User talk:Tatadou

User talk:Tatadou

adding Googlebooks links
I don't know why you are adding these books, but could you not add them in or above the reference list. Rather, make a ==Further reading== section below. Reference section is for references. Thanks. --Cold Season (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw other editors already made some sections called "works", and I just added them to those sections or created a "work" section when the article didn't have one. I will in the future add a further reading section.Tatadou (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edward Charles Bowra
Hi Tatadou;

Thanks for your well intentioned additions, including to the page Edward Charles Bowra. I was sorry to have to remove your addition. Your work would be even more valuable if you could read up on the standard practices and were more careful about the formatting. In this article, the note to the China Magazine contained Bowra's translation of Dream of the Red Chamber, not the Canton article referred to in this sentence, and this translation was already footnoted in the sentence which referred to it below (the China Magazine translation is reprinted online).

Also, even if the reference were needed (which it is not), the form is not correct. Do not use all capitals. Proofread your additions before you save them (or revert them) to make sure that you have formatted correctly. In this case, the (unneeded) publication data appeared twice. Reference to a journal article does not include the place of publication of the journal. The title of the journal can be put in double brackets to take the reader to an article describing the journal, such as Time Magazine. In this case, Wikipedia does not have an article on China Magazine, so you could make a valuable contribution by composing one.

In any case, the library in which the journal was scanned should not be included.

All best wishes! I hope you continue to work on Wikipedia for many years. ch (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Added later: I checked your "Contributions" page and saw that you have done a lot of hard work on many articles. This is great, but you will save yourself a lot of trouble if you first check the acceptable style. As it is, you are creating even more work for editors who must go through your contributions and correct or undo them.

The responsible thing for you to do at this point would be to go back and undo the contributions you have made in order to save others the work of doing so. Your contributions will then be extremely welcome! ch (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * many of the articles to which I added references had no references. I don't know about exising style since there isn't any exising on those articles...Tatadou (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Chinese Character helps
Hi, Tatadou, i like to help, but i can't the sentence you mentioned. Can you give a specific method how to get that? --Aleen f 1 12:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is copyright problem so my country won't available to view. You can choose to send the full sentence via my e-mail. --Aleen f 1 12:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is 希 (xi) mean hope. Anymore, please raise. --Aleen f 1 12:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A few more comments I hope will be helpful
Hi Tatadou;

Glad to see that you are working on so many articles, but I should have given you more specific advice on how to make your contributions fit into acceptable style. One way is to look through existing articles to see the best practices. Another is to read through Manual of Style, but it is hard to find particular information there.

The specific point here is that notes should not contain a lot of text, only references, and they certainly should not have the same material in both the main part of the article and in the note, as was the case in American Presbyterian Mission.

Another mistake was to insert material from a primary source without changing it. Please look at the explanation of the difference between a primary source and secondary source.

Please also look at Citing sources and correct the format of the references.

I will be glad to go into more detail if things are not clear since I hope you will go on to many years of valuable contributions!

ch (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Later: Here are a couple of articles which, while they are not perfect, give an idea of good style: John Leighton Stuart or William Ernest Hocking. ch (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)