User talk:Loganfong

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Double Fifth query
At Duanwu Festival you've added a 'citation needed' tag at the statement that this is also known as the Double Fifth.

I am quite mystified as to why you added this notice.


 * The person who put this name obviously has some grounds for giving this name -- perhaps they simply knew something that you didn't. But you personally haven't heard of it -- so you simply add a citation needed tag! Had you done a quick Google, you would have found a number of websites that refer to the festival as the Double Fifth! Your addition of a 'citation needed' tag does nothing but add clutter to the article. (You haven't even bothered to query the name on the talk page first!)


 * Had you checked, you would have noticed that Double Fifth is the name of the disambiguation article (see Double Fifth! So not only is your edit frivolous, it is disruptive and poorly executed within the context. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that the name of the disambuation article is queried in the article on the Duanwu Festival itself?

The next time you haven't heard of something, before you put in a 'citation needed' tag, try making a few comments on the talk page and have a look around. Your lack of knowledge shouldn't be regarded as a good reason for adding this kind of cruft to articles. User:Bathrobe

Re: Double Fifth Query
I am quite mystified as to why you added the above notice.


 * The person who put the citation needed tag has no connection with me. The person who added the tag was user:Alanmak. I don't see any similarity between the two, so I don't know why you thought it's me, maybe by a mistake -- so you simply add an offensive notice in my page! Had you done, a double-check you would have found it had nothing to do with me, what I had done is adding the link to the Chinese version of the page! Your addition of the notice does nothing but adds clutter to my user talk and offends me. (You haven't even bothered to see it twice first!)
 * Your tone wasn't very friendly either. If you had used a more appropriate tone, it would have been better. So not only is your edit frivolous, it is disruptive and poorly executed. Isn't it kind of ridiculous to be scolded by a stranger without a reason?

The next time you have found something "ridiculous", before you put in notice in the user talk page, try double-checking. Your lack of discreetness and rudeness shouldn't be regarded as a good reason for adding this kind of cruft to articles.loganfong 06:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for adding the notice above. I checked (and it's always a pain checking to find exactly where a particular change was made) but I got it wrong. The mistake in question was not your mistake and I should not have pulled you up on something you did not do.


 * You obviously found my tone offensive, with good reason. The disagreeable tone is due to my growing sense of annoyance at good articles being disfigured by "fact" (citation tags), which people are now throwing around with gay abandon. This may be due to a newly developed sensitivity on Wikipedia to the need to verify information. The problem is that the best way to be absolutely sure that you're not making something up is to copy it wholesale from somewhere else, which is a no-no because it's a violation of copyright (although this doesn't seem to deter some people from doing it). But if you write material that doesn't cleave closely to an impeccable source, someone will come in and put a "fact" tag on it. This seems to have become the new shibboleth on Wikipedia. It is annoying when people put meaningless and ill-considered "fact" tags on anything that they even remotely disagree with. That is the reason behind the unfriendly tone of my comment.


 * Since it wasn't your doing I shouldn't have gone to town on your talk page. Please accept my humble apologies.

Bathrobe 12:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:M&bJousting.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:M&bJousting.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:M&bMainChar.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:M&bMainChar.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)