Archives

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

This is my talk page. All comments welcomed. Vandalism will be laughed at and made fun of. Do me a favour by posting at the bottom and give your new post a heading.

If you leave a message on my talk page, chances are I will be making my reply here. So please check back often.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 🅱️. Since you had some involvement with the 🅱️ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know what you think of my rewording for the thoughts I had for the Chinese MoS ([1]) Thanks Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fan city. Since you had some involvement with the Fan city redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were a major contributor to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. Do you operate the Wikipe-tan twitter account? Do you know who does?

• https://twitter.com/Wikipetan

I like Wikipe-tan and I would like to keep this character in Wikimedia community control. I think there is new and recent interest in a character face of Wikipedia.

Is this you? The twitter account has no activity since 2011. I am writing to seek the owner to ask for the account to use for Wikimedia community shared control through an organization.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: This is not me and I don't have a Twitter account anywhere. Judging by the tweets, I would suspect it is someone from the Chinese Wikipedia, perhaps you can ask there. _dk (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Will post at Wikipe-tan talk page if I have news. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You undid my edit of the SA page, but I have some questions regarding the consistency of this. For one, the in-game text at the top left during a boss fight (Japanese version) displays the surname first in SA, so for example, Komeiji Satori. However, the page in question lists her as Satori Komeiji. I was simply correcting Rin's name to be consistent with these rules. In addition, surely if this page must spell the names Yugi and Kotiya as such, then the page I linked in my edit description should follow the same standard and use ZUN's romanization as the 'standard' and not the 'alternative' translation. I also notice that I missed a mistake on the SA page where Utsuho's surname is in one instance spelled Reiuzi and in another spelled Reiuji, in which case one must certainly be corrected. Just seeking clarification on these topics, thanks for reading. 2600:1702:640:4170:3473:773C:58EB:4C70 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the question you bring up has to do with how Wikipedia treats romanization in anime-related articles, and has been discussed in the talk page of the list article here Talk:List_of_Touhou_Project_characters#Official_spellings_vs._common_usage. The guideline states that we should use whatever romanization is official, and in the absence of official translations we default to what ZUN used (either in-game or in the Omake.txt that comes with the games), Obviously now the situation is a bit different since there are official translations of Touhou manga but the games should still use the English names ZUN provided, but in Western order due to the guidelines for Japanese articles requiring so. The spelling in List of Touhou Project characters originally followed ZUN's but was changed last October by Goszei (talk · contribs) citing the "result of much debate on TH Wiki". I missed the change at the time and was surprised to see the list now being inconsistent, and I am unaware of the debate on Touhou Wiki or its relevance on Wikipedia consensus. Perhaps we should continue the discussion. _dk (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate the response and page edit. I'm certainly willing to accept the official romanizations being used for the page, especially after seeing that the other game pages do this as well. The character list page using the conventional Western spellings even makes some sense considering it's a listing of characters rather than being specific to one game, and as you mentioned, the manga also have official translations. Perhaps the topic will be raised again but I guess we'll see. Have a great day. 2600:1702:640:4170:3473:773C:58EB:4C70 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that my edits on the Hong Kong 97 page were good and added some much needed pictures. So can you please leave it the way it is?Jackiechanbruceleekungfu (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jackiechanbruceleekungfu: I feel that the pictures were unnecessary and screenshots of the game itself would be much more useful. So can you please add some more relevant images instead? _dk (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:BohemianArchiveofJapaneseRed.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 seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wu you deleted from my post to the surname page is not the one found in the group below, as you indicated. The one I posted was born in the 1800s and was a pioneer in epidemiology. Please restore the post I made. Placing it in the 'modern' section would be okay -- and it would show the distinction between him and the one I presume you think is the same person. Note the birth dates and the different WP pages for each. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it -- sorry -- I will add a little to the post. Thanks again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Now I'm curious who you first thought I thought was the same person. _dk (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Embodiment of Scarlet Devil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embodiment of Scarlet Devil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nightvour (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I've seen you around on various Chinese history articles and was wondering if you might take a look at my article for Cai Lun. I'm having some trouble making sure that I'm explaining his role in the papermaking process correctly and I hoped someone who is familiar with Chinese history might be able to help. Any comments on this or on the article on general would be appreciated! (Maybe on the article's PR page) This being said, no pressure if you don't have the time to or are preoccupied! Best - Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aza24: Hi, I took a brief look at the article and I appreciate the effort you've put into it. Unfortunately I am not too familiar with the science side of Chinese history so I can't give much advice. Some things I notice was that some of the sources used are a bit on the old side and it may not be a good idea to use those for extraordinary claims. For example, the passage "modern Chinese culture especially celebrates Four Great Inventions of the ancient world – the compass, gunpowder, papermaking and printing – of which Cai Lun is credited with papermaking, and is therefore the only known creator of any of the 4" is sourced to Narita 1954 and is likely to be outdated after more than 60 years of sinology research into the origins of those inventions. Also, the concept of the "Four Great Inventions" can be traced to Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, which was first published in the same year 1954, which makes the passage a bit odd. A related issue stemming from the reliance of old sources was the use of Wade-Giles romanization instead of the newer Hanyu pinyin (eg. "Shensi" [old] instead of "Shaanxi" [new]), but I recognize that this is not easy to overcome. Cheers. _dk (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Underbar dk, I read your comment a bit ago but completely forgot to respond! Thank you for pointing out the 1954 publishing issue since Narita does state that in the book, I checked the year and it looks like it was published in 1966, which explains the discrepancy. However, I will do some more research for sourcing that claim. In terms of the sourcing in general, unfortunately there doesn't seem like an easy way out. Since I can't read Chinese I am forced to use English sources, of which Cai Lun has been tragically underrepresented. Other than Narita's biography most of the sources I did end up finding were either from tertiary encyclopedic sources (which I used sparingly) or from books on papermaking, which I mostly relied on,. What I'm most worried about is if I properly explained Cai Lun's place in papermaking history... I would reach out to Pericles of Athens about it but he seems to be mostly inactive, would you know anyone on Wiki that might be able to help? - Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aza24: It's a good idea to reach out to Pericles of Athens, I believe he still comes onto Wikipedia to patrol his articles and he will likely get back to you. _dk (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the sources mention assaults by Jin and Yue to a certain long wall or fortress, but it does not mean the wall was built to protect Qi from them. In fact no where the source does it concluded that this is the purpose of the wall. It only states the earliest mentioned of the Qi wall in texts. If you open a map you will see Jin is far away and would attack Qi facing the Yellow River, not to where the Qi walls are. Qi walls were built to protect it from the Dongyi states and later Chu state. This is like saying the Japanese attacked China at the Defense of the Great Wall, therefore the Great Wall was built to protect China from Japan. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are to some articles (if you can read Chinese, Google translate would work too)

• https://k.sina.com.cn/article_2116182794_p7e22630a02700l2j0.html?from=edu "齐长城，...是齐国为了防御楚国和鲁国而修建的。" (Qi Great Wall was built to protect itself from Lu and Chu)
• https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%BD%90%E9%95%BF%E5%9F%8E "……齐长城大规模续修的时间，其上限当断为楚灭莒的公元前431年。" (The size of wall increased when Chu destroyed Ju in 431 BC)

"齐国对东部地区的开发也逐渐消除了东方的敌对势力，把战略防御进攻重点转向南邻的鲁楚，西南的卫、晋、宋以及北邻的燕国。" "春秋时期燕国在经济军事力量上也弱于齐国，故而当时齐国的敌对势力主要在南邻的鲁国和西南方的晋、卫、宋诸国。" The source you mentioned also stated that since the natural barrier between Qi and Yan is the Yellow River, Qi would concentrate to build fortification to defense against Lu and Chu in the South. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sgnpkd: Hi, Baidu Baike is not a reliable source since it is populated by user-generated content (like Wikipedia). My issue is with the 658 BC date which was debunked by Yuri Pines and summarized in the Dating section in the article. Pines on p. 748 explicitly states the walls were first erected after the attack by the Jin-Yue alliance. The sentence in question talks about why the walls were first built, and this is why. We can reword it so that we don't give the impression that the Walls of Qi were only to defend against Jin and Yue (their initial purpose), but also came to defend Qi against the states Lu and others. _dk (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, as you might already knew, there is very little academic source available online in Chinese on such areas. In my opinion, Baidu could be more reliable than Wiki as it is not easily editable, and most of the contents are from older Chinese encyclopedias which were written by scholars, but their works are difficult to find to be sourced (unless you have access to libraries and archives in China), which I wish I do. Most of the English sources, already rare, are quite niched on each subject and do not cover enough to answer general the questions. Sgnpkd (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yuan dynasty in Inner Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu. 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) 06:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miko Miko Nurse, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miko Miko Nurse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question:Should that redirect exist, I am not sure since I am not an expert in the subject. Otherwise request  Done. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Synoman Barris: Thanks! I have redirected Great Wall during the pre-imperial period to History of the Great Wall of China#Pre-imperial China (7th century–221 BC) since that seems most relevant.　Cheers. _dk (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Miko miko nurse.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cantonese opera performers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:46 disestablishments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You reverted my edits to Kozo Iizuka even after I requested you discuss on the article's talk page before removing content. You are justifying this by demanding adherence to guidelines, but are ignoring WP:IAR which is one of the WP:5P, and your participation in the article thus far is coming close to WP:EW. Please discuss before removing content! 2404:2D00:5000:841:2D81:6889:C485:FB68 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted your edit. IAR is not an excuse to make articles worse. I believe Underbar dk, along with myself, both think that this is obviously a non-constructive edit that uses unreliable sources - thus is not allowed by IAR itself. No amount of discussion will allow you to reinsert that sentence, unless you find reliable and independent sources detailing the matter. Chlod (say hi!) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I see that you are working on the Ching Shih article. Want to coordinate and work on it together? Gaiushe (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gaiushe:: Hi, I am only making cleanup edits to that article, so I am content with making edits after you are done with it. I would suggest not to change the traditional Chinese characters to simplified Chinese in cases where the original source has them in traditional Chinese. Keep up the good work. _dk (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a good suggestion, will change the simplified back to traditional. Gaiushe (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, GFDL is not a compatible text license. You are probably not aware that CC-BY-SA 4.0 is also not a compatible text license either, and so are any licenses with any non-commercial or no derivative attributes. See the table on Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#Can I copy from open license or public domain sources? with compatible and incompatible licenses. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey mate, just wanted to ask that you check out my comment in the talk section of the 'grand preceptor'. I'm a newbie and im being assessed on my research of grand preceptors for a university assignment in the near future. I would appreciate it if you held your reversions until after my additions have been graded. I have noted them and will make any suggested edits or amendments in the meantime, but I just need to get graded for my submission without my research being deleted. thank you in advance, and hope you understand. I'm more than happy for you to revert and do as you please after my assignment is graded. hope you can understand and sympathize.

Dear Underbar dk, My student Thabiso Molai has added a draft to the stub Grand Perceptor, but it has been removed by you. I was wondering if the draft had major problems.

Best, Amamo18Almamo18 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Almamo18: First off, please don't treat a live Wikipedia article as a draft. Each version of a Wikipedia should be presentable to the general public or at least work towards that. Your student, as I have said on the Grand Preceptor article's talk page, kept trying to add content that is out-of-scope into that article. The article should not be a loose collection of biographies of people who held that post, instead, please focus the article on the position of the Grand Perceptor itself, including their duties, responsibilities, privileges. If individuals like the Duke of Zhou and Dong Zhuo were to be mentioned, focus on what the position meant for them and what changes they made to the Grand Perceptor position. Keep their personal legacies in their own articles. I hope this helps. _dk (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Gongsun Yuan and associates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What prob do you having? You removing all my sources giving different excuses? Is it bcoz I removed ur work in another article? Or you don't want her info to be published? Japanese source are not the only source.. It has mentioned nippon as original source. And this source is from Taiwan and mention everything clearly of this survey. What's wrong with you? I wasn't interfering with you on another article. I'm atleast publishing a source that can be trusted.. All the three sources where they came from if they are fake? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333: Nothing personal. I have provided my reasons in the edit summaries and all the sources you provided so far cannot be trusted per Wikipedia guidelines that I have listed. It's deeply unfortunate that you only came up with unreliable sources and apparently refuse to understand what passes as WP:reliable sources. Honestly, read this link on the left and make sure you understand it in full. _dk (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Chinese sources for Ching Shih passes the guidelines? You don't need international source to make your edit but asking other to give it? The sources I provided are as reliable as you given in ching shih. I didn't interfere to ur article there when you said you don't own work here.. And now you interefering on mine? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. You would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion of "my" article or "your" article. If you don't agree, Wikipedia editing is not for you. _dk (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok i apologize but I'm a regular contributor. You can add the source which you removed instead leaving it likewise. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean ur own source what u think is right. I know you are more experienced anyways. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello i need your help. can i give this another source for the content i added previously that was removed by another user? Here is another one of my source. I'll mention pages where i have taken. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-33750-0 Does this violate copyright? Enlighten me.

If you cite this with the page numbers and in your own words then it will not be a copyright violation. Also you would need to do better than slight rewording as WP:close paraphrasing would still violate copyright. _dk (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks for your advice. Do I make some change in evaluation part? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you clarify about this following source i found? Its from a japanese source.. will it be eligible to cite this source? http://www.u-canclub.jp/

At least it doesn't provide download links. It's not a copyright violation. _dk (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks a lot Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, i need your help.. can you confirm me some sources such as ent.sina, aparchive, read01, and sohu are reliable sources or not? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also this one http://www.lifeweek.com.cn/2005/0513/11859.shtml.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arorapriyansh333 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333: Without seeing what the actual sources are, those publications seem like reliable sources. _dk (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I don't really do history articles. Especially ones that involve the military from the Ming Dynasty. So since I submitted this article in the AFC section, I would like to see from your perspective in how we can improve this so we can increase the chance of getting this approved asap (basically not having to redo it again). Thanks

-Imcdc (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imcdc: Hi, I am not very familiar with the AfC process so the advice I am going to give may not be directly relevant to whether your draft can get approved or approved faster. Generally, the content itself seems acceptable to be published to article space; however, reviewers are likely going to focus on sourcing. Currently, the draft has 4 sources (which is okay), but no page numbers are given which makes verification difficult. Specifically:

• For the Cambridge History of China citation, I would name the chapter in addition to the page numbers.
• The Perilous Frontier is a good source, it only needs page numbers.
• The "History of Yesterday" reference is hosted on Medium, which is listed as "generally unreliable" on the list of WP:perennial sources (WP:MEDIUM). I notice that this article does not name its sources as well. Since the draft relies on this source quite heavily, the draft could be rejected because of this. Consider replacing this source.
• The Chinese source is a general interest tertiary source, which isn't as great as a source for Wikipedia, but this alone is unlikely to cause the draft to be rejected.

Hope this helps. _dk (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Underbar dk: Hi. I finally got my article approved. That said, I welcome any additional items to this articles since I'm pretty new to these topics. Any additions are greatly appreciated.Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:People of the end of Han dynasty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gordon Teoh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5#Gordon Teoh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello underbar, recently in intend to nominate Wei Yan page. but last time i nominate, it failed to pass since there's lack inline citation and messy structure

recently ive some massive overhauls to meet the qualification, while i revamped for more simpler & more commonly used format of sections structure in Wikipedia. so maybe i need ur advice for current version of the page, do you think it's adequate enough to nominate as Good Article? Ahendra (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahendra:I honestly don't have a lot of time these days for Wikipedia, so I can't really give you a in-depth review of the article. I had a quick skim of the sources, and they seem to be fine for the most part, but I implore you to replace all Zhihu links. That is not a reliable source. Reviewers may also take issue with the abundance of untranslated Chinese sources. It is fine to use Chinese sources, but the metadata (title, authors, name of the journal, publisher, etc) should be given in English as well. _dk (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sure, thank you for the input regarding Zhihu links. fortunately i didnt find some Zhihu links, its just the primary text from Chen shou which i need to replace with the english ones. cheers.. Ahendra (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahendra: Mai Yifeng, Dai (2021) "奇葩歷史 魏延簡傳， 魏延之子". is a Zhihu source. _dk (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

great, thx for info, gonna remove it.Ahendra (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just last question about the 'double gate' link, is this link reliable? im planning to remove Zhihu link about "double gates" topic, and using this link source instead, since it seems its published by Liaoning university. however, if u think its not safe to use then i'll remove the entire line instead.Ahendra (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahendra: This one looks fine. _dk (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok thx, gotta save this resource for tomorrow.Ahendra (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello underbar... i've been told this map were full of errors. shall i remove the map which found from certain pages? Ahendra (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ahendra: Go ahead! You don't need my blessing to do what you think is right. Be bold! (within reason) :) _dk (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a great help, he wrote about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ngancheekean: 兄弟, 您還是講中文吧. _dk (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats very eye opening. Ngancheekean (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gundam Musou.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unconditional warfare.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Underbar dk. Thank you for your work on Ichikawa Ennosuke IV. User:DreamRimmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|DreamRimmer)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 03:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like an IP (still assuming a different person) has reverted the article Loli Kami Requiem back to lolicon. I've opened a talk page discussion, and I think it's best to wait a few days before reverting back from lolicon; if another IP reverts that without explanation, then it's WP:RPP. Best wishes, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC); edited 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lol1VNIO: Since you have a source that specifically says it was called out for its 小児性愛を扱う歌詞, I am of the opinion that we can revert them on sight since they don't have a source. I will defer to your suggestion, though, and see where it goes. Regards. _dk (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had left it as "The video of the Mandarin version was filmed.." (Special:Diff/1183898943) until I tried to find any official Japanese video, but so far none. So I put "the only music video" as in "the only (official) music video (version)"....but you're right I never know if there's Official Japanese Version (somewhere on decaying VHS, LD) laying out there or havn't officially announced there's only 1 not 2 official videos. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for deleting some content from Agnes Chan's entry. This content was originally believed to be from the Japanese Wiki. I have always wanted to delete this paragraph, But I haven't come up with a perfect reason like yours. Thank you for providing me with experience Ansony89 (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Red Cliffs for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Wikipe-tan full length.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Arlo James Barnes 17:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letting you know that I am not using machine translation anymore and have not since February. Sorry for the issues. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to hear it. _dk (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]