User talk:Josha68
Welcome[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Josha68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Shark fin soup. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
—Bagumba (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Shark fin soup[edit]
Thanks for your contributions to Shark fin soup. However, the article is not a coatrack for indirectly related arguments on shark finning. Consider making your edits to the shark finning article unless they are directly related to the soup and given due weight. Thanks, and hope you continue editing on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bagumba, I was quite dismay to see you had removed all my edits without any discussion. Much time was spent editing in my bid to improve and balance the article. Would appreciate if you can discuss with me and advise more specifically what and where do you think my edits not meeting wikipedia standards? Josha68 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, don't take it personally. This is a normal part of a normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I tagged the article with my concerns and started a discussion at Talk:Shark_fin_soup#Undue_weight_on_shark_finning. I also restored the citation to New York Times article that you removed a second time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying and excuse my newness. To avoid further spillover to the controversy section, maybe it can be simply fixed by adding a line like "refer to shark-finning article"? On your note about the citation, I doubt I touch [1]. The ref you restored is [[2]] which i earlier replaced with [[3]] because it is more relevant in describing the elaborate preparation.Josha68 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC). I just realized you have corrected the link. The 'barboza' article does has a brief background on the soup with the rest devoted to the celebrities' campaign, perhaps another better reference needs to be found.
- No worries. The recipe you added at best shows through original research that it is elaborate, but does not support that it was "coveted by emperors because it was rare, delicious", supported by the original NYT source. There is already a link to "shark finning" in that section, and it's standard that readers would click on it if they needed more info. A see also note is usually not warranted if links already exist in the article. Regarding the article with some mention of celebrities, that is not usually an issue, as long as the material is presented neutrally. If parts of a source are not relevant, they dont need to be added to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying and excuse my newness. To avoid further spillover to the controversy section, maybe it can be simply fixed by adding a line like "refer to shark-finning article"? On your note about the citation, I doubt I touch [1]. The ref you restored is [[2]] which i earlier replaced with [[3]] because it is more relevant in describing the elaborate preparation.Josha68 (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC). I just realized you have corrected the link. The 'barboza' article does has a brief background on the soup with the rest devoted to the celebrities' campaign, perhaps another better reference needs to be found.