Dcattell

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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 edit the submission 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Hi Dcattell, I saw your recent complaints about your efforts to create new articles. I have some advice: I hope you don't mind?

When I create a new article, I try to make sure that there is a reference at the end of every single sentence.^[1] Sometimes, if multiple sentences use the same reference, I'll just cite it same source repeatedly.^[2] At the end of each of those sentences.^[2] It might appear redundant but it clearly shows the reader how the statement can be verified.^[2]

Readers like this because it's easy for them to check the veracity of a statement.^[3] And wikipedians like it too!^[4]

Let me know if that's helpful! -Darouet (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xian (Taoism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingzhi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Chinese zodiac into Ox (zodiac). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Have you seen this?

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=50257

Keahapana (talk)

  Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Turmeric, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Use the talk page to make your case. Zefr (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did no "genre changes". Accusing me of being a "genre warrior" is ridiculous, to say the least. The "Turmeric" article does not even have a genre, per se. Also, you say, in the edit history for your comment above you say: "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Turmeric." You are threatening me. To what does the warning "[c]aution" refer? What is your plan, bully? What are you threatening to do to me here? Is this hyperbole, or actually a physical threat? This is neither an example of encyclopedic collaboration, nor even at all nice. To say that I had no references is falsified by the fact that I did, as can be seen in article history. To suggest that I need your "consensus" to edit an article also completely lacks merit: I have as much right to edit an article as you do; but you have no right to merely delete reliably referenced material. Your opinion about what sources are reliable or not may be your opinion, but seem to be based only on your personal(?) point of view. Dcattell (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, while we are attempting to develop a spirit of collaboration and consensus here, in the interest of developing a balanced and neutral point of view, User:Zefr, perhaps there are some industry ties that you have that you would like to disclose? (Full disclosure: I have none.) For example, maybe you would like to explain why does someone claiming to represent the International Rice Research Institute feel comfortable about sending you editorial requests? as per the following:

"Golden Rice Article Editing

Hi, I am writing you to request for not bringing further changes in the Golden Rice article. I appreciate your efforts, However, I brought those changes based on a contract from the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). We are a third party company and committed to deliver the requested changes based on their official instruction. However, minor edits, grammatical errors, and other facts are welcome but please do not bring any major changes. If you think there is a severe problem with the article, I would like to request you to provide enough comments so that we can transfer the comment to IRRI. I hope you understand."

(202.30.29.209 (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC) [[1]])Reply

Are you forwarding comments to the third party contractor to forward to IRRI, as asked? What does "I hope you understand" mean? Sincerely and in good faith,Dcattell (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Zefr. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Zefr (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not attacking you, and I am sorry if you sincerely think so. I'm just trying to build consensus on the Turmeric article. Maybe we can do so? I'm just trying to reach out to you, and see if we can really have a constructive relationship. Sadly, it does not seem to be working out. Please don't block me! Dcattell (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Turmeric. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

Taking into consideration your recent contribution to the topic of Anthropology requesting your visit to article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the it if topic interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not clear why you reinserted to the talk page material which had been archived to Talk:Turmeric/Archive 1. I reverted your edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi David Biddulph, the reason for restoring archived material on the Talk Page for Turmeric is that the discussion is currently very relevant. And, per Help:Archiving a talk page:

"It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers."

Since the discussion on the talk page is currently relevant, and this talk page is not "too large" or "a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers", then it stands to reason that the discussion material should be restored to the talk page. The issues are neither "resolved" nor "stale". Respectfully, Dcattell (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. Dcattell (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Leschnei (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese calendar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holidays in China.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Curcumin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discuss on talk page, if warranted. Zefr (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair question: does somebody pay you to do this? Dcattell (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair answer. Use better sources, WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is an unresponsive answer, as you know. Full disclosure: I am not paid and have never been paid to edit Wikipedia. So, again, are you simply willing to say that you are not doing paid work on Wikipedia? Are you getting paid for this, yes or no? Dcattell (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information. Are you willing to state whether you get paid for editing Wikipedia or not? Dcattell (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you're a member of WP:Folklore, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition (which folklore is a subset of)? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply