This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
One possible reason for Ogress's change is that Mandarin dialects is a redirect to Mandarin Chinese. I would rather see Mandarin dialects, but I keep seeing mentions that:
(from Wikipedia:Disambiguation#How_to_link_to_a_disambiguation_page)
But then the mentioned argument that changing a redirect link then wastes more storage, is kind of moot since y'all have changed it a few times already! :-) Shenme ( talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Easy772 has been adding these to Shang dynasty (and Zhou dynasty) articles regardless of consensus of the linguistic scholars of this field. There were also edits such as this that kept pushing DeLancey's view points previously, and you even addressed this on the Talk:Shang_dynasty#SVO_word_order. Theses absolutely should not be part of the articles, especially the way Easy772 edits them (by putting them in prominent places or create individual section).-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 08:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Shang dynasty#Language". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In the latest edits from Easy 772, he completely misrepresents scholarly material. You can read it yourself here: this is his cites (to the exact page, although no where else says it either that I can find): Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia, 83. This is extremely troubling to me in terms of his work as an editor. Ogress smash! 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey I was trawling orphan pages and found two Burmese honorifics, one a particle and the other a title, which I then NFD. There's been some pushback, which is fine, because getting people involved will resolve YES or NO. Personally I think NO but perhaps merge with Burmese names, which is where we've been stockpiling all these things like U and Maung and the like.
But I digress. I'm troubled (to put it mildly) with the editing of the pages in question: gyi and SayadawGyi. I'm finding editors adding links to streaming media and fonts, to a lot of religious stuff. I'm finding other editors giving what appear to be bad cites, which I'm discussing. However, I'm kind of in the wilderness and as nom, I'm probably not popular and also probably a polarising figure for those trying to fix the page to make it notable.
I didn't know if you would look and maybe weigh in. I know we have contact through that discussion about Shang but I don't think I'm canvassing here as I don't have any idea of your position on the keep/delete; I just want eyes on the topic who have editing experience and familiarity with TB so it's not completely alien territory.
Whatever you decide is appropriate, cheers! Ogress smash! 07:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Shang Dynasty". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 July 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kanguole. I am guessing that both you and Ogress will not agree to formal mediation, so maybe we can work this out here?
I'd like to start by clarifying that the material I'm attempting to include in the Shang section is both factual and accurate. I am not twisting or cherry picking these quotes as they explicitly and plainly state the similarity of Taiwanese, Hainanese and Anyang remains. This has been been observed for quite some time. The sources are secondary in this context and are backed by primary material. I can see how you would think some of the sources are not relevant, but the conclusion Pietrusewsky makes in The Physical Anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia, and Southeast Asia: A Multivariate Craniometric Analysis located in The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (thank you for correcting me on that btw) is based of decades of experience working with the Shang remains. I would hardly consider his expertise in this subject peripheral, as much of his work consists of comparing various early and modern East/Southeast Asian remains. I think you may be right regarding the comparisons he makes in his works about the Ban Chiang remains, however, which is why I omitted further comparisons he made to Southeast Asians in them. e.g We can see the distance between Ban Chiang and Anyang is actually quite great relative to Hainanese and Taiwanse if we look at the various dendrograms. I only meant to use those sources as a supplement to the fact that Anyang was in the South China cluster and outside the SEA cluster after I realized that. I am glad that you agree(?) to using Howells (1983) as a source, or are at least warming up to the idea.
I remember you mentioning that what I was posting was some how inflammatory or 'arousing passions'. I don't see how it is, but I am willing to comprimise and use less inflammatory wording if this will help get this data posted.
My intent is simply to show that bronze-age Chinese were a good proxy for modern Chinese, physically, albeit from more southern regions of China. As a side note of interest but not true importance, I think this general pattern (early populations being more physically similar to modern populations directly to the south) holds true for all populations in the region during this period. You know what I mean as you also browse/watch the articles on the various neolithic cultures and bronze-age cultures of East and Southeast Asia.
Cheers. Easy772 ( talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Easy772 ( talk) 21:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Shang Dynasty, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Le Tian Pai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Per the edit summary to this edit, I'm trying to find something that substantiates a preference for single or double quotes with glosses or specifically says that there is no preference either way but haven't found anything definitive. The relevant article seems to show a preference for single quotes within the field of linguistics, but Wikipedia policy can certainly go with another convention if it's warranted. Can you point to any discussions or policy pages that might clarify the issue? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you reverted two of my edits, adding Arabic and Latin to the category "Grammars of specific languages". Can I ask why did you revert the edits? As far as I can tell those two language grammar articles belong there. Thanks.-- Serafín33 ( talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kanguole,
Per the recent dispute at Southern Min (I rolled back recent changes to that article), where does Zhongshan Min belong? We had it rather than Datian as the third branch of Minnan. Does "Chao-Shan" maybe link it to Teochew? or is it not a unitary clade, as our article implies? (Please ping me if you answer.) — kwami ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The complexity is actually debated between chiefdom and formative state between under hill and Li. Iirc
This May need additional info or balancing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.247 ( talk) 23:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"In the Taosi area, however, there is no such continuity between Longshan and Erlitou material culture, suggesting a collapse in that area and later expansion from the Erlitou core area" Interestingly, this is exactly what the laest evidence from ancient DNA research is showing (more or less). Good addition. -- Easy772 ( talk) 18:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kanguole, Easy772 recently added this sentence "The Shandong Longshan variant developed out of the Dawenkou culture and later formed the bronze age Yueshi culture" [1] to Longshan culture. Is this relevant to the section or to the article? Is the Underhill source good?-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of country-name etymologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anping. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Alexander Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Kanguole, I had updated the number of Telugu speakers worldwide in the page Dravidian Languages to latest statistics. But you had reverted my edit in the page stating that I did not give the reliable source. I want your help to know which source can be reliable and which source cannot be reliable for population statistics. -- User:Sri Harsha Bhogi Harsha 17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Kanguole, You told me to refer to 20 & 21 pages of The Dravidian languages by Krishna Murthi. I dont have those pages. So I request you to send those 2 pages only in any form to me. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sri Harsha Bhogi ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your removal of my message at Talk:Chinese language, the point about it being the wrong language is taken. But apart from that, you also said that it was inappropriate. How was it inappropriate. Nightscream ( talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. 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
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Helmut von Moltke. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Shenglei because your reason for removal of contents was not sufficient to justify the scope of the changes. If you would like, you can propose these changes on the article's talk page for discussion. In future, please do not make edits of this scope without consensus, as this could lead to an edit war over the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 18:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Since your name was left off the list of parties involved, I thought you might want to be aware of this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/It's "Nepal Bhasa". Future Perfect removed a previous mal-formed request prior to this one. The current one is so mal-formed that it doesn't even show up on the WP:RFM page so I expect nothing will come of it either, but you should be aware of it nonetheless. Cheers!-- William Thweatt Talk Contribs 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lack of Moral Fibre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
hi--I'm really sorry about editing this here but I'm not really knowledgeable about how communication usually works, and I'd like to discuss the Pulleyblank work? I've read the cited work, and the problem isn't that Pulleyblank used ʜ but instead how the IPA standards have changed, so which sound ʜ denotes.
When Pulleyblank mentions ʜ he names it as a fully voiced laryngeal onset, but ʜ in modern IPA standard is used for a voiceless epiglottal trill (in 1908 standard, it is a bronchial/pharyngeal fricative, which I think was taken out in the 1932 standard but not actually replaced). I'm aware he uses ʜ but a small capital H means different things, especially considering the source work is published in 1991 prior to the 1993 standard.
Have gone through the work and can find nothing stating 影 as a pharyngeal approximant or fricative. Everything on the reconstruction of the sound seems to be ʔ, which is a glottal plosive, as opposed to the flipped ʕ, which is a pharyngeal approximant as I was trying to convey with the edit. Pulleyblank also names 影 as ʔ.
Also would be happy to provide images and documentation of any of this.
p.s. sorry for the poor grammar and again for not really understanding where to discuss this! If you hav a better place to discuss it I'd be happy to do that instead
Kitgen ( talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's no problem, I have done the same thing a dozen times. Indicating it as a zero initial would probably be fine--I was mostly worried about the implication that 喻 was a voiceless epiglottal trill. Though keeping it in the laryngeal approximant part of the table is also good since people can work out generally what sound it is from that. Kitgen ( talk) 19:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you reversed my revert, and I wanted to have a discussion before this falls into edit war territory.
The usage of the moniker 'Great' is not synonymous with only the Tang Dynasty, but also a number of other Chinese dynasties, including the Ming, and Qing along with the Yuan. All of these are known by their common names: no one refers to the Empire of the Great Ming as such.
However, these were the official names designated by the dynasty, not just a mere moniker. In this case, the guideline is not to eliminate them for ease of reading by English reader, which may be the case elsewhere, as it is thereby an omission of historical fact.
Therefore, there are two grounds on which the epithet would remain, aforementioned above, and also maintain synchronicity with the other pages who also have the dynastic epithets in their introduction paragraphs.
Sleath56 ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello I am WEIjukainen I notice that you undid my edit on "standard mandarin", the standard mandarin is now the official language of china, i think that's enough, it's not neccesary listing taiwan alongside. Firstly i need to claim that taiwan is only a province of china, it's NOT a sovereign country. If you want to emphasize its current status of independence and different government in each side of taiwan strait, i suggest you use the title "people's republic of china" and "republic of china" instead of simply "china" and "taiwan" ,please. If you have some reasons i'm not quite clear, tell me please. I'm a chinese by the way, sorry for my poor engl ish. WEIjukainen ( talk) 04:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I re-edited it by the way. WEIjukainen ( talk) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty clear about current situation, that's why i suggested using "people's republic of china" and "republic of china", or more detailedly, "mainland and hainan province of People's Republic of China" and "taiwan province of Republic of China", instead of simply and ambiguously "china" and "taiwan".You should notice that the government of "Republic of China" never claimed anything suggesting taiwan a sovereign country, this is also the truth . WEIjukainen ( talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't re-edit it, i don't want to start a editing competition, but honestly i hope we can solve such point of divergence, ok? WEIjukainen ( talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
ok...got it, "taiwan" here is of geographical legions...clearly I'm still new in Wikipedia, i'm not quite clear with those "common names". For now i just want to say that such names can be easily mistaken for political reasons by newcomers, at least that why i edited it, i thought that "china" and "taiwan" there suggest that they are separate countries, but actually they're not. I still find it hard to understand why Wikipedia allows such ambiguous words exist...i 'll try to adapt it, but honestly i think these problems should be solved more properly. OK, thanks for your explanation with patience . WEIjukainen ( talk) 04:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way i find your name is quite like a...um...sinophonetisize, 看過了? WEIjukainen ( talk) 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
所以說你也是中國人? 告訴我 是 吧,我會很高興的。 自打轉到英文維基起我就沒怎麽用過漢文了。 額那個,準確的說我不算新人,我已經做了五年維基人了,只是這樣的事情我確實沒有碰到過幾次。我的興趣一直在歐洲語言和歷史、星際迷航、福爾摩斯等地方,那邊真的幾乎碰不到諸如此類的爭議。以前在別的地方聽過有關於維基上大規模編輯戰的事,當時還不相信,現在看來是真的啊...... 還是很高興認識你,我的qq是1014446204,希望有空能聊聊 。 WEIjukainen ( talk) 04:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
[2] They looked like poorly displaying first-tone on my screen. Is there something wrong with my encoding? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Try these:
Kanguole 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In your latest modification, the reference "Language contact in Nanning" is about the languages in Nanning. Is Qin-Lian Yue mentioned in it? Otherwise it might be somehow misleading. As for the mutual intelligibility, I prefer to call it partly mutually intelligible, because most urban variety speakers find rural varieties confusing sometimes (and understandable other times )but the intelligibility usually goes up as the conversation continues, due to the similar pronunciation and common words. (Actually I met no difficulty when I traveled in Lianzhou without Mandarin) BeBoy Talk 04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
As I read the p162 on the reference, I found nothing that points out the mutual intelligibility directly. Have I missed it?
You recently participated in a move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Tungning. I have made another proposal based on that discussion here if you would like to weigh in. — AjaxSmack 14:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hokkien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhyme book. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with repeating the country's name in the page headings, many wikipedia pages of the histories of other countries repeated their headings as well such as Libya and Italy, and mind you I have not edited any of those wikipages. I have actually considered your suggestions, I have even changed a few headings to your desired such as the heading Prehistoric Taiwan to Prehistoric Period and Dutch and SPanish Taiwan to Dutch and SPanish Settlements, in fact I also previously accepted many of your changes to my edits regarding the japanese occupation subheading which I accepted. I hope you would also same as I have, reconsider my suggestions and hopefully accept all if not at least some of them, thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyducklips ( talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious then: what classification do the Qin and Han era Chinese languages fall under, then? We have ample evidence for their languages, don't we? I'm thinking about the dictionary of different dialects, the Fangyan, written by Yang Xiong (author) by the early 1st century AD. There's also the Shuowen Jiezi dictionary of the 2nd century AD. Before each of these was the Erya, a dictionary and encyclopedia of the 3rd century BC. So Karlgren, Pulleyblank, and other sinologists weren't able to classify the Qin and Han era languages, even with all of this evidence at their disposal? Pericles of Athens Talk 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, I'd scrolled down and only seen centuries, not counties. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I have posted on the talk page of article Yuezhi some arguments why I think that Yuezhi are the same people as Massagetae and my opinion that this information should be on the article. Can you review them and what is your opinion? Thank you.
-- Sabir Hun ( talk) 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, regarding the use of {{
infobox Chinese}}
on Chinese language articles, it has been established by administrators that the common native names of languages be placed only at the top of their respective infoboxes. Detailed native pronunciations and less common names (if any) are to be placed into separate infoboxes below the main language infobox such as in
Chinese language. This actually makes the language infobox itself neater and less redundant. Examples for other non-Romanized languages include
Japanese language and
Thai language, where the native pronunciations are kept at the top and mentioned in the article. I do not object to you adding more detailed information on the Chinese varieties' native pronunciations or alternative names, but it will be much clearer if the standard language infobox format is retained. --
Moalli (
talk)
00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
infobox language}}
– arcane history of no relevance to the issue of embedding. Is there a discussion that is relevant?
Kanguole
02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
infobox Chinese}}
can be done. --
Moalli (
talk)
05:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
if}}
(now replaced by #if) and {{
infobox language/familycolor}}
(still used) from the code of {{
infobox language}}
– it is irrelevant to embedding. You've pointed to where |nativename=
was proposed, but that also says nothing about this issue. You are reverting to enforce your preference.
Kanguole
14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Hello, Kanguole. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know that I declined the A7 on Adesh Katariya since 1) there's at least a credible claim of significance, and 2) the article has been A7'd so much that it would be nice to get a deletion discussion done so it can be G4'd in the future. Considering that second point, I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adesh Katariya, where you may comment if you so choose. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Further reading or not, that is a predatory open access journal, it's essentially vanity publishing and is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. Guy ( Help!) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Since Taipei was considered the provisional capital of the Republic of China in December 1949, Nanjing was still the capital of the ROC even though they lost the Mainland before the ROC loses that claim in 1991. Taiwan at the time was still Japanese territory (by international law) even though their ruled ended in 1945 before Japan renounced Taiwan in 1952, making the ROC government in exile. Recently, the PRC wanted to take Taiwan by force due to the Trump-Tsai call. I don't know if Taipei is been permanent, but Chiang Kai-shek said Taipei has been a provisional capital of "Nationalist" China if the Kuomintang takes back the Mainland from the Communists. 135.23.144.167 ( talk) 01:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, have you seen the article " original sin on the island paradise? Qing Taiwan's colonial history in comparative perspective"
I think it's a great article, giving insights into how we always conceptualize colonialism as a quintessentially Western practice.
It also discusses in great length about how there's absolute no reason to not characterize Chinese rule as a colonial rule.
In Taiwan, we all too often only regards Japanese rule as a colonial period.
The word choice is paramount in subverting the propaganda the KMT is trying to impose, as well as to reconcile with Aboriginal Taiwanese.
To remove such words would be as damaging as removing such words from, say, Australian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs ( talk) 04:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you changed the link to google books to an ISBN code. When I click on the ISBN number I am not redirected to the book. I might be misunderstanding something, but isn't it better to have a direct link? BangkokBeauty ( talk) 14:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't seem to understand your edit here. Topic ban only includes India-related articles doesn't it? Filpro ( talk) 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing ( talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's ok I was saying Hi to the IP vandal haha.---- 損齋 ( talk) 16:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Flag of the Republic of China—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Wrestlingring ( talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
When you say most number of people you should not consider whether it's in majority. The Immortal Excalibur ( talk) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Politics of the Republic of China has been nominated for merging with Template:Politics of Taiwan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wrestlingring ( talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks- the area is a mine field- I do a further check. If true that will be a good thing.-- ClemRutter ( talk) 14:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kanguole, I just came across a statement to me does not match the citation given, and where your knowledge could be very helpful. Please see Talk:Classical Chinese#Example for 人 and 年 does not match source. — Sebastian 10:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kanguole. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
You recently reverted the change that I made on the page " /info/en/?search=Chinese_characters". If you take a look at the Wiktionary page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A5%BD#Glyph_origin you will see that I am not incorrect, and (unbeknownst to me) there are multiple interpretations of the character 好 that are in debate, including the one I posted:
"However, broader interpretations of the second character 子 could lead to other theories. 子 could also mean "son", so it may have meant two children, a boy and a girl next to each other, which is a good fortune to have a boy and a girl. 子 could also mean "man", so it may have referred to the love between a man and a woman, which is good. Duan Yucai, in his annotated version of Shuowen, interpreted it as originally referring to the beauty of 女子 (nǚzǐ, “woman”). Lastly, it could mean that the "attitude" of a girl was considered good."
additionally, a quick google translate will find that 女 also can be used to mean "daughter", just as "子" can also be used to mean "son".
From this Wiktionary page I cite I understand your reaction to maintain the original translation, but whith this new context I think that it is most reasonable to either post both translations, or post only one and place a note and link to this wiktionary page noting the differing interpretations.
Pjbeierle ( talk) 18:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) ( talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Good morning! Regarding your edit, while in principle I'm willing to accept that pinpointing by century may be too precise, I wonder how this matches with the article text of Xia dynasty which pretends to be accurate by decade? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tribal Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribal Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE ( talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your improved Tocharian languages map, Kanguole! Your version is clearly better than mine. :) Y-barton ( talk) 07:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bai language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonym ( 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) 09:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
On your reversion of Tocharian image, why did you claim this is non-Tocharian? Any insights to repute the opinions of Hermitage Museum historians? Sgnpkd ( talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sino-Tibetan languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burmese and Irrawaddy ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
of this edit? Doug Weller talk 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
See my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No response, why not start a wp:RfC? Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 18:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out a new relevant publication for this article that you have contributed to. Some of the conclusions are different from those of Beckwith or Coblin.
Tibetologist ( talk) 11:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Kanguole. Thank you for adding page numbers to the "references" section of the Peiligang culture article. Since you have access to these resources, would you please provide the necessary in-line citations as well, so that we may remove the {{ no footnotes}} template? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 22:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Our paths crossed after I spotted a possible copyvio on Harrow School. My reading of WP:DCV lead me to tag the talk page rather than the article page. Can you confirm that I was wrong or should I ask at the Teahouse? I have never known what should happen next. Should an admin be automatically alerted, come along and delete the copyvio from history? SovalValtos ( talk) 11:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
copypaste}}
. In this case, the copying is clear, and even if the original book is out of copyright, it is at least
WP:PLAGIARISM, and the BHO site asks that people not copy more than a few lines.
[8] So reverting the addition is appropriate. Asking for an admin to delete it from the history is done with {{
copyvio-revdel}}
, but I'm not sure this is a clearcut copyvio, as required for that.
Kanguole
14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Category:Districts of Hertfordshire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 12:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Scriptions. Matthew_hk t c 14:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)