User talk:Zyploc

Everything will be okay

Hello I see you have done some edits on the laminin article. The sources there are quite out of date, so if that is your area of expertise please feel free to add some newer research.

ps dogs>cats :) DukeofCarniola (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jkudlick. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits spaced the source code in an organized fashion so that anyone editing in source can easily parse elements of each citation. They were edits for those who edit in source. How is it not constructive to organize the code via spacing? Many other pages use such spacing in the source code to provide an easier reading experience of the code (e.g., Reed–Solomon error correction). They were not experimental edits. I believe your reversion of my edits are actually deconstructive, since you have reverted the source to a jumbled mess. Zyploc (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were completely in good faith. Please provide the source that explains how my edits were "not constructive", as I feel as though your reasoning is purely subjective. If you do not reply I will take the matter to other moderators. Zyploc (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the page WP:CT displays examples of citation templates that are nearly the same format as what I had adjusted them to on the Football page. Please provide your source for how citation templates are best used inline, or else I will reimplement my edits. Zyploc (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at WP:CT are vertical for demonstration purposes only. The documentation for each citation template shows the vast majority of examples in inline or horizontal format. The reason is because keeping them horizontal helps an editor keep track of where the prose is while editing. A citation template split over 10 lines with additional prose following it in the same paragraph makes editing much more difficult. Other templates, such as {{infobox}} or {{football box}} use vertical format for the reason you state; it's easier to parse when not included within the prose of the article. I have yet to find a single article in which any citation template is retained in a vertical orientation.

Also, I would caution you against reimplementing your preferred version as your statement that you will "take the matter to other moderators" (I presume you mean administrators) shows a level of ownership. It is possible to make good faith edits that are unconstructive; in fact, that happens quite often. The only reason I am replying is because I noticed that my edit was no longer the current version of your talk page, so I came to investigate. If I did not pay attention to my contributions page, I never would have known you were attempting to converse since you did not {{ping}} me. If you truly feel I have assumed bad faith, WP:ANI is right over there. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]