User talk:Peducte

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Peducte! I am Giftiger wunsch and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin University and reliable sources

Hello, do you have access to reliable third party sources to support the content in Tianjin University? Your help in providing verifiable content would be greatly appreciated! Active Banana (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (preferably independent) sources needed for claims at Nanjing University

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanjing University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Please see my comment on the talk page, where I have requested links to sources to verify the claims. While the sources do not have to be in English, it would help the situation, as most editors of the English Wikipedia cannot read Chinese. —C.Fred (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (preferably independent) sources needed for claims at Nanjing University II

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanjing University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The war is just brought by you due to your inurbane edits. You should not delete the objective descriptions. The Chinese resouces are most reliable on it. And it's also objectively discribled. You claim that "still no reliable, English-language sources". Is there a wikipedian principle like your biased inurbane idea that only English-language sources can be adopted by Wikipedia (English version)? -Peducte (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on an war with Gun Powder Ma on the article Nanjing University (see Talk:Nanjing University). In order to resolve it, I have two questions:

Is there a wikipedian principle that only English-language sources can be regarded as reliable and be adopted by Wikipedia (English version)?
Can the article of an university cite contents of the university's official history book?

Anyone well-informed can help me, please? - Peducte (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no admin has responded, I will (but I'll leave the {{adminhelp}} template in case my advice isn't official enough for other admins). Other-language sources can be used, so long as they meet the reliability criteria. However, if a translation can be provided, that's best. As for the official history book, that can be used in a citation, but it's usually a good idea to indicate in the article that the info comes from that source. ("As the official history explains...") Hope this helps! Scartol • Tok 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pointing you to Wikipedia:NONENG already a while ago. You insistence at integrating your material, your removing the advert template which has been included by another user and your general editing pattern, indicate that you have been acting close to an promotional single-purpose account since your recent arrival. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You revert article with no persuasive reason. You revert only by the biased cause "still no reliable, English-language sources" (Is the claim biased and inurbane?). Please first read discussions and resolve by rational discussions, instead of by edit war. It's a fact that war (edit war) between me and you happened. It's not a constructive behavior.

Thank you for notifying me that the advert template was not added by you. After reading your inurbane alleging "you won't find, however, such a credible reference beyond the self-advertisement of the Nanjing University homepage." (Is it inurbanely alleged? ) on Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, I had thought it's added by you, and now I don't know by what other reason the article can be regarded as ads promotion? To tell true things is a kind of ads? - Peducte (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2; this is in answer to the adminhelp)

1. Yes, fine. We prefer English sources if available, but any language is OK. (WP:RSUE)

2. I would imagine it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and "editorial control" - in which case, yes, it can be used, with the caveats associated with a primary source. If you are in any doubt about that, ask the question on the reliable sources noticeboard, and we'll see what the consensus has to say.

Please, do not even think of Wikipedia as a battleground; we're all here to try and improve the project. Please, assume a great deal of good faith, remain collegiate, and stick to policy/guideline-based discussion of content - not the person. I'm not criticizing, complaining, or forming any kind of judgement at all here; I haven't even looked at the discussions - it doesn't matter. I just ask, politely, that all parties stay calm. Many thanks, Chzz ► 16:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much for your help. - Peducte (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanjing University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Peducte has repeatedly tried to introduce, amongst other things, these comments which are in my view clear violations of WP:OR and WP:ADVERT:

According to the university's past history book <ref name=historyrecognition/>, its history dates back to the first year of Yong'an reign (258 CE) when Nanking Imperial [[Daxue]] <ref name=Daxue/> was originally founded <ref name=nandahistory/>, and it's supposed to be the [[List of oldest existing higher learning institutions|oldest existing higher learning institution]] in the world <ref>[http://ap6.pccu.edu.tw/Encyclopedia/data.asp?id=4453&forepage=1 The article of the Central University] on [[Chinese Encyclopedia]] says that the university "extends to have more than 1700 years glorious history. Universities at all times and in all over the world are incomparable" (學統綿延，達一千七百多年的光榮歷史。古今中外的各大學難以相比). This is also concluded from what has been known till present about the historical length of higher learning institutions in existence including related information on Wikipedia.</ref>.

To me, at the heart of the dispute lies Peducte's desire to attribute to Nanjing University the status of the oldest university of the world, something which he has been trying here here here and here, although he has been at least once reverted by another user here.

But in reality there is no sign that this Chinese ancient center of higher learning was comparable to a university which has, according to general scholarly consensus, its historical roots in the medieval university. This view has also been independently conveyed to Peducte by another user. Neither is the continuity of its "1700 years glorious (sic) history" proven , a phrase which, taken from the university's homepage, reveals its promotional and unencyclopedic character just as much as the claim that "Universities at all times and in all over the world are incomparable (sic)". Therefore, I have removed all these unsubstantiated, exceptional claims. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In note part, the content "The article of the Central University on Chinese Encyclopedia says that the university "extends to have more than 1700 years glorious history. Universities at all times and in all over the world are incomparable" (學統綿延，達一千七百多年的光榮歷史。古今中外的各大學難以相比)." is a citation from "Chinese Encyclopedia". The latter "This is also concluded from what has been known till present about the historical length of higher learning institutions in existence including related information on Wikipedia." is a further explanation. Is it not proper?

I'm not a English speaking man. I did not know and even now do not know the whole and exact meaning of the word "university". I had once took university as 大學. I think there were no Chinese institution comparable to a university, and also there were no European institution comparable to a 大學. More, also please discuss on Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation, Talk:university - Peducte (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is far easier than the meaning of "university". It is unambiguous promotional content. Phrases such as "glorious history" and "are incomparable" are simply not allowed. see WP:NPOV / WP:PEACOCK / WP:ADVERT etc. Active Banana (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the word "glorious history" and "are incomparable" are feeling oriented, but it's just an translation of the Chinese sentences, which is from the school president that refounded the National Central University in Taiwan. It's used as a note to explain its long history. -Peducte (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional wording copied from the selfpublished site that is the subject of the article is DEFINITELY not an excuse to keep promotional language. It is in fact an extra reason to REMOVE IT. Active Banana (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the claim "it's supposed to be the oldest existing higher learning institution in the world" in the article does not need the citation to support, I do not mind whether there is such a sentence or not. Or perhaps it can be translated not in the way of word by word, avoiding using feeling oriented words. -Peducte (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your pet theory for the 6th or 7th time. I'd advise you to first make yourself acquainted with fundamental Wikipedia guidelines, instead of rushing headlong into an edit war. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should first ensure you obey Wikipedia guidelines. And more, be a right man. -Peducte (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nanjing University

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WP:CIRCULAR Attempting to use it as such weakens any claim you are attempting to make. Active Banana (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I have been using reliable source. It's not original research on Wikipedia (including Chinese language version). - Peducte (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Nanjing University . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for reminding me. - Peducte (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advert quality of Nanjing University article

For starters:

"Nanjing University has attracted and generated many outstanding faculty members, scholars and people"
"Nanjing University is an important place for the study of Western literature in China"
"There are 877 excellent scientists with big contributions to science"
"Nanjing University was the first institution in the country to adopt student-centered teaching methods.[citation needed] It was the first co-educational Chinese university. It was the first Chinese university to provide doctoral education. It has been a pioneer in many fields"
"As the cradle of modern science in China, and a centre of humanism and also a centre of the modern renaissance "
"Nanjing University is a prestigious university with great contributions and influences in education, academia and culture."

would all have to go or be cited to reputable third party sources. Active Banana (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For the specific claims of the above listed, it can not judged as advert quality, the first step is the doubt of authenticity, since in English version most claims have no citation or notes. Right? - Peducte (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) There are no sources and 2) they have an overabundance of WP:PEACOCK words. State verified facts and let the reader determine what those facts mean to them. Active Banana (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your precious opinions. In some degree I agree with you. Since you added Advert tag, would you please help to revise those words of overabundance? And those lack sources please add sign of citation request, and I'll see whether I can help to provide sources or not. - Peducte (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this conversation to Talk:Nanjing University where other editors can participate and help improve the article. I dont have knowledge of / access to resources / interest in the topic to do much more than point out the blatant advert qualities. Perhaps other editors at the article will be able to provide you with more guidance.

I do thank you for your desire to help improve the article. Active Banana (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps requesting a WP:MENTOR /Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user you would be able to find someone who is more skilled at helping you understand how to accomplish the good work that you desire to do. Active Banana (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not a single issue there, e.g., in my opinion, some are biased opinions towards all schools outside Europe, as discussed on Talk:University and related talk. Thanks for your advising. - Peducte (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why use two tags when one covers both issues? Active Banana (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the problem of the article is not ads. As I said, the contents (those specific claims) of the article are serious. Second, only when problems including disputations are exactly classified and defined, then we can take steps to solve the problems. - Peducte (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]