User talk:康雍乾

I am impressed, you answered the points one by one. The "further reading" is a good answer. Beyond that, I mustn't forget this is a body of writing by on going committee with features both pro & con..--康雍乾 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)--康雍乾 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC). ):[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Thank you pichpich for your edit. I am so happy you found the English refs to the subject. Being illiterate in wiki-talk, I shall be most grateful for your help. I am doing some work about the literary activities of 1920s China, a very exciting time. As I find actual content for the Creative monthly and weekly, I shall incorporate them with a view to overall context. Two comments: 1) This is an English language site, references and links should primarily be in English. But if the subject matter is French poetry, would a French ref to Proust be acceptable? Can we allow a minority of non-English refs? Remember that is where the wealth of information resides, be it Chinese, Russian or French. 2) "Creation Quarterly". This is a question of precedence. "Creation Quarterly" came first. But IMHO it is not a good turn of phrase in American English for a literary journal, 'lil awkward. We are at the early stages of developing the subject. Establishing a better word choice would be nice. "Creative Quarterly" or something else? Is there some way in wiki-land we can do that? And I'd love to link to those Hawaiian books. Returning to the main subject, I very much welcome your help and insight.

````--康雍乾 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)--康雍乾 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Let's take your questions one by one.

It is always acceptable (irrespective of the subject) to use non-English sources. But when possible, equivalent English sources are preferable because they're more convenient for editors trying to verify the information or to expand the existing articles. (You can also read the actual policy on this topic) For a subject like this where the Chinese sources are presumably richer but where good English sources seem to be sufficient to back up the basic facts, a reasonable compromise would be to use the English sources as references and to provide the links to the Chinese sources as further reading.
To a certain extent, it doesn't matter if you or I find that "Creation Quarterly" is a good translation. From what I checked earlier, the authoritative English sources on this topic have already established "Creation Quarterly" as the English translation and choosing a different title would disconnect the Wikipedia article from the existing scholarly work on the subject. (I guess I should also point to the relevant policy)
Finally, I'm not sure I explained my earlier advice clearly enough. Instead of creating "Creation Quarterly" today, "Creation Weekly" tomorrow and "Creation Monthly" next week as you gather more information, I think it's a better idea to create a single article and build it gradually. It's ok to have articles that are works in progress. I suggested an article with the title Creation Society (which probably should exist anyways) but I could also see Creation (Chinese magazines) which would simply start with a sentence like "Creation was the title of three literary magazines [blablabla]" and contain separate sections on the publishing history of the three versions.

Hope that helps. (And if the help isn't sufficient, just ask for help again!) Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 康雍乾, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Society

Hi. I moved the article you created and it now exists under the title Creation Quarterly which is the title used by sources in English. I don't know much about the subject but it appears that there were actually three magazines published under similar titles: Creation Weekly, Creation Monthly and Creation Quarterly. All three were published under the auspices of the Creation Society. Ideally, we should create an article about the society and discuss the magazines in that context (for instance in specific sections of the article). As I said, I don't know much about the subject so I can't do this by myself but if you're interested in writing such an article, I can at least offer help on the technical side (copyediting, formatting references, adding wikilinks, getting the right categories and so on). If you're interested, leave me a note either here or on my talk page. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fiction Monthly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Diary of a Madman, Naturalism, Fathers and Sons and Realism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SikuProofTangPoems康熙四库唐校本.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:SikuProofTangPoems康熙四库唐校本.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When was the document created? If it is a very old one, it will be public domain. If so, you should crop the photograph so that the (copyrighted) Windows aspects are not visible, and it is just the work in question. Then you should tag the image as public domain (see this page) and not non-free, as you currently have done. J Milburn (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rare Book Preservation Society

Hi, Don't know my way around here yet, just found your comment on talk. Appreciate your attention. Regarding passing judgement:

1) "These cultural assets have been accumulated by a number of famous private libraries some over 1,000 years." It is a fact documented by the references and further reading. The Chinese texts refer to Ming and Song dynasties which I changed to "some over 1,000 years" for the benefit of readers who may not know Chinese dynasties. Perhaps this comment was triggered by a bot? Do you use a bot?

2) "Unfortunately the entire collection was looted anyway." This is a documented historical fact. Is it the word "unfortunately" that is objectionable? Is that word ok for Nazi looting of European art? If so I can remove it. Same questions for "They faced Japanese looting and forced sale under duress."

3) "I recommend trying to find a native English speaker to take a look over what you have written;" Thank you very much for the suggestion. Alas I find that native English speakers where I live have spelling and grammar problems which I must tediously correct even if they understand the context. Now I would appreciate recommendations on how I might be able to use a bot which can save me time ):):.

Just curious, do you use a bot to trace NPOV?

Also, I put the Japanese occupation map in the middle of the article for two reasons: 1) A little less obvious so as to minimize offending a casual Japanese reader; 2) appearance--I placed the map nearer the middle of the article to break up the solid text not too far from the reference to Japanese invasion (which I hope is not a neutrality viewpoint problem ):):. On the other hand, I don't mind it where you put it either. When I have time, I'll upload another picture in the future for the middle.

I translated some Chinese entries in Baidu and zh.wiki. Believe it or not, I soften a lot of texts and back it up with first hand accounts or original government documents. This article includes links to the National Central Library pages which show pages from the 1940 working reports as well as a web page displaying the secret government directives concerning this project.

Cheers and have fun, 康雍乾 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 康雍乾 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia articles should be written from the neutral point of view, and not pass judgement on the topics they discuss. Lines like "These cultural assets have been accumulated by a number of famous private libraries some over 1,000 years." and "Unfortunately the entire collection was looted anyway." do not really fit the tone of an encyclopedia article, and lines like "They faced Japanese looting and forced sale under duress." are potentially controversial, and so should be carefully sourced. I recommend trying to find a native English speaker to take a look over what you have written; someone over at Wikipedia:WikiProject China may be able to help. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a bot to spot NPOV violations- such a thing wouldn't be possible. My concern with the quotes I pointed out is not that they aren't documented historical facts (I know nothing about Chinese history, I'll have to take your word for it), it's the tone of them. "These cultural assets have been accumulated by a number of famous private libraries some over 1,000 years." This is not the kind of language that should be used in Wikipedia articles. As for "Unfortunately the entire collection was looted anyway." - Why not something like "Despite the efforts of those involved in the project, the collection was looted in [month] [year]." That would be a much more neutral way of phrasing things. (As an aside, I'm not really concerned about the map, I just moved it to the top of the page because I assumed that's where you'd wanted to put it; you're welcome to move it around as you see fit.) J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]