User talk:Dcattell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Citations
Please do not remove tags without them being resolved. Inline citation requires sentences or paragraphs being sourced to a particular citation. Many of the sentences/paragraphs are not sourced. I don't want to have to tag every sentences not sourced. A list of references at the end of the article are not inline citations, neither are notes. It appears that you wrote the bulk of it, therefore you should be able to tell us where each part of the content come from. Otherwise there is a suspicion this might be a lot of original research. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
Hello, I'm Hzh. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Xie Lingyun
Hello! I was reading the excellent Xie Lingyun page you wrote up when I stumbled across a minor issue. The 隔音符號 apostrophe is only used between the syllables of a Mandarin Chinese word if the second syllable begins with a vowel. Therefore, Shining does not need an apostrophe.
a，o，e开头的音节连接在其他音节后面的时候，如果音节的界限发生混淆，用隔音符号（'）隔开，例如：pi'ao（皮袄）。Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft:List of Chinese Magical Swords concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Chinese Magical Swords, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of Chinese Magical Swords
Hello, Dcattell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Chinese Magical Swords".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Tyranny of New page reviewers: a cry for help
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Despite having performed many valuable and worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, in the last couple of years a new category of New page reviewers has arisen. These days when I try to create an article it is relentlessly assaulted (see below). I cannot contribute to Wikipedia very well, under these conditions. With over ten-thousand edits and dozens of new articles my contributions have been worthy and deserve to be supported. I have mostly quietly worked in the area of Chinese poetry and Chinese mythology, although at one point I also overhauled the Japanese poetry article section. Nevertheless, in regard to certain New page reviewers:
- I am considered worthy of insults and threats for daring to create a new article; for example, see Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology.
- I am told that Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing is impermissible and against policy, and that I have to use Ref tags instead, even though this is not the best practice for certain types of articles (more academic and specialized ones, that is), and which instead makes such articles more difficult to edit (at least for those of us actually doing the editing), and they are less satisfactory as a result.
- Despite WP:Stub, and Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing these New page reviewers insist that I have "no references", and insist that they should proclaim this with a major template transclusion, above even the article lead (which is certainly of no service to the end-users, which is what we are supposed to be all about).
- It is insisted that: WP:CITE does not mean that: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:
Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.
As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article."
Instead the New page reviewers insist that I write the article at their direction, using their preferred reference citation style. For example, see Talk:Trees in Chinese mythology.
- These New page reviewers are ignorant of the subject area about which I am writing (such as, Chinese language or Chinese culture), and they contribute nothing positive towards expanding the article: merely they create a very disruptive and very discouraging atmosphere, and frustrate my and other editors' attempts to improve Wikipedia.
- Chinese to English is treated as something demanding unknowable reference citations, when it is a case of mere dictionary and not encyclopedic understanding.
Is there any way in which this tyranny of New page reviewers can be mitigated? It's a waste of time when I have to spend more time talking about articles with people that don't really care about the content than in actually working on the articles, when I am only attempting to work on the articles without being gratuitously disrupted. This new page review situation is really harming Wikipedia in a very significant way. Dcattell (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are not actually requesting any administrative action here, so I've closed the
{{adminhelp}}template. You seem to be referring to a content dispute with a single user, User:Hzh, rather than an endemic problem with the New Page Review process, so the correct course of action for you, if you are unable to resolve the issue via the article talkpage, is dispute resolution. You also need to tread carefully when making statements like "These New page reviewers are ignorant of the subject area ... and they contribute nothing positive"; that sort of language could very easily be construed as a personal attack. I get that you are frustrated, but Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for dealing with issues like this, and you would be best advised to make use of them. Yunshui 雲水 07:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)- My concern was primarily with WP:OR, since the user appears to conflate unrelated items together, and no sources were given for his assertions. The same issue seems to be true as well with Trees in Chinese mythology, and I would agree with the citation needed tag added by the reviewer concerned. Symbolism is not the same thing as mythology. The Peaches of Immortality is mythological (and also a symbol), but the pine tree is a symbol of longevity, frequently used in painting. Often the Longevity God (Shou 壽) is depicted with symbolic items (including the peach, pine and a deer), that does not mean that the tree is mythological. Trying to equate symbolism with mythology would be OR without a proper source. Hzh (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
