User talk:Ktsquare
Announcement:
I'll leave my city and camp for 5 days in Northern Ontario from August 14 to 19.
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, great job disambiguating Jin Dynasty -- I had no idea there were two of them. Cheers! --maveric149
Thanks for asking about my field trip -- I had a great time! Yosemite is... well, words fail. You should be happy to find out that the number of times a page has been accessed is already at the bottom of each page here in wikipedia (right above the search bar). For example just before I hit edit, I saw that this talk page has been accessed 14 times since it was created and the main page has been accessed 313,347 times (yikes! That's just since February). BTW, 50 is a rather small number to have on the most popular page listing: It might be a good idea to suggest a similar format for the popular pages as we now have for RecentChanges -- "View the most popular 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 | 1000 pages"... You want to suggest this feature on wikipedia feature requests or should I? Power to the wiki! --maveric149
Sorry, I don't know when the bugs will be worked out on the move feature. User:Brion VIBBER is the developer that is most active as a regular contributor (like you and me) to wikipedia. I will ask him about it. I for one won't move Tables of Chinese Sovereigns until you are finished with all the major changes/additions you are working on. Of course, you or anyone else could do a manual move/redirect and then the history of Tables of Chinese Sovereigns would be left totally intact yet hidden behind a redirect. If this is done the person making the move can mention that user:Ktsquare first created this page (under ip 24.100.81.xxx) someplace else and has done much of the work on it. You could also put a link to the history of Tables of Chinese Sovereigns in the talk of the new page. --maveric149
No, there really is no official watchlist for naughty users other than RecentChanges (hit "show last 5000 changes" and then search for the person's IP). What I do is just copy down the visible part of the IP and place that on my user page. Of course, if this person is doing a systemic attack then please add this person's visible IP to VANDALISM IN PROGRESS to elicit the help of others to undo the harm the vandal is doing (if an administrator is around then the vandal will be warned and then blocked if the warning is ignored). As a matter of policy though, defacing a single page is not usually considered to be vandalism -- it is oftentimes just tagging by a person who doesn't have a clue what the project is about and is just experimenting. Most of these people leave after a single "incident" and never come back -- as your example seems to have done. When you see a newly created page like History of Indochina that has nothing but garbage on it, simply delete the garbage and either vote to delete the page or create a short stub to replace the garbage. Of course, always check the history to make sure an article isn't hiding behind in the page's history. --maveric149
Hi! Please see recent Talk:Wu Hu
Well, it wasn't much help really; you're obviously much more knowledgeable about it. :-) Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi
Do you know whether the term Rape of Nanking was in use before the book of that name was published? I sort of recall that it was, but I'm not an expert in history. --Ed Poor
- Before that book was published, the term only means rapes of women during the 2 months of atrocities inside the city but the book used the term for referring to the Nanjing Massacre. Such a use is acceptable. In other words, the term means only part of atrocities before the publish and the book generalized to the whole massacre. -- Ktsquare
- Not true. Rape has always had the meaning of destruction and murder over a large area. For instance, the Glencoe Massacre is refered to as the rape of Glencoe. I'm fairly certain Rape of Nanking was in use for quite a while too. --rmhermen
I agree that the term Rape of Nanking was in use quite a while but my previous point was on what the term is referring to, not on how long it has lasted. Research on Google and my knowledge gave me contradictory results. I have always believed that the term was a western term for Nanjing Massacre. Some webpages used it only for rape of women during those 2 1/2 months, some refer to the whole incident anmd some don't even bother to use it at all. Since Nanjing Massacre can only refer to the incident, I prefer using that instaed of the Rape of Nanking. Some research papers in US are now using Nanjing Massacre and some invented a new term Nanjing Atrocities, adding more confusion to the confusing enough nomenclature.
an example. search "rape" and "massacre". They refer to the same incident.
II. The Death Toll – Current Estimates: 1st paragraph: ....The notion here is that if the figure of 300,000 (or any higher end of the estimates for that matter) does not stand, it is no longer the Nanking Atrocities (or the Nanjing Massacre or the Rape of Nanking)....
Ktsquare -- please be aware that the Hull genealogy website is CRAP. It is not accurate and we have had many problems with people using it (and most other genealogical websites) as reference material. No professional European historian I know (and I know lots of them -- and am one myself) would trust it. As a history student, you should really avail yourself of the opportunity to use sources critically. Remember, genealogy isn't history, and most amateur genealogists (certainly not all, but most) usually don't have the language skills or background to be as trustworthy as many other sources available. J Hofmann Kemp
Thanx very much for your helpful advice.
Your concern probably arised from your comment on talk:Charles. I personally don't trust the Hull website and those material on Charles are direct reposts of existing wikipedia articles. The link was just an old shortcut which was probably created during my high school years. IMO accuracy of genealogical records depends on 1) how accurate is the source, 2)expertise of the amatuer, 3) how detailed are those records. Just out of curiosity, is "Europaische Stammtafeln" a trustworthy source? I heard of the title before and trust me, I'm not going to copy those materials onto wikipedia. BTW I have already stopped collecting genealogical data since I entered university. Thanx again. --Ktsquare
- Which edition? There are several excellent prosopographical works out there in German -- depends on the subject and time period as to how good they are. I honestly would not rely on anything absolutely, unless it clearly demonstrates how it came to the conclusions it does, and what primary sources are used. J Hofmann Kemp
- IMO The latest edition would be the best by common sense. BTW do you use prosographical material frequently during your years of research? --Ktsquare
I wouldn't agree that latest is always best -- the original wasn't written with genealogists in mind -- I don't know about the Neue Folge. I think it is probably helpful in tracing family trees, but dangerous in the hands of people who don't know what they're looking at. For example, many German genealogical and prosopographical sources will use a "von somewhere" after a name. The historian understands that this is usually not part of a title nor indicates heritable lands -- at least before the late 10th c., because there weren't all that many inheritable titles, outside of royalty, before then. So where I see that (for example only) Welf, a graf in Alemannia, married Gerswintha v. Sachsen in 810, I see that Welf held the title of comes -- which may or may not have been connected to a permanent office, possibly not in Alemannia (that might be where his family was from), who married a woman who was either from Saxony (not the same as today's Saxony) or was of Saxon descent. HJ, on the other hand, would see this as Welf, Count of Alemannia, married a noblewoman named Gerswintha von Sachsen. Believe me, the differences could be vast.
And yes, if you hadn't figured it out by now, I do use a lot of prosopographical stuff in my research. And I do dislike most amateur genealogy, because the aim in most cases seems not to learn for the sake of finding out more about history and the people who contributed to it, but seems more to be a purely egotistical attempt to claim noble blood and sometimes to prove longtime claims to lands that have changed hands many times over the years. Personally, I would rather do something interesting and important myself than say that by no fault of my own, I'm related to some long dead king. But maybe my priorities are mixed up ;-) J Hofmann Kemp
Good to know Euroepean history researchers use a lot of prosopographical material. However it seems like not a single book you could totally rely on when conducting researches, from understanding of your words. Shouldn't there be some stuff (prosopographical or not) that are universally accepted as accurate sources regardless of how detail it is? Say what material you would trust when writing your dissertion on Carolingians?
Fabricating connection to noble blood could serve as a logical groud for legally claiming land or property. Even Bruce Lee (for example only) could claim himself of royal blood if one intends to make up connections. LOL. I just ignore them.--Ktsquare
Hi -- I'll answer the above when I have a sec. In the meantime, I would say that, for the House of Savoy, i'd certainly not translate Arcim- or Arcibaldo into English. Not that the translation is wrong, but that it sounds funny. I can't even say why, except that it's probably just a usage/comfort thing, and that Archibald sounds Scottish. J Hofmann Kemp
Thanks for the images of, for example, Ellsworth Bunker; but please go read Wikipedia:Image use policy and help us keep the quality of images here high. In particular, it's a bad idea to mix photographic images and text; photos should be in JPEG format, drawings in PNG format. GIF is deprecated. Further, please describe where these images came from on the description page so we can be sure we have the right to use them. --LDC
Okay.
- Most of the sources you list offer public domain images, so there's probably no copyright problem, but we should at least mention the web site where you got the images.