The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Hello @Who-knows-nose; I applaud your effort to cover an important piece of history. It's interesting work, but I have some feedback because I think issues are piling up as the volume of the article increases.
There are too many side notes and tangents (often in parentheses; these are in nearly every sentence, with some sentences having multiple side anecdotes). Wikipedia guidelines suggests we be selective about side details and only include what's strictly needed to get the main topic.
Many occurrences of flowery writing. Example: Häyhänen padded his "legend" by going to extreme lengths, even though he had one significant advantage over the Pole as Soviet agents. Reino spoke Finnish as a native speaker. This has a bit of a dramatic flair that isn't encyclopedic WP:TONE.
Also, I haven't seen the source used for this sentence, but want to verify: is this the opinion of the scholar you're citing or is it yours? If the former, you should say "x scholar argues that y", and not present arguments such as these as fact per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
There are issues with Wikipedia:WORDSTOWATCH. Examples include interestingly, unfound treasure trove, fell victim, and much more. This is a pretty significant issue that's present in most sentences in the article; addressing this will take significant effort.
Sorry for the unprompted feedback; I'm giving it because I think you're doing valuable work and want to improve it. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all of these are standard English!! It's not flowery language, it's simply language with one adjective. Look up "interestingly" and " treasure trove" in the dictionary. "Padding one's legend" is a very standard phrase, much of this is, are phrase from people in intelligence and securities studies. Did you see the fifth EASI article? Some of the same language is there and it comes from people working in the security. The article and two others by Chang were approved by afio of the United States. They use this language too. I see no problem wiyh it. There is to be a sixth article on EASI, (E Asians in sov intel) called, "EASI: A Study of Five Soviet Naturals." Have a look at the AFIO articles by Chang. AFIO has a committee, they review the articles before approval. AFIO is the Association of Former Intel Officers (all branches). If the language used by me passes their criteria, and afio are experts in their field, why do need you need to question this. The Wiki page is about intelligence, not biology, each field has its own register. Biology is boring to read, intelligence has it own language. Don't try to censure others please, what are your qualifications? Languages has dif registers, diction for dif levels and dif fields. Let it be. I am the author and the researcher. 24.28.41.42 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I wanna take a step back. I'm not trying to censure you, please don't take it like that; in fact I'm encouraging you to continue writing. I know feedback isn't always fun and my post is seemingly filled with criticism (when really I do want to compliment you and your fascinating research).
This is what I'm trying to say: on Wikipedia there is a relatively narrow range of editorial styles. There is flexibility, yes, but you'll notice a lot of articles across subjects use very similar voices. But WP:WORDSTOWATCH is set policy; it doesn't matter what writing voice you have. If you do not abide by it, other editors are not only allowed to but even encouraged to modify your work so that it abides by it. If you protest it and get more eyes on it, other editors will support policy over your opinions. It doesn't matter if you wrote/researched the topic, you don't own this article or Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy is king; that's how the website works.
These editorial standards have been heavily debated and are constantly modified; they've been built by 20 years of consensus. I don't always agree with all the policies, but once you start reading them you realize some of them are really clever and well thought out. They're a huge reason why Wikipedia is a decent website.
Please slow down. I'm on your side and I really like your work. On my main account I've made 70,000+ edits; I'm talking to you from experience about editing on Wikipedia. I'm not questioning your writing skills; your writing is great but Wikipedia has unusual and strict rules.
If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to read the links in my original post very carefully. I've basically memorized a lot of these policy pages because that's functionally required to have your writing last on this website. I'm not planning on revising this article, but someone will come around eventually and do it. Reading these policies and applying them gives you the opportunity to be that person. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This experience supports my message: technical wikipedia bureaucracy stuff matters. I know it's boring and sometimes feels arbitrary, but those are the rules that 20 years of debate created. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format correctly. Can I give you the two urls and you add them in for me please!! You are maddening, if you see there are errors, just help-- the word is to "HELP AND ENCOURAGE" others. What you are doing is DELETING OTHERS darn it! I am going to give you the two urls now. This formatting that you call it, is basically programming, but easy code. I have no experience, but with Ray, I learned to do the Maki Mirage page. You have done the programming/formatting for the "Racism in Soviet Union" page differently. It's confusing to us MERE NOVICES.
On the "Racism in the Soviet Union" page right after fn3 for Chang (who is me by the way, I am the researcher), add the following [just format it correctly please]:
I edited your comment with the fixed code. Know that you asked me for a favor then called me maddening. Help is a favor, not an unquestioning obligation. Please do not treat others like that on Wikipedia again. Also, I'm not the one who removed that info from that article??? I have no idea who Ray is and I have never edited the Racism in the Soviet Union page; you may be confusing me for someone else. And if you don't understand the formatting, make more of an effort to learn it. I learned it on my own, you can do the same. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
