User talk:Kanguole/Archive 2

UK school infobox
Hi Kanguole. As you probably  know, many  secondary  schools in  England are being  given 'Academy' status.They  are being  given new URNs by  Ofsted. What this means for ediors is a lot of work changing  them  in  infoboxes. I've started a discussion at  WT:WPSCH, but  as you are our resident  expert on  school  infobox coding, I  was wondering  if you  could consider adding a new param  for the Academies. The old Ofted URN will still  be used for a long  while to  refer to  previous inspection  reports, until  new inspection reports  (generally  every  3 years) appear with  the new URN. On another note (above) I  see you  have left  of you  work  on  certain articles for the same reason  I  did nearly  two  years ago. It was a shame, because as a linguist, I  have a passion  for the IPA, and the correct BE pronunciation  for UK settlements. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replied there. Kanguole 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking ahead . ..
Psychic, are we? (All fixed now.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This new year stuff is so complicated!  Kanguole 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance
Hi Kanguole, I was wondering if there's anything else you'd like me to address at the FAC? Or if not, would you be willing to change your "Comments" to "Support"? --Elonka 17:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance
Hi Kanguole, thank you for commenting at the Franco-Mongol alliance FA nom. I have offered a query to your most recent comment, and was curious as to whether or not you were intending to reply? I am eager to work with you in order to improve the article. Thanks, --Elonka 14:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan RM - ANI
Kanguole, thanks for notifying me of the ANI discussion you started. However, I couldn't discern from your short explanation whether or not you were concerned with my actions, Eraserhead's actions, or both. In particular, the statement "Mike Cline has now given up" is confusing from this standpoint: Does it mean Eraserhead's actions drove me off? (ie bad on Eraserhead) or does it mean Mike is quiting this RM and shouldn't be allowed to (ie, bad on Mike). Trust me, I am not upset about any of this. When you close a lot of contentious RMs, someone is always upset with your actions. I have a track record of recusing myself from further involvement in a specific RM whenever things like this happen. Its one way to cut off contentiousness at the knees. Again, thanks for notifying me about the ANI. You might want to include a notification within the RM itself. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for being a bit telegraphic. My objection is to Eraserhead's actions, which I think set a very unhealthy precedent for RM.  It is certainly unreasonable to expect you to re-close, and you are of course entitled to walk away.  I did think this excessively meek, though.  I'll add a note at the RM as you suggested.  Kanguole 15:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good explanation. But one must always remember as I do from my childhood days: “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). To many, “meekness” suggests the idea of passivity, someone who is easily imposed upon, spinelessness, weakness. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Greek New Testament, “meek” is from the Greek term praus. It does not suggest weakness; rather, it denotes strength brought under control. The ancient Greeks employed the term to describe a wild horse tamed to the bridle. From:  --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute
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) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

move vs. merge
Hi Kanguole; thanks for your productive comments at the ROC move proposal. I guess the immediate reason for moving the article at Taiwan to Taiwan (island) is to make way for a move from Republic of China to Taiwan. Because something has to be done with that article.. maybe it should be merged, but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. So if nothing else, the Taiwan (island) move is a placeholder, until a full merge could be completed (if that is what is desired). At least that was how I saw things unfolding.. but I think the simplest first step (to make sure the edit histories make sense) is to move ROC -> Taiwan, and Taiwan -> Taiwan (island); hence the proposal. Mlm42 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mlm42, and thanks. The thing is, your proposal already involves a merge: there is no text in User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan (island) that is not also in User:Jpech95/taiwan/Taiwan.  And quite right too: readers looking under "Taiwan" are as likely to be wanting to find out about the geography and history of the place as about its government.  Also, Taiwan has several thousand incoming links, from articles ranging from entomology to meteorology and linguistics, which should not be invalidated.


 * The proposal also involves splitting off some of the context and moving it back to "Republic of China" to expand the redirect created by the move. Again this is necessary, e.g. extensive coverage of the pre-1949 republic wouldn't fit under the title "Taiwan".


 * So the proposal involves two moves, a merge and a split. The merge and split aren't optional extras – a move from Republic of China to Taiwan wouldn't make sense without them.  I don't see that combination as simpler than a merge (of most of Republic of China into Taiwan).  Nor would the resulting edit history be easier to follow.  Kanguole 01:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; I see your point. But ultimately, the end result of your suggestion of a ROC -> Taiwan merge, would likely end up the same (except for the edit histories). I think that suggestion is probably another solution to the same problem. Maybe it would have been simpler to propose a merge, but we are where we are, I guess. Mlm42 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalyan97
Looks like COI, and the book he is adding, Indian hieroglyphs: Invention of writing by S Kalyanaraman is self-published by Kalyanaraman's "Sarasvati Research Center". Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I noticed the author name, but didn't know what "Sarasvati Research Center" was.  Kanguole 09:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ROC's locator map
Thanks for fixing the map. :-) Jeffrey (202.189.98.132) (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding history of ROC and Taiwan
Hi Kanguole, I noticed you reverted a question about how I think the history sections should be arranged. It's a difficult area to separate in the sense that I think Taiwan (island) should exist, but that the history of Taiwan as an island is largely inseparable from the history of Taiwan as a country. There are difficult semantics involved and I've tried looking at other country articles for guidance, which is where Germany and France came into play.

Essentially, the articles on Germany and France deal with both the modern country and the geographical area now occupied by that modern country even before the country existed. Germany's article goes back to the Germanic tribes and Roman rule, and France's article includes things like Roman Gaul and the various incarnations of the French Republic. Strictly speaking, modern Germany and modern France as countries didn't exist back then, but the articles choose to deal with them regardless, in effect merging the notion of 'Germany/France the country' with 'Germany/France the geographic region'.

This seems like a good solution for Taiwan as well. We have 'Taiwan the country' and 'Taiwan the geographic region' that I think should be treated as a joint topic in the Taiwan article, with respect to history at minimum. History of Taiwan would be the main top-level article then dealing with the history of 'Taiwan the country' and 'Taiwan the island' in the same way History of Germany deals with 'Germany the country' and 'Germany the region' or History of France deals with 'France the country' and 'France the region'. The article Taiwan would then reference History of Taiwan and provide a small summary as is customary. If we continued the similarities, Republic of China would then be an article on the government of the ROC (along the lines of the French Fourth Republic or the Republic of Formosa, except that ROC hasn't 'ended' yet), and History of the Republic of China would be the main top-level article dealing with the history of the government itself, as distinct from the country and region.

Hope this sheds some light on the structure I'm imagining here. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted because I had thought the comment I was replying to was by benjwong, but then realized it wasn't.


 * Yes, it is common for country articles to deal with the area occupied by modern country. So what do you want in this Taiwan (island) article?  Kanguole 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the difficult part. I haven't assessed this fully yet. I'd like to draw on articles like Australia/Australia (continent) or Madagascar/Madagascar (island) for inspiration here. I suspect that the best approach is for Taiwan (island) to deal primarily with the geography, geology, flora and fauna of the island with only a token summary coverage of the island's history, which would be referred to History of Taiwan as the main article. Taiwan could then refer to Taiwan (island) in the Geography section as its main article, perhaps. I really do think Taiwan (island) should exist but it needs to be justified in terms of content. If the geography of the island is all pushed to Geography of Taiwan, for instance, it might be harder to justify Taiwan (island) existing as a standalone article. What are your thoughts on this? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My view is that Taiwan should have a Geography section, referring to Geography of Taiwan for detail, and that Taiwan (island) is superfluous, a relic of the days when we had different names for the country ("Republic of China") and its territory ("Taiwan"). Note that Madagascar (island) is a redirect, as are Iceland (island) and Cuba (island), and Australia (continent) also includes New Guinea.  The issue is being discussed at Talk:Taiwan (island).  Kanguole 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I hadn't weighed in there yet because I was undecided, but I think I've come to the conclusion that Taiwan (island) should be a redirect to Geography of Taiwan, in line with other countries. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching those copyvios before they have become cut up and tightly integrated in the article. wctaiwan (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right – a little more copyediting and the clues would have been gone. Kanguole 08:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
With reference to this edit of yours I dont think it was pointless at all. In fact i would prefer to call your edit as a pointless revert, please see more on his talk page.   Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   14:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They're both pointless – that's my point. Responded there.  Kanguole 00:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Qin
Kanguole – mind weighing in on a sourcing dispute at Talk:Qin (state)? Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨   10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Kanguole 10:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese townships
Hi. I actually agree that the sheer amount of work needed to get them all up to a decent level and fixing the existing errors is a mammoth task and one which is unlikely to be accomplished so it might be better starting from scratch one at a time. And I actually agree that sub stubbing is problematic because of the amount of work needed to expand them and its best creating meatier stubs. I don't view the project as I used to and you should have noticed that my editing in 2012 has been significantly different. But I continue to be treated with animosity and treated as if I am still an adherent of creating useless stubs which I cannot escape from. I am actually of the opinion now, given that so much information is becoming available that it is more constructive to add a sourced fact or two to new articles and detest sub stubs as much as anybody else does. I never "liked" creating short stubs but due to the sheer amount missing at times it seemed plausible to try to get people working on content towards them. Many of my stubs have been expanded but many haven't, but that's wikipedia. If we could have an article on every Chinese townships like Anxiang Township this would go a massive way towards addressing systematic bias. But placeholder stubs in a way still reveal the systematic bias as few are expanding them. Above all I want to see information dramatically expand and wikipedia flourish and do a great deal towards trying to achieve it which I rarely get credit for. i think it was completely unnecessary what happened at ANI and we could have at least talked about the articles in a more constructive, more amicable manner elsewhere. Just show me some respect and I'll reciprocate it. I should be able to add sourced population to Jaguar's Spanish municipality stubs anyway..♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It had to be ANI, because this is a mess that will need admin tools to clean up.


 * I haven't presumed to assess you as an editor; my attention has been focussed on the Chinese township stubs. But thanks for letting me know that you now believe that sub stubbing is problematic.  Hopefully we can clean this up and put it behind us.  Kanguole 12:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've contacted Plastikspork who might be able to fix the Chinese and we could possibly arrange something later to replace the short stubs with more productive articles. Can you hold off on the deletions for a week to allow us to properly arrange something on this? A bot could easily paste into ? in article. A lot can happen within a week.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you've changed your position on substubs again? The empty lang-zh is the most glaring omission, but they also lack proper sources (like the one Maculosae tegmine lyncis is using) and interwiki links, and the infobox shows several empty slots.  Even with that they would be minimal.  But if someone were doing that, surely it would be easier to create those slightly larger stubs from scratch than work around the idiosyncracies and errors of the existing stubs.  Kanguole 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I just expanded La Yesa which is at AFD. But I'm only really fully happy to nuke all the Chinese sub stubs if a bot is coded to restart them with fuller data. Yes, it would immediately solve a massive problem by eliminating them all, but the chances of them all being restarted manually with info is highly unlikely and it might be ten years before we have articles on all of them. And as certian editors like Pengyuan etc are working on them and probably wouldn't start them otherwise. I think the best thing really is to a] organize a bot to add all of the Chinese b] fix the references to the exact pages and then overide the stubs with articles containing info. But it depends largely on whether anybody is willing to code something. There was a mass deletion about three years ago on my German politician sub stubs and the argument to delete them was "too short restart with info". And since extremely few have actually been restarted and there is an enormous amount still missing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether a bot gets written or not is a quite separate issue, except that these erroneous stubs will get in its way. You seem to be arguing that a reasonable strategy for expanding coverage is to create messes for other editors to clean up; I cannot agree with that.  And I'm sure that editors like Pengyanan who are able to add content about such places are perfectly capable of creating articles themselves.  Kanguole 09:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I don't think that at all. Its far from ideal. Yeah I agree it would be easier to do that. As if I haven't got enough on my plate with sorting out my old Tibetan village stubs and expanding like Lhari Town etc.. I'm just trying to think what would be more productive in the long term.. On a promising note things for China are looking up on the information front and should Jaguar's stubs all be deleted quality can only improve from now on.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole - I see you have a bot watching the Taiwan page!
Hi Kanguole. I am glad we agree that the PRC claim on Taiwan is at least notional. However it is more than simply notional. Many major nations an international unions, such as the United Nations and ASEAN, explicitly recognize the PRCs claim, rightly or perhaps wrongly. It is biased and supporting of a minority view to call this widely accepted claim only 'hypothetical' or 'notional'. It is not that I think it should not be worded in a way to acknowledges the separatist government, simply that it should not be worded in a way that denies reality. --—  r obbie  page talk 18:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist, yes. The talk page would be the best place to present your argument, especially as there are others disagreeing with you.  Kanguole 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There appear to be edits both ways, yes someone will probably start a talk theme soon. I'll stop posting here, thanks for the heads up. I'd just ask you not go back and change it back until someone gives a credible reason why we shouldn't give the PRC claim at least one neutral line in the disambiguation page. --—  r obbie  page talk 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2-cell braille
Hey, thanks! I just emailed the 中国盲人协会 to see if they had a pdf copy, but I see your ref resolves the typos.

(Now, if you can do the same for Cantonese ...)

— kwami (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

strikeout at ANI
Many thanks for correcting my mistake, and apologies for not noticing that you corrected it and I undid it again. I saw that my strike didn't end, used "edit section", and placed the slash at the other side, not noticing that you had already done that for me. Very stupid, thanks for dropping a note and for reading it correctly. Your help is much appreciated, even if I ruined it again :-) I honestly couldn't understand why strike no longer worked any which way I tried it, at least now I know what happened! Fram (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I take your point at Talk:Noël Coward, however for better or worse that is what the guideline says, and the guideline has been applied on exactly that basis again and again to French, Spanish, Poles, you name it. Although you say I posted the talk merely to "gather support" against a guideline I don't agree with, it isn't that simple and that isn't strictly the case, for one thing since I very much doubt support for changing the guideline can be gathered from a page Talk:Noël Coward, and secondly since there are circumstances where I would agree with the guideline being applied to Talk:Noël Coward, since if it is applied to non-British/American bios then why shouldn't it be? But at this point I'm simply testing out the water. It's only a couple of Talk pages, and more than one was necessary to find any response at all, and the response is minimal. If you don't mind me saying, your own response doesn't actually help much, but if you don't want this discussed on these Talk pages I won't raise it on any further. Is that okay? I do not intend to delete the Google searches I did, and do not at this point see why when the guideline is directly applicable to the articles why I should. These kind of discussions are frequent on bios with diacritics. What is different about these? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to stop posting these. Perhaps you could explain to the editor at Talk:Charlotte Brontë who mistook your posting for a serious proposal for the article and took the time to give a considered response.  Kanguole 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As it happens I've already done that (literally three minutes ago on the page and his/her Talk, before I came back here to see the above). Hopefully intelligent responses such as that User, PlainCloudWhite I think, would prevent the need to ever consider such a majority-sources-counting proposal as serious. However, do bear in mind what I said above, "there are circumstances where I would agree with the guideline being applied to Talk:Noël Coward, since if it is applied to non-British/American bios then why shouldn't it be?" .... Fortunately I think community common sense generally prevails at the article level, even with badly written (or badly warred) guidelines, however in the scenario where a policy was being applied one way to a Noël Coward and another way to "foreigners" - such as a Noël Roquevert or a Louis-Noël Belaubre for example, then I would be in favour of moving Noël Coward. Discriminatory application of a guideline being a worse fault than orthographical imperfection. If you see what I mean. That's why the discussion is not totally not serious. Anyway, thanks for your comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pyu
Hi,

I removed your comment on Pyu from the TB article, since there was no ref and the Pyu article does not support it. I've seen various dates for the start of the Pyu kingdom, usually with question marks, so I'm suspicious about actual Pyu texts being dated that early. Do you have any refs they are? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen 7th c.; not as early as Pai-lang, but certainly much earlier than Burmese. By the way, I haven't seen Beckwith, but if Coblin's account is accurate then Pai-lang is "attested" in a very weak sense.  Kanguole 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yue Chinese, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wuchuan and Huazhou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Shijing
Thank you for revising the Classic of Poetry page. The user White whirlwind did not make it explicitly clear where I was at fault nor attempted to revise the page. I claim no expertise in this area, so without sufficient explanation it seemed to me a case of unwarranted deletion. It is after all rather difficult to gauge other users' motives. I assumed that it was simply the transition sentence about the harshness of the Qin which I realize was exaggerated in the Han textual tradition that this user took issue with. I would like to thank you for your constructive revision, for teaching me something in the process, and for being a good wikipedian. Regards, -Devin (d.s.ronis) (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so positive about it. I find it usually helps to go back to the sources in disputes like this.  Kanguole 11:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tocharians
I guess you're right on the Tocharians issue. Sorry if i disturbed you. Krakkos (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geography of Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yilan County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom ...
Hi. Thank you for in. Absolutely. You may indeed be right. But without a statement (to-date) from O'Dea we will never know. When I first started editing back in March 2010 I did not use the minor edit button correctly. It wasn't until July 2010, 1,500+ edits later, that I learned how to use it. I do find it hard to understand why O'Dea, with considerably more experience than I and with more than 14,000 edits, was misusing a feature (that I fully accept is not mandated). My view on Hex's subsequent over-reaction. Thank you again for taking the time to respond -- Senra (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My point was that Hex had already over-reacted (by threatening a block for something we agree is not mandated) before the edits by O'Dea that you've pointed to. Hex says he's allergic to bullying, etc – well it seems non-admins like O'Dea can be too.  His defiance was suboptimal, but understandable, especially after a second block threat for "taking the piss".  O'Dea has already given his account at length in the AN thread, only to be dismissed with "TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading" by the blocking admin.  Kanguole 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hainanese Yue
Hi again,

You know anything about Mai? I understand Danzhou is no longer considered Yue. Does Mai follow, or is it still thought to be Yue? I notice that Danzhou+Mai is included in the maps of two different languages, Yue and Hainanese Minnan.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't, sorry. To my eye, Danzhou doesn't seem to be included in File:Banlamgu.svg, which is based on the Language Atlas of China (except for combining Leizhou and Hainan).  I've no idea what File:Yue Dialects.png is based on.  Kanguole 09:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the dialect that's on both maps? Is that Mai? And do we know if Danzhou and Mai are close to each other? I'm wondering if we should even have a 'Hainanese Yue' article, or if it should be deleted. — kwami (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no faith in the Yue Dialects map. The Atlas has a dialect area on the west coast called Chānggǎn (昌感), and one on the southwest coast called Yáxiàn (崖县), i.e. Sanya, both classified as Hainan Min.  It indicates that Mài (迈) is also spoken in parts of the Yaxian area, well away from Danzhou in the northwest (no idea about linguistic closeness).  I'd agree with deletion for Hainan Yue, as no support has been produced for it.  They are two dialects spoken on Hainan that have in the past been classified as Yue, but support for a group seems lacking.  Kanguole 10:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sinitic and Siniform scripts
Can you create an article on Sinitic and Siniform scripts? I can't find any article using the term "Siniform", and articles using "Sinitic", do it in a non-orthographic context. See my sandbox User:Rajmaan/Sinitic and Siniform scripts to see what I mean by those terms. A sinitic script is directly derived from Chinese like Kanji and a Siniform script is inspired by Chinese like Yi or Tangut. I'm not asking you to use my sources or my sandbox but wondering if you could create a stub article on the topic with your own sources.Rajmaan (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't Chinese family of scripts such an article? Kanguole 09:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that the article describes the two different types but doesn't give the names. Well, the official names are "sinitic" and "siniform" and those are used by linguists and academics. The article should be reorganized into sections with those two categories as the basis and the terms should be inserted into the article, with redirects created for Sinitic and Siniform linking to the sections. The current format is puzzling since some of the scripts listed under "adaptions for other languages" should be with "Scripts influenced by Chinese", like Miao characters.Rajmaan (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is already dividev between those categories; if some scripts are in the wrong section, that's easily fixed. As for nomenclature, there are no "official names", just conventional usage.  I see no evidence that the names you mention are the usual ones here.  Only one of the references you list distinguishes the terms "sinitic" and "siniform" in this way.  Most use "siniform" as an umbrella term for all these scripts.  Other sources I've seen do not use these terms at all.  Kanguole 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar School Story
Hi. I realize this was about two years ago, but I am just now seeing your message and all of my edits you reversed or expounded upon. If this is an inappropriate place for me to discuss this with you, please accept my apology.

For your convenience, I am pasting here the comment you left on my talk page:
 * Hi, MarydaleEd. I've reversed your changes of British spelling to American spelling in the Grammar school article, following the National varieties of English section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. In this case the article is primarily concerned with institutions in the United Kingdom, and was written in British English. Kanguole 10:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I have no problem with my edits being reversed. I have not referenced the National Varieties of English section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, so I will defer to your changing my spelling edits back to the European style. However, I would like to comment on the manner in which I edited the page and how it differs from how you edit pages, based upon this particular case.

When I edit, I don't seek to rewrite the author's sentences to make them tighter. I am merely concerned with grammar and style issues that must be corrected. I try to respect the author's original work, even if it isn't my style of writing, and stick to simply correcting mistakes.

It is clear that you are more familiar with this topic and added references and new information. I'm sure that made for a better, more complete page on grammar schools. Of course, if I have new references to add to a page I will do so. However, you also rewrote sentences to conform to your style of writing, and I would like to submit that I disagree with the practice of rewriting sentences to conform to the editor's style of writing. You are clearly more experienced here, so your way could be the Wikipedia policy and I could be wrong. If that is the case, then again, please accept my apology. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, MarydaleEd. As you say, it was over two years ago, but I think I found the edit you're referring to.  I would agree that one shouldn't change writing just to conform to one's own style, for much the same reason as WP:ENGVAR, namely that if everyone changes things to suit their personal preference we just get endless unproductive ping-ponging.  But there are other reasons to change style, e.g. to make something clearer or more direct, to more accurately reflect what the sources say, to make a paragraph or larger unit more coherent, etc.  In the case of "the vast majority of poor children did not attend school", I understand you felt that "vast" was unencylopedic, but simply removing it changed the meaning, so I tried to address both problems with a more direct phrasing.  Kanguole 11:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Chữ nho/chữ Hán
Thank you for your perceptive comments. One thing I think the Chữ nho/chữ Hán article needs is better explanation of why Chữ nho/chữ Hán persisted in Vietnam (there is a little in Vietnamese literature and Confucian examinations in Vietnam) and perhaps comparison with why Chinese persisted in Korea, didn't persist in Japan. If you have any sources for this would welcome then. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Martin
Hi, removed - I was a bit surprised by the wholesale nature of removal but that's okay. Why was mention of minority languages off topic? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic (as defined by Martin, Miyake, Norman, etc) is the borrowings that are both large-scale and systematic, which is just SJ, SK and SV. It doesn't include the ad-hoc borrowings into other languages, even if someone has used the same word for them.  (WP:NOTDICT, I guess.)  Kanguole 17:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes which is why I put it almost as a footnote under the three languages which Martin focussed on. Do Miyake and Norman formally close off the topic of Sino-xenic saying no other languages but these three have large scale and systematic borrowing. Of those languages mentioned in the "Sino-Xenic" ref I gave the only one I am familiar with is Yi, which has large-scale and systematic borrowing as SJ SK SV. It's generally noted that Thai also has large scale borrowing, I cannot judge what "systematic" would mean in this context. Martin Haspelmath, Uri Tadmor Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook 2009 -- Page 611 "Thai is of special interest to lexical borrowing for various reasons. The copious borrowing of basic vocabulary from Middle Chinese and later from Khmer indicates that, given the right sociolinguistic context, such vocabulary is not at all immune ..." The Thais only abandoned Chinese characters for Pali in the 13th Century after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Miyake and Norman do explicitly limit it. Miyake pp98–99 gives a clear and detailed explanation.  Kanguole 11:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wasn't familiar with this text (there was a time when I used to get copies of Routledge linguistics books for free alas alack) but I see it's on Amazon Look - with exactly these pages. You're right, from "SX refers to.." that's a very delimiting criteria. At some future point it'd be interesting to see what SLS 1992 "23 dialects of Sino-xenic languages, each having about 3000 lexical items" is about. But that's for a rainy afternoon a year or so away. I'm more than happy not to go outside the Big Three based on Miyake's comments, thanks for those page refs. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red herring, I think – that appears to refer to Wang & Cheng's Dialects of China database: 18 modern Chinese varieties, Middle Chinese, Zhongyuan Yinyun, Sino-Korean, Go'on and Kan'on. Kanguole 17:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Han-Nom
The templates on the right are quite common in the Vietnam project. At one time, the word "Hán" in the descriptor was linked to Han tu, "Nôm" to chữ Nôm. When the Han tu article was rewritten and renamed, I created the Han-Nom article so that these templates would have an appropriate place to link to. Kauffner (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Chữ Hán is the same topic as Chinese characters, the latter should be an appropriate link for "Hán". Kanguole 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't each descriptor have only one link? Whatever article Han-Nom links to should explain what Han-Nom is at the top. Kauffner (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's essential to have only one link. In this case, Hán and Nôm are two things, and we already have articles on each of them.  Kanguole 11:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Han-Nom" is the term used by the Vietnamese government and in the Vietnamese media, both in English and in Vietnamese. Proper names are the same in Han as in Nom, so the phrase is convenient in this context. In any case, it would have been nice to know that was a problem before I put so much work into the article. Kauffner (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that these names are the same in both amounts to saying that they are Sino-Vietnamese readings of Han characters. Almost all of the material you've put into the Han-Nom article is about Nom, and would benefit that article.  Kanguole 15:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Han" in "Han-Nom" means Classical Chinese language, characters or words. It doesn't cover Nom or modern Chinese, even when the same characters are used. A character generally has one reading as Nom, another reading as Han-Viet. I have a chart to showing how this works in the article. So the primary source for the name of a historical figure might be a Chinese-language official history, but modern the transliteration would nonetheless be a Nom reading. Kauffner (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a figure mentioned in those histories whose name is not a Sino-Vietnamese reading? Kanguole 19:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, what source do the entries in the "Hán Việt" column of that table come from? Most of the entries in the "Nôm reading" column seem to be Sino-Vietnamese readings.  Kanguole 10:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Forgive, I'm just curious, does 看过了 have any reference to any specific famous quote? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know. I just liked the sound of it.  Kanguole 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adoption of Chinese literary culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilhelm Schmidt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kanguole 11:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure
Hi this in English usually means "Sino-Vietnamese" "Chinese in Vietnam" are you sure that the redirect to Chinese Chinese is justified by sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going by the way the link was used on WP pages. Kanguole 18:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The way the link is used on en.wp pages is always refering to History of writing in Vietnam. The redirects should remain pointing to the same article content regarding Vietnam, not China as before. Vietnam articles are about Vietnam, not about China.
 * While we're on the subject, are you going to implement the merge as discussed of Han-Nom duplication into Chữ nôm? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the relevant talk pages. Kanguole 09:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. However do you mind if I ask one Talk page question - can you read Vietnamese? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You were correct about the vi.wp Hán văn article, I assumed... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Need help with a POV pusher
Could you take a look at some of the extremely pro-Chinese POV edits made by User:Durianlover1? He's been adding the highly inaccurate File:East Asian Cultural Sphere - Updated.png and File:East Asian Cultural Sphere - Sinocentist.png to various pages. I highly doubt that all of Central Asia, Siberia, South East Asia, and even Nepal belong to a single so-called "Chinese cultural sphere"! I have started a discussion at Talk:Chinese cultural sphere and would appreciate your input.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that it's hard to define the limits of a fuzzy topic like that. Without a clearly defined topic, there's no basis for saying what does or doesn't belong.  I don't think it's fixable.  Kanguole 00:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chu Han
Viet Nam News has 3,950 (129 deghosted) hits for , zero for. VietnamNet has 52 (21 deghosted) hits for, one for. Thanh Nien has eight hits for, zero for. In Vietnamese, "chu Han" means "Chinese character," not "Chinese character as used in Vietnam," which is what the template appears to be suggesting. Kauffner (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already opened a discussion at the template talk page, which seems a more appropriate place to discuss thus. Kanguole 07:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the implementing the Han Nom merge.

Re the ASCIIized poem, I asked for clarification Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said there, I don't find the difference of any interest. Kanguole 15:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561594201 your edit] to Oracle bone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * as a few of the oracle bones found still bear their brush-written divinations without carving, {efn|Qiu 2000, p.60 mentions that some were written with a brush and either ink or cinnabar, but
 * Done. Kanguole 06:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Han-Nom (sic) again
FYI: 1. the merged article has reappeared. 2. Also related new edits to RfC at Template talk:Infobox Chinese. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese
I don't know why you doing like a troll? but i can explain

first the Mandarin's term it's from Sanskrit "mantrin" and i will tell to line of misheard Sanskrit to Portuguese to English Sanskrit to Hindi Sanskrit to Thai to Malay

--โจ : แฟนท่าเรือ : เกรียนที่หน้าตาไม่ดีแห่งไร้สาระนุกรม : พูดคุยกับควายตัวนี้ได้ที่นี่ 06:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that there are three separate developments, then only the one from Sanskrit to English is relevant to our article. But the source cited (the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) says that the development is from Sanskrit to Malay to Portuguese to English, so that is what the article should say.  Kanguole 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Sockpuppet_investigations/Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking clarification on a rather un-harmonious viewpoint
On this image for this article, I'm curious as to why you labeled the Song as "China", while denying the title of "China" to the Liao, Western Xia, and Dali (the first one in particular)? What is the standard for sinicization here? Shrigley (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is how the sources describe them. To project the modern situation back to 1100 AD would be to give readers a misleading picture of that period.  Kanguole 09:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. My comments about sinicization and the Liao alluded to the fact that reliable sources disagree about the Chineseness of the Liao, the Western Xia, etc. I had thought that you might have formulated some reasoning by which we could evaluate and reconcile these different opinions. Of course I am not projecting the modern situation back to 1100 AD. To adopt that straightjacket would require a denial of China's influence over and administration of the lands today known as Korea and Vietnam. I wouldn't even be looking at that article (which is all about it!) in that case. Shrigley (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I confess I have no idea what you meant by "harmonious". The sources I have seen do not call these Chinese states, or "China", and never treat them in a similar way to the Song.  In the context of this article, they are clearly not the wellspring of Chinese literary culture.  There seems to be no possible benefit to the article from the relabelling you suggest.  Kanguole 16:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570503682 your edit] to Bianwen (transformation texts) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * * Victor H. Mair. Tun-huang popular narratives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; 329p. (Cambridge Studies in Chinese History,
 * fixed. Kanguole 08:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your sharp-eyed edits at Bianwen.

If you have time &/or interest, you might also look through the recent Huaben for things that I was too involved with it to see. I'm going to add a little, such as an image or two, and expand a little using the article in Mair's History of Chinese Literature, but I don't think the article needs to be exhaustive. But (obviously) feel free to add. Cheers in any case. ch (talk)


 * I fiddled with it a bit. Looks nice.  Kanguole 23:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sawndip used for how long
Thank you for pointing out the difficulty of saying how long Sawndip have been use for. Whilst the wording "hundreds of years" is correct, it is quite vague. I was wonder if you had any ideas on what might be a more informative since there are few people, if any who would argue a post Ming date, and most would agree that usage started pre-Ming. Johnkn63 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The trouble is our knowledge is quite vague too. Perhaps it would be best to fill out the sawndip article with as much evidence from the literature as possible and then try to summarize that.  Currently it doesn't even indicate the oldest known Zhuang manuscript(s).  Kanguole 12:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The arguement for age could be put together in a similar way to that for Chu Nom, which uses more than just manuscripts. Another approach would be state which schoolars favour which period, and this might be better such material is published. So for example 覃晓航 in 方块壮字研究 suggests pre Tang dynasty because 《爾雅》 includes characters that clearly are best understood as coming for Zhuang/Thai langguage for example 釋畜19has犩as a type of cow, which anyone familar with Zhunag and Chinese character would recognise as "vaiz", or water buffalo.Johnkn63 (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well manuscripts do place limits on the uncertainty. In the case of Nom, we have manuscripts in Vietnamese from the 15th century, contemporary historical records of its use in the 14th, steles with lists of names from the 13th and a few isolated names in Chinese texts from the 9th, so the usual judgement is 13th century at the latest but possibly a few centuries earlier.  Chinese has many loanwords from other languages, and ancient texts have lots of transcriptions of foreign names in Chinese characters. At some point someone went from there to systems for writing the full Vietnamese and Zhuang languages, but distinguishing between these is a delicate judgement for which we need to rely on the scholarship.  The Erya example certainly looks like a loanword (presumably there's an explanation why Zhuang has v- while Middle Chinese has ng-).  Besides, this would be back before Thai and Zhuang split, so the relationship with Zhuang writing is unclear.  We need secondary sources, but there don't seem to be many.  Kanguole 09:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are as you say several challenges in this, in that for some of the oldest evidences come before the Thai Zhuang split, and are certain characters could simply be loanwords written in Chinese. It is interesting to note that the process is two way, I have for example seen an ancient dictionary written in Zhuang Sawndip that teaches the Zhuang reader Chinese. Thank you for adding the reference to 粤风. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573043111 your edit] to Sawndip may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * text is the Yuèfēng 粵風 book of folksongs from Guiping, published in the 18th century. {sfnp|Holm|2013|p=21}
 * fixed. Kanguole 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, a little question..
Could you tell me whether you are a Chinese ? or a non-Chinese with a passion for Chinese culture ? I am amazing at your deep knowledges of topics about Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony419c (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin or Standard Chinese
Please see this. I'm not sure why a pipe to a different article is best. Wouldn't the direct Standard Chinese be appropriate with no pipe? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be good. My concern is just that we refer to the right article. Kanguole 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Yale romanization of Cantonese, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. BitBus |  Talk   01:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way was that unconstructive? Kanguole 01:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_16
Hi there. Just a heads up that Gbook is now deprecated in favor of Google books. I'd hate to muck around in your userspace, so I'm just letting you know if you want to change your User:Kanguole/Proto-Min accordingly, which has a transclusion. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take care of it.  Kanguole 19:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

How to use sfnp?
Hi Kanguole -- I was impressed by the sfnp you used in the Qing article -- it's much more elegant and effective. So I found the Help:Shortened footnotes article.

But I wonder if you have any way to deploy this style other than to type it in or to copy & insert the template with the anchor citation. I use ClipMate, so this would be simple. I also use EndNote, where I could make an output style. But maybe you have worked this out and I don't need to re-invent the wheel. Cheers ch (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you like it. It's much easier than trying to work out which page entries you're re-using and putting names on the ref tags.  And it has the added benefit that you can specify precise page numbers within book chapters or journal articles.


 * Do you mean generating the entry?  No, I haven't any shortcuts for doing that, and just do them by hand.  Then again I have a few sources I use a lot, and I paste them from article to article.  Kanguole 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Even doing sfnp by hand is easier than the way I've been doing it. ch (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks
for helping clean up my mess. I haven't been able to get to all of it. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I waited 3 weeks, but unfortunately it was clear that you were in no hurry to fix it. There are still some left if you wish to fix them.  Kanguole 12:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a more general list from before you posted this one, which still has 460 articles in it. I got part-way through, but have too much else going on to do the rest right now.  — kwami (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The list I posted was of your AWB edits changing to arrows, and thus focussed on your errors (though not all of them contained errors, and some included other changes besides the errors). When you break something, you should give high priority to fixing it.  Kanguole 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)