User talk:Augest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Augest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  — Instantnood 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events 2 Images of Leslie Cheung 3 Cheung's Suicide Note 4 References 5 Grammatical Errors in Leslie Cheung Article 6 Edits 7 Do NOT remove tags on the page 8 cleanup tag 9 peer review 10 Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong 11 Phantom Lover

[edit] HKWNB, HKCOTW, Current events

Hello Augest. Thanks for your contributions to the Leslie Cheung article. You might be interested to take a look at HK wikipedians' notice board, HK Collaboration of the Week and Current events in Hong Kong and Macao. Happy editing! — Instantnood 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Leslie Cheung

You have uploaded images of Leslie Cheung that may or may not be legal as their copyright status is in question. Most of the images, except for the CD album cannot be used as fair use images as their copyright belongs to the original news agency or photographer. Please update the copyright status for the images, justify why they constitute fair use or remove them altogether. Thanks. --speedoflight 03:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have left you messages here and on the Leslie Cheung page concerning the copyright for the images. I haven't heard back. Please reply. Thanks. --speedoflight | talk to me 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest reply back. And also thanks for working on this article. Some suggestions I do have for improving this article is to cite it to reliable sources (substantial publication/editors/date), i.e. create footnotes, reference links, etc.

Your image of his funeral hearse was most likely not photographed by the Leslie Club that you sourced it to. If you should claim fair use, you should at least source it to the right photographer, news agency, etc. --speedoflight | talk to me 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheung's Suicide Note

The actual suicide note in Chinese should be posted and its English translation listed alongside. As with any translation, it's always better to have the original listed so that those who can read the language, can appreciate its original intent.

BTW, you're doing a great job with the article. The only thing lacking are citations to notable publications. Citations are very important to verify that the reported information is factual versus subjective hearsay, gossip, etc. --speedoflight | talk to me 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Thanks for the note about Cheung's references. I realize that there are many sources but there are only a few that are notable. I'd use those instead of the more gossipy types. When you're ready, look at the Wikipedia help on how to attribute sources. With references sourced the Cheung page looks legit versus being a POV issue. --speedoflight | talk to me 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical Errors in Leslie Cheung Article

Please ensure that your edits do not have grammatical errors. You keep reverting back to editions of the page that are filled with grammatical errors. --speedoflight | talk to me 07:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

you wrote: Please don't remove background or useful information when you do "gramma" corrections. --Augest 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "facts" are written as points of views. I have requested many times that you cite sources with footnotes or reference notes. If you are unsure of how to do this, please refer to Wikipedia's citation policies. During a copy edit, if information is found redundant or insufficiently cited, it needs to be removed.

Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources

--speedoflight | talk to me 09:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

you wrote: I keep telling you to be patient as I am still in my process to finger out a better way to put references and resources staff. However, you keep removing things in all kinds of excuses, introducing tons of mistakes, and making the article ambiguous. If you want to put whatever references you want, go ahead and do it. Or if anything you consider as needed a reference, EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT. Don't just rudely remove things with ridiculous reasons. Not "EVERY" piece of sentence needs a reference, otherwise ALL articles in wiki should be removed. I spent THREE months to verify the information, correct errors and finish the current article. To dig out all the original resources may need another 3 months. I also need break during the Christmas season. Please be patient!!! --Augest 18:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot verify something yet or don't have the time to cite something, then don't put it up on Wikipedia yet. Articles on Wikipedia are syndicated to many sites and once content is syndicated, it is sometimes not updated. Hence, information that is erroneous, including poor grammar is populated across. I have removed information that you have not cited or verifed. You write in content that contain POV that is either yours or some other sources. By Wikipedia standards, these need to be remove. I realize you have emotional attachment to your content. As a writer/contributor, the first rule of thumb is to isolate your emotions away from your content and write in a neutral tone and CITE, CITE, CITE. If you cannot verify statistics, data and CITE them on the page, then it needs to be removed, period. Wikipedia or any source that is reputable is based on written communication. In other words, if you cannot write down your information source when you research, then it is either considered plagiarism or unverifiable. --speedoflight | talk to me 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do NOT remove tags on the page

Please do not remove the tags concerning the article's health. The article is poorly written. Needs major copy edit, citations. All of these issues are documented on the article's discussion page. You insist on reverting back to editions that have poor edits. I am not sure what your motivations are. We are all writing for the benefit of Wikipedia. Any article on Wikipedia, no matter if the subject is something dear to you or not needs to conform to standards. Wikipedia is not a tabloid magazine. It's a resource site and has a reputation to uphold. I am not going to indulge you in some trivial edit war. You are obviously someone who cares about the subject and may even be a huge fan of Cheung's and being so, do what is best for the article, not for your ego. A write needs to learn to not fall in love with his/her words. The article does not belong to you or I. It belongs to the community called Wikipedia. So please think long and hard about where your interests are. Wikipedia is not your private Web site to write and put whatever you wish. There are standards that must be upheld so that Wikipedia can be used as a resource site for everyone. You could learn a lot from in writing from reputable sources and cleaning up your grammar on the page. If you do not know how to do so, let others do it. --speedoflight | talk to me 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag

Please explain your cleanup tag on Orientalism. And no, it is not a prerequisite for writing on this topic that one should have read the book, since the topic is not about the Said book, but about the concept and the tradition. However, if you have any objections to the way the book is characterised in the subsection devoted to it, please indicate them. Otherwise the cleanup tag is rather difficult to make sense of and I will remove it. Paul B 09:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not write the section on the book, but I have certainly read the book. I added the section on criticisms of the book. The book-summary section seems to me to give a broadly accurate account of Said's arguments. Saying something is "woefully inadequate" without indicating how, is itself woefully inadequate. You still remain mysteriously quiet about just what it is that is wrong with the summary. The tenor of your comments suggest that you believe Said's book to be authoritative in some way, but seem unable or unwilling to suggest just how it has been misrepresented. I suggest you read some of the reviews written at the time, or more recent commentaries on Said's model of "orientalism" [1]. Paul B 09:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Well I haven't practiced my swinging, so I'll have to pass on the contest. But I still think you miss the central point. The article is not about the book. The book is a particular intervention in the tradition, one that is clearly important enough to single out, but not to be treated as "gospel" in any sense. Perhaps more on Said's arguments would be desirable. Perhaps more on Lewis's criticisms would be more pertinent. Perhaps we could have more on the art, or more on the details of western scholarly commentary on eastern cultures, or more on eastern views on the west. Perhaps and perhaps. I can only assume that the real reason for singling out the book called "Orientalism" is an assumption that this particular book is central to what the article should be about, partly because the names are the same. And that's essentially my problem with the cleanup notice. Paul B 21:40, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) Please - I do not think you have earned the right to tell me what is "not a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia". I have as much right "unilaterally" to remove the tag as you did to add it. I was behaving no more unilaterally than you were. There was no sign whatever of a wider "community" who agreed with you. I removed the tag for the following reasons:

1. A cleanup tag is inappropriate. It is mainly used for articles that are badly written or otherwise chaotic. I don't think even you thought that this was the case. 2. A cleanup tag refers the reader to the talk page for the reasons why a cleanup tag has been added. You added nothing to talk page to explain the tag. Is this "a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia"? 3. Unnecessary cleanup tags make Wikipedia look bad. They give the impression that the articles are poor and unprofessional. They should only be there when an article really does need to be cleaned up - in order to show that Wikipedians are aware of inadequacies. 4. When I asked you why you had added it I got no clear explanation. You could tell me nothing that was actually wrong with the article, and resorted to the, in my view bizarre, argument that you believed that if someone read Said's book "more closely" then they would come up with a different reading of it than the authors of the article. Now, either you have read it closely and can say what is wrong with the account or you have not. You cannot reasonably claim that some other mystery person will, if they read it, come up with an argument that agrees with your inexpressible intuitions.

I think a request for section-expansion would have been far more appropriate than a cleanup tag. However, what I am going to do is put in a Peer Review request, that is a request for Wikpedians to suggest improvements. Paul B 15:22 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Linkspro, your language is wholly inappropriate. It is clear that you are resorting to the last refuge of insult. I have explained my thinking on the subject as clearly as I can and I have taken appropriate action by requesting Peer review. Here's a link to the relevant page [2]. I note that the only content-related addition so far has been to emphasise criticism of Said's text. Perhaps other editors will respond differently. Paul B 23:55 24 Aug 2005 (UTC) Since your language is becoming increasingly childish, I see no advantage in further discussion with you. Your arguments were not remotely "exact", they were nowhere to be seen. You were uncompromising only in the sense that you you folded your arms and refured to budge. If you think that stubbornness is the same as integrity that I suspect you are mistaken. If I am "delusional" then I suppose User:TheoClarke and User:Pmanderson must be too. In your first reply to my query you wrote "I think most everyone who has read the book would agree with this judgement." I've provided you will links to reviews to indicate otherwise. The above users evidently think otherwise. You have provided no argument at all that is not vague and unspecific. Paul B 10:13 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review here. When posting your request, include a brief description of the kind of comments/contributions you want, and sections of the article you think need to be reviewed. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to the comments you do get.

   * Procedure for adding nominations:

  1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page (not the article itself) to let other editors of the article know that the article is being peer reviewed.
  2. From there, click on the link request has been made that appears in the new "peer review" box. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place ===name of nominated article=== at the top (do not forget the link brackets).
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (Augest 02:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)).
  5. Place Wikipedia:Peer review/name of nominated article at the top of the list of nominees found on this page (Requests).
  6. Politely request feedback on the discussion pages of one or more articles in the same or a related field, and/or send messages to one or more individual Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a closely related field.

[edit] Establishment of The Wikimedia Hong Kong

[edit] Phantom Lover

Hi, an image you recently uploaded, Image:Phantom.jpg replaced another image that was used on the The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) page, which was causing problems. I have reverted your upload, and I'm afraid you'll have to reupload the 夜半歌聲 poster again using a different file name. Thank you! _dk 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)