User talk:虞海

Hello, 虞海! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Re Karate -- please don't move prominent pages to new titles without first discussing the change on the article talk page and getting consensus. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remind. --虞海 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 虞海, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note we do not say an article is too large - WP:MOS might be well worth a good read SatuSuro 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got it. You mean the format. Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Asia topic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well，I've already expressed my point in the comment of the edit and again here. I think I should keep this state until he reply me. --虞海 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the edit war and three-revert rule. I support stoping edit war but I keep against stoping three-revert rule (Personally). But what if I replied sb but he/her doesn't reply me? Should I edit the corresponding article as if he/her has agreed with me? --虞海 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you to decide whether to edit a page or not. However, you are not entitled to keep an article in a certain state, whether you are waiting for a reply or not, because you do not own it. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how to solve a problem like one side keeping silence? I mean, maybe not for this time, for the future. --虞海 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why they can delete my image within only 8 days that I didn't my watchlist? Evidence here. --虞海 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know I do not own Wikipedia, but Wikipedia belongs to everyone, and everyone has rights to edit it.

You might not agree "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", but you must agree everyone has rights to edit Wikipedia. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the deletion policy for details of why pages might be deleted. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your other concerns. Please try posting at the administrator noticeboard if you have an issue that any admin could resolve. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Shuǐshū, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuǐshū. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Mark Chovain 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been improved. And the first deletion request was denied. Why do you requested it again? --虞海 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chovain replied me here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India

There was an alert for speedy deletion here. And it's with a personal attack accuse. However, later the author deleted it and admit:

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some remains undone in User:虞海/Sandbox/Talk:Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DLX Linux, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've offered references, why it's still under the shadow of WP:N? By the way, I think you should mark it as Template:Notability not Template:AfD. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, third party media references are needed. The article shows that the subject exists, now it needs to show why it is notable. Take a look at WP:NOTABILITY to see the kind of sources that are good for this. Also see WP:PROD for a brief explanation of how PROD works. Basically, if no one removes the template after five days it is deleted. Anyone can remove the PROD, at which point to be deleted the article must be nominated for WP:AFD. Anyone (including you) can remove the prod template, although you should explain why you are doing so and try to address the concerns One other note: I believe there is a rule requiring that usernames use only Roman characters. I'm not sure the exact policy, but I'll see if I can find it for you. You should be allowed to change your name, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:USERNAME#Non-Latin_usernames is the relevant guideline on usernames. I was wrong, you CAN use non-Roman usernames, but this does make it very difficult for other Wikipedians to read, and causes problems with browsers, so it might be good to get it changed anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. Thanks! BTW, Could your browser show Pinyin characters (ú, ǎ, etc.)? And are AfD and PROD the same? I didn't remember you told me not to use Non-Latin usernames. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually can see the Chinese characters, and the Pinyin, but some browsers will have trouble displaying them. AFD and PROD are not the same, see WP:AFD and WP:PROD for a full explanation. Essentially, the difference is that with PROD, if no one removes the PROD tag after five days, the article is deleted. With AFD, there is a discussion and the communityt forms a consensus on whether to keep or delete. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kham, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not generally a good idea to rename an article without moving it. You might want to suggest a move, or if you have good enough sources that you don't think anyone would challenge you, just move the article. But even if you do, we should keep alternate names. kwami (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. -JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete content as you did at Ordos people; if you think that the redirect is inappropriate ask that it be deleted by adding the template: {{rfd}} and following the directions that appear. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving pages, I suggest that you should put the move up for discussion. That will avert situations where your moves are summarily reverted. It will also help people understand why you are making these moves. For instance, you have been moving the names of ethnic groups to "xxx people". Are these moves based on Wikipedia policy? Or are they simply based on your own personal preferences? It would be very useful if you could explain what you are doing.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I once wrote Lepchas, and it was changed to Lepcha people so that I know speaking "xxx people" is English habit. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the article because I think this is a more common name. Maybe Γada meiren would be even more common, but apparently such gammas are not very popular on WP. I also removed your link to the Chinese article on the Duguilang movement because I think linking to foreign-language WP articles is so helpful for users of English WP. If you can wait some days, I might come up with a properly sourced article on that topic myself (but don't count too much on it). Regards, Yaan (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. In fact, I'm about to do it too, but I don't know how to transcript it from Mongolian. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make controversial moves without a discussion in the talk page of the articles. The new titles that you have used are not widely used and the way that you have moved the pages, makes it harder to to revert it. Alefbe (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I looked at the discussion on talk:Pamiris in China. No matter what's the consensus there, it's not enough for a controversial move for a much more important page like Tajik people. It's like making a drastic change on the article China or it's title, based on some talk in the talk page of Tashkurgan Town. Alefbe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you tend to put large numbers of very verbose section headers into articles. In general, it's not necessary to put so many section headers. Section header titles should be brief and logically organised. Avoid empty sections. And making wikilinks from section headers could interfere with screen readers of users who are blind or have poor vision. See Wikipedia:Accessibility#Section structure for further information.

Also I have done some cleanup on Tashi delek in accordance with the above, and also to remove citations to self-published sources like Baidu Baike and blogs. These are against the policy on reliable sources and shouldn't be used as the basis for article content. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've noticed that. But how do you think it's possible that Baidu Baike is a self-published sources? Baidu Baike is a mostly pasted Encyclopedia. Articles in it are pasted from other source. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate term in this case would be "user contributed source". The material in Baidu Baike is added by many anonymous individuals, similar to Wikipedia. For the same reason, Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable reference either. --Latebird (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Menksoft Slav Mongolian Input Method Disc.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Menk Mongolian Whole-Word Input method.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the merge tags on Menksoft IMEs and Menksoft Mongolian IME had been there for weeks and you didn't consider it necessary to participate in the discussion about them. Now that I've actually merged them, you reverted me without comment. Can you please explain why there must be two articles to explain exactly the same thing? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for advertizing (see WP:COI), and that Wikipedia is not a manual. You may also want to study WP:STYLE, because the two articles are structured in a way that makes them very difficult to read and understand. And lastly, WP:SINGULAR mandates that page titles should not be in plural form. This means that your original version and your revert violate quite a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would have been perfectly fine to add the new information to the merged version. --Latebird (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't discuss it and now if you take a look at the article Menksoft you'll know why:

1. Menksoft Mongolian IME=Menksoft Mongolian IME;
2. Menksoft Mongolian IMEs=Menksoft Mongolian Input method series=Menksoft Mongolian IME+Menk Mongolian Whole-Word Input method+Menksoft Mongolian Phoneme Input Methods (Menksoft Mongolian Phoneme Input Method, Menksoft TUOTE Input Method, Menksoft Manchu Input Method, Menksoft XIBO Input Method, Menksoft Slav Mongolian Input Method and Mongolian Uyghur style Mongolian Phoneme Input Method);
3. Menksoft IMEs=Menksoft Mongolian IMEs+Menksoft Khitan small script Application system+Menksoft International Phonetic Input method.

To aviod the confuss, I moved Menksoft IMEs to Menksoft#Input method series and Menksoft Mongolian IMEs to Menksoft#Menksoft Mongolian Input method series.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, collecting all that information in one article about the company and its products is much better. So why is there still information duplicated in Menksoft Mongolian IME? As far as I can tell, there's only one or two sentences there that are not redundant, and should really be merged with the rest. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a product catalog. --Latebird (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arrangment is this: the article Menksoft offers info about the company, but there's nowhere to write products other than Menksoft Mongolian IME, so I wrote them here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not able to Wikify the article, but I think there will be somebody to do it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menksoft already includes the same (if not more) information about the product as Menksoft Mongolian IME does, so there's no good reason to have two articles. I have already tried to wikify and translate the text into proper English, but you reverted my changes. --Latebird (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have already tried to wikify and translate the text into proper English, but you reverted my changes": You mean this? I'm sorry I didn't see this, and I'll proceed to do it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done 1 2. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Menksoft already includes the same (if not more) information about the product as Menksoft Mongolian IME does, so there's no good reason to have two articles": if we move Menksoft to Menksoft Mongolian IME, where to place the whole-word IME? And if we move Menksoft Mongolian IME to Menksoft, it's hard for the reader to find the Menksoft Mongolian IME? That's like relations between Macromedia and Macromedia FreeHand. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should all be collected in Menksoft as the most general entity. Finding things mentioned in an article is no problem, that's why we have a search function. The other other titles can also stay as redirects, which makes it even easier. But the first priority right now is really to find independent sources. Are there any reports about the company and its products in software/computer magazines, in linguistic publications, or in other media? --Latebird (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has nominated Menksoft and the other related articles for deletion, because they don't document the notability of the company through reliable independent sources. You'll find the relevant discussion here. To prevent the article from being deleted, you'll have to do the following: Read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) very carefully, to make sure you understand the requirements. Then find sources that are independent of Menksoft, have a good reputation, and explain what makes it stand out from other small software companies. Of course, add those sources to the article. And lastly, since most of those sources will probably not be in English, it's probably a good idea to explain them in the deletion debate. I can't help you find those sources (not fluent enough in the relevant languages), but if you have any questions, I'll try to point you in the right direction. Good luck! --Latebird (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BabelStone is interesting that he notified you but didn't notify me. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've communicated with BabelStone about those articles before. Forgetting you was probably just an oversight, without any bad intentions. --Latebird (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very sorry, it was just an oversight. BabelStone (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so serious, sometimes I do that too. E.g. in many article Template:Merge is only a connection tag and no editors care it, and consequently I did't mention Latebird's merge tag until he merge it, and so is the former talk. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

----

The only thing made me somewhat angry is in Wikimedia Commons, people (incl. me) never notice the uploader then they nominate the uploader's medium for deletion. (I asked for an notice->so he notice me, otherwise, no one do it.)

But when you removed the license of your image (e.g.since you know there's no suitable license), you want to delete it, an robot will notify you. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain how Uyghurjin script differs from Mongolian script? You created the article using exactly the same description, so obviously the reader must think they are the same thing. The other question (assuming they are different) is whether English language sources actually make that distinction, and if "Uyghurjin script" is the term they use for it. I have strong doubts on both accounts. First, "Uyghurjin script" is a Mongolian term not common in English (actually, in this mixed language form not even common in Mongolian). I also seem to remeember that Mongolian sources use "Mongolian script", "Old script", "Uyghur script", and possibly other terms largely as synonyms. I see no reason to create a seperate article for just an early variation of the same thing. --Latebird (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghurjin script was used before 1269 Phags-pa script released. It was almost the same with Old Uyghur alphabet. The Hudum Mongolian script was used after the abolish of Phags-pa script, and looks different to Uyghurjin script. Some of them are even not fully distinguished.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very simplistic explanation. Uyghur-Mongolian was used before, during and after the introduction of Phags-pa, and there is no sharp difference between pre-Phags-pa Mongolian and post-Phags-pa Mongolian. As Mongolians became more confident in the script they had borrowed from the Uyghurs they made some modifications to letters, but this was a continual process, not a sudden leap from an old script called "Uyghurjin" to a new script called "Hudum Mongolian". Most scholars would agree that your so-called "Uyghurjin" script and the classical Mongolian script represent different stages in the evolution of the same script. Please remember that orthographic reforms do not necessarily turn Script A into Script B -- for example, in English we used to have a long s letter a couple of hundred of years ago, and a few hundred years earlier we had the letters thorn and wynn; just because we no longer use these letters in English does not mean that the modern Latin script is a different script to the one used in the 18th century.

Therer's no sharp difference between any two script, if the latter script is derived from the first. There's midbody between Oracle bone script and Seal script, between Bronze script and Seal script, between Large Seal script and Small Seal script, between Seal script and Clerical script. Will you say what I use to write Chinese is Oracle bone script? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tend to make a lot of radical and controversial edits that reflect your own personal point of view, but not necessarily that of most scholars -- that is a very un-Wiki way of editing, and causes unnecessary edit warring. In future please consider discussing controversial changes on the talk page before making them ! BabelStone (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I'm subjective when editing arts. But I don't know how to be objective in arts. Perhaps I can only be objective when study science. Thanks for your remind. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging the two articles -- please discuss at Talk:Mongolian_script#Merger_proposal. BabelStone (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently renamed, on French Wikipedia, Xian de Dawu (Sichuan) to Xian de Dau Zong. I reverted to the previous name for the following reasons:

1. I didn't find any reference for that name (the Chinese Wikipedia article, which gives Dau Zong as the tibetan transtiteration is not a reference according to Wikipedia's rules),
2. Zong is the Tibetan equivalent of the Chinese word Xian, and should not be used simultaneously.

Do you happen to know some source for Dau instead of Dawu (an official one if possible)? If so, the article might be renamed to Xian de Dau. Croquant (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Welocme to the page india. I will request you to please provide some nuteral refrence for your change--Sandeep (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Sandeepsp4u#Edits of Page India. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit wikipedia articles to make a point, as you did at India. If you disagree with the edit made at Mêdog County, discuss the issue on that article's talk page, instead of taking a tit-for-tat route. Abecedare (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Well, I'll do what you did to me to others (as you "teaches" me that "revert false and pointy disclaimer" is "right"). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend i think u had posted in wrong talk page i had done nothing on medog country article please check it properly. --Sandeep (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's my fault. I thought it's Wikipedia rules to add such information like what Croquent did. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem my friend. This type of things happens in life.--Sandeep (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I do not understand clearly your complaint about Mêdog County. Are you telling me that, when I say in the legend of the map: "this map includes a territory under indian administration as a part of Arunachal Pradesh", it's not the truth? Croquant (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll deal with this after ANI2009. Will reply tomorrow again. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the fact is, I must let Abecedare answer me the very similar case, and then I can answer you. If he can't answer me, then what you did was right and I'll and similar informations to Aksai Chin. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 虞海. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and before you go there to leave your comments, prepare a good speech that explains to the uninvolved what exactly it is you're doing or trying to do/prove. I took a look at your latest contribs. Anyone who won't get a reasonable explanation might conclude you are (or have become) obsessed. I am really curious about your rationale. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海 by User:MiszaBot II. Will reply there. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive563 is blocked, view with this link. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again! This is something I have to do before you make another mistake, please note that any improperly cited or sourced edit in article page (read these: → No original research, neutral point of view, verifiablity, citing sources and What Wikipedia is not!) are no different from edit when you do not provide a valid explanation in the edit summary. It might have been notable to add that line of yours into the article of History of Mongolia, but your explanation in that edit summary really leaves a bad taste for others to read. Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with your fellow Wikipedians, no matter how correct you maybe, stick to it like glue and you will stand on clear grounds for nobody to judge you. Thus, I'm going to provide you with a Welcome section at the top of your discussion page for you to familiarize with Wikipedia's policies. Remember, two wrongs does not make one right! --Dave1185 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on India. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dave1185 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to History of Mongolia, you will be blocked from editing. Dave1185 (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made a citation but it's not in english so we can't even verify it. In the interest of not starting an edit war, I will not revert it without consensus but in the future, I recommend you post citations in English only so that they can be verified by an independent body. Posting a Chinese citation on the English Wikipedia is a great way to start a conflict.Vedant (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the citation, sooner, but it's still in Chinese. However you'll find easy to verify it, for I'll point out the exact sentence in it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply pointing out the citation is not sufficient. Please read these guidelines for citing non-English sources on the English Wikipedia [1][2]. You MUST provide an English language translation and failure to do so would likely result in your citation being removed. Vedant (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will revert the edit, a bit too controversial to add this cite now without anyone being able to positively verify it. Although I can read and understand Chinese text, the book is not available in Singapore... so there's no way I can help verify it. For lack of a better source, we'll omit this for the time being. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hujia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Merlion  444  07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. The article is still in writing, so it's of course empty. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've moved the Shannan Prefecture article to "Lhoka Prefecture" again with no explanation on the talk page, and without changing the article to be in keeping with the new name. Nor, to my knowledge, have any other articles been changed to be in keeping with the prefecture's new name. I did specificly ask for clarification on the article last time you moved the article, and you have failed to provide any. This seems inappropriate to me. Please clarify the reason for the move on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Keithonearth (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a proposal to move the article Tajiks of Xinjiang back to it's original name Tajiks in China. Since you were involved in many of the edits of this page, you may want to leave a comment.David Straub (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's your source on the official name of Chifeng? Cheers, Yaan (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Encyclopedia of China - Geography> - Appendix: Chinese and English from Minorities' names. (1980s)--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tashi Delek.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Tashi Delek.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg's invention of movable type was by scholarly consensus a separate, independent one. Printing presses (see footnote 39), as in fact screw presses and even the screw itself were completely unknown in the Far East which only knew hand printing and which adopted Gutenberg-style printing in the 19th century (see Global spread of the printing press) so that today all movable type printing actually derives from Gutenberg's development line, not at all from that of Bi Sheng. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article DLX Linux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced to anything other than self-published sources, non-notable and not likely to be notable. Tagged for 18 months.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notify! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian)#Mongol script proposal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DtN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion and we decided the best place was Gansu. Please do not move pages like this without discussing it first.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been told before to discuss moves before you make them. This is something you've done before and should stop.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BRD is your favorite policy, as you claim on your user page, please consider following it instead of edit warring (as you started to do here). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it's an edit-war, since I puted comments before (or on) every edit I did. See User_talk:Rjanag#BRD. :) --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have "no objections", my objections remain the same as before. Your additions are poorly written, both in terms of grammar and flow. If you are not comfortable writing in English, ask another editor at the talk page to help you. Nobody at the talk page has supported your original wording or the edit you are making, they have only agreed with your general sentiment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of your edits this month are conflating different topics (e.g., matrices of polynomials and polynomials of matrices), or separating two concepts which do not need separate articles (e.g., equivalence classes (set vs. class) or Euclidian space (finite-dimensional vs. infinite-dimensional). The different topics may be due to a literal translation of the Chinese name, as the zh: interwikis you have created are clearly different concepts, as looking at the displayed formulas clearly show.

Please be more careful using mathematical concepts.

I recognize that your edits indicate confusion as to some of the concepts expressed on Wikipedia, and some of the confusion may be due to errors in the articles (but, apparently, not the ones you are editing.) I recognize that your edits are made in good faith, but they are disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for notification, I've nominated the redirect λ-matrix for deletion, nominated Equivalence class (disambiguation) for speedy deletion (as it's a disambiguation with one line), moved Finite dimensional Euclidean space back to Euclidean space (see discussion at WT:MATH#Undiscussed move of Euclidean space to Finite dimensional Euclidean space), and reverted most of your changes in regard modules and matrices of polynomials, which you read as polynomials of matrices. Please do not change these back without discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this question, since you are the only person so far to voice a dissenting opinion about the current proposed naming conventions.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, talk pages such as Wavelenght are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Excellent question for the wp:Reference desk/Science. DVdm (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But there's no reference desk for certain article in Wikipedia, and plus, it may affect the article. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your current signature is too long: as per WP:CUSTOMSIG a signature should not be over 255 characters and "signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures;". Yours is over 20 lines long. It seems to be cause by a template, and again from WP:CUSTOMSIG "The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the signature box. If substitution of templates or another page is used, please be careful to verify that you are not violating the length limit, as the software will not do this automatically." Please take steps to remedy this as it makes replying to your comments very difficult.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My raw signature is "––[[User:虞海|{{SUBST:Lang|zh|虞海}} ({{SUBST:Unicode|Yú Hǎi}})]]", which is shorter than 255 character. I want to change the rendered version, but Wikipedia does not have the technic to remove "SUBST". But ANYWAY, my current SIG is shorter than 255 and plus, WP:CUSTOMSIG is a guideline, not a policy. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see the last quote from that page. If you use subst (which you should for stability, otherwise your sig could change with the template) it is your responsibility to check that once substituted the signature is still not too long. As it clearly is too long (I can see it now as I edit this reply - it has forced my original post off the top of the edit screen) you need to find some other way to create a signature without the length problems.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way but it's not as good as the former, but ANYWAY, why is it my responsibility, did any Wikipedia policy stste that? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote again, with my emphasis:

"The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the signature box. If substitution of templates or another page is used, please be careful to verify that you are not violating the length limit, as the software will not do this automatically."

The 255 is meant to be a hard limit that the software enforces, for the convenience of other editors. Subst can bypass it, but as there should be no exceptions to that limit users the above advice is offered.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a guideline, that is, it depend on the user whether to obey. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A behavioural guideline is a guideline on how editors should behave, i.e. one that editors should respect and follow, and as with others it's not usually considered optional. I've also just noticed further guidelines further down the page at Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates, which basically says template transclusion is forbidden and substituting is "highly discouraged". It's something two different editors have noticed independently in a very short time, so is clearly a problem: I have never had reason to comment on an editor's signature before.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to and will to improve my signature, but NOT for the guideline, only for others' convience. Now it's already short enough. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SL2(R). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I did only make 2 reverts for each edit, and I'm revert vandalism so I have unlimited chance to revert in a day. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of reverts is per article, not per edit, and you have reverted both me and other editors in the last 24 hours. I just thought it best to point it out to you in case you had not noticed, as it's easy to do 3 or more reverts without realising in a situation like this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, then you did also do 3 reverts on that page. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count only 2, [3] and [4]. I try and be careful not to revert too often, taking the issue to the talk page before I do.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the third. You did 2 thing in an edit: 1. remove “'''” of R; 2. add “'''” of SL2(R). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also careful to revert: unless no reply in talk page, I seldomly revert page (except for the first revert and when the discussion place is the "edit summary" rather than the talk page). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR restricts editors to 3 reverts per day, even if JohnBlackburne did miscount. (I haven't checked his count.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I did never meant to ban him from editing. Just llike him, a warning. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, that is, when someone reach 3, rather than exceed it, we can warning someone. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Title added)––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that your knowledge of English appears to be inadequate to make significant edits in en.Wikipedia. I can generally understand you, but you seem not to be able to understand us. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify it? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, I will read the corresponding comment again. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native English speaker, and my English level might be poorer than other English Wikipedians but if notified, I'll do "read-again" job (but you need to copy the original comment here so that I know what to "read-again" more carefully). I don't think it will eventually impede me from improving Wikipedia. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(also, till now I haven't done one significant edit in English Wikipedia. if there is, it would be short.)––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've removed over two dozen articles' wikilinks to Rosetta@home. Why? Emw (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove the Rosetta@home-to-otherpage lanks, but didn't see any changes. You surprised me that the otherpages-to-Rosetta@home links are modified. Could you rollback them (but do not rollback other edits)? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with changes you have made to the Hmong language article.

First: You added a template that says "This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style." This does not apply to the article. The template references "a work of fiction". Clearly, Hmong language is not a work of fiction. It is unclear to me what you are implying with this template. I will remove it again and you can discuss it further on the talk page if you want to re-add it.

Second: You added this heading: "This article introduce the Hmong language used in the United States. For the Hmong language used in China, see Chinese version of Miao language; for Hmong language used in Southeast Asia, see corresponding version." This is incorrect. "Hmong language", as described in the article, refers only to Western Hmongic, or what Chinese linguists have referred to as Chuanqiandian (although, it is unclear if all speakers of this dialect/sub-dialect of Miao identify as "Hmong".) That is to say, the Hmong language in the article is the same one that is spoken by people who identify as Hmong in China, SE Asia, and elsewhere. There might be some confusion due to the recent trend to identify all Miao nationality people as Hmong, but this is incorrect and is discussed in detail on the Hmong people article. It is problematic that the Hmong language article only discussed White and Green Hmong, but these are the most commonly spoken dialects of Hmong. Eventually, it would be best if these dialects had their own articles, but I see no immediate problem for the article. As for your suggestion that people read articles in Mandarin and SE Asian languages for more information, this is very problematic. Do you find there is better information there that should be added to the English language article? Again, I am removing this and invite you to discuss it further on the talk page if you would like to re-add it.

A good introduction to issues about differences about the terms Miao and Hmong can be found here. Nposs (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“First:” Get it! Will change it to {{Globalize}}. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Second:” That's the issue: the article tried to introduce all Western Hmongic lects, but covers only those in United States, so it failed to introduce all Western Hmongic lects, and as a consequence I tagged it in-universal and “: This...”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Mongolian language. Since you had some involvement with the South Mongolian language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Daba script is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daba script 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Fences&Windows 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 虞海. You have new messages at JorisvS's talk page.
Message added 11:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Let us discuss your edits on Template_talk:Table_Hanzi. Asoer (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely check other sources before correcting things in the future! — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you undid some of my recent edits without explanation, namely the removal of the Tibetan template from Bhutanese cuisine and Sharchop. I have reverted your unexplained reverts. When you don't put an explanation, you actually state that you were correcting vandalism. In fact, when you undid my edit, there was text at the top of your window advising: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only" – however you left no explanation. My edits were clearly not vandalism. I removed those templates because they requested Tibetan to be added in the first line of the article whose name refers to a concept originally in Tibetan script. To those articles, I have added not only the script but the transliteration, so the template requesting script is no longer needed. Again, please put explanations for when you undo edits unless they are vandalism. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoiding adding text which is both Chinese and English, as you did here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flickr account that it was from released it under the license i put into the image, go ahead and delete it, but I did not Deliberately upload it knowing of infringement, i uploaded it because the original image on the article here violated its flickr license], which said all rights reserved.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flickr accounted violated the license and i do not own the account, i was looking for a replacement image.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your two changes with the comment "this was discussed at length in 2008 (Olympics days) - China encompasses everything Chinese, history, people and countries - "civilization" is the core orientation here". Also see the top of the talk page where people say this has been discussed so many times before.

This is one of those articles where each person has a different idea what it "should mean". China is obviously wrong. And that might be the only answer that everyone could agree about. 对不起。 ～～～～— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Chinese language appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Nlu (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your move of the Xinjiang article: it is not necessary to move articles back and forth if you want to create redirects. Just go to the page where you want the redirect to be and edit it to say

#REDIRECT [[page name]]

rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When considered a name having potential possibility of becoming article-name, I move articles back and forth to make redirects. However, for the name Qurighar, it's unnecessary. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You moved "Dörbet" article to "Dörbet (Choros clan)", but this name is unknown as "Dörbet" is a primary sense. If you think a new disambiguation page with a secondary sense would be created "Dörbet (disambiguation)" is a right name, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

And an other one question: why did you used Chinese name in disumbiguation page, but not English? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two “Dörbet”-named aimags are equally weighted, so Dörbet it self should be a disamb page. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean dorbets out of Mongolia? But the primary sens has ethnic group in Western Mongolia in Uvs (former Dorvod) Aimag, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say a primary sense in Eastern (Inner) Mongolia is the Dorbod Mongol Autonomous County. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Baekdu Mountain. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Also, please don't move without Consensus. Thank you.

你切勿题目边境. 这需要共识. --Idh0854 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd deal with this later, but hope you're not a Korean extremists (if you're, I'd have to bring some Manchu nationalist here, to “neutralize” you). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yu (or Hai, sorry, I don't know which is your given name). I saw that you've edited Mongolian script and its talk page quite a few times and I was wondering just how familiar you are with the language? My second son is going to be born soon, and I'd like to tattoo his name on my arm. My first son's name is tattooed in traditional Chinese around my wrist, but I'd like my second son's name to be tattooed vertically down my arm to "balance" it with my left arm, which also has a large pictoral tattoo. Mongolian is the only vertical language I can think of, and I think it's quite pretty, too.

If you do know the Mongolian language and alphabet (or any other elegant vertical scripts), would you be willing to write my son's name and upload it somewhere like Commons, Flickr or Image Bucket for me? Hand written is fine, as is a computer generated image from a Font. His name will be McKenzie Hunter, Hunter being his middle name, not his surname.

Please feel free to say no if you're uncomfortable or unwilling. Thank you in advance, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm interested in Monglian culture, but not capable to speak or write Mongolian (or in a starter level). You'd better ask User:Yaan to get an Mongolian name.

Grts!

--YU Hai (Yu is my family name) 07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well thank you for replying! I will contact Yaan. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Yaan is not active, you may also contact User:G Purevdorj. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is currently a debate on whether International TLDs should or should not be included in the article of Singapore. Anyone is free to join the discussion. --RaviC (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently nominated File:Yalu1.png for deletion, but apparently because of a Twinkle error, the nomination page and discussion was never created. I have removed the tag. If you would still like the file to be deleted, feel free to renominate. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Need your views and comments, on my personal page. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion].

I would need to have clarity on naming standards for India page as of now. Any help would be very useful, thanks.

I just want to point out that the issue needs clarity for standards which I think is important. If some inconsistencies are introduced, the examle can be made as a reference for changing look of pages on other countries, and then further many related pages. let me also know if there are such issues in some pages with similar context ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit? Where does my bot made any vandalizm? Masti (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It destroyed the link structure. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just undone your change, as you actually removed a number of valid edits, covering more than one month, are put it back to immediately after the bot edit. I.e. you did not undo whatever the bot did. As for the bot edit it seems correct: fixing a number of out of date links and removing some odd structure around the Chinese interwiki links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I misused the "revert to" function. But the Bot DID destroy the link-structure. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the bot also made perfectly valid changes, and looking at the history you're reverted other bots making similar good changes. Please in future don't just revert such bot edits but check them in case they include good changes: it may be because of them that the bots keep coming back to the page. I've reverted those changes, but left your link-structure in place, even though I'm not sure it's needed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the bot made a few "perfectly valid" changes, which is trivial (without these changes the transwiki-links works fine). But I think the "{{#ifeq:" structure is more important, because it is functional, while whether to use "Wikipedia" or "Uicipeid" is not function-related. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Zhuang is not written using superscript characters - for example "Mwngz youq gizlawz?", which means where are you is written using the ordinary alphabete, not superscript characters. Johnkn63 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripts are not used in standard Zhuang orthography, but tone marks are confusing in English. So we can use superscripts to help readers pronounce them correctly without modifing the orthography substantially. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, however, follows existing conventions regarding orthography, it is not the place for introducing new orthographic conventions. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce any new orthographic conventions, but give exist orthography a new look, to make it easier to read. When the reader copy the text and paste it to the searchbox, it would be no difference to the general-used one. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such changes are very idiosyncratic wikipedia is not the place to try out new ideas. The use of superscript certainly does not make it easier for me, and many others to read. Please remove these asap.10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkn63 (talk • contribs)

I can understand your reasoning, as it does make it easier to read. However, the result is not Zhuang orthography. Your opinion on what is or is not a "substantial" modification of the orthog. is a matter for discussion on an MOS or Wikiproject talk page. If you convince people that yours is the way to go, we should add it to the MOS somewhere; otherwise, we need to stick to actual Zhuang orthographic conventions.

This would seem to apply to Hmong as well, and AFAIK no-one superscripts the tone marks there. We should probably discuss this in conjunction with the Hmong people. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An abugida, like an abjad, is a subtype of alphabet. The reason I moved all the articles is that we had ended up with a system where funny Asiatic squiggles are called "scripts", while nice intelligible Western writing is called an "alphabet". I didn't think that was a good way of doing things. With the current MOS, abugidas and abjads are called "alphabets" too. See the difference between Latin script and Latin alphabet (the latter is used to write Latin, but not English), also Arabic script and Arabic alphabet (the latter is used to write Arabic, but not Persian). There's the Mongolian script, and then there's the Mongolian alphabet which uses the Mongolian script (as opposed to the Mongolian alphabet which uses the Cyrillic script). — kwami (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the wide alphabet difinition does not include syllabaries, and Mongolian have some syllabaric feature. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English has some syllabic features! That's not the point. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda  Talk 11:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have some backround in thsi matter, why not build on that in the article. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our convention with article titles of Chinese names is to follow the most commonly used English romanization of the name, which typically puts the surname first. It's often possible to gauge which ordering to use by looking at what name the subject of an article puts on their publications. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Happy editing, Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move (rename). In English usage, "Solid-state drive" is by far the more common term for these devices; furthermore it is the term used throughout the very article! Even if you still think the move is a good idea, a move of an article of this long standing, that has had NO dissension over its name in the past, should be discussed first. The requested move template ({{Requested move}}) would be appropriate in this case to obtain wider community input. Jeh (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Solid-state drive, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". (I noticed that you have done several page moves recently, all of which you marked minor. I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your other moves but since most of them have been reverted they obviously do not qualify as "could never be the subject of a dispute".) Jeh (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the redirect, but removing "Mar" title from the Syriac clergy is just application of Wikipedia guidelines regarding Syriac names and Syriac bishops. This is different from naming conventions for Popes. Mar should only be used for disambiguation purposes as the guideline explains. See for Wikipedia guidelines on Syriac bishops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Syriac_bishops So Mar Dinkha IV should remain a redirect and the main article should be Dinkha IV Khanania. Kindly see the guideline and reverse the redirect if possible. werldwayd (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notion!

->Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Syriac bishops.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your additional comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Syriac_bishops werldwayd (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that "Yü" is the correct spelling? In Tibetan, "Yü" [jy] is not pronounced the same as "Ü" [y].—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard SASM/GNC/SRC transcriptions for geographical and personal romanization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? It's not correct Tibetan Pinyin or Hanyu Pinyin. What publication or other source says to use "Yü"? There's no jurisdiction in the PRC called by that name anyway, so I don't know why there would be an official spelling.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it's Tibetan pinyin (p.s. what we called “Tibetan pinyin” is actually the SASM/GNC/SRC transcriptions). Thanks for your information, and I think I may gain some knowledge about Tibetan language this semester in a class open in my unvrst. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, please reverse your move of Ü-Tsang and please be more careful about moves like this in the future. The naming conventions on Tibetan don't support a move to the SASM/GNC/SRC transcription anyway.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

虞海, when correcting your edits, please be carefull to corrrect EVERYTHING. Yü-Zang was still in the lead section instead of Ü-Tsang until today.--Pseudois (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhai,

English and Chinese speakers have trouble with [jy]. I'm not sure Tibetans do. Maybe they do, since it doesn't seem like a very common sequence. [y] is made by spellings like -us, etc. [j] is made by the initial y-. The only example I can think of is the Tibetan name of Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, which I think is a loanword from Chinese. It's written ཡུལ་ཤུལ་ or ཡུས་ཧྲུའུ་.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get it! Thank you for the example. (I missed the most common example I known) ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I don't think Yüshu to be a Chinese loan word. However, it's said that the Chinese word 玉树 is loaned from Tibetan. It's said that in Tibetan "Yüshu" means "relic site"/"relic of a dynasty"/"remain custom of an ancient tribe" since it's the 'Brug-mo's home. Here 'Brug-mo (嘎嘉洛僧姜珠姆) is the wife of King Gesar. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. There seem to be two Tibetan names for Yushu. I never thought about it much before, but I think what's happening here is that the original Tibetan name is ཡུལ་ཤུལ་ (yul-shul, Yülshül, [jỳːɕyː]), which does mean "relic place". This was then approximated in Chinese as Yùshù, which was then borrowed back into Tibetan as a loanword, ཡུས་ཧྲུའུ་ (yus-hruħu, Yürhǖ, [jỳʂuː]). This discussion reminds me of another much more common instance [jy] in Tibetan. The word yul ཡུལ་ (pronounced [jỳː] or [jỳːl]) is a common suffix meaning "-country". So, Mönyül (mon-yul) means the land of the Monpas, Drukyül means the land of the dragon (Bhutan), and phayül means "fatherland".—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 虞海. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sorry for the late reply; I haven't allocated the time to properly think about your question. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

谢谢！––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring suggestions for page moves to the talk page before making such edits. Generally the renaming of an article is an issue that requires a broad consensus before actually making the move. Thank you.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep what you called the “common name” until saturday, but don't remove the information I added here (e.g. correction of ZYPY and addition of alter Ch name); Plus, indigenous name should be put before what the article name is. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Influenced article:

• Gyalha Bairi
• Xixabangma
• Qowowuyag
• Naimona'nyi
• Lhozê

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This being the English Wikipedia, the common English name should be the article title. Hence it's called Mount Everest, not Qomolongma or Sagarmatha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guidline recommending that the local name be mentioned before the article title and am curious why you (Yú Hǎi) think this is the case. Could you direct me to a policy or guideline page?--Wikimedes (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "influenced article". From the revision histories, I guess you mean that this belief has influenced you to edit these articles in this way, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What do you mean?--Wikimedes (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually I meant the discussion here covers these articles, or will influence these articles). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These happen to be the same articles I had moved back to their original names. So the comment was directed at me I'm sure as in "the article affected by my (Racerx11) moves". I do wish an admin could step in soon and clear this up. I saw the request you made and thanks for your efforts Wikimedes.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Cho Oyu article was yours Wikimedes, so Im not sure of exactly what was meant after all. Obviously part of the problem is that English is not the user's first language.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yu Hai! I have placed a request to move Shishabangma to Shishapangma at WP:RM. We have 7 days to reach consensus on the title. When you are next on WP, could you kindly come to Talk:Shishabangma to discuss the correct title under the relevant article naming policy? Thanks a lot! —hike395 (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joined. Thanks for reminding! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the reason why I recommend the native names:

1. The United Nation has suggested that exonym should be discouraged if possible. For place such as Mt. Everest is too well known to introduce the endonym (name in the Tibetan language or the Sherpa language). However, the case in Gyalha Bairi, Xixabangma, Qowowuyag, Naimona'nyi, etc. is different: few native English speakers know the mountain, and it follows that few people know the name Gyalha Peri, Shishapangma, Cho Oyu, Gurla Mandhata, etc., so the “common name” costum does not apply here.
2. The “common name” varys from time to time and may be influenced by the native community. Before 1972, Ceylon is definitely the common name for Sri Lanka, but the native community prefer the name Sri Lanka, so Sri Lanka is used and then become popular. Beijing was once called Peking in English, but now it becomes Beijing. Now we turn to the case of Xixabangma: since the country of Sri Lanka and the city of Beijing has introduced their endonyms, why can't Gyalha Bairi, Xixabangma, Qowowuyag, Naimona'nyi, etc. introduce its endonym (espc in the case that few people know the term Gyalha Peri, Shishapangma, Cho Oyu, Gurla Mandhata, etc.)?

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

If I understand things correctly, the Tibetan name for the mountain is ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ།. The "official Tibetan” transliteration into the Roman alphabet is Xixabangma. The Chinese language uses 希夏幫馬峰 which is officially transliterated as Xīxiàbāngmǎ Fēng. The English language uses Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma as its transliteration (though this may be in the process of changing). Yet you are insisting that the English language Wikipedia use Xixabangma. Why, if even the Chinese language does not use ཤི་ཤ་སྦང་མ། or Xixabangma, are you insisting that the English Language do so?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

1. I will. Actually I proposed to move not only Xixabangma but also Qowowuyag. In Chinese, Qowowuyag is known as "Zhuo Ao You", which is more similar to "Cho Oyu", but I insist that it should be moved. And I moved Kawagebo to its Tibetan name Kawagarbo, so I'm not enforcing Chinese name here.
2. In the past, I have proposed many change concern Tibetan names. Interestingly, when I propose a change from Chinese language to Tibetan language, virtually nobody oppose (except the case occured in Lhoka/Shannan); when I propose, however, a change from Indo-European languages to Tibetan language, virtually everybody oppose. I've heard that most Euro-American people love Tibet, but what I experienced is not the same - they always support changes from Chinese to Tibetan but oppose changes from Indo-European to Tibetan (i.e. they do not really love Tibetan culture, but use Tibet as a tool to suppress China and after that they still support Indo-European). I'm the very person who always support native culture - if one day I oppose the using of Tibetan name in Tibetan, that must be caused by a Moinba or Lhoba name found, and became reasonably popular.
3. I have know your concern here since the start of the discussion, but nobody post this concern before the two term turned out to be no-significant-popular-difference. This is your actual concern, isn't it? Why not next time directly point out it at the begining of the discussion to make the issue more direct and more easily to be solved?
4. As for the reason why I prefer the official transcription:
   1. I attend the Introduction of Tibetan class recently and find out the SASM/GNC of Tibetan is far more scientific than THDL. (Unlike SASM/GNC of Mongolian and Uyghur)
   2. There might be some sentimental driven element, but not less effective.
   3. There's a firm a solid backing of it such that the name transcripted by SASM/GNC is reasonably at the same magnitude of quantity.
   4. It is/looks actually less challenging, tit-for-tat and ambitious for someone if you use one's own official regulation to solve one's deficiency on action.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I was not able to understand numbers 1 and 4, so I hope you will not mind me asking for additional clarification. My reply:

1. You will what? There’s been a lot of previous talk, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Also, are you saying that you have attempted to have articles in the Chinese Language Wikipedia renamed to be closer to Tibetan? Can this be done with Chinese characters?
2. A few things:
   1. a. Probably people on the English Language Wikipedia prefer the English name first (or second), the local name second (or first), but don’t think a third language (e.g. Chinese, Russia, Tswana, or whatever) should be considered for a title, unless it’s also the English or local name.
   2. Sometimes it seems that editors insist that the official Chinese name be used for everything, regardless of what native English speakers actually use in their own language. This can make a native English speaker feel disrespected. Then whenever someone proposes a change to a Chinese name (or official Chinese Government name for a Tibetan name, see below) people think “There goes the Chinese Government again, telling me how to write my own language.”
   3. The case of Tibet is more complicated, because many outside China see Tibet as a conquered territory. If true, then the “official Tibetan” transcription could be the transcription forced on Tibet by the Chinese Government, making the official Tibetan transcription really Chinese, not Tibetan.
3. I have a few concerns, and am always learning, so I post them as they come to me. When I realized that Xixabangma and Shishapangma are both the local name, just spelled differently, I wondered why you would go through so much effort to have it spelled the way the Chinese Government thinks it should be spelled rather than use the spelling that I assume native English speakers have decided works best in their language – it’s still the local name. Then I see in the article that it’s not even spelled that way in Chinese and I think “why is it OK for the Chinese language to have its own spelling, but not the English language?”
4. I understand what you’re saying on 1 and 2. I’m in no position to judge the merits of one transcription system over another, so I will assume good faith. I was unable to understand what you meant by 3 and 4, would you clarify?

--Wikimedes (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. (...)
   1. I will insist the native name whatever the Chinese name is - I would insist Xixabangma if its Chinese name weren't Xixiabangma;
   2. I did do similar effort in Chinese Wikipedia, and that's often both easier and harder to do: I say it's easier because in Chinese Wikipedia "name follow the owner/natives"-policy often comes before "use common name"-policy; and I say it's harder because people need a transcription table for every certain language (so when I did it to Shoshoni, it became zh:Sosoni' 语). Here's my way: Xixabangma is unfamiliared in the English world and have no widely accepted name in the English world, so we can move the article in English Wiki, but not the Chinese one; Sosoni' is unfamiliared in the Chinese world and have no widely accepted name in the Chinese world, so we can move the article in Chinese Wiki, but not the English one.
2. I'll have a closer reading and have a point-to-point reply later, but with a skimming I say I didn't imposing Chinese name of these mountain to English Wikipedia.
3. I'll have a closer reading and have a point-to-point reply later, but I'm answering one question first: I pour so much effort on Shishapangma just because
   1. the objective condition let me doing that. Actually, When you reverted my several moves, I wanted to delay them and discuss them later, but then I found you have moved Xixabangma to Shishapanma with macron, which is unacceptable (Shishāpāngmā is by no means common. Plus, as you know, Chinese language and Nepali language is not fully native to Himalayan Mountains, while Tibetan, Limbu, Sharpa, etc. is. If Nepali name may be used, why can't Chinese name be used? ) So I immediately (in order not to let a bot fix the double redirect Shishapangma->Xixabangma->Shishāpāngmā) moved it "back" to Xixabangma. I intended to then move Xixabangma to Shishapangma to delay the discussion, but then I found a bot had already fixed the double redirect and I cannot move it back to Shishapangma again. As I had no way to move it back to Shishapangma, I moved it to Shishabangma, which looks no difference from Shishapangma, and I though that may be a temporary compromise. Surprisingly, a request (Shishabangma to Shishabangma) opened, and that involved me into a rather pointless discussion. If that hadn't happen, I'd choose Gurla Mandhata->Naimona'nyi to be my initial proposal.
   2. the natives needs an initial success. They/we need a consensus that "most accepted term" is meaningless when the "most accepted term" is itself not a "widely accepted term". I thought Gurla Mandhata->Naimona'nyi would be, but now...
4. (3 & 4)
   • 3. if a state have promoted a name (e.g. Beijing/Naimona'nyi), it's much easier to let people accept a change (e.g. Peking->Beijing; Gurla Mandhata->Naimona'nyi); I will be able to say "it's not only the native one but also the official one".
   • 4. it reads "It is/looks actually less challenging, tit-for-tat and ambitious for someone if you use one's own official regulation to solve one's deficiency on action." The key here is what the term one refers to, but I will not explain who the one is bacause the objective condition that I am in does not allow me to explain it. Oops, actually I can't explain it more clearer than this. Get it?

• I didn't mean the SASM/GNC system is excellant (e.g. the usage of ai, oi, ei is not as good as ä, ö, ë; tone not expressed, etc.) But it is, by far, the best for Lhasa Tibetan. If you know Lhasa Tibetan you'll know.
• It's too late (2:26 AM)), and I have to be offline.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 18:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yú Hǎi. I would like to ask you for a favor. Many of your recent mountain article renaming moves have been controversial. Given the long discussion at Talk:Xixabangma, would you be willing to discuss any additional moves on the respective article talk pages before moving them? I think that would promote harmonious editing. Thanks for considering this! —hike395 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasted too much effort on discussing a rather unimportant topic. I don't think I will involve myself again in a resultless proposal on an eight-thousander. There's too many six-thousanders I can deal with (such as Karwagarbo), and such move can be uncontroversial - I'll always try to change more to native name with finite time and that will result in greatest gains. I haven't evaluated seven-thousanders and still not sure is those move can be controversial. However, for eight-thousanders, I will continue mention native names in prominent place, just as what I did to Kanchenjunga, since that won't confuse the readers and will encourage people to use native term. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue mention native names in prominent place. You are welcome to do it, but please do it in observance with The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. Where there is an English word, or exonym, for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title.--Pseudois (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are contemplating moving several six-thousanders, I would strongly urge you to follow Mike Cline's advice and use the process at WP:RM once for all of the moves and add a notification at WT:WikiProject Mountains before you do the moves. Otherwise, you will likely trigger a controversy that will be similar to the discussion at Talk:Xixabangma and that will waste your time and frustrate you. —hike395 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This title was added by me and does not reflict concerners point. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 虞海!

I don't think it is relevant to pursue our endless discussion in the Shishapangma talk page, so you will find my reply to your last comments (05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC) here:

1.1 If you read carefully my summary, you will notice that I did only mention "spelling" and not "naming". Regarding the origin of the different spelling variations in Tibetan/English/Chinese ("naming", you have been the only one to claim that the etymology of Shishapangma might not be related to Tibetan language. Extraordinary claim require some kind of evidence. Some users have asked you to provide some references, which you didn't. This is the reason why I let this out of the summary, and I think this is fair.

"Billions of kids". Are you sure about your number, or is this another of your extraordinary claims? BTW, with billions of kids learning about Xixabangma in English at school, this would contradict your claim that this mountain is almost unknown and doesn't need to respect the naming policy. Isn't it?

Anglo-American bias? I am very concerned about this too. But in our case, I just "googled scholar" for "Xixabangma" (2005-2010) and out of the first 10 results all 10 were written by Chinese authors (1 shared with Germans as part of a Sino-German Expedition). So I think we don't have to worry too much in that particular case…

1.2 Which points did I omit?

1.3. Why?

2. Exonym/Endonym: see 1.1. Extraordinary claims require at least some kind or data to sustain them.

3. Please explain. As native English speakers have already explained you, the fact of separating or not the two words (Shishapangma or Shisha Pangma) makes no difference in English. There is no double standard.

4. I can only invite you to read WP:TITLECHANGES again. Some explanations are also contained in your own user talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to sign my post. By chance there are some robots reminding us! :) --Pseudois (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. In this case:

1.2 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), and (perhaps, since not very clear memorized) some other in my summary. You may say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is about Chinese language, but that's simply wrong. WP:PLACE and the guideline itself says it's about the whole mainland China, i.e., including those from minority languages.

1.3

2

3

4

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand your point. If you could explain clearly to what you are referring I might be able to give an answer.--Pseudois (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unfinished reply. Since you raised the dicussion to its talk page, I'll make the full version of reply on it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 虞海,

I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted your recent Kailash edits. Please go through the talk page before removing commonly used spelling forms in English (Gang Rinpoche). The Pinyin term Kangrinboqê is not very well known amongst English speakers, so should remain in third line behind Kailash (the most widely known) and Gang Rinpoche (the second most widely known). Thanks!--Pseudois (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Gang Rinpoche is the “commonly used spelling forms in English”? If so, you're probably get yourself into an self-contradictory because Gang Ringpoche was added by me and to my memory I had once moved Kailash to Gang Rinpoche. What I did these days is nothing but correct my former misnomers in order not to mislead the readers. At that time when I added Gang Rinpoche, I was not very familiar with Tibetan transcriptions, and “Gang” might simply be a transcription from Chinese “冈” of “冈仁波齐”, and as I realized that in Tibetan it's not Gang but Kang I realized I made a mistake and simply correct it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Gang Rinpoche is the “commonly used spelling forms in English”? I will simply quote again my post above: "The Pinyin term Kangrinboqê is not very well known amongst English speakers, so should remain in third line behind Kailash (the most widely known) and Gang Rinpoche (the second most widely known)." I don't see any self-contradiction.

I don’t want to sound paternalistic, but I think there are three things that sometimes get confusing:

1) Difference between naming and spelling. In the case of Kailash and Gang Rinpoche, we clearly have two different names with two different etymologies. It is not up to you or me to decide which should be used as primary name. We simply have to respect the common usage in English. If you don't know about the traditional English naming of something, then I would suggest it is better to abstain making any edit before knowing about it. I think you have sufficient knowledge in other fields to keep you busy doing meaningful edits for the benefit of the readership.

2) Priority between different alternative spellings. The Tibetan naming conventions does apply, and again, it is not up to you or me to decide what it the best. It is also very important to remember that the English Wikipedia is not a bilingual (or trilingual) encyclopaedia, but an English encyclopaedia. Many names of Tibetan etymology do have their own established spelling in English (e.g. Panchen Lama, Chomolungma, Shigatse, Cho Oyu, etc.) that must be preferred to any other romanisation system. Don't see this as a lack of respect for the indigenous name, as this is precisely the way how the indigenous name is spelled in English, and there is nothing more respectful than this. The recurrent argument that the "official" spelling must be preferred does not carry much sense in English, as English is not regulated by any official regulation. No country or no academy can decide about an "official" way how English should be written all over the world. I do also prefer Tibetan Pinyin over other romanisation systems, but its use in "international" English should only be reserved in the Wikipedia pages when no traditional English spelling exists. There is no "official way" to spell Tibetan words in English, but there is a "WP way" to spell them in the English Wikipedia, and for this we have the Tibetan naming conventions.

3) Wikipedia is not about promoting point of views or about defending minorities languages. It is about presenting encyclopaedic knowledge. Like you I give a lot of importance to the respect for minority languages (I am myself from a minority linguistic group, and don't have any particular affinity to English), but I think your efforts are often disserving your cause. I would just like to mention the spelling of Chomolungma, and I take this example on purpose as I did not look at the edit history, so I don't know if you have done any edit on that page, so there is nothing personal against you. As you surely know, both Tibetan (to the north) and Sherpa (to the South) living at the foot of Chomolungma do speak related Tibetan language dialects, and call the mountain by the same name. Some people aggressively promote that the mountain should be officially renamed in English "Qomolangma", but with such a total disregard for Sherpa usage (none of them know Pinyin) and customary way of spelling "Chomolungma" in English that this often provokes an adverse reaction in the English speaking world. If you want, like me, promote the usage of traditional naming, then I think it is better to simply respect the traditional English spelling. And again, WP is not about promoting anything, but simply about presenting knowledge.

I hope these few points may help to work in better collaboration in future, and if some of my edits on WP pages do not seem to respect WP standards, please don't hesitate to notify me about it! Regards, --Pseudois (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're off-topic now.

1. You may use Gang Rinpoche, if Gang Rinpoche is really more common than Kang Rinboqe. It's fine. If you can move it to Gang Rinpoche, I'd rather remove "Kang Rinboqe" from the article. But that's just not the case, under the shadow of the Hindian name Kailash, Tibetan name has no living space in that article, so why not present a more accurate pronounce?
2. It's not always the case. Simla was renamed to Shimla and Peking was renamed to Beijing. Isn't there anything not happened in English?
3. You completely misunderstood my edits. See these edits: I completely respect southern Himalayan languages such as Limbu and Sherpa (which was not provided by anyone by then). However, these languages does not have an official transcription into English.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Tibetan), in particular: "Use the conventional spelling most familiar to English-language readers. To the extent it can be established, this is the primary romanisation. A primary romanisation is normally the most common conventional spelling of whichever instance of the name is most widely known."

It would be nice also if you add a summary of your edits before saving them.--Pseudois (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean these edits? Well I didn't see it anything wrong because that simply mentioned 2 Tibetan pinyin forms along with the conventional. For Panchen Lama, I sure knew that Panchen Lama was the most and widely used form and so did not move it. But I didn't see mention the Tibetan pinyin conflicts the "Use the conventional spelling most familiar to English-language readers. To the extent it can be established, this is the primary romanisation. A primary romanisation is normally the most common conventional spelling of whichever instance of the name is most widely known." guideline. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Panchen Lama Pinyin transliteration was already existing in the introduction, and this in full agreement with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English): "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in parentheses, in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical."--Pseudois (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one form of Tibetan pinyin was presented. I added 2. Plus, it's not only a "native spelling" but also an alternative name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment for Gompa. Gompa is the common English name, not Goinpa. Please note that Pinyin is not known in most countries where Gompas can be found. The page should be reverted to its original name.--Pseudois (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Gompa is more common than Goinba after a Google search as I tried to overthrow Michig's comment, but later I see that gönpa is somewhat more common or as common as gompa/gonpa, so later I'll put a discussion to verify if gompa is well-estabilished English. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title was added by me. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hai, your edits are now becoming seriously disruptive, and if you won't stop making unilateral and controversial moves without discussion sanctions against you should be taken. In addition, I notice you have now started to use Chinese PUA precomposed Tibetan instead of standard Unicode Tibetan (e.g. དན་པ instead of དགོན་པ། ) which is incomprehensible to anyone outside PRC (and probably for most PRC users as well). Please ensure you always use standard Unicode when writing Tibetan. BabelStone (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not use PUA Mongolian text, as you did in this edit. You should always use standard Unicode for Tibetan, Mongolian or any script, and never use PUA characters under any circumstances. BabelStone (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

虞海 Given the recent controversy with some article name changes in which you participated, I think it would be useful for you to review and study two of our community's policies and guidelines--WP:Title and WP:RM. Our titling Policy makes it clear that there can only be one title for any given article. The community has endeavored to create a set of criteria that helps editors chose the best title (not the most perfect title) for an article. Now when there is more than one logical title (or search term) for an article's subject, then that search is redirected to the correct article. In other words, it really doesn't matter what the article is entitled from a reader's perspective. There is no evidence that readers are being disappointed when they search for one thing and find an article has a different name as long as the content is there that they were searching for. Along those lines, it is really important to remember that we as editors are building the encyclopedia for our readers, not ourselves. Our WP:Requested moves procedure is designed to provide a disciplined and structured approach to changing article titles. Although not a mandatory procedure, it does ensure that potential moves get wider community scrutiny. Moving article titles has consequences, when they are not done right, or must be reverted because others don't agree, things like histories, talk pages and redirects get screwed up. It takes someones time (a volunteer like you or me) to sort it out and fix it. I'd much rather spend my time building WP rather than fixing mistakes.

I welcome the contributions of all editors and encourage you to continue to work on WP articles that you are passionate about. But sometimes its useful to slow down, reflect and learn more about how our community works before jumping head long into the fray. If you have any questions about these comments or other stuff, let me know on my talk page. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But as far as I know it's not always the case. Many article have mentioned "Burma (Myanmar)" and "Myanmar (Burma)", and even "Mumbai (Bombay)", etc. (And in the article, "Burma, officially known as Myanmar" or sometimes "Myanmar, commonly known as Burma".) That is, it's possible to have additional title, and for certain cases, additional title may be as important as main title (in the Burma case).

I have changed myself during these years. At first, I thought debate is the sole effective and fastest way to solve the problem, but as time going, it turned out that tit-for-tat discussion is not the most effective one (theoretically, it explosure each sides' fallacy very fast, but not practically). So later I believed to use polite form (evef if it sometimes looks fake) is useful.

• You're right to some degree. As the time fled I can see some silly thing I did and sometimes just shocked. However, at the time, I just thought "if I have any fallacy, the others will just point it out". Umm, actually they pointed out, with a review, but not directly enough to understand for the past-me (and perhaps it was direct but not bolded, I sometimes missed non-bolded text in the past). This time I've already concerned if I have some logical fallacy (indeed this is not a "if" but a matter of fact), but I can do nothing to find them out except for keep talking as if there's no that. (E.g. if you know there's a god in the world, but you don't know whether the Buddha or YHWH to be the god. Even if many Christians told you "YHWH" is the God and Buddhists told you the Buddha is the God, you can do nothing but assuming no one exist and are still a de facto Atheist.) Well you pointed out my fallacy directly, and with a solution - read more - and is practical. But what to read? Seemingly WP:Article title is not the case.
• The last meetup in Beijing I told someone "I do only write those I don't know, and once I feel a topic too familiar, I do no longer passionate to edit it. By this I learned many thing" and he replied "Oh, so you're not someone who do nothing to improve the quality of entries". Well everyone just laughed, and then I wry smiled. I was always committed to include my trouble-solution in the article in an encyclopediac way let avoid others from troubles I met.
• Perhaps I may learn more Tibetan. Babel is someone that I don't blame even if he accused me, he has helped me a lot, in learning Tibetan. And he is someone who seems to support the conventional transcription, that actually shocked me a little. I'll find out the reason. Anyway, I'm very confident that I'll succeed to make a proposal to WP:NC-TIBETAN now, and will do it immediately after I have a better knowledge about Tibetan.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hai, I am not sure you understand that part of the problem we have with your method is the technical problems they are causing. Like Mike said above, things like page histories and redirects are damaged if the moves are not executed properly. I have noticed on this talk page, in March of this year, an editor advised you of the following:

Regarding your move of the Xinjiang article: it is not necessary to move articles back and forth if you want to create redirects. Just go to the page where you want the redirect to be and edit it to say

#REDIRECT [[page name]]

To which you responded:

When considered a name having potential possibility of becoming article-name, I move articles back and forth to make redirects. However, for the name Qurighar, it's unnecessary.

This would explain some of the things I have seen in your edit history.

It appears that despite the advice you have received, you have continued the practice of moving pages back and forth for the purpose of creating redirects. Is this true? If so please stop doing it. This practice is confusing to other editors, it can cause several technical problems that would then require an admin to fix, and is not the proper way to make redirects, as explained to you in March.

Your method in general is causing more problems and wasting more time than you may think, despite your belief that it is the most efficient way to edit.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued the practice of moving pages back and forth for the purpose of creating redirects because

1. By moving a page back and forth, we can make a redirect that can be a target of a move. Generally, if a name have potential possibility to be the title of a page, we can make it by moving pages back and forth. Your method, (by typing #REDIRECT page name) may only create a redirect that cannot be a target of a move.
2. No report shows that moving pages back and forth can cause any technical problem that would require an admin to fix.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why after your moves at Shishapangma and at Gompa, no editor was able to successfully move the pages back to their previous names? We only got Gompa moved back after bringing an admin in to do it for us.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's due to iterated redirects. Indeed I suffer from it too. When I tried to move Shishāpāngmā to Xixabangma and then to Shishapangma I met this error, and resultly moved it to Shishabangma as a substitution. I thought nobody care the minor difference between "Shishapangma" and "Shishabangma" (they look the same), but I was wrong - they care the difference between "Shishapangma" and "Shishabangma" very much just like I care the difference between "Shishapangma" and "Shishāpāngmā" very much.

However, we have nothing to deal with this difficulty when making an redirect by moving pages back and forth. Indeed, making redirects by moving pages back and forth is just a way to avoid such difficulties. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A p and b look the same?--Racerx11 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

虞海 I urge caution in your moving pages to create redirects in the manner you speak of above. Before doing so again please read and understand WP:REDIRECT and WP:2REDIR about double redirects and the harm they do the project. Additionally, any time page histories have to be manually merged, because moves were improperly made, it takes valuable time away from improving the project. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the harm of iterated redirects, but neither the 2 page showed there's any conjunction between "making redirects by moving pages back and forth" and "iterated redirects", and nothing turned out to suggest there's any relation between them.

Instead, "making redirects by moving pages back and forth" is just some way to avoid similar difficulties made by iterated redirects, so it's helpful. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to convince me of what you say. Specifically explain to me the evidence for why you believe this to be true.

My evidence is simple: You made a series of page moves at both these pages. In both cases, immediately after your edits, non-admins were unable to move them back to their previous names. So your moves have, at the very least, precipitated or indirectly caused, if not directly caused the harm.

You just saying there is no connection between the two is not a good enough argument for me. --Racerx11 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your may also consider reverting the Namcha Barwa article to its original traditional English spelling. Thanks.--Pseudois (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Namjagbarwa is a common and well-established name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namcha Barwa is common and well-established too. Please check the Namcha Barwa talk page for more information.--Pseudois (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll post some point on Xinhua usage of “Namcha Barwa”, etc. (This is almost the same as Communist Vietnamese use "Saigon" to refer to the Ho Chi Minh City.) ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just reverted your edit mentionning that "Co" is Tibetan while "Tso" is Ladakhi on the Pangong Tso page. Please check the Namtso and Yamdrok Yumtso pages before saying that "Tso" is Lhadakhi only. The most famous lakes in areas when Tibetan languages are spoken are often romanised as "Tso" or "Tsho" in English texts.--Pseudois (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ts is also a good transcription of Tibetan ཚ, but not the perfect one. C indicate it's with a "͡" and aspirated. Well, but this is not the point (ts may do so too sometimes but not in THDL).

The point is, co and tso, although pronounced completely the same, one is origined from a most faithful way to represent Standart Tibetan pronounciation, the other is a (almost sole) (though not very faithful) way to represent Western Anchaic Tibetan. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC

"Ts" in "Yamdrok Yumtso" or "Namtso" has nothing whatsoever to do with Western Archaic Tibetan. It's just a not-very-specific way to refer to the [tsʰ] sound in modern Standard Tibetan.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at PhnomPencil's talk page.

虞海 - You are right to be concerned about WP:CANVASS but here's a couple of suggestions to help you decide how to provide notifications to interested editors.

• A neutrally worded notice at WikiProject China is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged. If there are other projects of interest, they should be notified as well. Of most importance is the neutrality of the notice, one cannot be canvassing others with a specific, Vote for my position request. The most collegial and collaborative thing you might do, is kindly ask the editors on the talkpage putting the poll together is to notify the specific projects you think should be notified when they do their notification. In that request, do not assume or imply their notifications won't be neutral or that they are trying to CANVASS for votes in their favor. Nothing productive comes out of those kinds of discussions. Just politely ask them to notify the projects and AGF that they will.
• I would avoid trying to notify individuals, unless they have participated in the previous discussion. That is generally considered CANVASSING for votes, even if the notice is neutral, because you'd probably not notify someone you know would vote contrary to your position. Even if an editor supporting your side of the discussion is notified, is best left to the editors putting the poll together.

WP is a big place, much like China and the Tibetan Alps. As editors, we have to learn to work collaboratively, and as individuals learn that we don't always get things our way. Find a way to work with these editors, who are all interested, along with you, in improving the encyclopedia. Good Luck (好運). -- Mike Cline (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please check the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/Assessment#Frequently_asked_questions before making unilateral changes in the WikiProject Mountains assessment.

FYI, all 8000ers have been rated as "Top Importance", even the more remote and less prominent ones at the Pakistan-China border. Your change lowering the importance of Shishapangma seems to be related to the ongoing discussion regarding its naming, as you have repeatedly claimed that Shishapangma was not well-known, so that the existing naming conventions do not apply.--Pseudois (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if more than 14 top is of to everyone. I'm leaving today (backing school). Your comment will be dealed next time (perhaps Wednesday) and later (perhaps Saturday) I'll complete my comment to Wikimedes.

P.S. If you want, you may insert you last "insert" inside, but make sure the text is well aranged (using “::#:” in order not to make the typeset broken; better not to break other's comment unless others have a sign between). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the “::#:” tip.--Pseudois (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are the sources that you're using for this article?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original source, "China's Tibet. Minzu Press", and so on. I'm expanding it right now. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the use of "Xêrab Gyamco" — when I first saw this name, I didn't realize it was referring to Geshè Sherab Gyatso. I don't have access to China's Tibet, but apparently it does use SASM/GNC spellings.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the very first version of this article it use "Xerab Gyamco" and China's Tibet as the sole source on it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're difinitely one person. There were many Xêrab Gyamco, but only one is both modern and famous. In China, virtually every Tibetologist cite his publications. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that they're the same person. I just want his name to be written in a way that will be as recognizeable to English readers as possible. What proportion of Anglophone Tibetologists who cite him cite him as "Geshe Sherab Gyatso" and what proportion as "Xêrab Gyamco", I wonder? I notice that Wikipedias in other Western languages, viz French and German, use "Sherab Gyatso".—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good! But have you realized that at the time you didn't realize Xerab Gyamco was Sherab Gyatso, USer:Dr. Blofeld didn't realize Sherab Gyatso was Xerab Gyamco either? Note that "Xerab Gyamco was Sherab Gyatso" and "Sherab Gyatso was Xerab Gyamco" was two different statement. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is another "title move" dispute ongoing regarding romanization of Tibetan names. I don't want to be involved in it, I am also not sure what WP conventions and policies say about it, but it can be worth noting that he died in 1968, at a time when Tibetan Pinyin did not exist yet. So probably ALL ENGLISH language publications during his lifetime were referring to him with another romanization as the current title. I hope this can help.--Pseudois (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may choose to involved or not. But please note that Laozi have died for thousands years, but "Laozi" is more well-established than traditional transcription "Lao Tzu". There're lots of examples that those who are passed away before pinyin was introduced but use pinyin as their transcription of name. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article back to its previous title. Your analogy with Laozi does not appear to be relevant, as there are no ENGLISH language publication about Laozi during his lifetime. Please read again my comment, I was mentioning ENGLISH language publications during the lifetime of Sherab Gyatso. Anyway this was just a side argument, the main one being common English.--Pseudois (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been involved in the recent naming discussion at Talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm bringing this up here because I don't think it's too important and the Xixabangma poll is getting pretty long. There's no need to speculate, the link I provided shows that I used Google Books to search for Xixabangma in Merriam-Webster's and only got the one hit. Why do you think that pp. 1321-1323 were excluded from the search? If they were, and Xixabangma Feng was on one of those pages, that would explain why no entry showed up. BTW, looking something up in a dictionary is not original research.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking something up in a dictionary is not original research, but conclude "no result" from simply a Search in Google Books Preview is original research. Here is Page 1320 of that book, scrolling down and you'll see "Page 1321 to 1323 are not shown in this preview." Page 1320 ends with "Wyvis, Ben" and page 1324 starts with "Yamaguchi", so Xixabangma is included inside. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 06:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Gurkha has the same problem, I'd have to say that you are right. It's still not original research, just an incorrect conclusion on my part. I'll remove the "weak" from my point 3 in support of Xixabangma.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NetAnts.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Radio International uses Өрөмч here. Re. your other questions, I am afraid I can not really help you. Is it plausible that Mongolian/Oirat would make such a shift from l to r? Regards, Yaan (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ideal gas equation (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather specifie it? What unconstructive edits did I make? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

你有我極其惱火。為什麼呢？- I was helping a group of editors, including you, come to a consensus on the name of an obscure mountain article which had suffered through weeks of contentious debate. I closed an RM discussion essentially in favor of your position. And up until sometime in the last 12 hours, appeared to be successfully mediating a poll to help come to a better consensus.

你覺得為什麼地球上的良好願望，使單邊行動？你刻意疏遠我和你的同胞編輯嗎？您已經創建更適合我們所有的工作，我並不感到高興！ (Why on The Good Earth did you feel the desire to make the unilateral move? Are you intentionally trying to alienate me and your fellow editors? You have created more work for all of us, and I am not happy about that!) 不回答，我不想此刻處理它。--Mike Cline (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that unhappy. I was a bit bored about the discussion and thought if I had a conpromise the discussion would end immediately. If you feel unhappy about that [yet would you please explain why move it to Shisha pangma would alienate you and “my fellow editors”? Whenever you have time.], I think we may temporarily revert it to Xixabangma and continue the discussion, and at last you may close it.

P.S. The Google Translation between English, French and German is faithful, but Google Translation between an European language and Chinese is totally unfaithful. The sentence, “您已經創建更適合我們所有的工作 (You have created more work for all of us)” means “You've created (something) more suitable to all our jobs (works)” in Chinese. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

虞海 - a word of caution, before you make anymore undiscussed moves, please ask for help. Moving titles improperly and repeatedly has conseqences. I know you mean well, but until you have a better understanding of the consequences and the methodology I would encourage you to 在海灣保持的氣魄 (keep the Boldness at bay). Shishapangma is now resolved and needs no further discussion at present. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why not just bring page moves up for discussion before doing them?—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat unsuccessful to distinguish move needn't discussion and move need discussion (e.g. Kawagebo->Kawagarbo is a move needn't discussion, while Shishapangma->Xixabangma is a move need discussion). I'm reevaluating those move. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since you have had problems with page moves before, I suggest that you err on the side of checking first.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sishapangma/Xixabangma has nothing to do with Kawagebo/Kawagarbo. The first refers to the different spelling between the traditional spelling in English and the Tibetan Pinyin spelling. The second refers to the Chinese Pinyin versus Tibetan Pinyin. I don't know if you have made some research before moving Kawagebo, but from my experience (not googling) I would say that Kawagarbo is not a common spelling in English. The Chinese spelling is possibly more common than the Tibetan Pinyin in English, but I would dare to say that amongst people who really know this mountain, the spelling "Khawa Karpo / Khawakarpo / Kawakarpo will prevail. Curiously, the spelling "Khawakarpo" had a prominent location before your several edits, and ended more hidden in the text, with the bold removed. On a side note, the picture illustrating the Khawa Karpo article is not Khawa Karpo, but Men Tsunmo.

If your objective is really to improve the English Wikipedia respecting the existing policies, then I would suggest you to move Kawagarbo to Khawa Karpo.--Pseudois (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Sorry but I don't understand your justification for reverting my edits on the Panchen Lama article.

You justified your first revert by asking me to source my edits. Fair enough, if you are not familiar with how to spell "Panchen" in English, I can understand that you ask me to mention sources.

I first wanted to give you a couple of literature references, but I thought that you might challenge these references as not conclusive for being representative of the English literature on the topic. So I gave you both google web search (2 million hits for "Panchen" versus 12,000 hits for "Bainqen") and google scholar search (109 hits for "Panchen Erdeni" and 2 hits for "Bainqen". Please read the summary of my edit here.

Then came your second revert, with the following edit summary adressing me (I guess): "You insisted use Google Web Search instead of Google Scholar, while this time why don't you use Google Web Search? Could I understand that as: your use of Google Web Search was just an excuse for your persoal preference"

I sincerely don't understand your point. First I don't have any personal affinity with google searches (both web and scholar), as a google search is not able to define the relevance of the different hits. Secondly I don't have other preferences than the commonly used spelling in ENGLISH. Third I gave you both google web and google scholar as reference, and both do show an overwhelming majority of hits in favor of "Panchen" versus "Bainqen". So, where is the problem?--Pseudois (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It not a problem between Panchen and Bainqen (I fully agree that currently Panchen is the common name), but a problem between Bainqen Erdeni and Panchen Erdeni. The latter is a religious name, which should be standardlized. Google Web Search do support "Bainqen Erdini", but that's not my major point.

My second edit is not a revert but a clarification - you may see I add "short religious name" and "long religious name". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you are now agreeing that Panchen is the common name. That was not the case on 5 November when you added Bainqen Lama. I am reverting your last three edits for the following reasons:

1) Revert to the common spelling "Panchen Erdeni" instead of "Baiqen Erdeni" as per Google scholar (109 versus 2 hits, respectively 73 versus 1 hit if we restrict to English pages). Google web gives 9,200 hits for "Panchen Erdeni" and 4,700 hits for "Bainqen Erdeni".

2) The current lead with 4 lines about the naming (while 99.9% of English readers simply know as "Panchen Lama") does neither follow the Wikipedia manual of style for the lead section nor the use English policy. This undue weight to the naming makes the article very difficult to read. Don't forget that this is the "ENGLISH Wikipedia", and not a multilingual WP. It would be less disturbing if these information would be contained to a "naming" section.

3) You first reverted my edit as it was not sourced. I gave references but you reverted it again. On top of that you added some additional unsourced material ("Bainqen Bogdo Erdeni" for example gets ZERO google web hit).

4) A more simple solution could actually be to totally remove the reference to "Panchen/Bainqen Erdeni", as this alternative naming might not satisfy WP criteria for inclusion, with only about 10,000 google hits versus 500,000 for "Panchen Lama" (or 1 google schoolar reference for "Bainqen Erdeni" verus 1720 for "Panchen Lama").

May I advise you to read again the previous discussion on your talk page and the various WP guidelines, conventions and manuals of style. That would allow us to avoid repeating lengthy sterile discussions. --Pseudois (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise, we should use a consistent spelling for "Panchen" throughout the article, i.e. not "Panchen Lama" and then "Bainqên Erdeni". I think the name "Panchen Erdeni" should appear in the article somewhere, because you do see it in the sources sometimes. Also, "Panchen Rinpoche", which Tsering Shakya uses consistently and "Tashi Lama", which is common in older English sources.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do fully agree with you. "Panchen Erdeni" does appear in the lead, and "Panchen Rinpoche" and "Tashi Lama" would be meaningful additions.--Pseudois (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they should go in the lede or somewhere else in the article. If there is only one alternative name, it's easy; but I don't like to have a long list of names in the intro.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor to have only "Panchen Lama" in the lead, and all other alternative names in a separate section.--Pseudois (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, That's fine that you are asking me to source my edits, but I would just like to make you realize that I basically reverted the Ngor article to its previous version after your own unsourced edits. Sounds quite contradictory, isnt't it? Anyway, now all my edits have been sourced, so I hope the current version is fine for you.--Pseudois (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is currently a move request here regarding the universities category for the ROC. 61.18.170.89 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A move request has been submited here. [5] 61.18.170.87 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy new year!
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we are somewhat against the move for the Republic of China to Taiwan and the specific line "Taiwan is a sovereign state". I propose we create a new article. So let me explain while I was looking over other Wikipedia articles about the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China in other languages; I notice the Polish created a China article which state both the Republic of China and People's Republic of China which links the reader to the PRC page and ROC page. Shown here http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiny Now I need your opinion. Do you think we should do something similar as like the Polish did.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one in Simplified Chinese Characters http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of the former English scheme, that is, the current scheme used in Chinese Wikipedia. The page Polish Wikipedia is, a bit like disambiguation page, but ok. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people tends to advocate a fallacy, say -

Since Wikipedia treats the R.O.C as a legitimate state and violate the One-China-policy so saying "ROC is a legitimate state" and saying "Taiwan, officially ROC, is a legitimate state" is equally POV 

This is completely wrong and the two statement have completely different impression on both Taiwan and mainland Chinese. I hope people know some subtle position on PRC and ROC, that is:

PRC never made the status quo clear - it did never publicize "ROC is illegitimate", nor did it publicize "ROC is legitimate". Both sides are deliberately bluring the Taiwan Issue. So when something an outsider though the same is understood completely different by natives.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I discover the Polish version first. I'm more towards the Chinese version and French version myself as well.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a consequential request here at CFD as a result to the previous move request on ROC universities. Regards. 116.48.183.128 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my reply on User_talk:Mike_Cline#Yarlung_Tsangpo_River--Pseudois (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this discussion to talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River. Please continue there if needed. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have placed a merged tage under Lhatse, without mentioning for which reasons you would like to merge the town of Lhatse with the county of Lhatse. This would be a bit like merging Bejing with China. Please give some thoughts for discussion, otherwise I think that you can simply remove the merge tag.--Pseudois (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Your pseudoisanalogy... Fully awared of the lead of the article wrotes boldtext “Lhatse Xian”, you distort the fact by claiming it to be the seat of Lhaze County... ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You still did not explain why you put the merge tag. If there is no explanation for merging, I think I am entitled to remove this merge tag within a few weeks.

2) This is not a pseudo analogy. Lhatse town (new Lhatse) is the capital of Lhatse County.

3) I haven't made any distortion. Look at the page history to convince you about it. Instead, I was (and am still) waiting for the merge tag to be removed in order to correct many wrong information contained in this page.

4) You have move without explanation Lhatse to Quxar, a naming/spelling that is highly uncommon for English speakers. --Pseudois (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently (espc. after the Xixabangma->Shishapangma move) you're more and more actively engaged in undifferentiated renaming campaign, as if I can do nothing in the discussion no matter what you did and as if you can impose your views on me. I'm not happy on it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about, as I haven't made any "undifferentiated" renaming, both before and after the Shishapangma discussion. Please be specific if you think that I have done such thing. I think however that the edit summary should normally be self-explaining.

Instead, your edit history shows plenty of controversial and/or unexplained page moves, Quxar being the last of a long list. I would like to politely invite you to refrain making such controversial/unexplained moves in future.--Pseudois (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gawa Baizêg has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the Gawa Baizêg article.--Pseudois (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! This article is about Kawa Paltsek. At first I did not know who you were meanng with Gawa Baizêg, as a google search gave me zero hit and I did not know with whom to associate this name. Apparently you have also created a page with the name Kawa Paltsek, so a move from Gawa Baizêg to Kawa Paltsek is not possible anymore. I'll try to fix it by simply moving the content of Gawa Baizêg to Kawa Paltsek. I hope this is fine so.--Pseudois (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the proposed deletion tag and instead made a redirect to Kawa Paltsek that you had created. I think the problem is solved in that way. May I suggest you one more time to enquire about common English spelling before creating/editing articles with very uncommon spelling forms in English.--Pseudois (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that despite all previous advices given to you by several editors and administrators, you have again made a intempestive page move without giving a single explanation. I refer to the page Tibetan pinyin that you have moved to Official transcription of Tibetan.

This is a very poor title change as:

1. "Official". The word "official" as such is very ambiguous, as the Tibetan Pinyin does only have an official status within the People Republic of China, but not in all other countries where Tibetan languages are spoken.
2. "Transcription". It is also ambiguous, as the article is only dealing with the transcription in roman alphabet, and not, for example, the transcription of Tibetan in Arabic or Chinese.
3. "Tibetan" is also ambiguous, as the article only refers to Standard Tibetan, but not all other Tibetan languages.

An alternative to "Tibetan pinyin" could be "Official Romanization of Standard Central Tibetan language in the People Republic of China", but in any case I would strongly suggest to propose such changes on the talk page before making another move. Meanwhile I have move back the page to its original title.--Pseudois (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have previously shared your view regarding a naming convention about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your view at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.216 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The United Nations Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on articles in East Asia PhnomPencil talk contribs 23:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where you stand on the politics, but your additions to the East Asian articles have certainly helped the encyclopaedia overall... so thanks! PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem with robots, or what's you problem? I'm talking about this message in particular regarding this action. The interwiki links are made to be shown in the page, and that's what a bot knows. It doesn't do vandalism. It just help us with the interconnection between Wikipedias. That {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Special|}} was completely inappropriate there and the bots made the correction needed. Next time think twice before adding such warnings. Thanks.  Daniel  Message  13:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuhai! I'm currently working with pdf files that were converted from mengsoft that contain both Mongolian and Latin characters. I could presumably, if necessary, obtain the source files. Most files I am working with are txt files in unicode. Now I am able to let my computer read the Latin text from the pdfs, but it cannot read the Mongolian text nor can it copy it. Do you know how the mengsoft text could be converted into unicode? Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:虞海/Menksoft Mongolian IMEs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:虞海/Menksoft Mongolian IMEs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:虞海/Menksoft Mongolian IMEs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Syllable structure. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Syllable structure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AliasStudio.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Atho-Popu, from its old location at User:虞海/Atho-Popu. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vietnamese people in China and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Vietnamese people in China until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]