您好,Isamit!歡迎加入維基百科!

感謝您對維基百科的興趣與貢獻,希望您會喜歡這裏。除了歡迎辭以外,也請您了解以下重要文章:

政策
政策
GNU
GNU
版權問題解答
貢獻內容必須是您所著或獲得授權
並同意在CC-by-sa-3.0和GFDL條款下發佈
手冊
手冊
問號
問號
有問題?請到互助客棧詢問,或在我的對話頁提出。別忘記:討論後要簽名,方式之一是留下4個波浪紋「 ~~~~ 」。
If you have any questions about the Chinese Wikipedia, please leave a message here. Thank you for visiting!

我是歡迎您的維基人:用戶 (留言) 2010年7月27日 (二) 13:33 (UTC)回覆

Copyvio

請解釋您在石川太陽奈義條目中的編輯動作。日文維基刪除這些條目並不意味着侵犯版權。感謝配合。

Please explain your edits on these articles: , 石川太陽 and 奈義. Articles being deleted by Japanese Wikipedia is not a valid reason for copy violation. Thank you for your cooperation.--Kuailong 2013年1月25日 (五) 04:46 (UTC)回覆
Thank you for your contact on this matter. Your help will be welcomed because I know a few rule on Chinese Wikipedia. I couldn't read Wikipedia:翻譯守則 because it was written in Chinese, but in the same rule in Japanese Wikipedia ja:WP:TRANS, translators have to write an original source (Article name, Date and Revision, for example) at Summary even though it's in other language versions.
At first, I pasted 模板:Notability, because I thought the three articles don't have Notability. But Chinese Wikipedians showed their ideas that the articles have Notability, even though ja:石川太陽 was deleted by lack of Notability. About Notability, I don't have any opinion any more. I would like to pay attention to Chinese Wikipedians' dicision.
However, I believe the articles still have problem about copyright violation. I suppose the three articles are translation from Japanese Wikipedia. I viewed all the histories of , 奈義 and 石川太陽, but the first writer didn't write any source on Summary. How do Chinese Wikipedia deal on this matter? Is not copyright violation? Please let me know your idea. Thank you. --Isamit留言2013年1月25日 (五) 05:37 (UTC)回覆

關注度過期

閣下曾掛關注度模板之條目木村和輝已到限期,如閣下認為該條目現時尚未合乎關注度標準,可作提刪。--Nivekin請留言 2013年2月23日 (六) 06:38 (UTC)回覆