Something that interests only me, but I share it anyhow, because no one can stop me:
In all my years of editing, I have one single individual edit that is far and away my all-time favorite. I can't say what it was, or someone will restore it. I can only say.... it was in 2009, and it was definitely a gift to Wikipedia.
Nice seeing your signature on my watchlist. - I was asked about the things with the dirty name which you advised me not to mention, remember. So step by step, I am writing a short history of my view, and just reached the arb case of the same name. Would you kindly take a look and see if you can follow so far? It's on User talk:Jmar67, also on my user page under "teh history". - Hope you are well? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Nice seeing your signature on my watchlist". Indeed. ps, I agree with your, Ling, sentiment whole heartily. Is it even a thing anymore; that stuff seems like years ago. Most people that I know have relaxed (broadened) their views since to arrive somewhere in the middle. I know I use them more often than not in art articles, except when it dose't make any sense. And I am very glad that Rexx is an admin now; solid bloke. Anyways, yo; peace in our time. Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil Thanks for the kind words. Am still seeing no reason to actually return to WP. Am currently in yet another tiresome debate. Lather, rinse, repeat. But thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)14:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hello
Sorry for bothering you, but I've been checking out your idea to make a bot for the sizes of FA articles. I'd like to know how the progress of that is right now.Jerry (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I exported all FA articles and talk pages and willprocess them via Python on my laptop. But am traveling now. Maybe 2 or 3 weeks from now. Thanks for asking. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)22:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about tables on my user talk. The best was Br'er Rabbit, but this lovely community found it fit to ban him. I have tables on my user page, and several in articles to copy from. For specific questions, I go to RexxS. (late sign:) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JAN
Would I be correct in assuming that you chose the JAN process, predominantly, to get ... non-Wikipedian experts to provide peer reviewer comments for the article? I know you've wanted an expert to review the article for more than a year. You say that [... I stopped my efforts to place BF43 in JAN .... Does that mean that this isn't going to be reviewed? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the reason I put it there was because I was hoping for a genuine, objective, professional-quality review rather than a dishonest, score-settling hit job. But JAN is controversial and even I am unsure if it's in line with WP policies etc. As for it never being reviewed, well, if whatever RfC or WikiMedia Papal Diktat occurs eventually says JAN is legit, I may submit it again. But even if it does, they sent me a form asking for my real name and orcid and etc. I am not sure I am comfortable with that, either. I dunno. Time will tell. But tthank you for your kind support in this! ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)13:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
August 2019
A ridiculous cat
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir(talk)22:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the GA review of Fallt mit Danken, fallt mit Loben, BWV 248 IV!. It is one of six cantatas of the Christmas Oratorio, therefore I believe a general footnote, such as what you worded, should not be at one movement of one of these cantatas, but generally at the whole piece article, if not even higher in "hierarchy".
As for the wording: "Singers in Bach's oratorios could play different roles: recitative, ensemble commentary, solo commentary (accompanying the recitative, or as an aria). Each of these roles was written in a different musical style to help guide listeners into understanding the difference between narrative and commentary.", I have a few questions:
Singers - I think the basic distinction is between solo singing and choir singing, ensemble being rare, - only then would I distinguish narrative and commentary
no idea what "accompanying a recitative" means, - a singer "carries" the recitative, accompanied by basso continuo only (recitativo secco), or by additional obbligato instrument(s) (recitativo accompagnato).
We could refine the wording here, and then you could take it for discussion to the oratorio's talk.
Hi, I wanted to let you know that there is also a 2015 book by Tapati Guha-Thakurta, which I have understood to be of relevance and importance. The link to the books is here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matteo I Visconti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi, congratulations on having Bengal famine of 1943 listed as a GA! Thank you for your extensive work on it. I was wondering if a note could be to the article as to why the famine is known as পঞ্চাশের মন্বন্তর (literally 'the great famine of the fifties') in Bengali. Primarily because it ravaged Bengal during the year 1350 per the Bangla calendar. I have also found a Bangla news report stating the same: [1]. Would be looking forward to hear from you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC) edited: Tamravidhir (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant social circles. Just though I'd stop by and say hi to another Women in Red member. I'm into Baroque palaces, though, while you're asking. –♠Vami_IV†♠14:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the conditions for inclusion of the "Popular Culture" sections in articles being judged for GA? Are they acceptable? Do they need references? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One place to start would be WP:IPC. Of course everything has to be cited, but the mere fact of being able to cite a source isn't (or shouldn't be) the standard for inclusion. Just because some pop culture factoid or bit of trivia can be cited to a some online source doesn't mean that factoid deserves mention in the article. The pop culture presence that you;re discussing itself has to be (or, should be) notable. And there should be enough total info to warrant the creation of a separate "Pop culture" section... It's all a matter of common sense. Don't stick a pop culture reference in just because you like that particular fact or just for the sake of mentioning pop culture... what article are we talking about? I disremember... ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)00:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No article in particular. I just happened upon an article that had a "Popular culture" section and I was curious. Thank you very much, Lingzhi2! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bengal Famine
Hi Lingzhi2. I have been away for a while and only just noticed your old post to my talk page. Do you still need help with this article? AIRcorn(talk)09:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aircorn! Thank you very much for the reply; that's above and beyond the call... you can look in on the GAR if you're interested, but if not, Vami IV is currently holding my feet to the fire providing an excellent review. Thanks again! ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)09:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am planing to run through the outstanding GARs at some point so will probably get to yours then. Ping me if you need anything more immediate. Regards AIRcorn(talk)09:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I pretty much am the GAR. It is no coincidence that the number of outstanding reassessments corresponds to my break. It really needs more editors, as do most review processes here. I left a comment about the process in general. As to your comment there is a cleanup listing of tagged GAs that will keep anyone busy [2] and I have found User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review to be a good place to find poor GAs. AIRcorn(talk)10:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my best intentions, I have a long history of being an unreliable editor (in the sense of quitting things all the time). But I can try to help. Meanwhile, I intended to look to use Python for articles not included in the lists you just named. But perhaps there's no need...Cheers ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)10:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to speedy-delist Roger Miller as a GA? I nominated it in August and nothing's happened. The article is inundated with unreliable sources, entirely unreferenced sections, maintenance tags, and even a trivia section. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)18:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lingzhi2. For RL reasons, I'm mostly in a revert mode so won't be able to review the article after all. From a cursory reading, it looks like an excellent article and you should have no problems with the FA. Editors may be tweaking it for years, but, clearly, they have an excellent base to work from and you should be proud of the work you've put into it. I'm sorry I can't spend more time on this because even with the cursory read I learned a lot! Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 15:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, Thank you for your kind words, and for your original offer to help. I hope your RL matter are busy-ness rather than bad news.... please do feel free to call on me if you ever need anything, especially (my deranged hobby horse) converting inconsistent referencing to clean, pretty {{sfn}}. Good luck in all things! ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)15:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All work related fortunately. I keep thinking "next week I'll have more time for Wikipedia", but next week comes and still no block time. Can't complain though and thanks for the kind words. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark, work and family should always come first. You have already contributed significantly directly and on the talk, its obv your opinion and guidance has been of high value. Apologies from me if things got heated long ago. Perhaps I didn't help Ling's plight. Ceoil (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Did something get heated b/w you and RegentsPark? I didn't notice that... As for "Perhaps I didn't help Ling's plight", don't worry, you've been a tremendous help. But I gotta go now, wife calling...10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said long ago, very early after you posted the redraft, before all the input (said it before, say it again Brianboultun is a hero) I wasn't right in the particular argument, so take it on the chin. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cold War
While I understand why you did that, it's not a good idea to make test edits on a live, heavily-trafficked article like that. A temporary userspace copy would be better for checking formatting, since the odds are high that the Kid in Africa will get a bunch of red error messages. Acroterion(talk)01:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at Cold War - it was one of the defining features of my childhood and early adulthood. I remember the early 1980s in Europe from when I was studying there, and in hindsight, it was quite terrifying how close we can to a hot war. I'm not feeling smart enough for research on a Friday night. Acroterion(talk)01:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We talked about cool vs non cool music on my talk last week. I think its all nonsense frankly; compare this original low-fi indie tune, which was adored by about 500 people in 1994, to the rework, by the same guy, into a mainstream country song. Which is better? Dunno, dont care. Both are spine chilling. Ceoil (talk)
Suggested creation "Second Cold War" and/or "Inter Cold War Period" articles and/or templates due to interest in Cold War
Due to your interest in articles related to Cold War I'd like to ask whether you'd be interested in creating or contributing to templates or articles related to tensions between US-Russia and US-China during the period from 1991-2014 such as events of the Post-Soviet conflicts, expansion of NATO, termination of ABM treaty. As well as the so called "Second Cold War" tensions between US and Russia since 2014 including War in Ukraine, termination INF treaty etc... What are your thoughts on this? KasimMejia (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should post your idea on Talk:Cold War and see what others think. It sounds like a moderate amount of work, which might make some people reluctant. But who knows? Try it and see... Thanks for the suggestion ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)11:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
On 21 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bengal famine of 1943, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Bengal famine of 1943 was denied by authorities, news reports with images of the victims in English-language papers made it known internationally? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bengal famine of 1943. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bengal famine of 1943), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Okay I think I got it. It was listed as a GA, it went through some kind of out of process delisting, you listed it at GAR, another editor reviewed it and passed it, since it was supposed to be a community reassessment another editor reverted that so others could comment. That was all a month ago. Let me know if this is right and I will, as an outside editor, officially close the reassessment for you. I am nearly up to it now anyway, AIRcorn(talk)08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The story is complicated, but the (spoiler alert!) conclusion is that Vami IV passed it as OK after a detailed GAR.... So, if the details are necessary: It was passed as GA by one editor. Another editor, who was wholly and entirely unfamiliar with the GA process, reverted the PASS GA, just like reverting an erroneous edit in an article. That wasn't standard GAR; it's out-of-process reversion. He didn't know how to GAR.... And the reasons he went to the trouble of reverting are a bit complicated. The reverting editor thought the article actually should pass GA, but that editor was worried that the original GA reviewer did a hurried, surface review. The editor thought that such a surface review would reflect badly on the article in a later FAC. The editor who reverted did so simply out of a desire to get a deeper, more detailed review before passing. So I sent to to GAR, partially hoping to forestall any big dramatic dramahz of an argument between the original GA reviewer and the editor who reverted that pass GA. Are you with me so far? I then pinged several people hoping for a review (and got scolded for doing so).... Vami IV nobly rose to the occasion and did an admirable review. Conclusion, PASS GA. Make sense? ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)08:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2020 will be safe, successful and rewarding...keep hope alive....Modernist (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはLingzhi2たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP04:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Ling, I have just started doing a FAC review for the first time in many months, and realized that I am no longer seeing the highlighting provided by your sourcecheck script. Does it still work? It's been so long that I can't remember how it gets used -- was there a sidebar link I have to click to activate it? If so I'm not seeing it. Any ideas what I could be doing wrong? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typo in script
I don't know if anyone is still using User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck.js and its sister scripts, but there is a typo that could be fixed. There is an invocation of {{orig-year}} which I believe should read {{para|orig-year}}. This typo has made its way onto a few article reviewing pages, which I have fixed. You can see the pages that have this minor error on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Thanks for this message. I fixed four, which are all that I'm able. I no longer have access to the original Lingzhi account, so if it needs to be fixed, an admin will need to do it. But I don't think anyone links to those old versions anyhow... and the last is in Finnusertop's space so you'll need to ask him. Thanks again! ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)15:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for so elegantly proving my point. Good luck with your article.—Lingzhi2
Excuse me? I'm not the “owner” of that or any other article, nor did I said or implied that, so what were you implying then? I would be curious to know exactly how I did just that. Do you believe that should be deleted because according to that source it was the free market, not the welfare state, behind their success? I took it like some sort of attack or criticism and I would like to rectify that.--Davide King (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think the article needs a very close reading and probably some nontrivial rewriting. From the bits I've skimmed, it seems that it might have large flaws. No offense, but I don't have any desire to fix it. Those left-leaning articles tend to be kinda loosey-goosey at best and genuinely skewed at worst, but the people who edit them tend to be blissfully oblivious of any flaws... they genuinely believe there is no problem because the articles offer the real truth. So... good luck with the article. ♦ Lingzhi2(talk)15:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's very fair of you to assume I'm automatically like that, nor do I think they offer the real truth. So please, tell me what are some of those large flaws; give me examples (like this), so I can try to work on it and fix it or at least improve it.--Davide King (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I have some things to say:
First, if you wanna write an excellent article, you have to fearlessly adopt the stance that everything you deeply believe may actually be wrong. Even worse, everything and everyone you dislike and disapprove of may actually be right. Those are absolutely bedrock necessities for writing in WP:NPOV. You have to adopt that as your basis for decision-making at every turn. I'm not saying (yet) that your beliefs are wrong; I'm saying that setting aside all your assumptions and working from scientific principles is the only way to write an NPOV article. And one key scientific principle is that "correlation does not establish causation". The passage I quoted on the article's talk page really is a great big flowerbox of correlations.
Another thing you need to understand is that the order you present information bears a cognitive load all of its own. Information ordering frames perception; in other words, information ordering predisposes (prejudices?) readers' perceptions of both the relative importance and the relative truthfulness of various competing assertions.
The Wikipedia corollary to this is: try to find out whether there is an academic consensus with respect to the topic at hand, then state that consensus explicitly in both the lede and body text, then order the information in the same order as academic consensus places it (i.e., majority views first, minority views second). To be honest, I would be surprised if there is any explicit academic consensus on the efficacy of socialism. I say that not because the facts are unclear, but more because I very very strongly doubt that liberal academics have the moral courage and integrity would be willing to admit the truth when it strikes so close to their own hearts (and upon which they have networked their careers and publications). But that's as may be; the first task is to find if there is a consensus.
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi Ling, with the recent change (mentioned in the topics above) there's a tweak that might be useful to your ref check script. I updated Knap Hill to have "ref=none" per the recommendations for the CS1 changes, and your script now cautions that there is no anchor. Ideally I think it should detect that the reason is the ref parameter is explicitly set to none, and not complain in that case. Can that be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Monday (1987) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what meaning here? "guardian of treasures; protector from evil, witchcraft and secret slander". I know that "treasures" is reliable source. I am translating to ptwiki. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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.
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Lingzhi2! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk04:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
