User talk:CHHistory

807:"; even if you can't find good sources next week, you can take your time and put out a great article after a few weeks or months of slowly gathering info. In the meantime, have you considered getting some research/editing practise by working on some similar articles? Maybe there are some other biographies of WWII Chinese officers that you could help build up, and thereby gain some practise while also working up more and more references for this one? 1099: 1488: 961: 862: 619: 574: 475: 430: 359: 314: 269: 219: 174: 129: 79: 1325: 790:

up the most ironclad source-based article I can." I've had similar issues where there are "things everybody knows" about "James Smith" but I just can't find a ref for it, so maybe I just make a list of important points I can't reference yet, and post them on the article's Talk page once it publishes, so that folks looking to expand the article get some ideas of what to look for.

1606: 1246: 1466:

Patchy1 and Mephistophelian, thanks for pointing out the errors of my ways. Why this happened was when I clicked on the red lettered seikwan incident, it took me to that page, leading me to believe I have to put something there to indicate that work is in progress.... Please delete prompto! Will go

822:

section titles (like "Newbie wants to help on China WWII articles" instead of "Want to help here"), indent your replies to posts (using ":" before lines, notice how I'm doing it in my code), etc. Hopefully you can find some folks who share your interest who would welcome some support, especially from

662:

Greetings CHH, it appears at the moment you're doing some minor tweaking. I would suggest based on my experience that it would be much better to make the big changes first, as once you've made the big changes, many of the small things will have completely changed, cutting out the work you made on the

789:

So far as your sources and whatnot: if you want a source to be in "James Smith"'s, article, it does have to mention "James Smith" by name somehow. That said, instead of looking at this as "how can I possibly reference all this material?", look on it instead as "I'll find some good sources, and build

1376:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can

1055:

Matthew, thanks for the encouragement and support, without which I would be at a lost. This turns out to be more interesting that I first thought as it grew from a list of dates and postings into a life! Will check in with the History Project team soon to determine next steps, though I was editing

702:

currently cited to Baike Baidu needs to be changed to a Reliable Source, or else marked "unreferenced". Baike Baidu is a site which simply takes user contributions, and is administered by the Chinese government with no apparently quality control (just control for rules violations), so an item cited

1541:

Just wanted to encourage you to be confident and not worry too much about editing, but just make sure you're applying proper footnoting, staying neutral, copyediting your work for neatness, and communicating with others. If you've got all that, it's hard to go wrong. Thanks again for your editing.

917:

Greetings CHH, there's an auto-formatting tool for gBooks called Reftag at the above link. I don't know how well it works for Chinese, but if you try using it and find it works pretty well, it might make your life easier. Note that on "Snippet view" on GoogleBooks it doesn't automatically generate

741:

Next, I agree and understand the concerns of all the editors and don't know if this article can offer the solid citations that you are looking for. I am trying to get a professor/historian at a U who specializes in that time period for a review and see if he has any published scholarly text books

1194:

Oh! Gracious, good thing we double-checked on that. I'm sure what they meant is that you can't just turn a heading Purple for style reasons. Links being blue or red is not aesthetic, it's a vital part of pieces linking together between articles, so definitely link things as appropriate. That is,

1040:

takes a look after publishing. They have some Asia experts there who would have better advice than mine, so I do strongly suggest you go post on their Talk page introducing yourself and your article (and any plans for future articles!) so you can get some advice from very knowledgeable editors.

1027:

My best recommendation is that once your article publishes, you go to its Talk page and paste these materials in a section there, maybe something like "Additional non-RS Materials" and leave some note saying something like "These sources aren't RS for the article, but may be of interest to other

840:

Matthew: Have come up with a couple of book references where subject's name was identified with rank and events. So will exchange out the others with this, where relevent..Will finish with exchanging out sup with ref first, and do plan to exchange out current ref with books etc..when possible.

1357:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see 940:) Have tested this and ofter some tries, am able to get the ibsn stats etc., plus steer the citation directly to the page. Now, need to continue clean up the ref. area and more research .... more hopeful by the minute that this will be a viable/release worthy piece. Thanks 747:

From the over 100 sources I have reviewed, I am certain there should be no problem in finding references for 6.16 Incident or for the 66th army etc.; however, I am uncertain if Law Hin-Cheung's name will appear in some or all of them. Is that needed to tie the article

817:

well-organised and active; if you go to the Talk page of the project, briefly introduce yourself, and say you'd like to help improve some Chinese WWII articles to gain experience, you may well find helpful editors there. On Talk pages, just always remember to use

707:

more credibility than just an uncited statement on Knowledge. It is not absolutely necessary that your footnotes be in English or available online (though both are preferred), but many of your current footnotes are litterally no better than no footnotes at

1635: 1389: 1383:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

1059:

One question, when searching Luo's name in google, a website came up with something like ..."51 ....au" in the http address, and some of your advice in two columns showed up, wonder why? Again, thanks for taking an interest to this

1641: 735:

Once you explained that / meant the end of a ref code, how the coding system works becomes clear. All the citations will be changed to the correct format within the next few days. Please consider "mission accomplished" on this

918:

the page number, so if you're citing from a Snippet, be sure you note the page number and plug it into the Reftag template and hit the button to produce an updated footnote. Give it a shot, let me know what you think.

1717:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1531:

Hello CHH, just wanted to drop by and again emphasise that you're a very careful and conscientious editor, and your contributions so far have been great. Remember, any "mistakes" can be easily undone, so please

1428:) for lack of content. I would suggest creating the article in your own userspace while you are researching it, then adding it to mainspace when you have more content. For example you could start the page here: 674:. A few of us have answered you on this issue, and provided some examples of how to format footnotes. I realise you've had some troubles with this, but it's not hard once you learn the basics, and you simply 1129:]. Just do a basic post (with clear title like "Greetings from new editor doing Chinese military history", say a little hello, post a link to your draft and invite any comment. That's my informal suggestion. 1120:. Did I miss some technical reason? As long as you only link a term once per article, and as long as it's something we could conceivably have an article about in the future, links are good, even if redlinks. 1648:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

678:

to learn it to footnote. The "sup" footnotes are not accepted on Knowledge, and make it very hard to evolve an article over time because they do not automatically renumber themselves like "ref" footnotes

771:

CHH, no worries; in retrospect I should have put in some more general overall tags rather than marking too many Baidu links as "unreliable", so it's a good reminder for me to make tags fewer and clearer.

1207:

be an article for that name. Say, for example, that your subject once slapped a superior when he was a lieutenant, was punished, but recovered and later became a general. The captain he slapped may be

1560:" after the 1940 Katyn massacre of over 20,000 Polish Armed Forces by the Russians came to light. However, being pragmatic, general Władysław Sikorski was still open ..." To do this is ok? Be well 753:

Worst case, if down the road, the editors choose not to release Law's article, I am fine with it. After all, I have gained knowledge, not a waste of time for me by any stretch. Will see ... Thx.

730:

In the beginning, because you have added comments around the ref. codes, and, with the other codes all strang together, they became confusing, and difficult for me to know the start and end of each.

1028:

editors looking for ideas of content that should be expanded in the article." Again, Talk pages aren't generalised forums, but given that these non-RSs may still be a legitimate way to get some

41:! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Knowledge where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! 803:

sources in Chinese are fine, as are published sources existing only on paper, so hopefully there are some good sources out there that aren't Baidu and blogs. It's always good to remember "

1012:

Hello CHH, your article is looking stronger and stronger, but all the "Additional references" you still had were not advantageous to your AFC submission, since the were largely to non-

1277: 1536:

and do fixes as you see fit. If someone objects, simply stay calm and communicate on Talk to sort issues out; at the very worst we can Revert if things go the wrong direction.

407:

I saw your shout-out to Sarah. I think she is out of the country, but don't know any more details. I'm sure she will check in when she can, but it might not be right away.--

1610: 1168:

Now I understand. I remember early on, someone said that colors are not allowed in the article, so .... Thanks for correcting that -- will rebracket those needed.

1557:

Matthew, many thanks for your sound advice, as always. For the 1943 Gibraltar .... article, have added material for clarification for the background section....

1074:

Went to the History Project page, did not find a question page, so how do I get in touch with them, as I don't want to get into a project yet. Any pointers thanks

526:

meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Knowledge. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse

1021: 26: 1199:

words like "governor", but do link "governor of Foo Province" if we happen to have such an article. For names, generally link each name (but again, only the

25: 1142:

that can get Google hits and bring them advertising revenue. It's a minor annoyance but not a big issue. If you really want to keep your drafts hidden, see

1582:

I've noticed that you put ~~~~ into your edit summaries – this is not necessary, as the edit summaries are shown next to your name, and just add clutter.

780:

So far as refs, glad the "ref" tags make sense to you now; I had a similar problem trying to figure those out three years ago, but now it's second nature.

1036:

cleaner now. I would overall expect your article will pass AFC just fine. There are some minor cleanup issues I'd recommend, but I'm holding off until

1041:

Article is looking 10 times better than the first draft; you've done some great work and learned a lot about Knowledge methods very quickly. Well done!

1024:. They technically shouldn't be in the article itself, but I also understand you might want to keep them on-hand for anyone doing any further research. 1443: 1429: 1032:

on what the article could use for improvement, I'd expect that'd be acceptable. Hope I'm not being presumptuous, but this makes your article look a

546:

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

1138:

So far as finding strange pop-ups of your draft on other websites: since WP is free content, some websites pull Wiki material just to try to have

1314: 809: 1116:

Wikilinks? It's perfectly fine to have redlinks for a name we don't yet have an article for, and you also removed some links for terms like

1742: 1561: 1515: 1640: 1634: 690:

cites to Baike Baidu, which is as I understand it the Chinese parallel to Knowledge. To the best of my knowledge, Baike Baidu is

1738: 1268: 1056:

the article, unable to save because we were both woring on it. No worries, I remember what I did, so will go back to redo.

712:

Please consider addressing these issues first, and from there folks at the Teahouse can help you develop the article further.

804: 1264: 1495: 1487: 1334: 968: 960: 869: 861: 626: 618: 581: 573: 527: 482: 474: 437: 429: 366: 358: 321: 313: 276: 268: 226: 218: 181: 173: 136: 128: 86: 78: 1729:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1734: 1405:

Patchy1, no worries. I was using that at a development slot IN Error, obviously. Please remove prompto! Many thanks

1379: 1503: 1385: 1366: 976: 877: 634: 589: 490: 445: 374: 329: 284: 234: 189: 144: 94: 1037: 695: 531: 1467:

thro the talk / approval process as prior upon completion of this article. Many thanks for watching..... Cheers

1425: 1350: 1318: 1547: 1511: 1453: 1341: 1302: 1220: 1151: 1046: 923: 828: 717: 597: 1565: 1370: 1448: 1393: 1297: 337: 292: 197: 152: 1507: 987: 888: 1267:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 1618: 1362: 1107: 671: 413: 1361:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

1730: 1684: 1617:

and Knowledge pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to

1614: 1543: 1216: 1212: 1147: 1117: 1042: 919: 824: 713: 593: 683: 519: 384: 244: 104: 45: 38: 1016:

sources, and the formatting was disorganised and confusing. Accordingly, I chopped them out and

1211:

known in history for having been slapped by Subject, so no need to link that name. The article

1706: 1697: 1657: 1533: 1433: 1397: 1143: 841:

Also, will check in with the Military History editors to see if any assistance is needed. THX

556: 333: 288: 193: 148: 57: 1676:

I have responded on my talk page and the article's talk page. I hope my remarks are helpful.

539: 523: 1726: 1710: 1590: 980: 881: 1725:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1569: 1519: 996: 897: 646: 642: 502: 498: 457: 453: 408: 391: 341: 296: 251: 201: 156: 1203:

time that term appears in the article), except in cases where you don't expect there to

111: 1722: 1714: 1677: 1667: 1468: 1406: 1358: 1252: 1169: 1075: 1061: 941: 933: 842: 754: 37:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge. Please join other people who edit Knowledge at 1632:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

1718: 1354: 1238: 991: 892: 552: 379: 239: 99: 1653: 1013: 932:

OK. Will let you know once I have tried it. Still researching and cleaning up ...

53: 1285: 1586: 1353:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

1146:

for how to add templates that make it invisible to Google until it's published.

1112:

No worries, glad to help. CHH, quick thing: why did you just make some changes

638: 494: 449: 727:

Thanks, Matthew. I do understand you all have been most patient and helpful.

1260: 1333:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1605: 1106:

Error: There was no comment detected! Please follow the instructions at

1746: 1691: 1661: 1594: 1551: 1476: 1459: 1436: 1414: 1400: 1308: 1224: 1177: 1155: 1083: 1069: 1050: 949: 927: 850: 832: 762: 721: 601: 561: 418: 61: 52:

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood

1259:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

1424:

Hello! I have requested speedy deletion of the article you created (

1245: 1284:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1626: 1008:

Separated out your "Additional references"; article looking great!

1713:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

1255:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1526:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

1003:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

904:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

653:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

608:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

509:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

464:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

398:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

348:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

303:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

258:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

208:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

163:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

118:

at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

1486: 1323: 1244: 959: 910: 860: 617: 572: 473: 428: 357: 312: 267: 217: 172: 127: 77: 1494: