Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gbog

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 19 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:32, 19 December 2003 by Eloquence (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Re: Talk:Confucius#Suggestions

I cannot tell that you're not a native English speaker! Your English seems native enough. You're too humble.

Maybe because I read to many Chinese writers ;)

Are you a native Chinese speaker?

Oh no! I'm French! (living now in Chengdu)

So I am. And I assure you, my English is nowhere near perfection. But I write nonetheless! And get corrected when other people notice my mistake -- that is the spirit of Wiki, collaboration and tolerance. --Menchi 07:21, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices, Menchi. I'll try to "be bold" but i have few time and I want to work also on fr.WP... Gbog 07:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Image attribution

It's better to explicitly state the source (URL or a book) of a photo you uploaded, and say it in the image description pages (e.g., Image:Confucius 01.jpg) It is a responsibility to GFDL license. Thank you. --Menchi (Talk)â 17:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well... i don't remember exactly where I found it... looking for it, I find this http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~smao/Myself.html and my web-site http://afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu
Say "Copyright status unknown; source unknown" in the image description page then (which obviously is not ideal). If you can find it, that's the best. --Menchi (Talk)â 18:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ok, done it this way gbog

Hi, don't worry about not knowing what had happened before with the Mother Teresa article. There's been quite a history to it over the last two months, which I expect would be near-to-impossible for someone new to the page to follow. A quick summary of it is that many people feel the page is POV and the criticisms section need to be worked on, but Eloquence feels very strongly that this section must stay in the article, and that the photographs are NPOV. I do advise that if you want to get involved with the page, you check over the archives to make sure you're not raising the same points again. Also, you should be aware that the article has been the cause of quite a few raised tempers, so you need to tread carefully and not take criticisms personally if they are made against you. Good luck if you do get involved. Personally, I'm staying out of it. :) By the way, there's an NPOV tutorial which might help. Angela. 04:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for advices. I will try to do something (be bold, ô my heart!)... I hope everybody share the same tiny goal: be able to remove the POV flag...
Very brave! :) Angela.

Please calm down. I've looked at your website and I think you're a very intelligent person. I understand you're trying to help. But please take a step back and read through my arguments. I really hope we can work together productively, especially when it comes to adding information to the article. I only ask you to accept my basic position not to remove relevant facts. As soon as you do that, I'm sure that we will be able to cooperate well. Please allow for the possibility that I am correct.—Eloquence

Again, please stop being so aggressive. Try to work with me here.—Eloquence