This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Assuming you are who I think you are (which if you are, we never really interacted, but no matter), welcome back! It's been too long. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 11:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not back, and there are any number of blowhards who might be mistaken for me, or vice versa. But thanks for the warm sentiment, and I return warm wishes to you. • Arch♦Reader 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to help. Install license and more. That the file is not make "deleted" File:Bonus-Sweden.png. No doubt you are the author of this file. But in my project (Sweden) - it is necessary to give a clear picture of the Swedish national symbol (flag) in top. And also, I am a Christian - I want to see a Christian symbol where it is. I would be grateful to you if you make a file - no stars, but with the cross in bottom as in en:Orders, decorations, and medals of Sweden. With respect to you --Krupski Oleg (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I already told you how to fix the problem. :-) If you add PD-Self, you need to do it; it needs to be done under your username. Do you know how? • Arch♦Reader 11:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
* I ask you to check and correct the page (in your experience) File:Bonus-Sweden.png in wiki-Commons --Krupski Oleg (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm trying to help you. I am telling you that the template needs to be licensed in the public domain. I cannot do it; you must do it, because you made the file. However, it is very easy to do: just add the Pd-self template in the correct place.... do you understand? • Arch♦Reader 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Norman Selfe
Yes, I did, but the story is a little more complicated than that. Wittylama originally created the article at User:Wittylama/Sandbox, and then moved it to the current "Norman Selfe" title. Unfortunately, the sandbox contained lots of page history that was irrelevant to Selfe's article, so I decided to move the unrelated sandbox history back to Wittylama's userspace. Because of the method I used to do this (which in hindsight wasn't the most efficient one), I had to move the page to "Norman Selfe/Temp" for a few minutes while I tried to sort the history out. See all the logs for the Norman Selfe page. Graham87 07:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. carry on. :-) • Arch♦Reader 07:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: Bath House
By simply removing the link to the featured list nomination, the chances are that none of the FLC admins will close the nomination, and so it will hang around on bot created lists. Best thing to do is just state on the FLC itself that you wish to withdraw the nominations, and one of the admins or delegates will close it appropriately. Harriastalk 07:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
stat advice
Sure, regarding your comment/inquiry about statistics advice, you are more than welcome to ask. I can't promise to have an intelligent answer but it can't hurt to ask. There should be a way to email me through Wikipedia, at least that's the way I have it configured. Mathstat (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!
Hi Lingzhi! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you specifically looking for a Wikipedian who's well familiar with the topic, or are you looking for academics in general? If the former, I believe that User:Nlu and User:PericlesofAthens are quite active on-wiki around that topic. On the other hand, if you're looking for scholars and authors, I can't really help you out. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Glad to see you're still around. I'll let you know if we get something automatizable. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of endangered languages in Asia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kati language and Sila language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey! Great to see you!
I had a lot of fun editing with you, and I'm always happy to meet a friend, whatever his current capacity. I'm doing fine; currently attempting to apply my Wiki skills in a manner that gets me some actual credit (I'll let you know when I'm done). Sorry about your Wikistress. I know exactly what you mean. Still, I keep going, for reasons I cannot fathom. :) Serendipodous 21:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
Thanks very much for the very kind (and completely unexpected) Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia. I am not around much these days, but am glad to hear from you and appreciate your honoring me. Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
See relevant funereal tone at WT:FAC (and by the way, tks for supporting my failed RfA) • Arch♦Reader 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: Negative resistance GA review
Hi, Lingzhi. Although Spinningspark is an old hand at this, I've never been involved with a GA or FA review. When problems with the article are identified, can I fix them immediately, or do you prefer that the article stays constant while you are conducting the review? Thanks. --ChetvornoTALK 19:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: May I call you Chet, or does the full username work better? I am a poor typist, so conserving strokes is a desirable thing. You can shorten mine to Ling if you like. As for your question, thinning the refs is something that may take time, so beginning now would be a good thing. Other issues can either be fixed now or discussed, whichever seems best. Moreover, I probably live in a vastly different time zone than you, so there is a very low probability of edit conflicts. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 00:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure; Chet or Ch is fine, whatever you like. I'll start thinning the cites. --ChetvornoTALK 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken in your belief that you can "step aside as a reviewer" and pass to another reviewer. There is no procedure in the GA process that allows for this to happen (I know, because I once attempted to do this myself). You have the option of requesting a second opinion (and I would strongly recommend you do this) but it will still be your responsibility to either pass or fail the article.
You have generated a significant amount of work beyond the GA criteria in this review. As well as the referencing thinning, you have demanded that you are provided with copies of all offline sources and there has been a good deal of discussion of formatting issues which I would normally only expect at a review beyond GA. You have also raised the issue of dead links. Dead links are not per se a GA issue (although it is always good if they are fixed, and they can be indicative of other problems). They are especially not a GA issue when the cite is to a printed source and the link is merely a convenience link. This is actually the case here, most of the deadlinks are to the historic Bell System Technical Journal which is of some importance in the development of electronics and copies are archived in numerous libraries.
This is the first GA that user Chetvorno has been involved with. I would hate for it to be his last because the review was made more difficult than it needs to be. SpinningSpark 10:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your concerns. I must say at the outset that your use of the word "bullying" is unwarranted. As for dead links, I did raise the issue, but not with any accompanying "bullying" or any other negative or even vaguely aggressive language. Had Chetvorno replied precisely as you just did, I would have said, "Cool, fix it as best as you can, or do what seems best to you." Having said that, I will now make every effort possible to find another reviewer for you and Chetvorno. I wish you all the very best of good luck in everything you do.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 13:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I used the word bullying because you made it abundantly clear that you would not pass the article unless Chetvorno complied with your demands, even though they are not GA criteria and Chetvorno had stated, in at least one issue, that he preferred not to. So of course he is trying to comply because he wants the article to pass. But whatever, call it something other than bullying if you like. The bottom line is that you should not be doing it. If you have a GA compliant article and, for whatever reason, you would not be prepared to pass it as is, then you should not start the review in the first place. As for finding another reviewer, I don't know how you are going to do that, there is no formal way of handing over to another reviewer. The instructions make it quite clear that "[o]nce you start a review, you are committing to complete it..." Sorry to be so hard on you over this, but your concept of GA seems to me to be entirely at odds with Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. SpinningSpark 17:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm partly responsible for this misunderstanding by not making my preferences clear. Cutting the refs will really be a lot of work, and I would rather not do it if it is not part of the GA requirements, which seems to be the case. --ChetvornoTALK 19:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for taking on the review of this article, something I should have done when the review was opened (but was rather remiss in this case). I do appreciate how difficult it is to take on reviews of highly technical articles. Reviewers willing to do this are hard to find and I wouldn't want to be discouraging. I know we have had a bit of a disagreement here but I am hoping that won't prevent us working collaboratively in the future. SpinningSpark 16:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I mostly gave up being offended by Wikipedians years ago. :-) It isn't worth the expenditure of energy. And more to the point, 1) you were defending a (perhaps) junior editor, which I tend to appreciate, and 2) I am well aware that my definition of "good article" may not completely square with WP:WIAGA. That may cause friction at times. That's just the way it shakes out. I apologize for any distress I may have caused you and/or Chetvorno. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Ack! Gulp! Gasp! I hope I am not screwing things up. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Huehue. Another support should get the article through A-Class review (wink). As for FA, I ran it through that before, and it did not pass, unfortunately. An inamge review would also be needed to get pass A-Class review. That would also be needed for FA so two birds dead with one stone. But, I would advise against !voting just yet. Not until the folks at MILHIST have seen the changes you intend on making. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ling
Sorry I didn't notify you; I thought it was just a mass post. For the record, I do not and never have participated in FAC discussions. I have nominated dozens of articles for FAC, and each time have been completely submarined by requests and demands that I didn't even know were possible. Given that I apparently have no idea what makes an FAC, I prefer not to state my opinion on the matter. Serendipodous 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, of course... you didn't say anything when you and I went to FAC? Eh, no matter.. I'm not at FAC; I just thought you were interested in Astronomy shtuff. I'll see ya 'round. • Arch♦Reader 08:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh no! Trust me, if we ever co-nominate another FAC, I'll be right there with you. I just don't intend to ever critique anyone else's FAC. Because, as I have learned from hard experience, I never seem to know what FACs require until after I nominate. Serendipodous 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: Hello
Hi Ling! Thanks for the apology. I think the dispute was about 5 or so years ago. It mainly concerned over the Gabon article FAC and spiraled from there. No hard feelings. I was a little immature then too. I stopped editing for the most part a couple years ago and only got active again this year. I still haven't written another FA since that point but I do want to. How are you doing? ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 03:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Refs
Regarding your comment on Iridescent: please look at may latest article, Salve Regina (Pärt), and tell me if the referencing causes you any problems to understand, and where you would anticipate what you call "difficulty editing". (You may have seen in my history that I arrived at using LDR - harv for more complex articles - by observing others and liking it for clarity. Until the discussion, I had not even understood that some find it difficult.) Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your msg. I have no horse in this race; I'm neither for nor against. I will happily look at the article when I have time, but pls don't expect me to take either side. Thanks. • Arch♦Reader 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
List of endangered languages in Europe missing the UK
On 23 April 2015 you made a major edit to List of endangered languages in Europe, changing it from one list to a series of lists, one per country. In doing so you missed of the United Kingdom! TiffaF (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pings
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that unfortunately this won't work. In order to keep pings from bothering people when content is archived, for instance, or otherwise moved about, notification only works if it is used in the same edit with four tildes. I'm watching that page and so see your note, but anyone you've pinged who isn't watching it might not know. In any event, I will go read it and hopefully close out the listing. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
These ping things weren't around when I was a hardcore editor, and I am not clear on how they work. Thank you for letting me know. I think the *really* important person is JLAN, because he is the one who smacked me with a template and deleted my shtuff. Everyone else is probably just an FYI. Tks • Arch♦Reader 11:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not personal. :) It's standard procedure until license is verified. I've left a note there asking you to please email the letter you received to the permissions queue so we have it officially on record. The address is permissions-enwikimedia.org. If you let me know you've sent it, I'll be happy to expedite handling, as the backlog there can be long sometimes. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I should have read that more closely before clearing the content. :( It's still unspecific as to the license that applies to this material. It could be one of three, and two we can't use. If you don't want to correspond with them to explain that CC-By-SA is the only of the three Open Access policies we can use, I'd be happy to, if you forward what you do have to OTRS. I'd love to see this one cleared. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I emailed Wikipedia seconds ago, subject line Fwd: [UNESCO - CC by SA]]. Ticket#2015052010014302 If you can do anything to clear this up, I would appreciate it. Tks. • Arch♦Reader 11:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I'm on it. :) Let's hope for the best. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not making this up ... I was wishing just last week that you were still around, and I just noticed that you are! - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, Dan. Thanks. :-) • Arch♦Reader 02:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Converting redirects to article pages
You can use AWB List maker to convert redirects to article pages. Here is how:
Copy your sandbox list to a text file.
On the AWB list maker, Select Source - Text file (UTF-8).
Click Make list button and select the text file.
Select all the articles listed below (left click - right click - select - all).
Right click on the selected list - Add selected to list from - Links on page (only blue links).
Once you see list complete, Right click - Remove - Selected.
Right click - Save list - Text file with wiki markup. That should give you the article list.
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
That probably falls under templating a regular, but that's what we've got! I wanted to be sure to get you while I can ... have you had, or will you have, a chance to see if your FAs are still up to snuff? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I might have some time this coming week. We'll see... • Arch♦Reader 02:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hi man. Great to see you around again. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually thought you already knew... Cheers! • Lingzhi♦(talk) 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And from me, in case you didn't see it. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back from me, too, Lingzhi. (A bit late, but I just noticed you're back.) You know I always appreciated your Wiki-contributions, under whatever user name. --Alan W (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
back atcha! :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC and added you as a co-nom. I thought your contributions and work justified that. If you want me to remove you, that's fine. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your AWB of Taxonomy of Liliaceae because it destroyed a table. That page is currently under GA review. AWB can be an extremely dangerous tool, unless very closely supervised. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Tunisian Arabic
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.
Was just promoted. This needed a lot of work when I first looked at it, months ago. Between then and now, someone did the work. Yeah, I'm looking at you. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words! Ceradon did much of the heavy lifting... looking forward to the next project. Cheers!• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
...but you polished it up in a way an FAC newbie like me quite simply couldn't. For that I'm eternally grateful. I've observed the work you've done, and the advice you've given, as well as Casliber's advice. I'm going to try and apply them to Edwin Stanton, an article I'm working on. You're welcome to join in with a copyedit. It's rough, and I'm planning on doing a top-to-bottom copyedit when I'm done adding information. Thank you again. Cheers! --ceradon 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words also. You dd more than you are saying... As for Stanton, I have three or four other projects in mind, so maybe I'll pass at this time. But good luck with t, I know t will turn out well. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
A kitten, because they are the nicest things I know.
Thanks for the kitten. I'll look around the house for a shiny object for it to chase... • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we've met, but I used to see you around a lot under your previous name and I really appreciated your contributions. It's great to see you back! CassiantoTalk 09:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page, tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
help me
Hello Lingzhi Thank you for your message. I am new to Wikipedia, and probably will not wish to continue the process. I find no easy way to reply to others' comments on my edit. In general, there is no straightforward way to ask/comment and get replies. When one goes on talk page, all I get is a bunch of blah-blah technocratese. I am simpleminded; I need a simple way to post. Similar to comments in newspapers, a click on: post a reply, or start a new thread. I also need more than Twitter space (edit summary) to provide arguments for my editing rationale, at least when it concerns more than one piece of evidence or a refutation.
I ran into surprising resistance in trying to edit an article about Hannibal Barca (the 247 BC one), where a Marxist reconstructionist, T.E. Willis (1968) wrote that Hannibal had 'particularly virulent syphilis' (battle of Zama) -- According to newer evidence (Rothschild, B. (2005) The history of syphilis. Clinical Infectious Diseases 40(10): 1454-1463), syphilis did not arrive in the Old World until 1495 AD with the return of Columbus and other explorers from the New World. The disease was very infectious and virulent at that point, as is typical of diseases invading a new territory. Syphilis leaves a skeletal signature, and this signature is only found in the Old World 1700 years after Hannibal died. In contrast, this skeletal signature is found all over the place in the New World for centuries before 1495 CE.
While Carthaginians could have reached America, they did not bring back this disease, at least according to skeletal evidence from the Old and New World. Nor did the Vikings.
Whereas Hannibal might have had any number of diseases – or not! the syphilis speculation has got to go. So I eliminated this false allegation (has a very high likelihood of being false!) from Wikipedia, and three times now, the Willis allegation/accusation reference .... is returned! With a snooty comment -- the first time that this was a 'personal opinion' of mine. Well, no, I did not write a treatise on syphilis, but I am a scientist – I can read technical papers. Same reviewer then said that one should keep the Willis (1968) reference, and then cite this other reference, which overrules the Willis accusation by modern evidence (2005) -- but that makes the Wikipedia history article a biology exposition on the geographical presence or absence of syphilis, a rather strange subject to suddenly superimpose upon an article about a history of Hannibal's battles and military campaigns. Why Hannibal lost the battle of Zama needs more than some flung-out idea about sexually transmitted diseases. Even allowing for an illness (any type), this illness might/might not be an irrelevant theme. In any case, Wikipedia should endeavor to remove guesses that have a very high probability of being a falsehood, since syphilis is highly unlikely to/did not exist on the European continent before the Renaissance! Even if Hannibal suffered from some sort of Medieval 'pox' (or small pox, chicken pox, typhoid, typhus, diptheria -- the list is LONG), just because he finally loses a battle, should one go into the realm of the unknown? Perhaps Hannibal suffered from moonspots? -- so each time, I can make a false guess, someone else has to counter-reference it. It seems to me that the point of Wikipedia is to publish factual and reasonable expositions, not demonstrable falsehoods once more current information is available. In this case, doubt should be sufficient to remove the allegation, because a) Hannibal did not suffer from further mental deterioration later in life and b) Willis's "scholarship" is calumny, by making rank speculations against a famous historical figure. I can ensure you that the rest of the article does not suffer from the removal of TE Willis's "suggestion"; an article which is otherwise factual and well-researched. Now if someone had dug up Hannibal and shown that he had syphilis by skeletal and DNA evidence, that is another matter....assuming that we also knew this happened BEFORE the battle of Zama Susanne44 (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Will reply on your talk page, since mine may not be on you watch list. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Ungothic tune
Saturday, so a tune for Lingzhi [1]. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually sorta wondered whether I should include Pink Floyd in my list of bands that I like, because I like them at times, but at other times they are overproduced cheese. In the spirit of people who quit or were kicked out of major bands, I present this one. Cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
Feel the same about Pink Floyd, though that's a bit of a story. Enjoying the link, though sporadically, as it's a long one :) Kafka Liz (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit hesitant to recommend The Geese and The Ghost to people, actually, because it is rather extreme in its inconsistency: some passages show inspiration, but others are completely unlistenable. It's an exercise in skipping around. :-) Hope all is well with you. I just got my broken computer back, so may edit again. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
[2] - Thought I'd take this off Ceoil's page. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
IOT issues
Hi Lingzhi, the issue with IOT is this: I ordered books from the library, hoping to finish the article in time to run a TFA on Oct 5th. Then I thought I could run "Big Two-Hearted River" instead, having for some reason forgotten it ran some years ago. So then I scrambled with IOT and sent it to FAC, but was then told it can't have a main page run; in the meantime I sent the sources back to the library. I respect you greatly as a reviewer. If you think it's weak, I'm happy to take an oppose, or to withdraw the nomination, wait until I'm happier about WP, order the sources again, and take another run on another year. There's no pressure here at all, and I think your points are all quite valid. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there. I respect you more than you respect me, so let's start a mutual admiration society, shall we? But please don't invite Ceoil, as some of the silverware went missing last time he was about. I... am just barely getting started on IOT, and am getting bonked on the head with cubism and censorship and whatnot. I have no idea yet whether I would oppose or not. I honestly have just come in through the door into this particular party. If you withdraw, I'll gladly help. If not, then I'll gladly help. Wait, did I just repeat myself? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel an idiot for not having the sources at hand, but once the library wants them back the third time, it's time to send them back. I also feel an idiot for taking up reviewing time from you for issues that I can't speak to, but if you don't mind continuing, I'd kinda like to get it behind me before hanging up the "do not disturb" sign. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If I may ask, what does "until I'm happier about WP" mean? And if you withdraw, why would you wait more than 2 or 3 weeks to renominate? And what does "do not disturb" mean—are you gonna semi-retire or similar? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but sure, leave the nom up and let's keep going. BTW please add a clear list of all the stories included (unless I missed it). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
First, it disturbs me that I can't answer the good issues you're raising, about number of copies sold, etc. without the sources at hand. I *think* that info might be in the Reynolds compilation of essays that I'd have to order again via interlibrary loan and that takes weeks. Beyond that, to your questions: I'll retire, or take a long break, or do whatever one does when fed up with this place. No, I wouldn't renominate - I'd let it go. I wrote it for WP to run in 2015 as an example of WWI literature; WP doesn't want it. It's been quite a lot of work, and doing a good review is a lot of work, and my feeling is it's not worth it if I can't speak to the issues adequately without the sources. The list of stories in this section, but I prosified it. Victoria (tk) 22:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry to hear you're fed up with Wikipedia, just when I came back! Second, I think it wouldn't be as hard to track down that info via Google books as you seem to imagine. Third, letting IOT go would be a crying shame. It's fascinating stuff. Fourth, when you say WP do you mean Wikipedia? I can't fathom what you'd mean by "Wikipedia doesn't want it." Certainly Wikipedia wants this article—very much so. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant that it can't be TFA this year, but you're right, that's not really relevant. I'll try to carry on. Will post to the FAC page re the sales info - it's hard to find. Victoria (tk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA review during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Suggestion
This was a good comment, but just in case you don't know: Other than FB and Geocities, Wikipedia has a stepsister site (it's not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but Jimbo was one of its founders, so not a sister but a stepsister), Wikia, which runs the same mediawiki software as we do and which is perfect for folks who want to put up information which can't go into WP due to original research, insufficient sourcing, or whatever else might not satisfy our standards. (And, in fact, when it was first launched it was named Wikicities.) And, indeed, there are huge, useful collections of such material already there. While I spend nearly all my serious time here, when I relax and put on my fanboy hat I often find myself reading stuff there. As I've said in that thread, if stuff is going to be here it doesn't matter if it's about My Little Pony or about Astrophysics, it needs to conform to our uniform standards on notability, verifiability, and the like, but there are some folks who just don't want to go to that trouble and some topics where those often can't be satisfied. Wikia is a great place for them and I've often recommended it in the same manner as you did FB and Geocities. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clue, but in some sense you're talking to the wrong person. I will never spend any time there, so please persuade the In Popular Culture valued editors to fly thataway ---> Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Tank Girl at FAC
Hello. I'm leaving this same message to everyone who commented at the first FAC nomination for Tank Girl (film). After having gone through improvements including a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors, the article has been renominated – see here. All comments are welcome. Freikorp (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Oviri
Um, we have an unusual situation here. As I said on the FAC talk just now, I shared your surprise, but there were a number of supports, and we were down - in my view - to copy editing and phrasing (which I know *with me* can be a nightmare!). I'm not worried so much about this nom, as us falling out, so can we work through a mutual plan - talk page, FAR, Jimmy, ARBCOM, NATO, or whatever. As I implied on the FAC talk, your help and guidance were pennies from heaven, and I would appreciate more help, your time allowing. Best Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The hard man Barnstar
For all your suggestions and insight during the Oviri (Gauguin) FAC. I got a much clearer and better organised article, and the lead is much improved. There is work still to do there, as Tony Blair wouldn't say anymore. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)
Indeed...
And to you too, Lingzhi, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! And all the rest you said. :-) Glad to see you're still here, too. It is not always easy, and so many of the best are discouraged. You know that story, no need to go into details. --Alan W (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Hello Ling. I hope all is well with you. Thank you for the kind Holiday wishes. I wish the same for you in the coming New Year. Mojoworker (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
... and for excellent reviewing! I am so slow, only now I realized that you created teh image with Impact --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, Gerda! Also, I'm terribly sorry that your friend User:Dreadstar passed away. I'm afraid I never knew him/her... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I just now said that I do not recall Dreadstar, and yet in the link you gave, there he is, speaking of me quite warmly. I must be getting increasingly senile, unless he changed his username... I dunno. Requiescat in pace. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music
George Ho is completely innocent of the article renaming without consensus first; I am the one who came up with that name.--EggyEggPercent 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
WSB
Hi Lingzhi! I'm just writing to ask for a clarification of your update to the Sterndale Bennett FA discussion. Does your strikethrough mean that you withdraw support or withdraw conditionality? If the former, do please let me know what else might need to be done? Many thanks, --Smerus (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm holding out for ten million US in cash, payable to my PayPal account. If you can't afford that, then I guess I'll go ahead and Support your FAC nom. If I accidentally struck through the wrong text and left it unclear what I mant, I hereby give you permission to edit my text. Good work on the article! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
1000 thanks. I am crediting you with $10m. in counterfeit bitcoins, I'm afraid that will have to do at the moment. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words...but wow, I can't believe you dug up that diff from 3 February 2012. I don't really even remember what it was about. It seems I was perhaps a little over-animated, as was not infrequent in my previous incarnations. But the new me is trying to be mellow. The dude abides. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I always look at October 2012 - and take the next-best diff to my liking ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you still have concerns here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Last time I looked there were 2 or 3 high-caliber editors all working at the same time, and I didn't want to get in their way... I'll try to swing by today or tomorrow... cheers! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine! - So far I thought all editors are created equal, but maybe that is a fundamental error, and some are righter than others ;) Sometimes I think the "restriction" I had for some years - two comments max in a given discussion - was actually for more freedom, and would create more equality if generally applied, for example at WP:COMPOSERS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I had no idea about the restrictions... and as for "2 or 3 high-caliber editors", I just didn't want to bump into (ec) edit conflicts (editing at the same time), and I wanted to wait 'til they were done so I wouldn't repeat the same comments they did... of course all editors are equal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't know how dangerous I am? The restriction was over end of November (and I archived the whole thing), but I am now so used to it that I usually leave a discussion after two comments, - it sets free to do something else. I failed once, and was promptly taken to Arbitration enforcement for my third comment on Laurence Olivier, starting with "Ownership?". - I don't think that was fair, comparing to what others said, but there was this lovely DYK about a 1510 church wood carving. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lingzhi. I would certainly like to take you up on your kind offer here; its a monster page and could really do with assistance. Best, Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with any iteration of the refs/notes, and find the referencing style now easy to use. There are so many though, but you have certainly broken areas I was frankly dreading. Plus thanks for the TP insights; still catching up. Ceoil (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I haven't really touched the journals and web cites yet. Very much still left to do. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem, well deserved. I'm thinking there is about 6 weeks work left here; especially given John's comments re structure, which I very much agree with. Very please with how things are going; I think the bio is very solid now, and I have a good idea how the art and posthumous sections should go, but I have a lot of re-reading to do. I'm focused on finishing a Victoria co-production today; need to let the structure thing settle in my head before re-tackling, and have also asked Johnbod for advice. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I dunno if you're looking for a "just the facts please" or something with a touch more insight, but if the latter, a quote I like a quote from Letter 649 ..."something complete, a perfection, makes the infinite tangible to us.
And to enjoy such a thing is like coitus, the moment of the infinite.".. meanwhile, it seems some of the quotes from letters are mangled, from different sources.... need work... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I really dislike fact fact fact articles, and am always drawn towards those that set the whole thing in context. This is why Giano and Geogre are missed, but I understand why, given how hyper literate things have become. HTD. Re letters, yeah, mangled again now. Also some of the sub articles are dodgy re att, we need to be wary of source. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
OK cool. I still haven't actually read the article. :-) Maybe I will contribute content later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Perfekcyjna
Sure, I replied at her talk page and pinged you as well. Let me know should you need any more specific info on PL<=>EN translations for your project. //Halibutt 10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Engvar at Van Gogh
Thanks for your sterling work at this article. I noticed this edit; double-l is correct in British English, so "quarrelling" and "quarrelled". I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Of course a few of these differences are invisible to me... thanks for fixing it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lingzhi. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've just read your embarrassing rant here. What on earth makes you think I was talking about you? I was not. --John (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Straightforward logic: 1) There are only two possible targets for your (admittedly mild, but still real) breach of NPA: me, or the guy who pooped on the citation format 2) the guy who pooped on the citation format has not been around for a long while, and 3) far more importantly, the guy who pooped on the citation format would AGREE with all 3 changes, since he was the one who PROPOSED them... and you were asking who would DISAGREE... so that leaves only me... does that make sense? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
How could that other guy disagree with the changes, when he was the one who proposed them? He wouldn't. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for removing your comment. I have reworded mine so it is less capable of misunderstanding. --John (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(←) @John: Starting with the moment that guy disrupted the article (twice, both times rudely & in violation of crystal-clear WP guidelines), everything has gone way, way, way downhill. It was humming like clockwork for weeks before that. Of course I am deeply disappointed in the disruption and subsequent deterioration. It is why I am no longer editing that page. I apologize if I misunderstood you. Having said that, I blame the the deterioration of that situation, as it contributed mightily to my misunderstanding. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Lingzhi Day
The Lingzhi appreciation award
For fighting the good fight, and for being, at various points: invaluable. Its great to have you on board. Status Quo should have opened Live Aid with a song about you; maybe next time, the cheap bastards. Ceoil (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and the awesome tunes (I've encountered several new groups through your talk page). Always a pleasure working with you... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
He, I suspect we are of an age, and tunes always welcome. Re Vincent, will get my &*%$ together soon enough. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Last month a Resource Request volunteer offered to send you a copy of:
Abdur Razzaque (1989). Sociodemographic differentials in mortality during the 1974–75 famine in a rural area of Bangladesh. Journal of Biosocial Science, 21, pp 13-22. doi:10.1017/S0021932000017697.
There has been no further discussion of your request, so we don't know if you have received the article or still need it. If you no longer need it, please mark the request {{resolved}}. If you still need it, then please follow up with BU Rob13. Sending an email so they can reply with the article as an attachment usually works, although it's best combined with a talk page note in case of spam filters or other delivery problems. Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
For your patience and helpfulness in assisting me in my first FAC process for the New wave of British heavy metal article, you deserve this award. Lewismaster (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Encouraged to try again
Thank you for your helpful comments in the first FAC of Reger's Requiem, and the help to a better translation of the poem. Please look if any concerns are left, I try again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I found enough supporters this round, but still would like to know if I satisfied your concerns, - if you'd find a moment besides the admirable project in your sandbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for approving my request to use HighBeam. I just tried to set up my account, but am getting an error message, saying that the activation code doesn't match any that were issued. Do you think that I might just be trying too soon? Could it have something to do with the fact that I used to have an account, but let it expire some time ago? Or something else? --Jpcase (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Neither of the things you mentioned should matter. Could yo try again, using copy/paste? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually working now. Not really sure what was wrong the first few times I tried, but perhaps I just entered it incorrectly. Sorry for the trouble! --Jpcase (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. As John Lennon once said, "May it serve you well." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: projects
Hey Lingzhi,
Regarding this, I would love a bit of hep over there. I'll be trying to get back into the wikiflow, and nothing can help with that like working on an article. Cheers, --ceradon 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Lingzhi. You skipped over my request for Questia access of 13 January 2016 without comment. Is there anything else I need to do to apply? Eperoton (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I may have made a mistake, first day on the job, sorry. Will look again in a few hours.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton:Denied Sorry, you'll have to meet the requirement for 1 year of active editing. Please reapply later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Talkback.
Hello, Lingzhi. You have new messages at Pdebee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesus in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a grave left vacant [[Green Dome#Muhammad.27s grave|beside Muhammad]], [[Abu Bakr]], and [[Umar]] ([[Sahabah|companions of Muhammad]] and the first and second [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] [[caliph]]s (''[[
Hi Lingzhi. Thanks for the honest response. I will seek out an admin mentor in the next few days as you suggested. I'm sorry for being so trigger happy, looking over my comment once again, I do see what you mean, it was a little uncalled for. All the best, Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Haha, thank you. I'm not trying to be an "asshole", as you suggested. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not to get people blocked. Anyway, your comment has given me a sense of perspective, and I appreciate that. See you around, I guess. Omni Flames (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
...aaaaaand another admin wannabe checks in to say hello. Well hello back atcha. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well. You clearly understood none of that. Cheers. MuffledPocketed 13:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
So sorry to bother you
...when you have jet-lag! But, I need help when you get a chance to surface, and no pressure because I'm about to get busy for a few days and won't be back until the weekend.
The issue I have is this: I have an exhibition catalogue with multiple editors, various front matter, forward, very extensive biographical information and so on, all without attribution to a specific author/editor. After that is a chapter with attribution. The editors are van Uitert and van Tilborgh. The chapter is written by van Tilborgh and van Uitert (in other words, the names are reversed). I set it up as the chapter only because that's all I was using, then someone changed it, then I started using the front matter and then tried to change and couldn't and now it's a mess. I tried setting it up and got mysterious red errors, visible in this version so I undid it all.
So - deep breath. The chapter is this:
{{cite book |last1=Van Tilborg |first1=Louis |last2=Van Uitert |first2=Evert |chapter=A ten-year career: the oeuvre of Vincent van Gogh|editor1-last=Van Uitert |editor1-first=Evert |editor2-last=Van Tilborgh |editor2-first=Louis |editor2-link= |editor3-last=van Heugten |editor3-first=Sjraar |title=Vincent van Gogh | volume=Volume 1|location= Amsterdam|publisher=Rijksmuseum |publication-date=1990 |pages=15–24 |isbn=88-242-0022-2 |ref={{sfnRef|van Tilborgh|van Uitert|1990}} }}
The book cite I tried to set up looked like this (but it didn't work):
{{cite book |editor1-last=van Uitert |editor1-first=Evert |editor2-last=van Tilborgh |editor2-first=Louis |editor2-link= |editor3-last=van Heugten |editor3-first=Sjraar |title= Vincent van Gogh |location= Amsterdam|publisher=Rijksmuseum |publication-date=1990 |pages=15–25 |isbn=88-242-0022-2 |{{sfnRef|van Uitert|van Tilborgh|1990}} }} (this formats with complete with mysterious red stuff)
I need an sfn thingie for the front matter, book only, without the chapter title, before I can continue to add material. Once we have that, I have to swap some out the ones that are wrong.
Sorry that this is so long. There is absolutely no rush. Told you we'd make you work - but if you're too busy, don't worry. I'll probably be able to figure it out. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks and absolutely no rush. Victoria (tk) 05:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I'm overthinking this. Maybe it's best to use the same citation template & sfn thingie for the entire book, instead of splitting out the chapter. What do you think? That would be the simpler fix and I can do it myself. Victoria (tk) 13:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(TPS) @Victoriaearle:, put "ref=" in front of "{{sfnRef|van Uitert..." and it should work. I think. Maybe. Choess (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've fixed it. Lingzhi please ignore all of this. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Format
Ok, ill fix it, on my screen its good. Iazyges (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, Lingzhi. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
There appears to be full consensus to allow Jonesey95 to continue at Austen; Note on Village Pump policy option
There appears to be FULL CONSENSUS among all 5 participating editors (@Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Clpo13:, and myself) that Jonesey95 should continue with the reformatting of the citations throughout the article as was started yesterday with multiple supporting editors opposed by one hold-out editor named User:Lingzhi. The format being used by Jonesey95 is identical to one which is used in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Wikipedia for years now and has in no way detracted from those peer review articles in their current FA and GA status even though User:Lingzhi is opposed to this well established standard. Further, User:RexxS has made a generous offer to switch the article to an alternate cite style is trying to bring the one hold-out editor towards consensus, and was immediately turned down by User:Lingzhi. User:Lingzhi apparently is opposed to the general Wikipedia policy as written in WP:CITEVAR and is using this article's assessment as a forum for pressing his old preference for MLA formatting which is only one option at Wikipedia (WP:Forumshop). It is suggested that User:Lingzhi recognize that there is a full consensus for supporting Jonesey95 on the reformatting which was started yesterday and that when there is full consensus then it is up to User:Lingzhi to start to move closer to the consensus of five editors rather than remain a single hold-out. User:Lingzhi may move his discussion to the Village Pump policy discussion board if needed, and his Talk page is notified as to WP:Forumshop which any editor can report. User:Jonesey95 is free to continue the reformatting of the Jane Austen article given the FULL CONSENSUS of the five participating editors, with Lingzhi the sole hold-out. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Linghzi, just stopped in here for a moment and saw this on your page and decided to butt in. Fountains-of-Paris I've had that FAC on watch since you nominated it, I hoped to be able to review it, but probably won't have time for it. That said, 1., the article needs a great deal more that citation fixing (which I'll shove off to the side), and 2., the primary citation style for literature is MLA style. I don't use Wikipedia's templates (I write about literature) because they do not support MLA style and I am in full agreement with Lingzhi. Furthermore, quite a lot of that article was copied over from daughter articles, the main contributor who had original written them, Awadewit (sadly she died), used MLA style and you'll find she used it in all the work she did on Wikipedia. I would strongly oppose changing the style on the main article and the subarticles. Just so you know, because Lingzhi is the only person to date to lodge an oppose, doesn't mean those of us of write about literature here don't oppose. I don't want to get into it, having peeked at the FAC nom page, but would be very disappointed see the MLA formatting lost and as a reviewer might even consider asking for it to be retained. Victoria (tk) 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Many of us, @Victoria:, continue to have respect for the edits of the late Wadewitz to this day. The current article has now had 6 different editors contributing substantially to the article over the past five years which has had an effect on the references and citations in the article. The current suggestion to move with Jonesey is a highly respected form of citevar used in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles. The discussion you wish to defend concerning WP:Citevar can be taken to the policy discussion at the Village Pump for a fair hearing of all sides. At present, we are fully supporting Jonesey in his widely used and successful approach to making the citations and references consistent in the Jane Austen article fully in accord with WP:Citevar and following many years and many editors after the early editors of the article years ago. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I've looked at the changes in the article and disagree strongly to see that authors of chapters are being substituted for editors of books. That is not how it's done! The chapter is written by an author; we cite that author. If you're interested I can show you a few FA examples. Anyway, sorry Ling for taken your page. I've opposed. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. If you let me know you've sent it, I'll be happy to expedite handling, as the backlog there can be long sometimes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
,_partially_glazed_stoneware,_75_x_19_x_27_cm,_Mus%C3%A9e_d%27Orsay,_Paris.jpg)
_by_Matisse.jpg)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesus in Islam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#This_is_what_happens_when_experienced_admins_decline_to_close_RfCs, even when you have a signed confession that that contribuor is a gunslinglinging wannabe arsehiole who deserves templating back to the stone-age 
.Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 10:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
