Jump to content

User talk:Lingzhi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Acne vulgaris

Hi Lingzhi

One of the other reviewers checked 25% of the refs. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

regards, Sandbh

Access date

Hi Lingzhi, I'm just curious why you removed the access date here; I thought we were supposed to include them? Have I missed something? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe it's the script in my User:Lingzhi/common.css that displays Citation errors. It said that one has an access date but no "url= " parameter. Besides, aren't JSTOR links permanent? There were a few more citation errors on the page, but I didn't alter them.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so if it's a permanent link (jstor, doi, etc) they don't need a pen acces date? That would make sense. Thanks – you learn something new every day! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @The Bounder: that script I mentioned will throw out an error whether it's a permanent link or not, simply because you didn't populate the url= parameter. When I saw that, PLUS the fact that it was a permanent link, I was like, "Well we don't need this anyhow."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Question

Dear Lingzhi,
You critisied my listing staff with FRS initials after their names. They are not current staff. Only 3 are current. The rest are past scientists, all dead. FRS stands for Fellow of the Royal Society. You are showing you don't understand any of this. FRS is very prestigious. Please leave my addition alone. I am a former student of Aberdeen University, and I was trying to highlight all the emminent scientists the university has had over the last 200 years.

I applied for Questia's account more than 2 months ago and have not received any respond yet! I'm curious to know, reason of your ignorance in answering my messages!! Could you please let me know, what is your decision? Regards --DejaVu (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I seem to recall that you hadn't met the minimum editing standards.. is it.. minimum of 6 months and 500 edits, perhaps? I will check again in about 1 hour from now.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Also as I wrote in Wikipedia talk:Questia before, my Useraname has been changed.--DejaVu (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@DejaVu: Hello again. I must confess, the name change across wikis had me confused. Please check your email for confirmation of address... thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
This's for your commendable work at Bengali famine.I will be keeping a keen watch over how this turns out after being mainspaced. Winged Blades Godric 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikipedia Library User Group
  • Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
  • Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Its a horrific read. A huge achievement in dept of coverage. Deeply moved. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! I have to say, some aspects of it turned my stomach as well. But I think Wikipedia's coverage of an important topic has been improved, and I am glad for that...thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Get this through the review process... slowly but steadily. You have been very cautious so far, fair play; from here canvas wide and hard for input and help. I admire your approach so far; its such an important article. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, I was actually gonna sit back and let the CR processes play themselves out, responding to comments as they come, unless some Valued Editor begins disruptive editing. In that case, I plan to hide behind the skirts of as many admins as are within shouting distance... I say that because I tend to be impatient and a bit snippy perhaps, which would be counterproductive in this case. Thanks!!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well you are the sort to generally get on with folks round here, so I have high hopes. Ceoil (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hah! Thanks... [Massively unrelated personal side note: You said "fair play" which reminds me of one of my all-time favorite songs.07:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
+ 11 paddy points. Mine is Cleaning Windows.[1]. Belfast funk. Ceoil (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Message from 94.191.187.61

Lingding do you have a problem? Why did you remove a verified and sourced addition? Before you even came here we had this. You do understand you do not have the right to remove it before we reach a consensus right?

  • Thank you for your message. The article is not about Churchill; the correct place for Churchill-bashing re India is Winston Churchill#Indian independence. Based on your... editing... I did add a link to that section. Thank you for your input... The Bengal famine article already mentions charges of racism against Churchill... Moreover, putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"putting the Churchill quote in a big blue quote box is WP:UNDUE" Dickling, no. We have had this quote in STANDARD WIKIPEDIA light blue background among others on many others all along, for years and years, literally. Then you suddenly think you can immigrate this article and push out the original content? You are deluded and we've marked you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.187.61 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

song names

Song names don't get italicized, but rather in quotations. per WP:MOSALBUM --Jennica✿ / talk 23:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I've never done an album before, and am mildly unlikely to ever do one again. I just happen to like that album, and was surprised it was a redlink. But thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

IP report

Hi, sorry I didn't see your message, my time zones are unpopular. Either ANi or my talkpage is fine, whatever gets the quickest response. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I sent you an e-mail about a database I needed access to. Thanks! Werónika (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bengal famine of 1943

Hi Lingzhi. Your editing on the Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 is unnecessarily aggressive. I understand that you're proud of the time and effort you've put into remaking the page and believe me when I say that that is much appreciated. However, on Wikipedia, articles do not have only one voice and your apparent expectation that your work will be immediately accepted and permanently written in stone, as an FA or not is unrealistic. The best articles on Wikipedia, particularly on controversial topics, are those where there is tension between editors and the article is built from the give and take between those editors. The tension results in debates that result in better sources and better evaluation of sources. You have to accept that. Regardless, do note that this is an unacceptable personal attack. --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. I am directly quoting a flat assertion; that assertion is quite frankly the dictionary definition of a pro-British POV. Do not label it a personal attack; either recant or disengage.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Your call. Exactly as I feared, you are demonstrating WP:OWN issues with the article. That's neither healthy nor productive. But you need to figure this out for yourself before you get into trouble. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Regentspark here, Lingzhi, sorry. I went through a small amount of hell regarding accusations of POV etc when I rewrote James Tod and then took it to FAC but these things have to be seen through in a spirit that is collaborative within the scope of our policies and guidelines. Sure, you can quickly dispense of the outright warriors etc but you do have to deal reasonably with the vast majority of contributors and, like it or not, Fowler&fowler does have an immense knowledge of the Raj era in India. Just stick to V, RS, OR/SYNTHESIS etc and give as well as take. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you again!

Wondered if you'd disappeared for good... Serendipodous 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

I appreciate what you've done in Bengal famine of 1943. It takes a lot of stamina to produce an article of that length and for that you have my admiration. However, it is best that you too understand that I'm not looking to throw a wrench in the works because I get perverse pleasure from it, nor am I attempting to hog credit for myself. I'm simply trying to make sure that an article created in user space—on a very important but also very contentious topic which has seen the major intellectuals of the day disagreeing—accurately paraphrases the sources, that it does not favor any point of view any more than a predominance of the sources do, etc. Please assist me in this task. I do understand that you are impatient. The revision will take time, several months as I've already indicated, and will require patience. While I myself am not much affronted by people's impatient outbursts, please be aware that they won't be doing you any good, nor hurrying the process one whit. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Sitush:, @RegentsPark: Let me speak plainly regarding both you and AidWorker.
    • Your edits until now have been somewhat less POV than I expected, but I still expect a soft, fuzzy light to be thrown on the role of the British military in particular (do you have a military background?) and the Raj in general. By that time, however, I will probably have been blocked & then quit Wikipedia... But I do admit, after your initial very strong declaration of pro-military pro-Britain POV (i.e., "In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility ") your edits (so far) have left room for doubt.
  • I strongly invite you to compare the former version of our Wikipedia article to the writings of Bowbrick. Bowbrick has a sort of a one-stop shopping POV blast article (I think it's on on academia.edu?). I can email it to you. The assertions are the same. Hell, the fucking article structure is the same. Looking only at article text, article structure etc., under ordinary circumstances, I'd be willing to buy into the idea that AidWorker is merely a Bowbrick disciple/adherent/student/fan of sorts... but given that his Talk page bursts adhere even to the mindset of Bowbrick ("millions of lives are at risk") I flatly believe it is Bowbrick himself.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You have just pinged me but I am completely confused regarding why that is so. I've not looked at the article since you dumped your sandbox version there. I'd never knowingly edited it previously and I've deliberately kept off the talk page for now. Whoever Bowbrick and/or AidWorker may be, surely we're supposed to be doing the usual V, RS, DUE, NPOV etc? If, as you intimate, Bowbrick and AidWorker are one and the same then one or both of two things apply: (a) WP:SPI and (b) stick to the policies and guidelines, which will neutralise any shenanigans. Are those policies/guidelines perfect? Probably not. Do they have consensus? Yes. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I pinged you because I don't want my words to disappear down a memory hole. I'm hoping at least someone over there in the India articles area is neither a British apologist, nor an angry Indian/Bangladeshi nationalist, nor a Westerner who is simply a Churchill-hater. I'm sure at least one such person must exists somewhere, though I admit I am having some difficulties spotting one.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert (for the record)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.--regentspark (--regentspark (comment) 00:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943. Lingzhi, this sort of low grade harassment has to stop. As also must this. You cannot ascribe motives to other editors and instead you must either engage with them in good faith or take your editing elsewhere. You say "I will probably have been blocked & then quit Wikipedia" and, by all appearances, that's exactly what you're working toward. You've put in a great deal of effort into this article and it would be a shame to see it go down the tubes just because you're unwilling to assume the good faith of other editors but that's what's going to happen unless something changes. Your call entirely. regentspark (comment) 00:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @RegentsPark: Nice of you to drop in. You keep saying I'm unwilling to AGF. I keep telling you, F&F very explicitly declared his POV. He said: 1) The famine is only obliquely related to the war. 2) Anyone who says otherwise is buying into a POV that the famine was due to Great Britain's negligence. There are only two statements there; it isn't a huge chain of logic. It's a case of "All Greeks have beards, Zeno is a Greek (so Zeno has a beard). Specifically, he is saying that "Since the famine is only obliquely related to the war, and since people who say it is not are falling into a POV that GB bears responsibility, therefore, Great Britain bears no responsibility for the famine," I am not saying crazy wild-eyed rant-like things here. I am taking two of his flat statements and adding them up to their straightforward conclusion. He has declared a POV. So... should I AGF for someone who explicitly declared a POV? How does that work? "Hi there, I see you have explicitly declared a POV, but hey, I'm just gonna assume that you have absolutely NO POV"....please. I am dying to know. How do I "AGF" someone who has explicitly declared a POV? How? How it is done? What method should I use?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi, I don't know anything about this, but I read Fowler's statement—"to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility"—to mean the opposite of the way you interpret it.
    To see this as military history is to see it from the British point of view. The people who starved had no connection to the war in Europe. The famine was not a military situation in any sense for them. That is how I read the implications of that statement. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ^^ Me, too ^^. And, for what it is worth, we all have POVs, even if we think we do not. You're no exception to that, Lingzhi: you've read the sources and you have formed an opinion. That's a point of view. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Typing with cellphone. No no the view that the war caused the famine is the view that GB either deliberately let peasants starve, or at least was callous. Read the article (before it goes thru too many changes)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fowler is saying that to cast this as military history is to see things from the British point of view (whether that's to say they let people starve, or they more actively caused it, is a separate issue). The lead also describes it, in my opinion, from a British (or European or Western) perspective. SarahSV (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sitush:, @SlimVirgin: At the risk of repeating myself, alas, what you are saying is the complete opposite of what everyone else says. Please do read the "Cause(s)" section of the article; I hope that will clarify things. But thank you for being kind enough to help.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Lingzhi, I don't really care who does or doesn't have this or that POV. What I'm trying to point out to you, repeatedly, is that this constant low grade "you're going to do this anyway because you're a colonial apologist" is harassment and it detracts from a proper discussion of what should or should not go into the article. The wiki way is to engage with other editors in good faith and, if you believe the other editor is not editing in good faith, find the proper forum to shut them out of the article. Grumbling doesn't help - in real life or on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't know what forum to go to, and even if I did know, I would be a little likely to quit Wikipedia rather than go there. I don't (didn't) mind barking at idiots who drag hosed up crap into FAC (back when I did content reviews), but I hate long drawn-out arguments with everyone giving tons of diffs until some set of admins or other make an arbitrary decision about who's right (or non-arbitrary based on friendships). I genuinely do not believe the regulars in any argument forum such as ANI would have the will to decipher this issue. So basically I am screwed. I will play nice and see what happens. Please do put your Thor Hammer block button away.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
      I think you're right about the "long drawn-out arguments". I'm going to suggest a different strategy on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Questia

Hi, I was approved for Questia - I received an access code but I am unable to use it to login at https://www.questia.com/specialoffer. The instruction say "Offer ID" and "Promotional code" but I have only the access code that I was emailed and it isn't working. Seraphim System (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For you

A flower
Was looking for something more appropriate, but got impatient. You are much appreciated here, and don't ever forget that :) . Kafka Liz (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Have put this at PR, and might appreciate you jumping in from time to time. Hope all is well, things so so wiki-wise here; descending into ever increasing degrees of being unimpressed. Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lingzhi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bengal famine

Hi, Lingzhi!

I am reading and working on the article at the same time – it really is most impressively researched. What I've done is to copy the whole text into this sandbox, copyediting and trimming the text as I go through. So far I've only got to the end of the "Rural credit and land-grabbing". I'm quite sure that overall we can lose 2,000 to 2,500 words this way, and there may be further scope for reduction after that. I am not at this stage imposing anything on the article itself - all my work will be in the sandbox, which you are welcome to follow, and if you wish to add notes and comments by way of hidden text, you're welcome to do so. If on the other hand you would prefer to work by a different method, please say so.

One thing bothers me. This process is going to take time, and while the FAC is open other editors may add comments on a text which is likely to be altered considerably. Would it be a good idea, therefore, to withdraw the FAC foer the present and to re-nominate in the New Year when the reconstruction work is complete?

Let me know what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: You should be aware what you're getting into. This userspace stuff was exactly the vehicle used for earlier gang-up and fail tactics. Plus you're walking straight into a multi-party debate. They woul ask for an aditional six months after the userspace bit before it could be put into FAC. What a ^&*&^*&^job.... Plus... If you wanna ping others you can; I am done pinging people.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't intend to "get into" anything, beyond helping to trim an overlong article in response to concerns expressed at the peer review and my own concerns in this respect. I'm quite happy to do this in mainspace, but I can't do that while the FAC is open as the text will inevitably be destabilised for a while. So maybe close the FAC now? Otherwise I'm happy to desist for the time being – it's not exactly a light chore. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: I hate to make your job more difficult, but I just woke up at 6:30 am and remembered things that might do so: my original article version was careful to always draw connections between things: the uprising and its subsequent very forceful oppression (including strafing or bombing civilians from the air in one case) added to mistrust and chaos (people in the Contai/Tamluk area actually refused government aid after the hurricanes, in many cases), the military's monopolization of the railways further hampered relief efforts, the refugees from Burma probably spread disease (explicitly stated in Tauger) etc etc. It seemed to me that later edits worked to sever or at least blur those connections (clear example here; our subsequent back and forth on talk is here , look for "editorializing?"). My opinion, which others may certainly contest: later editors were not at all adverse to criticizing Churchill, but wanted connections between the military and the famine to be removed. That's my take, your mileage may vary.
  • I will try to print out a hard copy of the current version and read it again in the next few days, but there are further problems complicating any efforts I might make to help: first, I am very heavily weighted down by discouragement and bitterness about the whole of Wikipedia after this experience (and a few others too). Every time I try to edit more than one sentence, a surge of weariness drags me down. Second, if I have too much input, the possibility exists that other editors might cry foul (?).
  • OH... that other editor also repeatedly stated that he was adding "context" that he intended to "delete later". That.... is.... the pile of "context" that the current version is overburdened with. I can make one initial suggestion: delete the Cripps mission, which IIRC the Bengal famine article presents in Wikipedia's "editorializing" voice in a more favorable light than many Indian nationalists and even contemporary and involved British sources might admit. Far more importantly, it's kinda peripheral anyhow.
  • I'm sorry. I worked for an entire year on this, and it was shat upon. I will very probably walk away from Wikipedia after this, but I swore i would see this through.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am alarmed by signs of walking away, Lingzhi. Please think about it. Officially declared FA or not, isn't the article a great accomplishment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be alarmed. I am burned out... I'm sorry if I was too harsh on you over infoboxes, BUT, pls respect the authors in the future. Don't get a pro-infobox crew together (or join one) to overrule the people who actually did the content work. They deserve the say on that matter.. Ask nicely. If they say no, then no. It's all a social thing. Social respect.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I dream of a future where the word infobox does not need to be mentioned. You were not harsh, you gave good advice which I followed. Never ever have I "gotten a crew together". "Respect of the authors", I agree, but who are the authors when an article had a long history, and then new authors come improving. Aren't the former authors also authors who deserve respect? - The scene has been mostly silent all year, to my observation. See also, about AGF.
Now to you: even if you are burned out, you don't have to leave us. Just don't edit for a while, look every now and then what we are doing, and perhaps return when refreshed. - Looking forward to my latest FA appearing on my mom's birthday, - nice interplay of editors is there if you look. The article is about rejoicing, thanking and serving, will take it as motto for 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

... today, listen if you like --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The second movement of the psalm is some of the most pensive music I know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Ling, I'm sorry to hear you're thinking of leaving Wikipedia. I hope you reconsider. The collaborative editing with you on List of American Civil War battles was one of my most pleasant experiences here on Wikipedia. Warmest wishes for health and happiness this holiday season and throughout the coming year. Mojoworker (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: Thanks for the kind words! yes, the Civil war list was one of the top highlights of my many years here too, and you were a big reason for that... As for Wikipedia, I dunno what I'm gonna do. Seriously. No idea. But thanks again for the positive words!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 Season's greetings!
I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2018 will be safe, successful and rewarding...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Lingzhi!!


Hi Lingzhi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Cant do anything fancy this year, but wishing you best, in what was I imagine was a disappointing year, wiki wise. Nonetheless, it all must have been rewarding on a personal level. I think you'll get your due. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Hey. As you've probably noticed, BrianBoulton has volunteered to do some serious trimming of the famine article after the holidays, and you seem to have started in as well. Thanks! I... kinda feel reluctant to edit it. I dunno. I might add one or two little edits but actually I don't see myself contributing much if anything to the effort. Too exhausting, plus my presence might constitute a distraction... Anyhow, cheers and happy holidays. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I dont think you need to stand back, but it might be good to achive some distance, and get perspective. Its been a difficult one, that's for sure. I know Brian is a safe pair of hands. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!! I will take your advice. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lingzhi, just wanted to stop by and thank you for the message on my page and to reciprocate. Good wishes for the new year. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing two Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anbe Sivam/archive1

I've replied to your FAC comments. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been promoted to FA. My first solo FA.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald H. Nash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Particularism (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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi,

I visit Evad's talk page often.

I noticed your message threads there, and that you mentioned you are learning JavaScript.

It looks like you've jumped right in. Congratulations on taking the plunge.

I'm still on the learning curve myself, and have noticed the following activities have helped me learn about JavaScript and its ecosystem:

  1. Developing user scripts
  2. Studying the JavaScript ecosystem (reading about it, watching tutorials)
  3. Writing about the JavaScript ecosystem
  4. Studying other people's user scripts
  5. Gathering and organizing resources to support the above activities

By "JavaScript ecosystem", I'm referring to everything about JavaScript, including the language itself, everything written in it, everything written about it, all extensions (libraries), all variations, every tool, every company, every programmer, the standards, the standards bodies, and everything else in or about the JavaScript community. For example, the Perl ecosystem includes CPAN and the PerlMonks. What support does JavaScript have? Not that I want to know it all (is that even possible?), but it's nice to have a menu to look at before you dine.

Or to use another metaphor, to have maps of the territory, so you don't get lost in it.

The "menus" or "maps" alluded to above are being developed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and its members.

These include:

  • WikiProject JavaScript main page – a task-oriented clearing house of core information about the encyclopedia's JavaScript coverage and a resource hub for user script writers.
  • Outline of JavaScript – a list (under development) of anything and everything about JavaScript.
  • Outline of scripts – similar to the above, but including every topic and link we can find about user scripts and their development on Wikipedia, including where to find user scripts.
  • Glossary of JavaScript – a draft under development explaining the key terms and jargon related to JavaScript.
  • JavaScript reference library – this is a list of references/resources out there in the world beyond Wikipedia, which you may find useful for providing citations in articles, but also as learning resources in their own right, to help you learn about JavaScript and develop better user scripts.

As you use these "maps" to explore, please add to them as you discover yet-to-be-documented features of the JavaScript ecosystem. The better the maps, the better the journey.

As for the WikiProject itself, you are invited to join...

It'll help with your learning curve.

WP:JS has 2 purposes:

  1. Improve the articles on WP about JavaScript (it's entire ecosystem).
  2. Develop and maintain user scripts, and their support pages.

At the very least, you'll get a bird's eye view of the JavaScript terrain, here and abroad.

The main benefit, of course, is pooling resources.

If you are interested, please add your username here.

I hope to collaborate with you soon.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark E. Smith

When you get a chance, can you advise on a ref format here. Dont usually rely so much on web sources, but he died on Wednesday and am in shock. I have plenty of Fall books, but haven't much gotten to adding them yet. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Script note

I've been using the script; it's very handy -- thanks again. A quick note about it: it's now complaining about sort order in the footnotes, which of course doesn't make sense. See Wat Phra Dhammakaya for an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie:Oh yeah, I was gonna fix that... done. Those footnotes were labeled "Citations", so I stopped the script from checking sections with that header. Now only checks within sections that have one of the following headings: "References", "Bibliography", "Literature_cited", "Works_cited", "Book_sources", "Primary_sources", "Secondary_sources", or "Sources"... By the way, do you know any articles that have both a primary and a secondary sources section, with cite book templates? I'm a little concerned it won't get two sections correctly.
    Bede is an example. And it has "References" for footnotes, too; that's probably not all that rare, though your other chosen section names are probably good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

OK will fix later. Just added this, is this worth flagging/ [i saw one on Bede]: "Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? " Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure; as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.
If you want to get fancy, you could also have a switch in the left side bar (the way the duplinks script works) which enables/disables your script. That would avoid the big error messages when one is not in review mode. If you want to get *really* fancy, you could allow users to switch the different errors on and off by some means. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bengal Famine:- (Undid revision 824081722 by 83.104.51.74 (talk))

Your revision is unhelpful. Per the later text from the famine report, declaring a famine was the responsibility of the Government of Bengal, not the Central or British Governments, removing the qualifier makes the sentence ambiguous. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia & the Bengal famine article. If you'll continue reading the (admittedly somewhat long-ish) article to its later sections, you'll see that the Famine Commission Report, while accurate on myriads of details, has been repeatedly criticized by historians for its rather blatant attempts to shift blame off the UK and onto local politicians. If you wish to concur with the Report in shifting blame in that direction, you'll have to do so by using something other than the Report. Its POV is compromised on that issue. You'll also have to do it on the article's talk page rather than the article itself. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Germanicus

I appreciate the tips at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Germanicus, but am still unsure of whether or not you support the nomination. If you felt like supporting, or have any other ideas to improve the article, I'm all ears. SpartaN (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Regrettably, I'm sort of in a "I refuse to either Support or Oppose any article at any time for any reason" phase, with only one odd exception. So I will do neither. But you have 2 good Supports and no Opposes. PLus A-review is not exceptionally speedy. So I suggest you sit back, drink your favorite beverage, and relax. I suspect everything will be OK. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
I understand. Thanks for your help with the references. SpartaN (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FAC source reviewing

Just so that we don't tread on each others' toes, I'm letting you know I intend to do the source revies on:

– if this doesn't disturb your plans. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Plans? We don't need no stinkn' plans! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sort order

See Parinacota (volcano); the sort order error is for two slightly different Ginibre et al. papers. I think I agree with the script on this one, but what are the rules for sorting papers like this? Alphabetical order of first different author? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Before anything is sorted, the script attempts to break the reference into a string with (for example for four authors) LastnameLastnameLastnameLastnamePubDate. If it can't do that, it just grabs the first several characters that the cite template is gomma display, which is usually the title.... Then it follows standard practice: if two strings are identical up to a point, but one stops while another continues, then the one that stops goes before the one that doesn't. If two strings ae identical up to a point then diverge (with both continuing), then first two different letters or numbers are compared etc. The sort also uses javascript's sort(Intl.Collator()) function so it is relatively language-sensitive for Romanized scripts, but it is not foolproof. In fact it is probably adrift with non-Romanized text such as "สองศิษย์เอกธัมมชโยโต้ขอกล่าวหาวัดพระธรรมกาย". You'll just have to discuss those with other editors. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation; that algorithm makes sense to me. I think the sort error it pointed out is indeed an error, on that basis, so good catch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Christie: Please do let me know if you think of any other check that could be added! I put in a lot of work, and it seems like 13 or 14 isn't quite worth it. [I might try to check against lists of "bad websites", but that seems.. #1 hard to maintain and #2 like it should be done with another script. I'll think about it.] Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'll see if I can come up with more. I recommended it to the GA nominator and I see they already installed it; I think it'll become quite widely used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Another one to look at: Lake Manly. I think the script is wrong on both the sort order errors it gives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm on a cellphone but looks like those are editor errors not sort errors. First names formatted inconsistently in one case, dates inconsistent in the other. Standardize them and see...But there is actually a sort error at Andrew Jackson because of how the headers are arranged. I dunno how to fix that, but will consider. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    Making the date format consistent fixes one of them. I see what you mean about the other; I think what some editors do is leave the first name as initials or full name depending on what is in the original paper, but they sort the name as if it were consistent between different papers. That will always lead to this problem. Personally I make them consistent, but I know not everyone does. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at ice drilling, and the script found a location inconsistency I'd missed, so that was neat. It's getting the sort order wrong in a couple of places, for a couple of reasons:

  • 1968a vs. July 1967 -- I don't think the "a" will affect much, but the month shows up in some publications and will be a problem.
  • An "original publication" as, for a translated title; it's picking that up as the sort date. I don't think there's anything that can be done about this.
  • April 2012 vs. 2014 vs. 2016 -- same as the first point above, assuming the "a" doesn't affect things.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: the "a" was unnecessary in the above, so I removed it. Is that another thing for the script to find? It's going to be very rare so I'm not sure it's worth it, but it would look for identical authors and identical years and insist on a disambig letter on the year, and conversely look for disambig letters, remove them and check there's a duplicate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Python suggestion

Any interest in writing a Python bot to take over from (part of) Legobot? You know Python, and now I know you can write bots/scripts; GAN really needs a replacement for Legobot. The code is currently PHP and is public. Take a look at WP:BOTREQ if interested. You could be a hero! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I dunno if it would be better to write new code in Python or instead learn PHP and maintain/extend existing code... my gut tells me the latter... and if the latter, I dunno how long it would take for me to get up to speed. 2 weeks? 3 weeks? A month? I don't know. But... I would be very interested in learning PHP... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Either way would be great. The bot is absolutely critical to GAN but the botop has no time for updates and there are unaddressed bugs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Endangered Languages

I (sort of) understand why you deleted my table here, but the link you provided instead doesn't exactly list which languages are endangered. Nitorigen (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's another version of your table on the Endangered Languages talk page. I made it many years ago. Take info from that and your table and move the info to Formosan languages. Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

New caution message

The new message is showing up at the bottom of Purico complex. What is it telling me, exactly? I don't use harv refs so am not very familiar with how they work. I've figured out that harv errors in things like "Further reading" sections can be avoided by "|ref=0", so is that what's going on here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes that's exactly what's going on here. The script is working perfectly correctly, but it doesn't know that "González-Ferrán, Oscar (1995)" isn't supposed to link to anything. Thank you for telling me about "|ref=0"; I'll give that a try... BTW, I know Wikipedia doesn't have rules, but if that "Bibliography" is actually "Further reading" or whatever, someone would being doing folks a favor if they labeled it more accurately. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Source reviews at FAC

I'm pleased you're chipping in here, but can you please head up your comments as Source review rather than just your username? Otherwise it's not clear to the co-ordinators that the sourcing has been checked, nor clear to me – without this clarity I could find myself duplicating work that you've already done. NB I am currently working on the sources for the Owumi and Eliza Acton articles. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I apologize. I am hesitant to add "source review" to the header because I fear that I may be unaware of many details which you would normally check. that's most especially true for weblinks, which I generally avoid like farting in an elevator. My ever-evolving script, forex, checks many surface level details of references as they appear on our articles, but does not follow weblinks. I am not always sure what you would do when following weblinks; I would be very embarrassed to omit some check or other... I will try to do what I can. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)work

Following weblinks simply means making certain they are currently working and going to the right destination, i.e. the cited site. Checking them individually can be tedious work, especially when you're faced with about 200 of them – which is why editors largely avoid source reviews or do them superficially. There is an external link checker tool in the FAC toolbox, but in my experience it is unreliable. It might be worthwhile seeing if that tool can be made more efficient. As I've said, I appreciate all help with source reviewing, but I don't want to be in the position where someone else takes on the easier bits and leaves me to slog away unaided at the hard grind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Is there anything systematic about the links checker's lack of reliability? Have you noticed any pattern? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bengal famine of 1943, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profiteering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for source review tool

Hey, I added your tool to my settings, and it has been enormously helpful. Some quick suggestions:

  • Make sure you have all the ID's listed on Template:Citation added to it, so that it doesn't give a "No ISBN" if one of the IDs is present. I noticed that it does this when only an HDL id is present.
  • Have ability to suppress the "No citation links here" and "No citation points here". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Another comment: The tool appears to get confused when some citations have last1 and others only have last, and tells you that the last1's should go first, even if it breaks alphabetical order. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Another comment, sorry to spam you, the tool appears to become confused by university press' in the Publishers section, and records them as a location, which throws off the tool into saying some have locations and others don't incorrectly. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: Pls don't apologize. Your input is valuable. The "No citation links here" and "No citation points here" are both from Ucuchas script, not mine. I tried to fix the "Oxford/Cambridge University Press" issue. I have never seen and hdl before, could you show me an example? And show me where the last/last1 sort error is? Tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to force the tool to ignore the publisher category for location, or specifically set it to ignore some major universities? See Handle System for HDL (I think I deleted the book with an HDL because it wasn’t being used on Western Roman Empire. I’ll try and find the error with the last/last1, although I believe that that may have been user error due to mixing cite web’s with cite journals and cite books (system wants the books and journals to be above the webs, regardless of name.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The script doesn't care about whether cite webs are mixed in with journals or books. All are sorted, hopefully by name/date or (if the former are unavailable) asnippet of the title. It also already ignores (or should ignore) "Oxford University Press" and "Cambridge Univerity Press", but only when thos are fully spelled out. I could add more or variants lie OUP/CUP... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Source reviews at GAN

Lingzhi, I have noticed your posts at a number of GA review pages, and you have invariably placed them under a second-level header. As per the instructions on GA review pages (in comments right after the top section), please do not ever add second-level headers to a GA review page; only third-level or below should be used in the body of the review. This is because the review pages are frequently transcluded onto article talk pages, and the entire review needs to be under a single second-level header.

Thank you for your cooperation in this; it really does matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Archiving citations

Passing over our spat chez Osbert Lancaster about sfn, I notice that you have added "archived" links to many online sources I used in the article. I don't know how to do this, and as it is plainly a very good idea indeed I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain as simply as you can for the benefit of an elderly and untechie editor how to do this for myself in future. I should add that a regular collaborator of mine attempted to explain it to me a while back, but he couldn't think down to my level, and I was left unenlightened, so if you can manage to give me foolproof instructions I shall be very grateful. Tim riley talk 17:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Not Lingzhi, but I've used his tool for a lot. In order to use it you have to add the "|archive-url=" parameter, with the URL being that of the archive. The best archive I can suggest is Wayback Machine. If you place the url of the webpage you wish to archive in the slot under "Save Page Now" (May require an account, cannot recall), it will either create an archive page for it, or update an existing one. You then take the url from the Wayback archive page, place it in the "|archive-url=" slot, and place the current date in the |"archive-date=" parameter. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Archiving is not required, but is good practice. To archive: Go to IABot's Analyze a page. (Note that if you end up on the "IABot Management Interface", you'll need to find the small drop-down menu that says "Run Bot" and select "Fix a single page"). Type a Wikipedia article's title (carefully) on the line that says "Page title to analyze" Be sure to check the checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Run time for the bot can be from a few seconds to five minutes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This is most helpful, thank you! I'll make a point of learning the drill and incorporating it into my referencing. Tim riley talk 17:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
So done, and if I can make it work then anybody can. Thank you, Lingzhi and Iazyges. Tim riley talk 22:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots

You valiantly steered that "conversation" among volunteers towards a logical solution. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I haven't followed the Wikidata issue/debate, nor any other for that matter. It seems everyone is against it, for fear of Rent-seeking, paycheck-drawing (but usually not earning, except for those who maintain servers/software) WMF knuckleheads who have created it to 1) draw more wages, 2) expand their territory of control. Or so I assume. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata concerns are more about drawing data from an unpoliced source for me, not that I lie awake at night worrying about it. Anyways, re the other day, ironically Fram is usually one of the good guys, but he is hard line in his quest, pulls no punches and has an unique of style of communication. Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In other words, he is similar to me regarding citations/templates/references/etc., altho I am less hard line than before... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Your a more user friendly version. The way I see it, if it wasnt for people like him, people like me would have a lot more &*(£ to deal with from the WMF and the hair brained. Ye are both filters. Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello, thank you for helping me out so far. However, before I installed the script to check for errors, I wanted to know generally what the main reference issues were (perhaps there's some guideline I should read?), so that I wouldn't have to repeat the same mistakes in my later edits. BreadBuddy (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • There are literally dozens of errors. There's no guideline to read; mostly you need to learn things as you go. For example, in this article you are using a full citation to a book each time you cite it. That's not necessary, it's extra work, and you multiply errors...an example is "Singh, Mohinder. History and Culture of Panjab. Atlantic Publishers" cited in full 7 times, and each time has the same errors. How are you adding references to the page? are you using a tool of some sort? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah i'm using the cite tool with the given templates, and then filling the information in each time. I've changed some on the stuff as per what you have said.BreadBuddy (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader II

Hello,

Many thanks for the edits. The article does look much better.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks`

I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping me get the sourcing right on Presidency of George Washington. Sorry about the trouble. If you have a moment, would you mind describing your views on the topic of quality vs. quantity articles at User:Eddie891/sandbox/Quality v. Quantity for a Wikipedia Signpost Report? If not, that is fine. Great Work Eddie891 Talk Work 18:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

ISSN

I spent a good half hour looking for an ISSN for Sampsell, Bonnie and couldn't find one. I'll check for a JSTOR tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Hullo, me again—You were kind enough to comment at this article's (somewhat informal!) peer review, and I thought I'd let you know it's now a featured article candidate. The discussion is here, and any further comments you may wishto make would be naturally very welcome. Thanks again! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC reviewing barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the two FAC reviews and five source reviews you did during February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

hey

Hi Lingzhi. Thanks for the welcome on ceoil's page last week. I remember you too! It is a weird thing, this brain module that is devoted exclusively to the wikipedia ecosystem, such that I wonder what people who I barely knew eight years ago might be up to now. Ya know? I know I associate you with a certain "first article", but no longer remember what is was. But I do know you have a few magnum opuses to your name(s). regards, Outriggr (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • We could sure use your help around here...after being accused of being a sock puppet, Ceoil and better half seem to be on jailbreak/wikbreak. Sandy returned recently but is absorbed in controversy re prostate cancer. Geometryguy is gone. A few others are gone. I have completely cleared my wikicalendar for the next year to argue about Bengal famine of 1943...so it's nice to see you poking your head in the door to say hello.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
** An SPI that still isn't closed apparently, for whatever reason (I see someone has added a new conspiracy-comment, another reverse-of-Occam's-razor type conclusion). I don't think the motivations of Ceoil are too hard to understand from a plain ol' 'treat humans like humans' point of view, which can be rare around here. The DCGeist fellow is someone I remember doing really good work (and an example of my 'brain module' comment above, since I've never talked to them), and it is weird to see someone blocked forever, their user pages blanked, with not one actual person writing their own actual words upon the aggressive implementation of a ban of an obviously productive user. Talk about counter-productive to the project. I'd like to see a checkuser write B movie. I keep retiring from this shit show for much less...
    • Help? You withdrew the famine for being too long? Isn't it OK if an event that killed millions is longer than a politician's article? (I read the FAC just now.) Oh well, good work anyway! I think Taiwanese aborigines was your "first article" that I was trying to remember. I wish I had the cognitive and existential energy to contribute in such deep ways, but I don't. With your linguistics background, is there anything you might do to "save" the Swedish language FA review? I think it might be a bit thin in summarizing core grammatical/syntactical aspects of the language, but that's a tough job.
    • Finally, a belated happy new year for 2013, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Outriggr (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You obviously did not notice the living hell that I went through during the first FAC and MILHIST A-review of Bengal Famine. My happy wiki-virginity was popped; I was just butt-fucked by some people and permitted to be butt-fucked by several others who really, really, really should have known better. Now I have the exquisite privilege of shifting from "Arguing with fowler&fowler" to "arguing with SlimVirgin". Fun... I hope Ceoil un-wikibreaks, I did see ne edit he made. Or was he blocked again, you say??? God only knows... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Eh, I have now, cause for whatever reason I have spent the last couple of hours looking at the history of the famine article. I believe strongly that once such a difficult article picks up editors who want to pick on sourcing and claim OR/synthesis/whatever, it's a semantic game that can go on forever depending on the energies involved. One can endlessly claim that there is an interpretation of a sourced claim that is not in the text, and this game can continue indefinitely in such a complicated article. Moreover, in any complicated topic, one is going to engage (largely subconsciously) in "innocent" synthesis, if they've actually gone to the work of extensive research, because one has to in order for writing to work as writing, but the Literalist brigade of Wikipedia doesn't get that. (The Epistemologically Naive brigade is the one that thinks everything in the world is a "fact", and that believes "every article should have an infobox", clearly without thinking what that means. It's essentially saying there are objective database properties that you could add to, oh I don't know, "Feminism".)
        • (No ceoil wasn't blocked, someone just insinuated that he seemed to know the two editors were one editor. wtf.) Um, if you are interested in having me make minor edits to shorten Famine around the edges, I would, but it seems like there are larger arguments to the extent that such edits would just muddy the waters. (A comment: when I got to "Famine, disease, and the death toll", I would have expected an overview, starting with repetition of the lead gloss, of the total death estimates as per various sources. Instead it jumped right to details.) Outriggr (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
(←) Thanks for the observation about "jumped right to details". That's a good point, and I will change it to fit your observations later... as for copy editing, BrianBoulton was editing for a while, but quit the stage when SV showed up. And Ceoil has done some, but I think he also has larger issues on his hands....right now I only have 5 goals for "new editing" 1) add three sentences or so about "speculation" 2) add 2 sentences or so about "forced repatriation", 3) add a couple more sentences about the sex/age/occupation/geographic distribution of mortality rates (there's some there already), 4) add the stuff you just suggested, and the task that would probably disrupt copy editing the most is 5) try to get rid of many cites to "primary sources" (I debate the assertion that they are primary, but whatever) as possible (most notably the 80 or so cites to "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a") by replacing them with later, secondary sources. So..... I dunno what you could do. You could pick a section and fact check; I'd give you sources. You could watchlist the page for ne'er-do-wells. I could even send you a source or two or three and say "beef up the discussion of mortality distribution". Or whatever. But copy editing.... maybe... not yet.... unless you see something that really seems obvious. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
You could send me any articles. Do you use dropbox? It would be a good way to share a folder of documents. I get your point. I think if primary sources are introduced as such, and the reader is reminded throughout the relevant paragraph that "the government of India said in 1945" type of thing, it's fine. They double as historiographic context for the reader. Outriggr (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You know, I've never really gotten into using dropbox, even though I know it's convenient. Can I jst email things to you? Oh, Google has Google Drive so I could send a link instead of a file, that's an option.. OK so here's the plan. I made a list I copied every sentence with 3 or more bundled cites to User:Lingzhi/sandbox. I'll be using that to verify each and every cite. Sometimes I will delete a few, and perhaps sometimes move them.. On that page I will keep a very clear/detailed record of every instance moved, deleted or verified. I won't check the ones with two or fewer cites, at least not now... if you want to help with that, that would be great! But it will be a huge pain in the butt.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll let you know, Lingzhi. Outriggr (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Alternately you can great the google drive, and put the docs out, but I'm not promising anything. I dunno how much work it is to make the folder. It'd have to be public in the sense that I don't need an account to access it--you could then email the link so as to limit any verboten possibilities akin to the recent youtube lectures. Outriggr (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively I could just email them to you... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not around much any more, but it is just delightful to see you, Outrigger. Never cared much for DCGeist. Not gonna worry too much about the prostate cancer article messes, because WT:MED is a wreck, and we are already screwed in my house :( Gonna have my hands full on the home front, but wanted to say "hi". Drop me an email to let me know how things are. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia: - and likewise! What a surprise. I knew you had dropped by WP recently, and thought I'd ride your coat-tails. :) I hope things will improve in your household. Times are tough for a number of us, myself included I'd say. Anyway, I won't step on Lingzhi's talk page any more. Outriggr (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi loves the activity :) I sure do hope you are well. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll stick around if you stick around... Outriggr (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't promise anything, but we'll see where the next few doctor appointments lead. I am finding strange comfort in reconnecting with ... people like yous :) Thinking of the Dogriggr, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

If they're going to keep blaming "uninformed" admins for blocking for their disruptive behavior how is that going to help in the future? This particular incident involved them removing checkuser tags, messing around with a SPI archive, undoing a checkuser close on a SPI page, and then reverting five times on the talk page. I think a 24 hour block is pretty lenient considering they were blocked a week just last month. If more editors they actually listened to would tell them to dial it down then perhaps something "fruitful" would come out of it. --NeilN talk to me 15:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is full of admins. There are therefore others available for sharing such insights & wisdom; you are not the one most likely to bring about productive discussion.. After blocking, disengage. Your input will not be heard, because you are the one who did the blocking. Common sense. And showing up on C's page and scolding him was unwise to the max. It's like saying, "I'm bored. Could we have some more drama, please?" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I disagree with your "after blocking, disengage" philosophy. Obviously I'm not going to comment on the latest attacks but if an editor shows no sense of why they were blocked by me I will respond. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • well then, I have a suggestion for a nice little research task for you. Go back through allllllll the people you've ever blocked and then returned to scold. See how many times your comments produced the following result: <blink><blink> Oh! NeilN! Gosh! You are right! I will now change my ways. Thank you for your guidance... Let me be frank: I think you're speaking from a position of wounded/offended pride, rather than a calm analysis of the path that will produce a favorable outcome. Pride goeth before teg dramahzzzz. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me be frank. The posts by other editors will not produce a favorable outcome if they encourage Ceoil to continue on with the same behavior. This is a calm analysis as I have no idea why you think my pride would be wounded. I blocked, the editor thinks the block was idiotic (paraphrasing) - nothing new there. --NeilN talk to me 15:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • All I'm sayin' is that you ain't the guy to be sayin', because no one will hear you. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. No wait, and I'm doubly sayin' that showing up on his talk page to say that was unwise, unwiser and unwisest. Just sayin' Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell a spurious SPI was opened and accepted, left open until Ceoil showed up hat in hand to apologize, the CU admin didn't like the reply but closed immediately, there was some tussling and you blocked. It was an unnecessary block on your part. Sometimes it's ok to let people blow off steam. There's no reason to rush in, the world won't come to an end. This from someone who spent last night in the ER. Seriously, there's life outside of who deletes a talk page edit. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • V, I'm so sorry to hear you were in ER last night. You'll have to let me know what's going on, sometime when things are less hectic... NeilN, right now might be a good time to be silent about how sure you are that you're right. teh dramahzzzzzzz is the opposite of fruitful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I'm sorry for this messy situation, but I'd like to also point out that you may not be the best person to be weighing in on Ceoil's talk when this situation is still so raw. I cannot see how your comments are helping to calm a tense situation.

I understand that you view anyone who is expressing support to Ceoil on his talk page as an "enabler", which isn't a really helpful point of view. In fact, I don't believe I said (or at least I did not intend to say) anything supportive of the specific situation; my intent was to be supportive of Ceoil the awesomest writer, and Ceoil the person of scruples who is always going to be intensely offended at being accused of socking or covering socking-- that is just Ceoil. Many of us go back more than 10 years with him, we understand why this situation and others similar so deeply offend him, and we'd like to see him stay around because, well, we like him a lot and his writing is quite remarkable. NYB had the right approach to letting this blow over, and your reappearance there just stirs it up again.

Would you perhaps be able to stand back and realize that NYB knew what he was doing and why, and that maybe you continuing to opine is more inflammatory at this point than useful? It really is not about "enabling"; it is about calming a situation that, frankly, was very unfair from the beginning. Why another editor should be able to put up an SPI with such scant evidence, and have it remain open so long is certainly off-putting to an editor like Ceoil. And why that other editor (whose name I don't even recall) should be able to cast aspersions on another editor by making a personal claim (that Ceoil knew about DCGeist's socking) is a real problem-- he does not have a crystal ball, we should not cast aspersions of that nature without evidence, curiously no admin seems to have pointed that out to that editor, and none of us rubbing shoulders with DCGeist for all those years realized he was socking, so there is no reason to think Ceoil should have. Ceoil is just not the kind of person to cover for someone else socking to create FAs.

Ceoil admired DCGeist's work-- that's all (for the record, I did not). I also feel that I failed to lay out the full case I could have laid out on the SPI, with an abundance of evidence to indicate no connection and no likely knowledge, but I was thinking (wrongly) that leaving the SPI open might lead to other DCGeist socks, which I am very interested in uncovering, because he abused the FAC process. As the FA delegate working with all of these editors for so many years at both FAC and FAR, I could have easily laid out an abundance of evidence and asked that the SPI please be closed, but I do not believe it helpful to divulge more than the absolute minimum on SPIs, as the sockmasters use that info.

I'm quite disappointed to be called an "enabler" for trying to cheer up a friend. Sorry for the length, but I hope you can see the logic in asking you to step away from the matter at this point. You are not going to understand Ceoil, and Ceoil is not going to understand you, while smoke is swirling around. Ceoil may come around to seeing your POV if someone explains why that editor was able to cast aspersions on Ceoil, and have them stand for so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I won't be replying here as Lingzhi seems to wish I "be silent". If you repost the above to your talk page or my talk page I will respond. --NeilN talk to me 18:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: thanks for the response, but I am out for the rest of the day, responding from my iPad, hoping this will have calmed down by the time I am back home. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries "ce" when archiving?

Hi, can I ask why you're using the edit summary "ce", which I take to mean copyedit, when archiving links? [2] Ss112 06:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Because I'm really stupid? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

M87 FAC discussion

Hi

The issue you raised on the discussion page of FAC/M87/archive has been addressed. Any further comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks --UbedJunejo (talk•cont) 00:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 02:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

yo

Good luck. Now I don't get many pings, and so it is with disappointment that I note I didn't get a ping for the {U|me} thing you did in the FAC. Is this one of those features that doesn't work half the time? I hope your adventure ends well. Outriggr (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mr rnddude. I don't get from a parsing perspective what a "new comment" would have to do with it. The first action was actually a new page, the second an addition to an existing paragraph. What's a new comment? A new paragraph, a new bullet point, a new colon, ... sorry rhetorical questions... Outriggr (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's all about the time stamp on your sig. So... I think... if you "touch" (i.e., update) the sig... mmm... if you add one ping with one timestamp, then add a second ping with a second timestamp, I don't know if one or both work. But I know it's about the timestamp. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to test that now, bwahaha. What is with this Lingzhi fellow. Did you get a ping? edit So by your theory if I do this, Lingzhi and change the time it will work. Outriggr (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "No." But I did get two message notifications. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(←) @Outriggr:Yes,, but I didn't. So t he question is, if you ping someone from their own talk page, does the ping get ignored (redundant)? If I were programng it, I would do it that way. So let's test. I'll add a sig, then add a ping and "touch" the sig Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope I didn't get that. What a shitty implementation. Thanks for allowing the talk page spam. I wonder if I can ping myself from here? Last try. @Outriggr: Outriggr (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FAC

Ling, have been thinking a lot about this, while I favour the nom, I don't think its a good idea if I support, object or get involved in any way, given my light hither to fore involvement and basic temperament. But am closely watching all the arguments; am glad now that on talk and at the FAC, those there are people I respect. Progress, man, from a year ago. ps, dont worry about the Cloisters, I can take care of, its months away and you have been a star as usual. Ceoil (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ceoil:
  • @Ceoil: So you think you argue too much! hah! You obviously haven't seen this. My relatives are German on one side and (probably) English on the other, but I love to drink and argue so much that I wonder if I have a little Irish in me. Maybe my mom had a little secret on the side (the mailman was Irish)... If you wanna join the FAC, do so. If you don't wanna join the FAC, don't. Either way, it's OK, life is good. By the way, does "Ceoil" mean "Christian Era Oil [Paintings]? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I always assumed it meant music in Irish.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, you're right. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It was a good guess anyhow and I almost laughed. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ling I would only add salt to the fire. Its not that I am abandoning you to wolves, more that on the fac my presence might be counterproductive. Its not been a good few weeks. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I am so sorry that it has not been going well. I really think a nice collaboration with Modernist and Victoria and and the oft-imitated but never equaled or excelled KafkaLiz on a nice painter would do the trick. I really enjoyed Vincent and Oviri. I felt like i was learning, which is a key reason why I stick around here.... And speaking of VvG, Oviri and controversy: I fucked up very childishly on Vincent and caused a tiff, 2) I threw a hissy fit regarding Oviri when the FAC was closed. To sone degree at least, I have not much better a track record than you. Do you follow people around from forum to forum and scold them? I try to avoid that like the plague. I often try very very very hard to just shut up, disengage and just let the whole thing disappear. Then I often apologize weeks or even (believe it or not) as much as a year later. Perhaps the "Shut up, disengage, and stay permanently disengaged" thing is why I haven't been blocked. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi, re not been going well, no worries, but I'm very much considering my place here, wondering if it makes me happy (hardly); the weight of burden it incurs is just frankly...pff; see also User talk:Theramin. I well remember the struggles at Ovri and Vincent, and you did just fine in both incidents. I thought you held your composure up to a point on VvG, but there comes a point when you have to put your foot down, of necessity you did, its no fun, but was needed. Sorry this post uis a little rambling and inclusive, the last few weeks have been hard yes, so intend to put my head down. I am drowning in sources for the cloisters, and Victoria has indicated that another collab might be on the cards. Joy. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nabanna (drama) Comment

May consider adding Nabanna (drama), a well-known portrayal of the Bengal famine, by Bijon Bhattacharya.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The drama was later made to a Hindi film Dharti Ke Lal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Holding you in the light

"... if you aren't into Judeo-Christian monotheism, I'm sending thoughts of blessings your way" ... if one more person tells me they are "holding us in the light", I will put them in the dark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah, I'm sure that kind of comment is well-intentioned and should clearly be honored as such, but I think it would kinda secretly make my butt cheeks pucker a little. or something like that. Like that double-cringe-inducing squeaky noise that Styrofoam coolers innocently make... By the way, I will (quite honestly, not adding onto joking comments) remember you and yours in prayer as well. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I just mentally translate "God bless you" to be whatever the correct god would be in my mythos. (shrugs) If the person telling me that is so wound up in monotheism that they can't deal with me accepting their statement in the spirit of my mythos, well... tough cookies. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I just want someone to explain to me how they go about holding me in the light ... I secretly think it's a meaningless cliche, since I can't figure out the meaning ... wait, no, not really, I don't want them to explain. Actually, worse is people insisting that we need to meditate away aggressive cancer. Hope your MIL is doing better, Ealdgyth ... it sounds like she's coming through fine! Along with our own driving an hour daily each way to a clinic, I have also been helping drive my dearest dear friend, who just came through major surgery at 89! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
When the first hubby was first diagnosed with cancer, I had all sorts of well-meaning idiots (and I refuse to pull punches and not call them idiots) tell me that we could just change our diet and cure the lung cancer or that certain crystals would do it or ... you get the idea. I'm afraid that I wasn't always very nice to the ones that were not friends ... MIL is sound fine from status report this morning. Am utterly stiff from two days in ICU chairs (or lack of them). Trying to get stuff done before heading back this weekend. (Sorry to hijack your talk page, Lingzhi!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is THAT sort of thing that has me wanting to "put them in the dark". I am finding that people's dumb reactions are turning me into a recluse-- would rather be alone! I don't know how we will keep straight faces the next time someone "holds us in the light", as we will be remembering Nutty Ling's butt cheeks! Hang in there, Ealdgyth ... our hospitals have ridiculously comfy chairs anyway, but that's a result of how they ridiculously gouge us financially, too. We got news last week that $4,000 of advance preparation for radiation, recommended by them, is not covered by insurance. Nice to know after we already did that procedure ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I do believe in prayer as an opening for God to do miracles. I.... do not believe... that God is an item to be pulled off a shelf, a commodity, a good or a service, or a function that can be invoked, called or ordered in any mechanistic manner... I don't know how to express this. I don't believe prayer is a type of medicine. Miracles are unpredictable and non-repeatable and therefore not a thing within the domain of advice-giving... I would never, not in any lifetime, suggest that if someone prays their physical illness will be healed. I would go even further and say that anyone who suggests "Your prayers aren't answered because you don't have enough faith" is in fact literally blaspheming (yes that's the correct term) against God, while on a human level is certainly being very cruel/inhumane and very possibly smug and self-righteous. I feel the same dismay, or actually even stronger dismay, for people who objectify prayer as I do for those who do so for crystals or meditation or whatever...Have I babbled enough? sorry to interrupt... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
from my comfy chair at clinic, how about this, Lingzhi ... one person most frequently advocating that we need to specifically meditate the cancer away is a strong member of our church! i am a bit confused about that theology works ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(←) Church members sometimes gain cachet by the strength/earnestness of their convictions rather than the content therein. If there is anything at all in the Bible that says that meditation is a push-button cure for anything at all other than lack of meditativeness (is that a word?) I will eat my socks. Here are a few keys to the questions of answered/unanswered prayer: 1) Everyone dies. By design. It might be sooner or it might be later. It's actually not any sort of injustice if someone dies young, because that's the way the world operates. Yes, it's possible that God might heal a terminal condition. Very possible. But God won't do it every time, guaranteed. And there's no guarantee at all God will do it even once. And God doesn't "owe it to us" to do it even once. The only guarantee is that everyone dies. 2) A "blessing", by definition, is "anything that brings you closer to God". So things that we think are "good/blessings" might not be, if they dilute our relationship with God (the classic examples could be "money" and "that beautiful girl or handsome guy"). And things we think are "bad" might not be, in the same way. 3) Back on "God owes us", God doesn't owe us anything at all. We might get "good" things that hurt us or help us, we might get "bad" things that hurt us or help us, and we can't blame God if any of the above really does hurt us somehow. If you follow that snake of a sentence. In other words, bitterness against God when bad things happen is very very very natural, but... bad things happen. That's the way this world operates. No one can escape living in a broken world. God doesn't promise us we'll always and everywhere escape that brokenness. God binds our wounds from time to time, to give us hope and peace and faith, but God doesn't bind our wounds every time, because there's no escape from brokenness. 4) So why doesn't God just make heaven on earth? The point of this life is to develop a relationship of love with God, and to spread the ripples of that love to others. [Spoken by someone who is often way too harsh, mea culpa.] Here's the point: Love is not a feeling. Uh remember Gordon Lightfoot " If You Could Read My Mind" (I don't know where we went wrong but the feelin's gone) or Fleetwood Mac "Go Your Own Way" (How can I ever change things that I feel?). Well, neither of those describes love. Love is a choice and a decision. So if we had no free will, and no one ever did any bad things, there would be no opportunity to choose to love God or to choose to love others. So. People therefore have freedom to do bad things. And bad things happen. And we suffer. It sucks. It really does suck. But suffering is the darkness where genuine love can show itself. Sound corny? No I think it's scary. And fierce. But maybe beautiful? In a fierce and scary way? 5) Prayer. Prayer is not powerful; God is powerful. Prayer is just talking to God. There's no guarantee that what you want and what God wants are the same thing, so there's no guarantee that you will get what you want. And there is a guarantee that sometimes you'll get what you actively don't want, because the world is guaranteed to be broken. 6) Cheesy "walk in the light/meditate/be healed" talk is cheap. It cheapens God, and God doesn't like to be cheapened. Love walks along fierce and scary roads, and doesn't always guarantee shelter from fierce and scary things. Love only guarantees that you will be loved. 7) There is no number 7. I'm running out of steam. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lingzhi/Archive_2&oldid=1149963969"