User talk:Lingzhi.Renascence

refcheck ♦ awards ♦ wiki bio ♦

♦

Hey there. You can call me Lingzhi or Ling.

Welcome back

Good to see you my friend. Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OTD

A reply to your recent remark at WP:ERRORS, before the thread's removal: There is already an MLK blurb in the "staging area" for the April 4 OTD (see Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 4). As blurbs are curated annually to highlight different anniversaries, it isn't surprising that his assassination did not feature for 2023, especially since it was there only last year. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ravenpuff! § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here to comment on your Errors report, too. If you want to contribute to "On this day", please go to this page and have a read how to do that: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. It's almost always too late on the day of an anniversary, but anybody can contribute to this project all year round. OTD could certainly do with more editors showing an interest; would be great if you could help. Schwede 66 02:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schwede66! § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

Good to see the name Lingzhi on my watchlist again! - I made an exception from my DYK abstinence for Good Friday, - see my story today). - I sang, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion. I recently listened to one by Homilius: a discovery! - If you click songs, you get to my latest vacation pics. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Monday (1987)

Hi Lingzhi.Renascence. You added a couple of reference for "Federal Reserve Bank of New York 1987–88" to Black Monday (1987), but no matching work is defined in the article. Could you add the cite or let me know which work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey thanks for checking I'm busy in real-life. I will add those in tomorrow. do you do this check for many articles? § Lingzhi (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working to clear down Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors which tracks such errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Barnstar [1] is much appreciated. JustBeCool (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the excellent work! § Lingzhi (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck script?

Per the recent conversations at WT:GAN I started to wonder if it would be possible to automate part of the spotchecking process. I know you're expert at JavaScript so I thought I'd ask if this is something you could do, if you have time, or if it would perhaps require a bot. The first part of what I do for a spotcheck is completely mechanical; I pick N cited chunks of text, and put them into this format:

FN 13 cites "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
FNs 26 & 43 cite "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
FN 91 cites "sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

In other words, I randomly pick a cite or multiple adjacent cites, and copy down all the text they cite. Then I go to each source, if there's a link or I have access, and try to verify it. Do you think this is something that you could create? I could try doing it with ChristieBot but I think it would be a lot easier to parse the html than the wikitext to find chunks of text like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, there are two parts to your request: 1) getting cited text from a Wikipedia article, and 2) Checking that text against an online source. Number One can probably be done through AWB or maybe Javascript. As for Number Two, I was never an internet programmer. I don't know how to go scrape other websites. I'm very sure other people do. It might be fun to learn, but I am not sure if I have the time. Maybe when summer break comes.... § Lingzhi (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was only part one I was interested in; part two would require human intervention no matter what, so I wasn't thinking of automating that. Good to know JavaScript might work; I'll post at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone is interested in doing something like this. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAC (Black Monday)

Just to notify, it does seem like some have you black-listed at FAC, see the "garbage FAs" comment here, which in the real world should be block worthy. I am beyond infuriated (miffed almost haha), but not surprised at the myopic arrogance. Note, your not the first[2] wherein a strict mil-his mindset was applied to a non mil-his topic. Cripes. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. Well, it's all extremely complicated. Every aspect is complicated. There are several factors involved. Forex, I didn't take that "garbage at FACs" to refer to me personally. Apparently there has been some sort of Doug Coldwell dumpster fire while I was gone; apparently boatloads of WP:CLOP in… certainly GAs, and maybe FAs? On a scale of 1 to 10, where Essjay controversy is a 10, this seems like maybe a 7.5? But apparently it's a shitshow and everyone is suffering. But yeah, busting the door in and opening up a big steaming can of "I'm gonna Oppose" at the early, early, early break of dawn on very, very shaky grounds made it necessary for me to respond in a black-and-white manner... and I absolutely 100% know for a verified fact that there are tons of people who say "Nope! Not gonna go there! Adios!" at even the vaguest whiff of disagreement at FAC... so yeah, it WAS 100% poisoning the well... but to be fair, maybe it was innocently done... Buidhe seems... to have his/her own kind of viewpoints about... issues involving placing concepts into categories. That can be excellent for article writers but is perhaps not particularly productive when reviewing... So maybe it was 100% unintentional and innocent. I think there's room for WP:AGF. § Lingzhi (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naa, I think you are black listed. My worry is that certain other co-ords will jump in to back the oppose as had happened before.[3] For my own part, sorry I was harsh ar times so far; as said before have had the article watchlisted for around a decade before you expanded, and its an area have read a lot about. Restart on our exchanges there? Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Rawalpindi massacres

Ling, is 1947 Rawalpindi massacres by any chance a topic you know something about? It's up for a GA review by an editor who has never nominated an article before. I know this topic area can be extremely controversial so I hesitate to review it myself, but I know you've written about wartime India (yes, I know Bengal is nowhere near the Punjab) so I thought I'd see if you were interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it, of course. A better person might be Fowler&fowler, but he might not wanna get involved in that. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shiloh

@Lingzhi.Renascence: - Thank you so much for reviewing Battle of Shiloh! It is a long article, and I had just about given up on it ever getting a review. I see that someone else made numerous changes earlier today, and I have not "caught up" on all of them. I personally do not like one-sentence "paragraphs" (such as in the intro now). I also do not like images on the left side (such as the Union gunboats). I have never used the term "Information notes". I always use a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations, and References as sub-sections. Also, the "Halleck, a desk officer" was added this morning by someone else, and it appears their citation style is different from mine. Finally, could you give me more information on what you mean by "I've always thought that this was kinda ugly: [25][232][233][26]." I'm not sure what you mean, and hope it is not something way over my head. BTW, all those changes made today are not necessarily bad changes, but I need to look at them. TwoScars (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars you're welcome for the review. We'll get everything straightened out... For an example of {{sfnm}}, go to Black Monday (1987) and search for text "had a further negative impact on the value of the US dollar while pushing interest rates upward and stock prices downward". It's at note 13. Then click the link for note 13 and see how 3 different sources are placed on one line. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lingzhi.Renascence: - Thanks again for reviewing a long and complicated article. As you know, Battle of Shiloh gets plenty of vandalism and small edits from people who think they are experts on the battle. I believe those types of things helped it deteriorate from Featured Article to C-Class. Currently, I have too many other things going on, on Wikipedia and at home, to bring it up to Featured Article. However, I will keep it on my watch list. I learned about combining citations, which will help me in future endeavors. I'm always willing to learn more. If there are two or three "bullet points" where I can improve my future writing, please feel free to make those suggestions right here or on my talk page. It will help me, and could make things better for readers. TwoScars (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: Hey. I should have replied a very long time ago. First, I think you're doing excellent work in Civil War stuff. Second, I have a confession: I am an English teacher. All day long I try to tell massively unwilling and uncaring students about the social penalties incurred after grammatical solecisms such as comma splices, number agreement errors, and sentence fragments. They look at me blankly and think I am a fucking idiot. So if someone asks, "How can I improve my writing?", all I feel is exhaustion. It's not your fault. It's real life. I'm sorry I was slow to respond. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Logic, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mr.weedle (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal famine

Just came here to remind you to kindly proceed with the edits we discussed here i.e. putting the Japanese invasion as one of the causes of famine in the first paragraph at Bengal_famine_of_1943. Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, you seem to be the one and only individual in favor of this edit. Out of everyone who edits WP, there is only one person who wants this edit.... Perhaps that should tell you something...? § Lingzhi (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Multiple editors supported the inclusion.[4][5] Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref checker thingy

Lingzhi, would you be willing to run that script of yours on a couple of my articles? I've always tried to have refs squirreled away into pretty good shape, so I think it would be interesting to see what the results are. Maybe USS Marmora (1862) (my current FAC) and Battle of Grand Gulf (hopefully at FAC later this year)? Hog Farm _Talk 02:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna put a link in my sig... But sure, I'll look 'em over. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Grand Gulf looks good. I fixed one little p/pp error. There's this: "Wright, William C. (1982). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)", but ya know, it may not have an issn or isbn. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like the Grand Gulf issue was an incorrect use of {{cite journal}} - have switched over to {{cite report}} and added an OCLC. Hog Farm _Talk 02:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I 'll have to remember that situation for future reference... sounds good! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Special Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your being Wikipedian. Even when it hurt. I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your kind gesture. I will display it proudly on my barnstar page. I am not sure what to say about the past or the future. I may or may not make a 5th attempt to take BF43 through FAC sometime several months in the future (presumably with User:Fowler&fowler and perhaps others). I dunno; it may be too stressful for me to attempt. But in any event, I am very willing to call a truce on all other articles. Thanks again. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second Gog's sentiment. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Lingzhi, I've been side-tracked by some family emergencies. The pall seems to be lifting. I will now spend some time on BFo43 with a view to have you take it to FAC or both of us doing so, as you suggest upstairs. I might still be scarce on WP for the next month, but I'm letting you know that I will be reading the newer references. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Hey, hope things are getting better for your family... I am in no hurry to FAC the BF43 article. I really want to get cracking on History of science, and that will take a long time. Plus... we might wanna consider the possibility that it would be better for some person or persons other than me (with you being the main candidate, of course) to interact with coords at that FAC. I suppose we could list my name alongside others' on the nom, but I could try to be a silent partner. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 08:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am perturbed that a significant contributor to an article may feel that it would sit more comfortably with the @FAC coordinators: if their name were omitted from the nominators. I feel sure that we would collectively be able to overcome any such perceived drawback. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but the issues might stem from my comments on the last Bengal famine FAC (nominated by Ling), which was archived. Of course I would be recused on that article if it went to FAC again. (t · c) buidhe 16:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:, @Gog the Mild: I am deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply bitter about BF43. I don't know whether to spell out details, as it will only rekindle old arguments, and some people may rush to defend themselves! Pointless and soul-sucking bickering will ensue! And one person who wronged me (SlimVirgin) is deceased, so people will criticize me for speaking ill of the... deceased. And... here is my Achille's heel.. some details are not readily available to the average Wikipedia editor... Some are deleted, some are via email, and some are buried in the impenetrable thicket of TL;DR in those FACs... But if I don't spell out details, everyone will think I am a fucking nutjob (which they may already believe anyhow... ha ha ha). So alas I am the poor nutjob in the corner, mumbling to himself and adjusting his tinfoil hat. It is perhaps my destiny. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, the article is the article. Reviewers may or may not say nice and/or not-nice things about it. If they post anything not-nice not reasonably directly related to the words in, or not in, the article they will find it promptly moved to the talk page or oblivion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: That sounds eminently reasonable. It is also unfortunately not related to what I am talking about. It was not a matter of "not saying nice things". Not even close... SV (here we go!), for example, was reviewing in bad faith from day one. [Oh wait, a FAC reviewer was reviewing in bad faith?] She had a set of sandbox pages in her user space that were rewrites of BF43. I'm not talking about working in a sandbox to fix some errors (I do that all the time too, so I won't screw up the actual article), I'm talking about completely and radically changing the tone and content and focus of the BF43 article. Her versions shifted the focus. They focused on women's issues and to a lesser extent journalism. Then in her FAC comments she repeatedly said, "This article is just an outline. It needs a deft hand to take it to the the next level." An outline? Really? It was huge. It was a small book. And whose hand did it need to "take it to the next level?" Hers, of course. She was poaching. She saw it was an outstanding article on an important topic, so she wanted to torpedo the FAC, rewrite with a radically different focus (somewhat more feminist, for example), and take all the kudos for herself. You can see, for example, where I took the "journalism" and "women's issues" sections of the article and copied them to their own separate spinoff articles, to forestall her attempts. Last time I looked years ago, the "journalism" subarticle still existed. The women's issues one was deleted... by... whom? By SV. [I doubt she went through AFD... is it an abuse of admin tools to unilaterally delete an article that you've been heavily involved in a debate about.. in fact, was for stretches of time the lead debater...? (OK: Media coverage of the 1943 Bengal famine and Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943. The second is a redir made by SV she was smart enough to redir instead of deleting... very smart )] She also put up lame arguments like "no one in the WP community was allowed to edit it or discuss it", then I showed cold hard statistics about how in fact she had done both to a great extent.... again and again I refuted her arguments (and those of others) with clear, hard facts. Did anyone ever say, "Gosh, Ling, you're right"? No. They either denied everything or simply dropped it, pretended it never happened, and moved to another objection.

I was not the only person who saw this complete rewrite stuff (which may have been rambling notes-to-self in addition to article text) in SV's user space. I remember that 2 other editors said they saw it too. I maybe 75% remember who I pretty much think those 2 were, but I don't want to name them or ping them. There is a very strong possibility that they have zero desire to enter into a discussion about this... I deleted all those emails long time ago, I believe...

And SV is not the only guilty party here. Others were reviewing in bad faith from day one, too. Their motivations were really night-and-day different than SV's (personal grudge was the biggest one for the second worst reviewer, I think mainly, mixed with a desire to prevent shame from befalling the British military, or at least prevent that shame from getting the FA label). before and during the FAC, I clashed with that particular editor, both personally and in context of criticizing MILHIST, several times... [Here's some ancient MILHIST lore for your TL;DR pleasure... YEARS ago, I used to go there and throw tantrums about how shitty nearly everyone's references were.. and they were in fact shitty... and then suddenly everyone snapped into place and the references became and remain quite beautiful. I sometimes sneak a look at the A-class reviews, and I think their refs are usually lookin' sharp...] And several times different editors (including this one) let little comments slip about how the article was too colorful or too one-sided or something-or-other because it made the UK, its prime minster and especially its military look guilty. That one editor, IIRC, tried repeatedly early on to argue that the UK military should not even be mentioned in the article, and later argued that if mentioned, the military's role should be moved to a minor place... maybe my memory is wrong about that but I think so...

And even more people were guilty of misdeeds, too, though the respective levels of culpability do honestly drop very significantly as we go down the list of editors. As we go down the list, the guilt diminishes to simple pettiness or... attempts to ingratiate one's self with a MILHIST bigshot or... I have often wondered if one reviewer is somewhere on the autism spectrum. If he/she is not, then there are some other issues that [still] need to be addressed... that editor is still very active at FAC and other places... if that editor is not on the spectrum, that's actually far worse, because he or she needs to change his or her editing philosophy and/or motivations...

Another reviewer (not the one I was referring to earlier) was reasonable and nice until I said, "You're from the UK, aren't you?" I actually was asking just to verify a UK-related fact... when I said that, he immediately dropped his former niceness and went on the attack...

I don't recall who... maybe it was even the guy I am talking about who changed (see immediately above)... right at the very very end of one FAC, something happened, i think maybe I completely refuted his line of attack or something, I don't recall, and he immediately brought up a different attack... which was even more lame and patently wrong than the previous one.. and the FAC coord stepped in and said, "Time's up! And I see people are still raising new objections!" But did that FAC coord even bother to look and evaluate whether that new objection was even vaguely valid? Nope. Not even a sniff test. Maybe the FAC coord was (arguably) OK to do that, but the reviewer was bad faith... so I got shanghaied by a bad reviewer taking advantage of a FAC coord who didn't bother to look.

And the whole thing kicked off (in the very first FAC) with me moving my rewrite from sandbox to mainspace and almost immediately putting it in FAC. People thumped me repeatedly about that. But here's the thing: I told a FAC coordinator by email I was gonna do exactly that. [Not the same FAC coord as the "Time's up!" one above]. I told him clearly and we discussed it. Did he say, "No that's not good idea?" No, he did not... That's quite forgivable, though, because maybe he also didn't see it as some kind of problem. But here's the bad part: when I was getting kicked in the teeth because of it, did he step up and at least partially defend me by saying, "Oh, gosh, Ling told me about this... we talked a great deal... I knew about it beforehand"? Nope, not a peep. There was just me, twisting in the wind.

And on and on. What we have here is a perfect storm of various factors, various editors not doing their jobs, or not editing in good faith at all, or not being fully transparent... for a host of different treasons.. vastly different reasons... I think a couple of editors were just pissed at me because I'm kinda perceived as a huge pain in the ass... and I mentioned a coouple other petty motivations above.. I do think there was at least some collusion in all this [in fact, I know there was, at least to some degree, because one time SV mentioned something during the FAC that no one else knew about except me and one admin (not a FAC coord) because we discussed it via email.. SV said that I had said something that I had never said on-wiki, only via email to that admin].... BUT I do NOT think it was a vast conspiracy. Nope. It was more of a small collusion between certainly 2 and maybe 3, and maybe even at the very far outside 4 editors (and maybe some of those 4 didn't know about some of the others, i.e., one editor formed different small colluding pairs). But mainly it was a perfect storm of crap. Some people just screwed up. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 01:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, you have persuaded me. I was wrong. As you are unable to avoid comments "not reasonably directly related to the words in, or not in, the article" I agree with you that it would be best if you stayed away from any future nomination. It would strain human nature to expect the sort of comments above not to prejudice reviewers against a nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I appreciate the time and trouble you have spent examining the record. Now I know that the more-than-two years I spent writing the article (essentially from scratch, since the prior version was mostly junk, often hours per day after work, and the uncounted hours I spent during various FACs again and again showing that a host of objections were without merit, was time very well-spent. I can look fondly back on my very numerous interactions with historian Paul Greenough, historian Cormac Ó Gráda, historian Iftekhar Iqbal, journalist Madhusree Mukerjee, and Arjun Janah (son of Sunil Janah), among others. I count as nothing the gathering of about 130 sources and actually reading them (repeatedly!), because my efforts have all been well and duly counted and treated with respect. The amount of effort I have expended writing it has been equaled by the amount of effort others put into giving it close consideration. Wikipedia certainly appreciates its editors for the value they produce. My time here has not been wasted. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mars in fiction

Hi Ling, you may want to check my recent comments in this article's FAC - in the event that you don't have it watch listed - both for information and to check that I haven't said anything stupid. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal famine of 1943

Hi Lingzhi, I hope you're well. I noticed you've been working on bringing this article to FA-status, and I wanted to recommend requesting it to be edited by the Guild of Copy Editors (of which I am a member ). I saw you've discussed issues raised regarding the article's length, and some editors suggested trimming redundant language. An in-depth review by a GOCE editor may help—in your request, you can mention this as a focus of the requested edit. Sorry for butting in, but I hope this helps! Wracking ^talk! 17:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC) @Wracking: Hi Wracking, thanks for your kind suggestion! You aren't butting in at all. I have no idea where the winds will blow that article. At least one other editor would be deeply involved, but he seems to be having a busy time in real life. So.... thanks! And I will keep your suggestion in mind... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Shiloh

On 3 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Shiloh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the time, the Battle of Shiloh was the largest battle fought in the United States, with nearly 24,000 casualties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Shiloh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Shiloh), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art

Hi, hope all is well. If ok with you and Johnbod, would like to incorporate text into Tomb effigy from the Funerary article, which is still one of the most impressive FAs we have. Thinking specifically of detail on Egyptian and Roman tombs. Would be fully attributed etc. Let me know your decision :) Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, whatever Johnbod says. I haven't really thought about that article in years. :-) § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps, I'm going to hit a similar problem that you have with Black Monday (1987); inevitably the article is going to have separate sections on France and England where most of the innovation took place. Will do a separate section on Italy and Spain (combined), but can see complaints re what about Germanic lands etc. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds tricky! I have several things going on at once, and making very slow progress. [In fact, have quit one project, it seems.] If you need help cleaning up reference format, ping me. Cheers! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Lingzhi.Renascence. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SN54129 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Hey. I replied (briefly) a long time ago, and just now replied (briefly) again. Try looking in your spam, maybe? I will get back to your nom... sorry for delay... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1

I just wanted to ask what the situation is with Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1. Obviously I'm not complaining that it passed, but the review page doesn't really tell me what was reviewed, and it gives the impression that it was unfinished. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: The spot check was OK. I had the overall opinion that the review was going positively enough to pass. To a lesser extent, I also did not get the impression that you were interested in a further or more detailed analysis. Your comments here are in fact quite the opposite of that perception. If you want to continue looking at details, I would of course be happy to do so. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to check in and make sure that all six WP:GACR were evaluated and passed, because some of them aren't mentioned on the review page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all aspects look good to me. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your script

Ling, not sure if this is possible, but your script (which I use a lot) has a minor bug I am hoping you can fix. Seethis discussion, in particular the comment at the end by Matma Rex. It also seems to screw up the page size gadget on some pages -- see also this, which turned out to be a conflict with your script too. As I say, very minor, but if you know how to fix these that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Hi Mike, thanks for letting me know. What's the timeline on this? Fixing this would involve copying it to my new userspace, fixing, then notifying everyone to switch to the new version or making the old version a redir to the new one. I am also in the very first day of final exams week, and I have an active FAC with new comments... so you're looking at at least one week and realistically more like 2 or even 3 (so say 2 weeks, +- 1 week)... ACTUALLY, I'm a bit glad for a chance to work on it. It needs spiffing up... Let me know what you think. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]