This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 11:38, 21 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:38, 21 December 2003 by Eloquence (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Re: Talk:Confucius#Suggestions
I cannot tell that you're not a native English speaker! Your English seems native enough. You're too humble.
- Maybe because I read to many Chinese writers ;)
Are you a native Chinese speaker?
- Oh no! I'm French! (living now in Chengdu)
So I am. And I assure you, my English is nowhere near perfection. But I write nonetheless! And get corrected when other people notice my mistake -- that is the spirit of Wiki, collaboration and tolerance. --Menchi 07:21, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advices, Menchi. I'll try to "be bold" but i have few time and I want to work also on fr.WP... Gbog 07:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Image attribution
It's better to explicitly state the source (URL or a book) of a photo you uploaded, and say it in the image description pages (e.g., Image:Confucius 01.jpg) It is a responsibility to GFDL license. Thank you. --Menchi (Talk)â 17:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Well... i don't remember exactly where I found it... looking for it, I find this http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~smao/Myself.html and my web-site http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu
- Ok, done it this way gbog
I browsed your website, and , do you build that yourself? It seems to be a huge project to set up a website like that!! It's wonderful! but ancient Chinese is quite tough for me to understand... :( --yacht (Talk) 13:01, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I did it with my own little hands and bits of php ! gbog
Hi, don't worry about not knowing what had happened before with the Mother Teresa article. There's been quite a history to it over the last two months, which I expect would be near-to-impossible for someone new to the page to follow. A quick summary of it is that many people feel the page is POV and the criticisms section need to be worked on, but Eloquence feels very strongly that this section must stay in the article, and that the photographs are NPOV. I do advise that if you want to get involved with the page, you check over the archives to make sure you're not raising the same points again. Also, you should be aware that the article has been the cause of quite a few raised tempers, so you need to tread carefully and not take criticisms personally if they are made against you. Good luck if you do get involved. Personally, I'm staying out of it. :) By the way, there's an NPOV tutorial which might help. Angela. 04:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for advices. I will try to do something (be bold, ô my heart!)... I hope everybody share the same tiny goal: be able to remove the POV flag...
Please calm down. I've looked at your website and I think you're a very intelligent person. I understand you're trying to help. But please take a step back and read through my arguments. I really hope we can work together productively, especially when it comes to adding information to the article. I only ask you to accept my basic position not to remove relevant facts. As soon as you do that, I'm sure that we will be able to cooperate well. Please allow for the possibility that I am correct.—Eloquence
Again, please stop being so aggressive. Try to work with me here.—Eloquence
- When you will stop taking me for an idiot.gbog
- And when you will show you try to work with me "also". gbog
I see you are the latest contributor to the Mother Teresa article that Eloquence has tried to bully, ridicule and patronise into letting him have his own way. At this stage Eloquence's behaviour here has become notorious (the comments made about it on AIM and in emails are a howl!) Don't be afraid to defend your view and ignore any threats. Lots of luck with the . . . eh . . . experience. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:30, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know what is AIM and I'd like to see the comments on this little campfire :) gbog
- AOL Instant Messenger. I guess FearÉIREANN received some messages there. --Menchi (Talk)â 03:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks, Menchi
minor comments
Good luck with Mother Theresa article, sir. Eloquence is obviously quite knowledgeable, and has interesting points, but seems to me to want to use the article as a propaganda piece a bit, and displays a sad tendency to ad hominem attacks (which is unfortunate as otherwise he seems intelligent). I myself definitely don't care enough to wade into that mess :)
- Yes, and ad hominem attacks from a sysop to a new Wikipedian is not exactly what I would call a good thing.gbog
From the top of one of your pages:
"that's what say's Routledge article about Confucius and Confucianism."
I suggest rather this:
"is what is written in the Routledge article about Confucius and Confucianism."
Notes: "say's" should not have an apostrophe, and "that's what says" sounds awkward, and too informal for written English. "Routledge" needs either an apostrophe, or else an article (an article makes it a noun used as an adjective here).
(I'm not a professional editor at all, so I just try to explain my understanding, which as a native speaker, is sometimes too intuitive and insufficiently educated to be explained decently.)
- Thanks for to this note. Very useful. I have corrected the page. Any other suggestions highly welcomed, my English is saaoo bad :)
Instead of trying to start silly fights all over Misplaced Pages, how about working to improve the actual article? I've responded to your criticisms and rewrote the article in parts. Please respond if you consider these changes acceptable. If you think the changes to the NPOV tutorial are not, please explain your dissent. You seem be in passive-aggressive mode right now. That won't bring us forward.—Eloquence
- I am in passive agressive mode because
- you unfairly reverted me (->passive mode)
- you don't allow me to edit the FAQ you write on MT discussion page (->passive mode)
- nearly each time I suggest any change, you try your best to avoid making the change, as if it was your thing that I am not allowed to touch (->passive mode again)
- you attacked me ad hominem (agressive mode), and deleted my answers. See User:Gbog/Baston
- Silly questions: Why not changing the way you mess with new people in Misplaced Pages? Do you think that your attitude is the proper one for a sysop? gbog 11:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think I've made it quite clear that I'm willing to work with you on the facts, the phrases that are used, the attributions etc. I just won't accept the removal of significant criticisms of Mother Teresa. That's all that I ask you to respect. Can you? —Eloquence
- I think you have made clear, with me and many other ones, including fully respected Wikinausors I guess, that you don't want to works with others people on the edit on this article. I don't ask you to accept removals of any kind, I just ask you to consider other people equally allowed as you are to edit this article or others. gbog
- If that's the case, why did I just make half a dozen edits in response to your suggestions?—Eloquence
- Answer is obvious: you feel guilty. gbog
Just a warning: More than three reverts in a row are a violation of Misplaced Pages:revert policy.—Eloquence