User talk:星光下的人

"Div." is short for Division. It seemed a better translation for 郡 than "Commandery", looking at dictionary sources like this. BartBassist (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Commandery is not a word normally used in English; I thought that Division (which can be used in administrative contexts) sounded more understandable. But if Commandery is the standard translation I will change it back. Problem is, it's rather a long word – the family tree boxes have limited space and are starting to look cluttered. Would you be happy with an abbreviation such as "Comm."? BartBassist (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A separate discussion relating to the Qing family tree – You noted that Guangxu Emperor was adopted by Tongzhi Emperor. I thought that Tongzhi's death was unexpected (possibly from syphilis or similar) and that he was expected to live on and have sons, like every Qing emperor before him. Therefore he would not have adopted the future Guangxu during his lifetime. I thought that Guangxu was adopted by Empress Dowager Cixi, but not by Tongzhi. (Relating to the question of whether I can read Chinese, my Chinese is somewhat limited and I am grateful for your corrections. I am involved with family trees mainly due to my expertise in chart encoding.) BartBassist (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

——I moved Shu Han to the right side of the Han family tree, instead of the left, was because according to English wiki, Liu Fa was older than Liu Sheng. The list of sons on Jingdi's page has Liu Fa 7th son, Liu Sheng 9th son, and Emperor Wu 10th son: this is the order which I used (it would really mess the family tree up if Wudi is not in the middle, so I ignored the order for him, but this is also the case on the old version of the Han family tree).

Even though this order appears to be wrong, there are some reasons why I think that the order I have used is preferable:
 * Emperors Wang Mang, Gengshi and Gwangwu are all next to each other, making it easier to see the changes between dynasty at this time.
 * It is neat to have Shu Han on the right of the family tree, as they came to power after Eastern Han.

I agree that the sons of Zhangdi are a mess at the moment - this section of the family tree is simply lifted from the old version. BartBassist (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks for your help with the construction of the Five Dynasties section of Chinese emperors family tree (middle), which I started for the sake of completeness. However, I deliberately only made family trees for the dynasties, not the kingdoms, because the family tree is titled "Chinese Emperors" (i.e. 皇帝), not "Chinese monarchs" (i.e. 皇帝 or 王). I'm happy for Bei Han to stay on the page, because they argued that they were a continuation of the Hou Han Dynasty (like Nan Ming after 1644). But I'm not sure about the other kingdoms. Surely their rulers were 王 not 皇帝. BartBassist (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chu (state)
Hi, please provide references for your edits on the article. I mean, find sources to support your claim "male noble of Spring and Autumn used clan name,female use surname，they can not used both". If not, your edits will be reverted. Thanks. _LDS (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bad habit of other editors to add information that are unreferenced. I don't think you would want to pick up this habit as well, would you? Chinese sources are acceptable. I've used only sources in Chinese for some articles that I've created/edited heavily. Thanks. _LDS (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 请你对你在“楚国”上新加的资料列明那些资料的来源. 之前有些用户有种坏习惯，就是加了资料后没放资料的来源. 我相信你也不想学他们吧？我倒是有些好奇，为何楚国男性贵族不用芈姓呢？无所谓，只要资料有来源就行了，不管是英文的还是中文的. 多谢你的贡献. _LDS (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 我长期用英语在维基上跟别人交流，用中文时难免会有些不习惯，请不要见怪. _LDS (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 那么，资料来源是《史记》？如此说来，应该不需要用脚注了. 可以算过关了. 多谢你的贡献. _LDS (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 我看你就把那些资料来源全放在 References 就行了. _LDS (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts on Kingsguard and House Targaryen
Hey, I saw you reverted some merges I recently did. You are ofcourse free to do so, but I am curious about your reason. My original merges were definitely not jokes. Please explain your reason for keeping the articles on talk:Kingsguard, Talk:House Targaryen, my talkpage or here, whatever you prefer. Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
I see you reverted an editors merges in this edit and this edit.


 * Please provide useful and polite edit summaries, and not "merge is a joke!".
 * Please do not mark such edits as minor.
 * Please consider communicating with the editor in advance.
 * Please consider actually responding to the editor afterwards when he asked why you reverted.
 * Finally, please communicate in English on English Wikipedia.

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

侯
请注意当改变Marquis/Marquess以侯时，在英文申侯的例子是被称为“Marquess of Shen"不是Shen Hou. 祝好，菲利浦Philg88 (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Huaizong of Song
I see you're back and making changes without concensus. You claim to be Chinese but clearly you can't read Chinese sources. Bing was his personal name. 明白了没有？► Philg88 ◄ talk 14:56, Sunday March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent
我所要说的是：人要是写什么关于的空子的嫡孙，就都写 "孔德成,孔子77代嫡孙",＂孔令贻, 孔子76代嫡孙","孔祥珂,孔子75代嫡孫", 等等. 我就觉得，我们在Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent也会写, "Kong Decheng (77)", "Kong Lingyi (76)", "Kong Xiangke (75)", 等等. 读者要是问＂第43,53,63的是谁？＂，就可能马上找到他. (Articles, books, monuments almost always say something like "Kong Decheng, the 77th-generation descendant of Confucius", etc. Every time these people are mentioned, their generation number is mentioned too. So I thought that it would be useful to have the generation number given for every [main line of descent] person in the table as well. This way if a reader wants to know e.g. "Who was the 43rd/53rd/63rd-generation descendant of Confucius?", he can easily find him in the table.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Descent from antiquity, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I'd already tagged the article for original research and lack of sources, you added a claim that the Confucius lineage was true without any reliable source for this. Please don't add unsourced disputed material to article. Thanks.'' Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Explaining changes
星光下的人 -- The format changes you made at Template:Family tree of Ashikaga clan are significant. Your edit introduces several innovative differences in this graphic overview of the familial and dynastic relationships. Our ability to interpret and evaluate your work here would be helped by citing its source. Please explain the specific reasons for the changes you have made. For example, please clarify how the dotted-lines should be construed in this revised format. See also Template talk:Family tree of Ashikaga clan. --Tenmei (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My edits are carefully explained in a step-by-step manner. Yours are not.  This is not good.  You must explain.  If not, then what are we to think? --Tenmei (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not hesitate to ask more questions if you have them. --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yu the Great
Hi again, 星光下的人, I know your English isn't good, but please give better edit summaries and use proper English in your edits. I see a number of other editors are having the same problems with you, and what you've been doing recently at Yu the Great is more of the same. I also remember having similar problems with you last year on similar issues. We are to avoid contentious language on Wikipedia talk pages and edit summaries.

When I undo one of your edits, we can then discuss the changes on the talk page and sort out your concern with his "ancestral" vs. "given" names. If you don't feel comfortable doing so in English, it might be best to confine your edits to the Chinese Wikipedia (see WP:SPEAKENGLISH). If this continues to be a problem, users might start asking administrators to intervene. I welcome your thoughts on this matter. Leave me a message on my Chinese Wikipedia talk page if you are unclear about things I've described here.  White Whirlwind  咨   03:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Tan(State)
When you amend entries, please leave in a grammatically and rationally correct state. Also justify you changes in the associated comment field and/or comments pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tang dynasty
You forgot to add Laozi and Li Guang to the Chinese_emperors_family_tree_(middle). All Tang Emperors claim they are descended from Laozi and Li Guang.Sonny Fin (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I need sources for the lineage of the kings of Yue (state) who claimed descent from Yu the Great and the kings of Wu (state) who claimed descent from Wu Taibo, it should be placed over at Family tree of ancient Chinese emperors.Sonny Fin (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Han (state)
请在删除咨询以前先回答讨论. Translation: before removing any more information from Han (state), please first answer the talk page. Hanfresco (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lu State
Re your changes (now reverted) to this article. If you are correct in saying that Lu was a marquessate then you are also saying that the Zuo Zhuan is wrong in its entirety. Since that is highly unlikely please leave the Lu (state) article as it is with dukes as rulers. Thanks ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 09:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's been accepted for over 2000 years that the Lu rulers were dukes.  We should conform to tradition unless there's overwhelming evidence proving it's false, a single article by one researcher is not enough. --Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at 陈恩林 《先秦两汉文献中所见诸侯五等爵》 《历史研究》1994年06期 http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-LSYJ199406005.htm, you can find it easyly by Baidu,the noble rank before Qin is very very dificult ,except King of Zhou,all monarch even viscount can be called Gong.——星光下的人 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Monarchs of Jin (Chinese state)
Hi 星光下的人,

You clearly have very deep knowledge of ancient Chinese history and I sincerely respect that.

However, you seem to devote much of your effort in lengthy arguments on relatively minor and esoteric points, such as whether the dukes of Lu were really marquesses, whether Gongzi should be translated to prince, and whether the legitimate branch of Jin rulers during the divided period should be called the main branch.

Please note that here at the English Wikipedia, there aren't many active contributors to ancient Chinese history, and the few of us have many urgent issues to address, such as creating articles for hundreds of ancient rulers and generals, converting hundreds of stubs to real articles (such as the kings of Zhou and Shang dynasties, etc.), and correct numerous blatant errors that stay uncorrected for years on many articles. Spending hours arguing on minor, debatable issues distracts us from the far more urgent task and is counterproductive. It would really be great if you could apply your profound knowledge in more productive areas such as creating new content, providing references, and correcting egregious errors.

Thank you very much!

--Zanhe (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said Zanhe, there is plenty of scope for improvement without arcane arguments. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 08:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop your personal attack and recklessly moving the pages around
I strongly object to the comment you made in this edit, implying I was making up citations from offline sources. Since it sounds like you have access to Han Zhaoqi's Annotated Shiji, please read note 7 on page 348, which says that Duke Zhuang of Qin is called Duke in a similar way that Marquis of Qin is called Marquis. They are not authorized by the king of Zhou but that's what they are called anyway. I've clearly explained that in the article.

And please stop recklessly moving pages around without consensus. You moved Duke Xian of Qin (Duke Ning) to the completely wrong title "Duke Xian of Qin (725CE－704CE)". Do you realize that CE means AD? And the reason you gave for this move is also wrong. Please read the Shiji again. There are two Qin rulers called Chuzi, therefore we need Chuzi I and Chuzi II. --Zanhe (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Man Under the Starlight, I apologize in advance for hijacking your talk page, but I wanted to respond to Zanhe in context.
 * Hi Zanhe, when I saw the I and II's next to an ancient Chinese ruler's name, I thought it strange. I understand that the I's and II's help distinguish those rulers and certainly makes sense to a Western audience, but it's not the convention used in China. The only time that a numbering system (that I can think of) is used is for Qin Shi Huang and Qin Er Shi, and it's an exception, not the rule. Personally, I think it makes more sense to use title (historical period) for these situations, and turns out is the system used in the Chinese Wiki. See zh:秦惠公 (春秋) and zh:秦惠公 (战国) for Duke Hui I of Qin and Duke Hui II of Qin. I also understand that conventions in other Wiki projects do not dictate English wiki conventions, but even this numbering convention is different in Western monarchs and nobles too. See John II, Duke of Brittany, Edward III of England, Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby, Edward Smith-Stanley, 13th Earl of Derby; why are they not Duke John of Brittany II, King Edward of England III, Earl Edward Smith-Stanley of Derby I, and Earl Edward Smith-Stanley of Derby II? The following examples may not necessarily be relevant to Chinese nobility, but do demonstrate the precedence of using eras in the English wiki: John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826), John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831), John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1880), Elisabeth of Bohemia (1292–1330), Elisabeth of Bohemia (1358–1373). So, should we stick to convention, rather than inventing something new? Hanfresco (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at Talk:Duke Hui I of Qin. I'm moving the discussion to the article talk page so that other people who may have the same question in the future will be able to find it.  --Zanhe (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ziyu of Han
我不明白，韩子舆 不是谥号吗？Hanfresco (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 既然韩(子)舆是名字，那wiki条目是不是该改？用谷歌查询，‘韩子舆’有40000条结果，‘韩舆’有2000条结果. 条目改成 Han Ziyu 认为如何？Hanfresco (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism4im List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — KC9TV 15:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous warning. He was only editing the list to match the source. -Zanhe (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why was he indefinitely-blocked upon the Japanese Wikipedia, then? — KC9TV 04:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what he did on the Japanese Wikipedia, but I know he's sometimes stubborn and difficult to deal with (see my postings above). But he's definitely not a vandal, and the edits he made on the two lists are definitely not vandalism. -Zanhe (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do please explain, then, in Chinese if you wish to. I am giving you a long rope, here. Why were there NO edit-summaries, for instance? — KC9TV 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOT VANDALISM. -Zanhe (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism4im List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — KC9TV 03:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you stop abusing the vandalism templates? All he did was adding a citation needed tag.  That's absolutely not vandalism. -Zanhe (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can he even read and write in the English language? No, not really. Then why is he even being here, then, let alone editing the pages of the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as well as that of the Prince Wales and Duke of Cornwall? Is this all to do with "该用户支持中华人民共和国", "這个用戶支持一个中国原则" and "這個用戶支持或認同鄧小平理論"? 这是""爱国"行为"了吗？Why not the Queen, Queen Elizabeth the Second of England and the United Kingdom as well? Come on, if it is, out with it. — KC9TV 04:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, his English is horrible. What worries me more is your xenophobic bigotry. Seriously? Discount him simply because of a few userboxes? Hanfresco (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:SPEAKENGLISH. — KC9TV 08:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

subst:ANI-notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — KC9TV 08:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User name translation
"User under starlight"/"Person under starlight" don't seem to do adequate justice to the poetry of the name in character; do you have a preferred translation? Dru of Id (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)