would be better
• "previous to" is nonstandard; something like "It had previously been speculated" would be correct
• "however Andy's play was nonetheless still held in good faith" is perhaps only incorrect in that "nonetheless still" is redundant, but it's also just not a true statement (neither, for that matter, is calling the inspection "routine", which the NAQT release on the matter clearly implies
• "Casting doubt on this however" is a weird way to begin a sentence; if you wanted to keep it, it would be necessary to enclose "however" in commas. Similarly, there should be a comma after "However" in "However he was later forced"
• Also more factual than grammatical, Andy did not exactly "maintain his innocence": he did not deny having accessed the pages he accessed, although he did deny using that material to his advantage.

There are still a bunch of typos and factual errors in the article in its current state. If you're going to write about topics you don't have direct knowledge of, please do more thorough research.

Also, this is not a "minor" revision. Please do not mark your revisions as minor unless they are truly minor. Jonah (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2014 (PST)

Okay you're right there are some things, like Andy Watkins, I shouldn't be writing about. I've reverted the page back to its previous revision. Let me know if anything else gets out of hand.--Zachary Yan (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2014 (PST)

As I told you above, stop marking significant revisions as "minor". A revision is minor if it amounts to fixing a typo or formatting error, or making clarifications to wording that do not introduce new information or remove existing information. That's my first stab at a definition of "minor" and I reserve the right to amend it. The idea is that I shouldn't have to look at "minor" revisions when I look at the recent changes page. Jonah (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2014 (PST)

Okay sorry --Zachary Yan (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2014 (PST)

Once again I am going to ask you to use English that is grammatical and makes sense. Please read packet study carefully, then fix it, then be better in the future. Jonah (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (PST)

Looking at your revision, there are still some problems. "Method of" is correct, "method by" is not. The word "Internet" should be capitalized. Those are the only obvious technical errors remaining, but your prose still sounds like someone who reads at around a sixth-grade level. You might want to read some books and take some basic English classes before trying to add more than numerical data to the site. Matt Weiner (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2014 (PST)

I don't really know what's going on with my writing and specifically my prose, but I'm trying to emulate the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia, so I guess it might come out to be a little stilted.Zachary Yan (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (PST)

The issue is not that your prose sounds stilted. The issue is that your prose is often ungrammatical and nonsensical. Jonah (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2014 (PST)

The edits you're making wouldn't fly on Wikipedia, either. This is coming from someone who has been editing regularly for years. Alex Liu (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2014 (PST)

Okay I admit I suck, so I'll try stick to more almanac info for now.Zachary Yan (talk) 8:39, 31 January 2014 (PST)

You haven't been doing that and you have been making a lot of bad, and even potentially dangerous, edits. Further bad edits, bad English, or other problems will result in a ban. Jonah (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2014 (PST)

Okay I'll lay low/minor edit for a bit.--Zachary Yan (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2014 (PST)

What makes you say "NAQT champs don't have 'state' in their name"? That's completely untrue; see, to pick one of hundreds of examples at random, [2]. Jonah (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2014 (PST)

I remembering seeing something somewhere... but apparently I was wrong.--Zachary Yan (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Do you have a source for editing "MN" next to the name "Apollo" in the 2002 NAC article? Given the Apollo from Kentucky has played NAC multiple times and Apollo from Minnesota does not have any record of a team prior to Hentzel's arrival in Minneapolis and setting up of the NAQT league there in 2006, it seems much more likely that this is the one from KY. Are you, yet again, just making shit up because you're either trolling the site or too stupid to function? Matt Weiner (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2014 (PDT)

This is a minor mistake that you don't have to get so angry about, but nonetheless I'm fixing it right now. Apollo (also known as Saint Cloud Apollo) from Minnesota has had a somewhat successful KB team since the nineties so when I saw it listed in the field I thought it was them, my apologies. But anyways Hentzel didn't really set up the league, he inherited a bad qb league that dates back to a 70s televised competition. R did introduce major good quizbowl reforms in the state like you said though.--Zachary Yan (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (PDT)

If that were your only minor mistake no one would care. The problem is that it is part of a pattern of you making edits using assumptions in place of research, producing articles that have no basis in fact. You don't seem to have learned anything from your previous ban, so here, have another. Jonah (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (PDT)