Serendipodous (talk | contribs) →Nice to see you again!: new section |
Fowler&fowler (talk | contribs) →Please assume good faith: new section |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
Wondered if you'd disappeared for good... <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Wondered if you'd disappeared for good... <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup>]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b> 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Please assume good faith == |
|||
I appreciate what you've done in [[Bengal famine of 1943]]. It takes a lot of stamina to produce an article of that length and for that you have my admiration. |
|||
However, it is best that you too understand that I'm not looking to throw a wrench in the works because I get perverse pleasure from it, nor am I attempting to hog credit for myself. I'm simply trying to make sure that an article created in user space—on a very important but also very contentious topic which has seen the major intellectuals of the day disagreeing—accurately paraphrases the sources, that it does not favor any point of view any more than a predominance of the sources do, etc. Please assist me in this task. I do understand that you are impatient. The revision will take time, several months as I've already indicated, and will require patience. While I myself am not much affronted by people's impatient outbursts, please be aware that they won't be doing ''you'' any good, nor hurrying the process one whit. Best regards, [[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:57, 12 May 2017
Acne vulgaris
Hi Lingzhi
One of the other reviewers checked 25% of the refs. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
regards, Sandbh
Access date
Hi Lingzhi, I'm just curious why you removed the access date here; I thought we were supposed to include them? Have I missed something? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it's the script in my User:Lingzhi/common.css that displays Citation errors. It said that one has an access date but no "url= " parameter. Besides, aren't JSTOR links permanent? There were a few more citation errors on the page, but I didn't alter them. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, so if it's a permanent link (jstor, doi, etc) they don't need a pen acces date? That would make sense. Thanks – you learn something new every day! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @The Bounder: that script I mentioned will throw out an error whether it's a permanent link or not, simply because you didn't populate the url= parameter. When I saw that, PLUS the fact that it was a permanent link, I was like, "Well we don't need this anyhow." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Now I've copied your script I see what's flagged. Nice tool that is! Thanks for the tweak, the tool and the explanation; I'm much obliged! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- @The Bounder: that script I mentioned will throw out an error whether it's a permanent link or not, simply because you didn't populate the url= parameter. When I saw that, PLUS the fact that it was a permanent link, I was like, "Well we don't need this anyhow." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, so if it's a permanent link (jstor, doi, etc) they don't need a pen acces date? That would make sense. Thanks – you learn something new every day! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Question
Dear Lingzhi,
I applied for Questia's account more than 2 months ago and have not received any respond yet! I'm curious to know, reason of your ignorance in answering my messages!! Could you please let me know, what is your decision? Regards --DejaVu (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to recall that you hadn't met the minimum editing standards.. is it.. minimum of 6 months and 500 edits, perhaps? I will check again in about 1 hour from now. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
This's for your commendable work at Bengali famine.I will be keeping a keen watch over how this turns out after being mainspaced. Winged Blades Godric 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
Books and Bytes - Issue 21
Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikipedia Library User Group
- Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
- Spotlight: Library Card Platform
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Jan to Mar 17 Milhist article reviewing
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of three Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Bengal famine of 1943
Its a horrific read. A huge achievement in dept of coverage. Deeply moved. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words! I have to say, some aspects of it turned my stomach as well. But I think Wikipedia's coverage of an important topic has been improved, and I am glad for that...thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. Get this through the review process... slowly but steadily. You have been very cautious so far, fair play; from here canvas wide and hard for input and help. I admire your approach so far; its such an important article. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, I was actually gonna sit back and let the CR processes play themselves out, responding to comments as they come, unless some Valued Editor begins disruptive editing. In that case, I plan to hide behind the skirts of as many admins as are within shouting distance... I say that because I tend to be impatient and a bit snippy perhaps, which would be counterproductive in this case. Thanks!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well you are the sort to generally get on with folks round here, so I have high hopes. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hah! Thanks... [Massively unrelated personal side note: You said "fair play" which reminds me of one of my all-time favorite songs.07:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well you are the sort to generally get on with folks round here, so I have high hopes. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, I was actually gonna sit back and let the CR processes play themselves out, responding to comments as they come, unless some Valued Editor begins disruptive editing. In that case, I plan to hide behind the skirts of as many admins as are within shouting distance... I say that because I tend to be impatient and a bit snippy perhaps, which would be counterproductive in this case. Thanks!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. Get this through the review process... slowly but steadily. You have been very cautious so far, fair play; from here canvas wide and hard for input and help. I admire your approach so far; its such an important article. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Message from 94.191.187.61
Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right?
- Thank you for your message. The article is not about Churchill; the correct place for Churchill-bashing re India is Winston Churchill#Indian independence. Based on your... editing... I did add a link to that section. Thank you for your input... The Bengal famine article already mentions charges of racism against Churchill... Moreover, putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
"putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE" Dickling, no. We have had this quote in STANDARD WIKIPEDIA light blue background among others on many others all along, for years and years, literally. Then you suddenly think you can immigrate this article and push out the original content? You are deluded and we've marked you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
song names
Song names don't get italicized, but rather in quotations. per WP:MOSALBUM --Jennica✿ / talk 23:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've never done an album before, and am mildly unlikely to ever do one again. I just happen to like that album, and was surprised it was a redlink. But thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
IP report
Hi, sorry I didn't see your message, my time zones are unpopular. Either ANi or my talkpage is fine, whatever gets the quickest response. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia e-mail
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I sent you an e-mail about a database I needed access to. Thanks! Werónika (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lingzhi. Your editing on the Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 is unnecessarily aggressive. I understand that you're proud of the time and effort you've put into remaking the page and believe me when I say that that is much appreciated. However, on Wikipedia, articles do not have only one voice and your apparent expectation that your work will be immediately accepted and permanently written in stone, as an FA or not is unrealistic. The best articles on Wikipedia, particularly on controversial topics, are those where there is tension between editors and the article is built from the give and take between those editors. The tension results in debates that result in better sources and better evaluation of sources. You have to accept that. Regardless, do note that this is an unacceptable personal attack. --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Bullshit. I am directly quoting a flat assertion; that assertion is quite frankly the dictionary definition of a pro-British POV. Do not label it a personal attack; either recant or disengage. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Your call. Exactly as I feared, you are demonstrating WP:OWN issues with the article. That's neither healthy nor productive. But you need to figure this out for yourself before you get into trouble. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with Regentspark here, Lingzhi, sorry. I went through a small amount of hell regarding accusations of POV etc when I rewrote James Tod and then took it to FAC but these things have to be seen through in a spirit that is collaborative within the scope of our policies and guidelines. Sure, you can quickly dispense of the outright warriors etc but you do have to deal reasonably with the vast majority of contributors and, like it or not, Fowler&fowler does have an immense knowledge of the Raj era in India. Just stick to V, RS, OR/SYNTHESIS etc and give as well as take. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Your call. Exactly as I feared, you are demonstrating WP:OWN issues with the article. That's neither healthy nor productive. But you need to figure this out for yourself before you get into trouble. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice to see you again!
Wondered if you'd disappeared for good... Serendipodous 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please assume good faith
I appreciate what you've done in Bengal famine of 1943. It takes a lot of stamina to produce an article of that length and for that you have my admiration. However, it is best that you too understand that I'm not looking to throw a wrench in the works because I get perverse pleasure from it, nor am I attempting to hog credit for myself. I'm simply trying to make sure that an article created in user space—on a very important but also very contentious topic which has seen the major intellectuals of the day disagreeing—accurately paraphrases the sources, that it does not favor any point of view any more than a predominance of the sources do, etc. Please assist me in this task. I do understand that you are impatient. The revision will take time, several months as I've already indicated, and will require patience. While I myself am not much affronted by people's impatient outbursts, please be aware that they won't be doing you any good, nor hurrying the process one whit. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)