User talk:CWH/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:CWH. 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.

The Wikipedia entry for May You Live in Interesting Times has been updated. It now incorporates some of the information from the discussion page as you suggested. Garson (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I hit save before removing the dates from the infobox, thanks for finding it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you peek at Annie Lee Moss and see what you think about the reference controversy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Its ok, its the only way to learn. See you at the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're making POV changes without discussing them first. We have things like sandboxes for a reason - or are you quite happy if I just start undoing your changes also without discussion first? John Smith's (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not all POV, but talking about "heroism" is somewhat irrelevant (as well as POV in my view) as that isn't challenged by the authors. The point I was making was more that you were making a lot of changes and then discussing it on the talk page - I would have preferred it if you had done it the other way around.

At some point I will make some changes myself. It will be a partial reversion in that not everything will be kept. However I will not make a universal revert and will keep some changes. Then I hope we can work from that new version as a starting-point if you want to make other edits. That might sound slightly selfish, but please understand it is merely to find some middle-ground to start from. Thanks, again, for your interest in the article. John Smith's (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your disambiguating edit on Rewi Alley. With regard to your comment in the edit summary, to make the link text appear different from the linked target, you use a piped link thus: [[target|linktext]]. And to make your life even easier, the wiki software offers a shorthand if the target contains a comma or parentheses: [[George Hogg (adventurer)|]] (note the pipe character before the closing square brackets) becomes George Hogg when trh page is saved, and [[Hamilton, New Zealand|]] becomes Hamilton. This is known as a "pipe trick". The final pipe trick is that you can link to a singular article with a plural text by typing [[donut]]s which results in donuts. dramatic (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page before you do any more revert on Boxer Rebellion.Arilang1234 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think my editions are not up to scratch, you are always welcome to talk about it on the talk page until we come to some sort of consensus, what you have done is rude, to say the least.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if your edit of Joseph Needham represents the best choice from amongst a number of options? You were correct to notice that something didn't look right; and indeed, I was a bit unhappy with what you encountered. The problem is that so much information needs to be presented in the introductory paragraph; and I'm persuaded that the British post-nominals probably need to come before the Chinese name by which this international scholar is well known .... For now, I'm not sure how to resolve this minor conflict. The best I can do for now is to raise a red flag, encouraging you to keep your eye on this article and others like it, e.g.,

• Immanuel C.Y. Hsu -- illustrates your preference?
• John K. Fairbank -- illustrates my preference?

If I we are both correct, there still needs to be some kind of consensus about which is the better of two entirely "correct" ways to handle this. A useful model may be

• Ernest Mason Satow -- possibly a better model for Needham article?

If there is a better model that Satow, I suppose we'll discover it together in due course. --Tenmei (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the discussion page you wrote "has misleading material about the original rebellious nature of the group". Could you suggest some changes?--Editor2020 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No one responded to my posting of the mergeto tag, so I've done the redirect. Thanks for your patience.--Editor2020 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As an OTRS representative, I have helped Paul Hooper leave a lengthy commentary on talk:Institute of Pacific Relations; he is looking forward to seeing contributors' responses. DS (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go back and read the response. DS (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What links did I remove that had been there a long-time? I thought you said they had been duplicated. As for the others, sorry I wasn't paying attention. But I don't see how Bush recommending a book is relevant to reactions that are mostly academic (in that section).

I'm not sure what adding a throw-away reference to a book adds to the article. It's almost like marketing. John Smith's (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not sure that it is ok for you to revert. If you don't agree with me then please start up a discussion on the talk page and we'll take it from there. John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For you comments on Salt Monopoly on Song Dynasty. I think is good topic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.32.186 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first chief concern here should not be adding content or creating new articles, but gathering a list of credible sources that someone (maybe me) will gather, read, and research in order to take notes and then write a comprehensive paragraph or two in Economy of the Song Dynasty which summarizes all the material. This is the most scholarly and professional approach, while at the same time takes into consideration the article's existing size and size constraints (see WP:SIZE). I checked my university library catalogue and found nothing useful in regards to Song-era monopolized industries, let alone salt. I checked journal articles at JSTOR, and although that database seems to have some decent sources on Ming and Qing era salt production and administration, there are no articles which specifically tackle the Song-era salt industry.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, I'm still busy with creating and rewriting Han Dynasty articles at the moment (check the main links on the left for history, society and culture, science and technology, economy, and government, the latter of which I am working out in my sandbox, but three of them are already GA level articles):

Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine; I'll take a look at the finished product once you are done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "Civilisation" is the correct British spelling and the sources should reflect this. However, as for the Needham volumes which you think are pirated, those are books that were given to me as a Christmas present a few years ago, purchased on Amazon.com. Their copyright page says:

This edition of Science and Civilization in China is published by arrangement with Cambridge University Press. Licensed for sale in Taiwan only. Not for export...First Printing, April 1986...Published by Caves Books, Ltd. 103, Chungshan N. Rd., Sec. 2, Taipei. Tel: 5414754, 5371666.

On this edition I'm looking at (Volume 4, Part 2), it also gives the ISBN 0521058031 and Library of Congress Catalogue Number 54-4723.

Is this truly a pirated version of the text? If so, I feel dirty! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Don't worry; no matter is too small to bring up. Especially when it is a matter of properly citing sources. As for using "Cambridge University Press" instead, the book I have dually cites Cambridge University Press alongside Caves Books Ltd., but wouldn't it be dishonest of me if I cited my source as the Cambridge-only edition, and not the 1986 Caves Books volume which I'm actually using? I don't think it should matter too much, but that is something to consider.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't taken a look already, you should see what I did to the main Han Dynasty page. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CWH. Having seen your name on the Joseph Needham article, I thought you might be a good editor to ask for an opinion. Could you take a look at East West dichotomy? I ran across it on new page patrol. Despite the long reading list, it appeared to me to be entirely based on Thorsten J. Pattberg (a bio that also was just created) and was a weak attempt to provide notability for Pattberg. However, I am not familiar with the subject matter. Is there anything of actual substance in this article? Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate your help. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and found several unreferenced statements which need addressing. Details at Talk:Dixie Mission/GA1. The reassessment is on hold for seven days after which it may be delisted if it does not meet the GA criteria. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion was appreciated. I have begun to follow through by creating the following:

• Japanese missions to Tang China
• Taihō (era)
• Japanese missions to Ming China

In due course, I will ensure that the data does metastasize. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have worked on the article mostly in order to learn about the topic myself. I knew about the cemetery in Noyelles-sur-Mer and found an interesting article of the RASHKB, so I decided to go ahead with the article expansion. At this point, I am not planning to do much more work on it, so if you feel like expanding the article, please go ahead. There is a lot of material in this article that can be used. Also, the Corps were recruited by the British, but there was another large group recruited by the French. I have virtually no detail about this second group, but if you have information in French that you would like to use but cannot really read, I can help with that. Cheers! olivier (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the Wittfogel article. I am not happy with my sentences about the Asiatic Mode, but cannot do much about it right now, I think I have pretty much used up the resources at hand and I really want to read Ulmen's biography next. There is some interesting (but minor) stuff online, Joachim Radkau's book Natur und Macht (on google books) has 1 interesting note about Rudi Dutschke and Lawrence Krader. There are also important essays on the web: A reader on the Asiatic Mode by Anne Bailey and others is on google books with a lot of essays. I like the Wolfram Eberhard best, but there also is a Lawrence Krader piece and more. Vidal-Naquet's very fair Annals review is also available online. --Radh (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi CWH. If you've got the time your views would be welcome on the talk page for this article. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look and give some advice, thanks. User:Arilang1234/Comparison between written English and written Chinese Draft Arilang ^talk 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at Talk:Boxer Rebellion if you are still interested in that subject. Arilang ^talk 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

you can remove all the nianhua images in the Kansu Braves section in the Boxer Rebellion article, i was the one who added then, and i will not object to their removal.Дунгане (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The following paragraph was also added by me to the kansu braves section, and you may also remove it, since it is exclusviely sourced from nianhua, unlike the other material i added.

"Dong Fuxiang's Muslim forces defeated the Westerners led by Seymour on August 1 outside of Tianjin at the Battle of Beicang. They bombarded the city and mined a Russian paddle steamer at the Battle of Shanhaiguan (1900), inflicting many casualties. At Shanhaiguan the Chinese Muslims also torpedoed Russian ships with torpedoes"Дунгане (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to raise some concerns here. User Arilang1234 keeps trying to delete referenced material of Prof Mobo Gao (from Uni of South Australia) in the Great Leap Forward article. He claims that Prof Gao's material are fringe because of two "negative" reviews he found, which several other users noted that it's not the case [1]. I've also noted that Prof Gao has been found to be reliable in a previous decision in the Reliable Source noticeboard [2].--59.167.141.97 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice work on the First Opium War lead. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on the talk page on anything you have a view on, especially how to deal with atrocities. As for the article title, we should go with what is the most common usage in English. You could always open a formal page move request and seek outside views. But I have a feeling that it will stay with "Boxer Rebellion" as that's by far the most common reference. John Smith's (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol and your comment is highly appreciated. Arilang ^talk 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your valued suggestions on ways to improve the translation:1900 National Upheaval 庚子國變記 (李希聖), thanks. Arilang ^talk 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

do you mind telling me whats wrong with this primary source?

the author of the passage viewed things that no modern author can ever do without a time machine. a direct copy and paste of a passage onto the Imperial Examination article would not violate policy, as long as it is indicated where it came from.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi DÜNGÁNÈ:

Good to hear from you after seeing all your good work on a number of pages. We have a lot of interests in common, so I am happy to explain myself. I apologize for being picky, but many of our articles are filled with sloppy sourcing. This is not an extreme example, but I think it should be avoided.

The problem is precisely that this is Wikipedia:No_Original_Research#primary source, which Wikipedia policy discourages for very good reason. One is that Wikipolicy calls for Verifiability, not Truth. Next, it is difficult to tell when something from the time of the event is actually based on whether the author "viewed things" which no modern author could see, whether they made it up, whether they misunderstood what they saw, or whether they later changed their minds. Using their testimony would be like using the testimony of only one witness in a trial without cross examination and without further documentary or circumstantial evidence. Later scholars have several advantages which compensate for the fact that they were not there. They can read the testimony of conflicting witnesses, use sources (such as documents and archives) which the eyewitnesses did not have access to, and must submit their findings to the judgments of other scholars who have experience in the field. It is true that later scholars have their own points of view, but they have to convince readers who do not share it.

In this case, Andrew Sibbald, who is not further identified, does not claim to have "viewed things," and he does not cite any sources, but he probably used an article by SW Williams on the Chinese army in Chinese Repository. Using Williams' Middle Kingdom is barely acceptable, but he is a respected scholar who used Chinese sources. In any case, there are better documented works and we need to find and use them, as you have so often done.

Since your question applies to many of the suggestions and edits I have made recently, would you mind if I posted it on other pages (without your name, if you so wish)?

ch (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

post it without my name. Regarding the Royal Asiatic Society's works, some of the information in there is translation from old Chinese texts, or old historical accounts, the modern professor of asian history, Shih-shan Henry tsai, who wrote "The eunuchs in the Ming dynasty", included the same information as one of the Royal Asiatic Society's publications

this and this are the exact same incident. the Royal Asiatic Society's version was even more detailed.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If the information is the same, then Wikipolicy is to use the secondary source. Again, the policy is not Truth but Verifiability. An older source will sometimes be perfectly true, but the ordinary reader has no way of knowing whether it is or not. A monograph by a respected and reviewed scholar such as Prof. Tsai has a higher percentage chance and is less subject to question. If the Royal Asiatic Society translation has better details, then I agree that you are right to use them because the actual source is the original document. But the citation should list the original document and the translator, eg "Qing Annals" Book 1 Chapter 1, translated by George Smith, Royal Asiatic Society (1884) pp. 1-2. ch (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that treating primary sources like secondary sources is a mistake when editing, what I am talking about is copying and pasting passages in narrative blockquote format and saying, the following passage comes from XXX primary source: ".......".DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to get nominated as admin?DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to indicate acceptance of the nomination here. Just type "i accept this nomination" or something like that under the paragraph where i gave my reason for nominating you.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

THanks -- sorry -- I didn't read the fine print! ch (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You may want to reconsider the RfA. Statistics have shown that in the past 2.5 years, only one editor has passed with less than 3000 edits and many editors will oppose simply on that basis. Also, "not reading the fine print" isn't something that's a good trait for an admin ;) - That's not to say that you'll never be an admin, but I have a feeling that now may not be the best time. Have a read of some useful advice and a lot of stats. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

		The PRC Barnstar
		To CWH, for China-related articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to CWH by Axl ¤ [Talk] on 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, CWH. I don't think that you have the experience and motivation to be an administrator. However you are a good editor and you deserve a barnstar. Best wishes, Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hi there. Don't be disheartened by what happened. The people opposing your RfA think that you're good at what you do, and that you should keep doing it, however they don't believe that you're ready for Adminship, which is very different from writing articles. Wikipedia needs and values article contributors, so keep up the good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Acutally I'm the one who is getting chagrined, my nomination statement should have been better wordered.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing in your RfA right now, I'd like to suggest you withdraw the request. The number of statements in opposition, and the common theme of their positions, appear to outweigh those in support, and I do not foresee a successful outcome. Please don't let it dishearten you, though; some administrators have made as many as four or five separate attempts before being "handed the mop". Review the comments being made, bolster your knowledge and skills, and give it another try in three or four months. It's the same thing I'm having to do! Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to leave a note here. I closed your RFA per WP:SNOW. Please don't let this discourage you from editting, but the discussion had taken a turn for the worst and there is only so much criticism any of us can take. I see you are a very good editor with a lot of support and I think you'd make a great admin someday but just not today. I think if you participate in more administrative areas of Wikipedia and maintain your activity that someday you may have a successful RFA. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help coach you in a few admin areas such as WP:CSD, WP:UAA or WP:AFD. Good luck.--v/r - TP 02:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

somethings may be mispelled on Boxer articles. Due to some odd spelling by western sources of the Peiho river (which should be Pai ho river in Wade Giles), I mistook it for Beihe in pinyin.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about my edits on the Boxer article. I'll continue to poke at the article now and then, but the overall redraft you've undertaken was essential. One thing that we might take up at some point is the transliteration of Chinese. Right now some articles relating to the Boxer Rebellion use pinyin and some use the old Wade Giles system. Should we strive to use only one or the other? Is there a wikipedia policy on this? Cheers. Smallchief (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Monguor people? A User has raised concerns over what may be imagined connections with various ancient ethnic groups.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a fascinating page -- lots of solid material -- but it does seem too long and complicated for most readers. I looked at the History of the article, and it appears that a number of people contributed to it, so I don't think that's a problem. I imagine that there are more contributors than potential readers, since only two or three people in the world might know the topic enough to search for it. Maybe the title should be changed to make it more clear to the general reader, and adding links to other articles. I'm also not knowledgable enough to evaluate the use of the sources. Is it important to you? If so, I'll try to check some of the references to see if they are accurate and balanced. I'll put a comment on the Discussion page. Cheers. ch (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I really appreciate your work, but I'm actually kind of against adding section about "Reception and influences" to it, for various reasons. First, the novel's status and enormous influence in China is very hard to convey in terms of Western text, so the section I'm afraid would read very trivialized and kind of all over the place, and almost "sensationalized" and "gossipy". Second, I'm oppose to list pop culture related stuff (albums, tv series) to this, as there are too many to note. But, great work nonetheless! I edited and modified the new content quite a bit, correcting grammatical mistakes and make sure the prose reads smoothly and the clean-up on the appearance of the paragraphs.--Sevilledade (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I will start the article as a stub the next time I edit. I was doing the article from memory, from sources I read a long time ago, and trying to look up the sources now, I will have to fill in the blanks later.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back! An important topic, too. Would it be possible to sort through the various articles on Russia (and the Soviet Union) in East Asia and coordinate them? Maybe make sure that the main article on Outline of Russia and the Timeline of Russian history have links? It's a fascinating story and one that I'm not qualified to work on. ch (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you have has shown some recent interest in the article. I wonder if you'd participate in coming up with a kind of laundry list of things to be done to bring it up to FL? Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alcmaeonid -- Thanks for asking. I'm interested in HM but I don't rank as a specialist. I lived for some years with an HM fan so I absorbed some knowledge (I also have a number of the NU-Newberry volumes). My view is really just that of a general reader who would like to see useful information without extensive random detail that turns people off, but with links and references for people who want more. So far I think you've done a great job of expanding on the list from WL PInder and Associates (the link is at the bottom of the page). I like the way you've set up the table, which makes the information a lot more accessible. But we should correct the listing of Typee and Omoo as "novels" and maybe figure out a better way of listing the stuff under the headings below the table. The classification from Pinder is not too reliable. Your info on the publication history seems interesting and well done to me, so maybe more of the same for other works? My feeling would also be that this article should not duplicate from the main HM article but instead put your good thoughts there, with links to them here on the bibliography page. But I would imagine that the background on his poetry writing should go there. Another project for somebody would be to deal with the translations, at least in a general way. A lot of them appear on WorldCat. Cheers. ch (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear CWH. I just submitted a proposal to un-capitalize "dynasty" in the titles of all wikis on Chinese dynasties (Han Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, and the like). I don't know whether you will agree, but I (and, I'm sure, other editors who are interested in China pages) would be interested to know what you think of this issue. Thank you!

On a different note, I recently noticed that User:Keahapana is a retired scholar who edits articles on ancient China (Huang-Lao, for example, is his or her creation). I don't know if he/she attends AAS meetings, but he/she might be a good person to contact about your initiative to encourage China scholars to edit Wikipedia. Just a thought! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi CWH. I'm contacting all the editors who have commented on whether we should un-capitalize "dynasty" in wiki titles. I have just proposed a new and simple way to make a final decision on this issue. Could you go to this new section to say whether you support my proposal? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting! Madalibi (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Charles Bowra. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The redlinks are because I have moved it into mainspace. DS (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:CWH/The Immobile Empire has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Immobile Empire, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

\The Immobile Empire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

user Arash Shah has added fake information to the Ma Fuxiang, Ma Hongkui, Ma Hongbin, Ma Bufang, Ma Qi, Ma Zhongying, Yihewani, and Ma Clique articles.

He has been switching the ethnicities from Hui on Ma Fuxiang and his family members to Dongxiang people without any source, and the ethnicities of Ma Bufang's family from hui to Salar people. He has also added racist material against Dongxiang and salar on the Dungan people article, accusing them of pretending to be Hui, but somebody, thank god, reverted his edits.

This guy is basically switching the ethnicity of anyone he considers to be unpleasant from his own (hui people) to other muslim groups in China (dongxiang and salar).

He also keeps on deleting the word "arab", and replacing it with "religious", and writes everywhere that Hui people originate from "persians, turkish, and jewish origin", but leaves out arab. He then suggested that the muslim brotherhood (terrorist organization) was responsible for replacing persian with arabic in hui communities in China.

On the Yihewani article, he falsely claimed that this religious organization in China is linked to the middle eastern Muslim Brotherhood just becasue they have the same name in Arabic. They are not related at all. The Yihewani was a religious movement founded in China in the 1800s by Ma Wanfu, the Middle eastern muslim brotherhood is an organization founded in 1928 by Hassan Al-banna, an Arab. Linking them is extremely libellious, considering that the muslim brotherhood is considered a terrorist group in countries like Syria, while the Yihewani was supported by the Kuomintang, he is suggesting that the KMT is a terrorist supporter.

Can you just do a blanked Revert on all of his edits on these articles?

He is basically adding racist stuff against Arabs, Dongxiang, Salar, Han chinese, while glorifying persian, jews, and uighurs.Blseki (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.26 (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

lol cheez! Joephillip (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it is simply a matter of preference over how it is presented. Guanhua is the native name for it while Mandarin is the English name, however, it may sometimes also refer to Standard Chinese instead. I think for the template, which describes the entity of a state, Guanhua is perhaps more suitable. Thanks.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify first hand, I am not being racist or have anything against you per se. The link you posted me was a Chinese website and I cannot make head or tail about it. I assume when you put a traditional name against a person's English name, like the Mandarin name you put against Andrew's name, it points out that either he is Chinese or has Chinese lineage or intensive Chinese connections. But in this case he is only a scholar in Chinese matters. Supposedly if I translate your name in Arabic and put against your or my name, a reader may assume you or me as an Arab or have some Arab lineage which is totally wrong. Hence I wanted to stop people from getting the wrong impression. If I go to Jackie Chan's webpage and put his name's translation in French what thought would cross your mind first, when you visit the page. And I questioned the fact that Andrew has a Chinese name, but I checked from Google there wasn't any where where the fact could be corroborated, hence I removed it. If you can post a link where this could be verified, you can go ahead and revert my changes. The Chinese translation is there, but does Andrew use a Chinese name, that is the point.

Pranabnaik (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph in violation of synthesis and original research over here.

Can you explain to User:ServicableVillian over here at Talk:Taiwanese_aborigines#Cannibalism the original research policy on primary sources? He seems to think that since he likes what a primary source says, it can be used in any manner. He also doesn't comprehend synthesis after I showed him a link to the policy. He still thinks its okay to use primary sources like secondary sources. The paragraph I deleted also contained information not even found in the primary sources, saying that the Qing were oppresive, and comparison by the editor between two primary sources.Rajmaan (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In your recent changes to the lede of the article, most of which I consider an improvement, you removed text I had just inserted saying that the term is a literal translation from Chinese. I think that is essential information for understanding the way the term is used and should be re-inserted either in the lede or in the ""overview" section. However, I do not want to start an edit war and I am not certain I know why you deleted it, so I am asking here instead. Pashley (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion, Pashley. It's good that we are giving attention to this important article, but there is more to be done in focusing and clarifying on the basis of the references. Wang Dong is the key reference for China, since she has done the spadework and thought most carefully about the question. Although I may have missed it in a quick search, I don't see that she gives the origin of the English language term as such, though she does give a number of similar terms in 19th century usage. So though your supposition that it was translated from Chinese (whether "literally" or not) seems entirely reasonable, I'd be hesitant to state baldly where the term came from in the absence of a reference. It could well have come into Chinese from the Japanese, for instance, from a common source. So could we let it ride, pending a specific reference?

BTW, Wang also comments that most treaties are unequal, that the phrase lacks a "clear and unambiguous meaning," and that there is no agreement as to how many "unequal treaties" there were. (Introduction). I'd be happy for you to add comments along these lines if you have time. ch (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up and adding citations. LK (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, LK! I took a look at your User Page and am much impressed with your work -- the Barnstar means a lot coming from an editor like you. ch (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have motioned to merge Opium Wars into First Opium War with the posting Talk:First Opium War#Merge discussion. I picked out your name in the existing Talk:Opium Wars#Disambiguation page thread, which I believe this was a merge discussion in substance already underway, even though it was couched in terms of a "dab page". I noticed that you contributed substantial pieces of the article as well, so I'd like you can weigh in on this, and hopefully with consensus reached, I or someone else can perform the merger. Thx. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Photography in China needs your attentention. I wrote something at the talk page for you and others refference. Have a nice day anyway112.118.204.196 (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC).