User talk:David Lodge

Are you related to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge?

Welcome!

Hello, David Lodge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lust, Caution (film)

Sorry about that. I will be extra careful next time. However, ref - 8 is NOT working. (It still isn't.) I was removing not working ref and mistakenly typed ref 7. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You misunderstood me. I was aiming for the removal of the link, not the content. Since you have added extra ref, then the content stays, but #8 is got to go because it's not working. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Reference #8 is not working. They seem to have pulled the story. David, it might be in your browser cache. Could you try reloading it? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead now, however, the conflict here isn't about the link - it's about some larger issue related to Taiwan. Rather than follow WP:DEADLINK, TheAsianGURU removed both the link and the passage he found objectionable (see the talk page for the article). Which is where I came in. David Lodge (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the Taiwan issues, and I can understand why you are a bit suspicious in this case. But usually it's more constructive to self-censor such suspicions unless/until there is a clear case. In an environment where people with vastly different backgrounds and from all over the world cooperate, there are many odd accidents. Our instincts don't work well in such an environment, and so we have to make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions and hurt the feelings of people who often (not always, of course) turn out to be innocent in the end. My personal opinion after looking at this case is that you had better not leave that stage yet, based essentially on a single incident. Even in case you don't find my argument convincing: If you get into a conflict with TheAsianGURU, whether you have assumed good faith for long enough will be an important factor in how other people will judge your credibility.

By the way, another oddity is that you have the same name as my favourite contemporary author. But as it seems to be a relatively common name, and in the absence of further evidence, I am making sure not to jump to any conclusions on this either. :-) --Hans Adler (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, you assume (a) that I base my comments on a single incident rather than the observation of a pattern across multiple articles, and (b) that I am not David Lodge (author) himself. At least one of these assumptions is wrong. David Lodge (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Please check the date. I left that message on Jan 28th (10 days ago) and I was open for an discussion. After talking with a few fellow wikipedians, I have decided to keep the section. However, the link was dead and I was removing the link last night. Ref #8 was removed, but I typed in the wrong "edit summary" and you RVed my edit. That's ok, it was my mistake. However, what I am trying to say at the moment is that --- Ref #8 is no long working, needs to be removed. That's all. Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to fight nor I want to get into the TW vs CN issues here. I left the message for 10 days and gave myself time to think and also asked options around. I did the right thing. I think that rule is retarded, but I am not the 1 who made the rules so like your said, let's leave it like that. Mixing politics with movies is a bad idea. The incident is a well known incident so it should be included. However, no one should expand the section, not there, not under the movie title. Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]