User talk:Wctaiwan/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wctaiwan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Need your advice
Hey! Thanks for your kindness. I've made some changes to my article "Heilan Equestrian Club". Could you please have a look and give me some advice? Always appreciate your help.User:NNU-2-TangJie/Heilan Equestrian Club NNU-2-TangJie (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good job. You have a fair number of sources, which is one of the most important things. :) I've made some changes, in particular:
- Do not use honorifics such as "Mr." on Wikipedia, except in some special cases (WP:HONORIFIC, if you want to read up on the guidelines).
- Do not say things like "Heilan Equestrian Club is making every effort to contribute to the sports career of Jiangsu Province" unless you're presenting it as a quote (and the quote helps the reader learn about the subject). Wikipedia articles need to be neutral in their tone.
- Now that you have a fairly well-referenced article, you may want to try to improve the prose of the article and / or add more information (with references). You may also want to format your references with Template:Cite web—replace the URLs between <ref> and </ref> with the corresponding citation templates. If you need any more assistance, feel free to ask me or get help in the help chatroom. Good luck! wctaiwan (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Ding Chun Cheng
Thought you might take an interest in this Taiwan-related article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_Chun_Cheng. I guess it needs Taiwanese pinyin also? Ting Chun-cheng? Well, I figured I better not mess with it. And I didn't know how to make either input redirect to the page. Just saw your userpage. Your the same year as most of the participating students! Talk about a great Cross-straights 青年 ambassador! Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- From a brief Google search, I think he goes by Sphinx Ting in English (as stated in the article). I'm not knowledgeable at all on the subject matter, so I think I'll refrain from touching the article. :P
- For future reference, you can create redirects by creating a new page at the title you want to redirect, and then putting the following in the text box:
#REDIRECT [[target page]]
- Help:Redirect has more information. And thanks for the compliment. :) wctaiwan (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Second best thing
Since you're not a vandal, I can't smash you. Have this kitten instead.
MJ94 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A Barnstar For You
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For having a level head, and giving me sound advice, I present to you this Barnstar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
- You're too kind. Thanks for your helpfulness and massive dedication to the NNU project. wctaiwan (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
GAN for Architecture of the Song Dynasty
Just wanted to let you know that AotSD got its GAN and is on hold. Comments are at Talk:Architecture of the Song Dynasty. I've picked at a few, and I hope to get everything back up to tip top shape in a few days. In the mean time, if you get this message, please stop in and take a look. I could use some help on a few points.
Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Help needed for a student class project
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.
The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.
According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.
So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. See the link when you get the chance. Thanks again! Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification and congratulations on the GA. wctaiwan (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Hi Wctaiwan! I hope you enjoy this home-made cookie of mine as a warm greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! wctaiwan (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Wctaiwan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Happy Halloween!
 |
Sp33dyphil has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
 |
--Sp33dyphil © • © 05:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back...
...your education related wikibreak lasted 10 days longer than any of mine ever have. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it's not like I actually stayed away. I just stalked things manually instead of using a watchlist. :P Sucks about your current situation--I hope there might be some resolution to that. (Really, there has to be, it's not like you're the only enwp editor in China.) wctaiwan (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Help with wiki page
Hello,
I have seen your comments and appreciate your advice about the Hope For The Warriors page. It seems like you are very knowledgeable regarding content that is appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to add more information about Hope For The Warriors but only in a suitable manner. Could you give me advice on how to do that?
I would like to add more about the nonprofit's history and also list some its notable board members (Generals, politicians, celebrities...).
Thank you again for your comments and I appreciate your further help in advance.
Thanks, WakeGrad — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakeGrad (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Yes, you can certainly add information about the organisation's history and board members--the key is to keep the information encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--if you keep that in mind while considering its content policies and guidelines, most things should be pretty straightforward. For example:
- Neutrality: The information should be presented in a neutral manner. For example, it's okay to say "the board of directors includes [celebrity A] and [celebrity B]" but not okay to say "the organisation has a prestigious board with many leaders of the society". More subtly, it's fine to say "the company is an advertising firm with focus on print and online media", but not ideal to say "the company provides solutions to manufacturers looking to increase exposure in print and online".
- Threshold of inclusion: Information you add should be what you'd expect of an encyclopedia article. For example, the article on the United States Army would include its command structure, but not a list of all of the generals. In your case, when talking about the history of the organisation, it'd probably be a good idea to include the process of its founding, but not the street address of its initial headquarters, etc.
- As an aside, it's generally recommended to present information in prose, as opposed to lists or other formats (except where other formats would make more sense). So instead of including a complete list of its board members, it'd probably be a better idea to write a short paragraph noting the key members and those with special significance, etc.
- Hope that helps. If you have any other questions or need more assistance, feel free to ask. wctaiwan (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Translation request: List of characters of A Weaver on the Horizon
Hi, can you translate List of characters of A Weaver on the Horizon for the main article A Weaver on the Horizon? I would appareciate it if you did. Please reply if you will. Thank you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm afraid I don't have enough time to do that. Good luck with it though. wctaiwan (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Graves and monuments in Haikou
Hello, my friend. I'm wondering if you can read these grave and monument stones. There may be articles for some here or at zh Wikipedia. What do you think? Many thanks if you can help. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
NNU Class Project - Winter 2012
Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Soft Bunny
Aww, so cute. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Helping Hand Barnstar
|
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
| For helping many people on IRC. Pinetalk 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I think you do a fine job, yourself. :) wctaiwan (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks. The students are going to become active soon. We could use some input in these areas:
- (Input)
- (Your ticks)
- (Improvements)
Many thanks. (For those up to speed, pls consider this post just a CC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Message
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012#Topic list - duplicate checking's talk page. 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply
Please see my reply in my talk page, cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILVTW (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Syd Barrett genealogy
Hi. Some weeks ago you helped me (I've reported all here :-) : User talk:PCMorphy72/Max Barrett ). You also persuade me to write with my own (tiring) words and now that article on that interesting person was submitted: Max Barrett. I made even some further related (and very detailed) articles: Henry Roy Dean, Raymond Horton-Smith Prize and Cambridge Philharmonic Society. Now I have a problem with the last related article in my mind. I admit it has some notability problem, but I think it has to be considered carefully. Well, also Max Barrett was suspected of lack of notability, but I was sure it deserved the article. BTW the reviewer who declined for the last time my (tiring) re-edited was the same who declined the Max Barrett article because it had just one reference as source (do you remember?). I've posted a message at the help desk:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syd Barrett genealogy — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCMorphy72 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I need to go now, but I'll get back to you later. wctaiwan (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I looked at the draft and the discussions—the help desk thread, your talk page responses and what Shearonink wrote on their talk page. I'm afraid I pretty much agree with those who have already responded, and there isn't much I can add to what they have already said. In particular:
- You definitely can't use those diagrams from Ancestry.com. Facts are not copyrightable, that's correct, but the design and photos are.
- User-contributed information is pretty much always unusable (except in extreme cases, for example, an article about an image macro citing the forum post that first included the image), even when clearly labelled as such. This is because we aim to publish facts, and research by individuals that hasn't been vetted is simply not reliable enough.
- You need to watch out for tone and synthesis issues. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should ideally not make a single connection that hasn't been made by a cited source. You said "The statement "had to use a restrained style to get a few further such indiscreet information from his family" should be easily inferred from the differences from the information and the style of the second biographer (citation 2) with the third one (citation 3)."—this kind of inference may be fine elsewhere, but unless someone specifically said "biographers had to get more information from his family" or something to that effect, you can't say it on Wikipedia. We report on what others have said. We don't analyse what they have said ourselves.
- I understand you're frustrated, after having expended so much effort on writing the article and responding to reviewers. However, in this case you may just have to accept that the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia—you could still say, take the results of your compilation to a fansite for Syd Barrett. I imagine it'd be fascinating to fans.
- One final point on the issue of notability of the genealogy of famous persons: They are not independently notable. An analogy would be Steven Chu and the fact that he is Chinese American. Chu is notable, so is the topic of Chinese Americans—but we wouldn't have an article on "Steven Chu's ancestry", instead, we mention his race in our article on Chu. Similarly, what you can consider doing here is to expand our article on Syd Barrett with a section on his family, using information and sources from the reliably sourced (i.e. not user contributed or inferred) portion your draft.
- Please don't be too discouraged. Wikipedia's purpose and rules can seem alien to new contributors, and missteps are common. Thank you for trying to improve what we have, and I wish you better luck in future attempts. wctaiwan (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I like your way of talk, especially because you haven't gone to review the article (I think one should be interested in the subject of the article before to review it).
- I've understood everything you have said. Yesterday those reviewers annoyed me, especially that one who was there to "help" the users, but actually he was there to say me I don't see Wikipedia in the right way. I'm not so frustrated now, the article was already been appreciated by the fans, but please let me leave a pair of replies.
- If I change the format of the rectangles used by Ancestry.com and I remove that line about the inference (after all I had added it to justify the notability as some reviewer desired), it would seems that you wouldn't have too many problems with the submission of the article, apart for the example you gave me with Steven Chu. Your idea of a section on the Syd Barrett article is fine, and well understandable, and in fact I've already thought it in the past, but the article is just too long for a section there (even if I had just removed the diagrams): more or less it's the same reason why a discography article of such artists appears as a separate article, and I've just thought that a genealogy is important if not as a work of someone at least as an important "section" of his personal biography (I understand this would be a new aspect for wikipedians, then I've asked for some expert/enthusiast about genealogy), then I simply imagine a such section wouldn't sound good for a reasonable long article on Syd Barrett, but I'm thinking about it… I just hope someone (or you, if you like it) will think about it in the future.--PCMorphy72 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll address specific points:
- The other reviewers didn't do anything wrong—they declined your article based on Wikipedia's guidelines, and the only reason I haven't done so myself is because it wasn't submitted for review at the time I looked at it. The genealogy of Syd Barrett is not independently notable, so it was declined. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and isn't meant to be a comprehensive collection of details. Such information would be of more interest to websites dedicated to Syd Barrett.
- Unless you can show that Syd Barrett's genealogy is a topic of scholarly research due to some exceptional reason (for example, in the case of haemophilia in European royalty), the topic is not independently notable. Therefore, the article would not be accepted regardless of what you remove or change...
- Looking at your draft, it seems like the section on descendants may have some useful information, specifically a general description of his family and their comments about him. I would encourage you to add that to the article on Syd Barrett, should you choose to. Outside of that, most of your article is the research of a fan. Privacy concerns (his family are largely not public figures and may not want their life detailed) aside, the information is again probably more suiatble for a website dedicated to Syd Barrett—due to the amount of detail and to issues with some of the sourcing, as mentioned in earlier responses from others.
- In very rare cases, if some aspect of someone's life is independently notable (for example, presidency of Barack Obama), we would have a separate article on that aspect. But in the case of Syd Barrett, an expansion as described above would be fine.
- I'm afraid I don't have much additional time to devote to this issue, as school is picking up for me (this reply took rather long to write). The most I can say is that I sympathise with your desire to expand our coverage, but beyond what we have suggested (expansion of Syd Barrett with the relevant part, taking the information elsewhere), there isn't much more we can do or say to help with this particular issue. If you need help with other things, I suggest asking it at the help desk, which is patrolled by many other helpers. Good luck. wctaiwan (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll address specific points:
Thank you again for your reply. I don't think you would have been obliged to review the article without a voluntary carefully reading, in all cases without a lot of excuses when, I repeat, I know the main issue is about the notability (especially because of the "amount of detail", as you say) and of course I don't want to make notable what is not notable through a sum of two subjects independently notable. So I can say that if you would had declined the article with such new argumentations about notability, then probably I would have understood and looked for new ways… Friendly I can also say that I don't agree with you in two points: "The other reviewers didn't do anything wrong" and the fact that "issues with some of the sourcing" made the article unsuitable (as I replied, just three minor sources were questionable in my opinion, and nobody has proved the contrary so far), I hope you will understand these are different points of view. Thank you for your kind suggestions and also because you are the only one who liked my desire to expand "your coverage", though I just don't think Wikipedia is an own concept of the reviewers (or of people different from me) as someone seemed to think. Goodbye. --PCMorphy72 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)