You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
Jiwoo2020, Good progress, the article looks a bit better, but you missed some recommendations I made 3 days ago, which I will partially repeat: 1) "Please summarize the contents in the WP:LEAD (abstract/introduction) at the top of thje article.". 2) "You still need to add more blue links, for example you should link Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (South Korea)." 3) "The section 'A pet in everyday life' should make it clear you are referring to South Korea." and others. Please fix the issues I outlined (I just listed three here - but you did not address most others) and then clearly tell me how you addressed them, in the format 1) I wrote the missing lead 2) I added new hyperlinks (list them), etc. I also noticed you added a new section entitled 'Information you need to know to raise pets in Korea.' Such a section is not an encyclopedia - see WP:NOTAGUIDE. As such, while some information you added may be relevant, it needs to be merged into the main article into more relevant sections. Lastly, please use a service like Grammarly to fix problems with language and grammar. For example you write "Exploring the recent developments in the cultural practice of eating dog meat, there is a debate over Korea eating dog meat around the world. They insist on protecting animal rights.". But Korea is a country, country doesn't eat meat. And who is "they"? You will need to carefully reread the article and fix such issues. Fortunately, we still have over a month to do so - so take your time and don't hesitate to ask me questions! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jiwoo2020, Good, I have reviewed the changes in [1]. However, please read my recommendations above (as well as those from the last week). For example, despite me asking for this twice, you still have not added links to Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. This tells me you did not read (or act upon) all of my recommendations. There are still confusing sentences, such as "This article shows the culture of Korean pets" - but the pets (animals) don't have any culture. Or the sentences "proponents of edible dogs say that pets and edible dogs should be separated. In other words, They said edible dogs are allowed to eat." - I am afraid they are still grammatically incorrect. I recommend that you consult an expert who can help you fix the grammar/vocabulary. Good luck! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)I modified the[reply]
Jiwoo2020, Well done, the article is steadily improving. Please ensure all references have author's name, article title in English and Korean, data and journal title. "academic.naver.com" is not a journal, but just a service provider. For example, the correct name of the journal in which "개, 식용으로 사용해서는 안 되는 윤리적인 이유 : 공리주의적 접근을 중심으로" is published is " 생명연구". Please fix this error (it affects several of your references). Then please upload relevant images, if you cannot find ones that are freely licensed, please take some pictures yourself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is under attack by a Russian troll
@Piotrus: Hello, article Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is under attack by a Russian troll Лобачев Владимир, who persistently removes coat of arms design with blue (azure) color on the Vytis (Pahonia). I'm sure that you, as an active Polish Wikipedian, know that the real Vytis (Pahonia) is with azure (blue) color, not a completely white one as it is currently used by the Belarusian opposition. Consequently, I request to monitor this article and revert any vandalism acts by this user (or anyone who will attempt to falsify the real coat of arms colors scheme of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Many colorful authentic CoA of the Commonwealth survived in Poland and the rest of Europe and the azure (blue) is dominant in them. -- Pofka (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, I see. I'll take a look when I have some time. In the meantime, please follow WP:BRD and WP:CIV. Start a discussion at a relevant talk page, and be careful with calling other editors trolls, unless they have been blocked for disruptive editing, in which case you can report them to WP:VIP. Otherwise you run the risk of getting sanctioned yourself for violating the aforementioned policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: This user was performing anti-Lithuanian edit warring at the article of Pahonia when he persistently attempted to prove that it is an exclusively Belarusian symbol (this article was locked multiple times by the administrators, so now he attacks other articles). His anti-Lithuanian edits in the English Wikipedia is evident. Moreover, he every time removes Pahonia with the azure color from the Russian Wikipedia (where he is mostly active) and the other languages projects when I restore it. He even claimed that Pahonia (in this way probably the Polish White Eagle as well) is a Russian symbol because the Russian Empire annexed Lithuania (and so Poland with Warsaw as well), see this statement. So such term as a "Russian troll" is well deserved and Lithuanian, Polish topics should be protected from his disruptive pro-Russian/pro-Belarusian editing and propaganda. He even removed the Pahonia with azure color from the Polish Wikipedia article (now I restored it). He clearly is angry that Lithuania and the Commonwealth was superior over Russia for centuries, and so attempts to falsify facts. I'm sure that he inserted dozens of anti-Lithuanian, anti-Polish and other pro-Russian content to the Russian Wikipedia (he has over 91 000 edits there and his pro-Russian chauvinism is evident).
See this statement of his: "Position of national superiority. The Pahonia is the historical coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its land coats of arms, as well as the ruling dynasty of the Gediminids from the end of the XIV century. On December 14 (25), 1795, the Russian Empress Catherine II issued a manifesto “On the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Russian Empire. On this, the actual existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ended. Russian emperors began to bear the title "Grand Duke of Lithuania" and the image of Pahonia soon appeared in the coat of arms of the Russian Empire. Thus, the empire had the rights to this coat of arms. The Lithuanian Republic and the Belarusian Republic appeared in 1918 on the fragments of the Russian Empire. There are no documents on the rights of modern Belarus and modern Lithuania to this coat of arms. And this is a pointless conversation based on the position of national superiority of one nation (country) over another. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)" (that's a quote from the administrators noticeboard: here). -- Pofka (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: He continues his propagandic behavior. Just a moment ago he reverted illustration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the Portugalian Wikipedia, therefore we together should protect all articles in other languages because it is falsification of our common history. The discussion at the AN was too broad and involved two Wikipedians (including Kazimier Lachnovič). With precise evidence it can be created again, if they will continue their dirty work. Both Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир involves in falsification acts and closely collaborates, see edit history of Pahonia. Kazimier Lachnovič was very close to a ban following that AN report. -- Pofka (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Attack of the Coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania continues. Please participate in fighting with this biased Russian here. Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as you were not pinged, you might not have seen that the nominator has responded to your review. Please stop by when you get a chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you added - "This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
I've looked at Wikipedia: Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, and Inline citation/examples and still don't know what I am doing wrong. Could you please give me an example of how any one of the references should be changed.
Cayman42, It's really not that bad - you already displayed all relevant skills and know-how, you just didn't "finish". Wikipedia Manual of Style requires that every fact is clearly footnoted. In this, Wikipedia required density of footnotes is higher than in academic articles (it is just that most Wikipedia articles are not adhering to the MoS, i.e. are still drafts). Anyway, the point is that at the end of each paragraph there should be a footnote, at least one, more may be necessary, that allows the reader to verify each and every fact from that paragraph. It is also recommended to reference individual sentences to allow easier verification. I even wrote a mini essay / guide on this here: Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. Please let me know if you have any more questions! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for dragging you into this discussion. Your sig is fine, I just used it as an example to ask others whether it would fail their hypothetical proposed rules. —Kusma (Кузьма · कुस्मा · 𐌺) 09:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, Jorm has now changed my mind about making signatures as simple as possible (see his rant at Wikipedia talk:Signatures). I'm not here to talk you into changing your signature, but I'd like your input on something related: you use Wikipedia editing assignments in your teaching. From your perspective, are our talk pages as much a barrier to entry as Jorm says? Your students have to continue editing for a while to complete their assessments, but do you think that the software/atmosphere here/other things make them want to quit? Have any of them continued to edit? (Your signature that stands out a lot may is probably actually quite useful to your students, as you are their main contact, so what Jorm says might apply more to their interactions with others and on pages where your students don't know who is an important person and who is not). —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, This semester I tested an extra credit assignment of 'make your own custom' sigs and several students did it, nobody complained. As for whether the software and such are too complex, there is actually some research and data on this, but nothing conclusive. Combined with my first-hand experiences, sure, there's always a minority who think our software is too cumbersome, but most just learn to use it, as we did. If I were to point out to 'bad' sigs, I'd note the ones that don't direct people to talk pages. I don't think that customizable signatures are a major issue, there are dozens of others User:Jorm correctly identifies. For example, students very often forget to sign and I have to remind them about it again and again, which totally proves his points that it is weird that posts are not signed by default; my students obviously expect they should be. But when it comes to signatures, I think they are actually visually appealing, empowering, and fun more than confusing. I have seen newbies - and my students - be confused at many things, but never ever a signature. Now, I am sure there are some newbies who got frustrated over it, but again, I think that more new users find them "cute, fun and empowering" than "annoying". That said, I pretty much agree with everything else Jorm said. Our software is a mess that is very newbie-unfriendly. If a major revamp would force everyone to change sigs, so be it, but honestly, I think, as I said above, that sigs are not the enemy here. To be sure, we would need a study (survey, whatever) of new editors and ask them about their experiences with sigs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel Cetrone (WMDC), I am glad you found my suggestion helpful. The only problem is that EW article is a month old and DYKs are open to nominations from last week or so. This may be waved considering it is your first time, but I am not sure it will. In the future, it is best to nominate articles as soon as they've been created. And thank you for the link to FA, I'll read it shortly! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the assignment for week13 -WANG XIAOLING
Hello Professor.
The first is to reply to the content of 12 weeks, because I can not reply in the column of 12 weeks, so I will reply here. This is what the professor of 12 weeks replied to me:"Well done. You could consider contacting the subject or his agent and asking him to upload or donate a picture. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and commons:Commons:电子邮件模板, commons:Commons:電子郵件模板 (see also [105])." I'm really sorry, Professor, I contacted the his agent by email, but did not reply to me so I can't add photos.
WANG XIAOLING995, Well done contacting the subject, I will give you extra credit for the effort. It is a sad truth many people will ignore such emails - but then it's their own fault they don't have good Wikipedia articles. Your weekly edits look very good. It would be nice to get a picture to that article... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the assignment for week 15 -WANG XIAOLING
Hello professor. Because I am entering the final exam period, I will finish the remaining homework ahead of schedule. I hope you can agree. I will be very grateful if you agree.
I finished my editing assignments 10 times this week. This is the English Wikipedia link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Lusi#Character_evaluation
Please check my week13 assignments (PARK CHAEJEONG)
Hello, professor.
I have completed all week 13 blog writing and Wikipedia editing assignments(+ reflecting last week's feedback), so please check it out. Also, there is a part that I want to modify in Wikipedia sandbox assignment, is it still possible?
Hello professor:) I completed 10 Wikipedia edits this week. Please feedback if there are any modifications. Thank you always for your meticulous feedback! --Youngsil (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
W12,W13 weekly edits - Minkyo Jeong
Hello Professor. I have completed the W13 weekly edit. Please check. Also, please check the weekly edits of last week (week 12) were counted correctly. Thank you. Kyokyoyaaaaa talk💬10:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished Week13
Dear professor
I'm jinsin chen (chenchen)
I added the category of "Yantai Specialties" to many landmarks in Yantai.
On 31 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Military cooperative, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some Polish military cooperatives, formed to provide supplies to service personnel at low prices, issued their own coins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Military cooperative. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Military cooperative), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
: 632
: 82
: 6
: 22
You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
