User talk:Kanguole/Archive 4

Links vs redirects
One possible reason for Ogress's change is that Mandarin dialects is a redirect to Mandarin Chinese. I would rather see Mandarin dialects, but I keep seeing mentions that:
 * "There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader."

(from Disambiguation)

But then the mentioned argument that changing a redirect link then wastes more storage, is kind of moot since y'all have changed it a few times already! :-) Shenme (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a wikignome, and Wikipedia has taken the extremely guarded (and, IMHO, weak position) that "dialect/language" is less preferable to "varieties" of Chinese. (Kill me now.) Therefore, part of my gnoming has including removing references, PARTICULARLY dialects, to varieties or removing them entirely. I especially tend to target "dialect" because it's the historical way for centralised power in China to erase non-Standard speakers. In this case, I agree with Kanguole's decision to rollback, but that's actually where I'm coming from. Ogress smash! 06:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . It's not an issue of storage – some reasons not to replace redirects are discussed at WP:NOTBROKEN.   I'm used to the literature on Chinese dialectology, where "dialect" just means a local form of speech, regardless of status, whether it's Beijing or some rural village.  Kanguole 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but on Wikipedia it's strongly against consensus, where due to endless raging political wars, we use variety outside of actual dialects. And there's a ton of reasons the literature on Chinese dialectology can extremely troubling when it comes to terminology. There's a reason the Chinese languages were called "dialects". Ogress smash! 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing in Shang and Zhou articles
Hi, Easy772 has been adding these to Shang dynasty (and Zhou dynasty) articles regardless of consensus of the linguistic scholars of this field. There were also edits such as this that kept pushing DeLancey's view points previously, and you even addressed this on the Talk:Shang_dynasty. Theses absolutely should not be part of the articles, especially the way Easy772 edits them (by putting them in prominent places or create individual section).--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already opened a discussion at Talk:Shang dynasty. You may wish to join in there.  Kanguole 08:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I remember seeing this issue about language of the Shang was also addressed on the Talk:Oracle_bone_script.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about letting Easy772 know that consensus is needed in order for such one sided (and a view that is not commonly accepted) section to be in the article? I'm afraid Easy772 will keep reverting.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Shang dynasty#Language". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kharkiv07 ( T ) 20:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Shang dynasty
In the latest edits from Easy 772, he completely misrepresents scholarly material. You can read it yourself here: this is his cites (to the exact page, although no where else says it either that I can find): Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia, 83. This is extremely troubling to me in terms of his work as an editor. Ogress smash! 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talk page. Kanguole 09:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with TB pages
Hey I was trawling orphan pages and found two Burmese honorifics, one a particle and the other a title, which I then NFD. There's been some pushback, which is fine, because getting people involved will resolve YES or NO. Personally I think NO but perhaps merge with Burmese names, which is where we've been stockpiling all these things like U and Maung and the like.

But I digress. I'm troubled (to put it mildly) with the editing of the pages in question: gyi and SayadawGyi. I'm finding editors adding links to streaming media and fonts, to a lot of religious stuff. I'm finding other editors giving what appear to be bad cites, which I'm discussing. However, I'm kind of in the wilderness and as nom, I'm probably not popular and also probably a polarising figure for those trying to fix the page to make it notable.

I didn't know if you would look and maybe weigh in. I know we have contact through that discussion about Shang but I don't think I'm canvassing here as I don't have any idea of your position on the keep/delete; I just want eyes on the topic who have editing experience and familiarity with TB so it's not completely alien territory.

Whatever you decide is appropriate, cheers! Ogress smash! 07:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much outside my area, sorry. Kanguole 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of a 'Shang remains' or 'Physical Anthro' Section.
Hi Kanguole. I am guessing that both you and Ogress will not agree to formal mediation, so maybe we can work this out here?

I'd like to start by clarifying that the material I'm attempting to include in the Shang section is both factual and accurate. I am not twisting or cherry picking these quotes as they explicitly and plainly state the similarity of Taiwanese, Hainanese and Anyang remains. This has been been observed for quite some time. The sources are secondary in this context and are backed by primary material. I can see how you would think some of the sources are not relevant, but the conclusion Pietrusewsky makes in The Physical Anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia, and Southeast Asia: A Multivariate Craniometric Analysis located in The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (thank you for correcting me on that btw) is based of decades of experience working with the Shang remains. I would hardly consider his expertise in this subject peripheral, as much of his work consists of comparing various early and modern East/Southeast Asian remains. I think you may be right regarding the comparisons he makes in his works about the Ban Chiang remains, however, which is why I omitted further comparisons he made to Southeast Asians in them. e.g We can see the distance between Ban Chiang and Anyang is actually quite great relative to Hainanese and Taiwanse if we look at the various dendrograms. I only meant to use those sources as a supplement to the fact that Anyang was in the South China cluster and outside the SEA cluster after I realized that. I am glad that you agree(?) to using Howells (1983) as a source, or are at least warming up to the idea.

I remember you mentioning that what I was posting was some how inflammatory or 'arousing passions'. I don't see how it is, but I am willing to comprimise and use less inflammatory wording if this will help get this data posted.

My intent is simply to show that bronze-age Chinese were a good proxy for modern Chinese, physically, albeit from more southern regions of China. As a side note of interest but not true importance, I think this general pattern (early populations being more physically similar to modern populations directly to the south) holds true for all populations in the region during this period. You know what I mean as you also browse/watch the articles on the various neolithic cultures and bronze-age cultures of East and Southeast Asia.

Cheers. Easy772 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Easy772. I'd prefer to talk about the article on the article talk page.  As the moderator is winding down the DRN discussion, it seems we're allowed to do that.


 * But I will comment on the question of "arousing passions", because I think you've misunderstood me there. I wasn't talking about you.  I was pointing out that the issue of racial origins of anyone is going to be extremely sensitive, so we need to handle the material as cautiously as possible, and apply policy particularly scrupulously.


 * And, yes, I have noticed you following a trail Hemudu → Dawenkou → Longshan → Shang, but I wonder if sometimes you're finding what you expect to find. Kanguole 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hemudu and it's related subtraditions may have interacted extensively, shared cultural traits or even mixed to a certain extent with Dawenkou, but none of the evidence, especially modern genetic evidence leave an "Austronesian genetic makeup" of the Dawenkou likely. I think the "Oceanian-like" or "Polynesian" traits noted by researchers is likely due to a more significant presence of Oceanian hunter-gatherer groups in China and mainland Southeast Asia during these time periods that were subsequently pushed out by expanding East Eurasian populations (Tai, Austronesian etc.). I think this is where the confusion comes from regarding a "Polynesian Dawenkou". Insular Southeast Asians still have traces of these Oceanian characteristics due to the fact that they remained in contact with Oceanians while in the mainland groups this admixture has been dilluted (though traces are still detectable even in Northern China).


 * Anyways, I'm not really expecting to find anything, but I'm more interested in trying to explore what these bioarchaeology, archaeology and linguistic papers can add in interpreting a lot of the new genetic evidence, especially ancient DNA findings in East and Southeast Asia. e.g the "Longshan horizon" concept and the spread of Y-DNA O3 into Northeast and Southeast Asia from northern China.

Easy772 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Le Tian Pai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kanguole 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Glosses: Single vs double quote
Per the edit summary to this edit, I'm trying to find something that substantiates a preference for single or double quotes with glosses or specifically says that there is no preference either way but haven't found anything definitive. The relevant article seems to show a preference for single quotes within the field of linguistics, but Wikipedia policy can certainly go with another convention if it's warranted. Can you point to any discussions or policy pages that might clarify the issue? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:QUOTEMARKS specifies a general preference for double quotes, and says it's talking about all uses of quotation marks, though it doesn't specifically mention glosses. It does single out plant cultivars as an example of a codified exception, but I don't think there's one for glosses.  Certainly all the WP language (and other) articles I've seen use double quotes for glosses.  Kanguole 01:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite a few pages on my watchlist use single quotes, though that's due in part to changes I've personally made to single quotes. You're the first I've seen to revert back to double quotes when they've been changed to single. Most phonology pages seem to use single quotes. This includes a lot of the pages describing specific languages' phonologies, as well as all of the occurrence tables in the vowel and consonant phone articles. However, there is enough inconsistency, even among featured and good linguistics articles (some of which don't use quotes at all in their glosses or are inconsistent) that it doesn't seem there's a clear de facto policy on whether glosses are as good an exception to the double quote preference as plant cultivars. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Category: Grammars of specific languages
Hi. I noticed you reverted two of my edits, adding Arabic and Latin to the category "Grammars of specific languages". Can I ask why did you revert the edits? As far as I can tell those two language grammar articles belong there. Thanks.--Serafín33 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I've already self-reverted, after checking the guideline and thinking again.  Kanguole 23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Minnan
Hi Kanguole,

Per the recent dispute at Southern Min (I rolled back recent changes to that article), where does Zhongshan Min belong? We had it rather than Datian as the third branch of Minnan. Does "Chao-Shan" maybe link it to Teochew? or is it not a unitary clade, as our article implies? (Please ping me if you answer.) — kwami (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Chao-Shan refers to Chaozhou (Teochew) and Shantou (Swatow), both in eastern Guangdong. I added the bit from Bodman (who cites his own fieldwork and that of Jerry Norman and Søren Egerod), which does suggest it's not a clade.  Kanguole 22:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

taosi complex society
The complexity is actually debated between chiefdom and formative state between under hill and Li. Iirc

This May need additional info or balancing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.42.247 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, more good sources would be welcome. Kanguole 23:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In Liu's 2005 book The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories To Early States, he says Taosi may have been more of an advanced chiefdom than a state(pages 188-192). In Underhill's 2013 book A Companion to Chinese Archaeology she seems to classify as them as more of a "pre-state" only lacking writing and metallurgy. Here is where I recall first hearing about this. I think the Taosi did have metallurgy, but we can't really do original research or synthesis here. --Easy772 (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Expansion out of Henan
"In the Taosi area, however, there is no such continuity between Longshan and Erlitou material culture, suggesting a collapse in that area and later expansion from the Erlitou core area" Interestingly, this is exactly what the laest evidence from ancient DNA research is showing (more or less). Good addition. --Easy772 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about Longshan
Hi Kanguole, Easy772 recently added this sentence "The Shandong Longshan variant developed out of the Dawenkou culture and later formed the bronze age Yueshi culture" to Longshan culture. Is this relevant to the section or to the article? Is the Underhill source good?--Balthazarduju (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of country-name etymologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anping. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kanguole 10:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Alexander Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kanguole 10:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

About Reverting my Edit in Dravidian Languages
Hey Kanguole, I had updated the number of Telugu speakers worldwide in the page Dravidian Languages to latest statistics. But you had reverted my edit in the page stating that I did not give the reliable source. I want your help to know which source can be reliable and which source cannot be reliable for population statistics. -- User:Sri Harsha Bhogi Harsha 17:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your source was a user-generated website, which we can't accept (see WP:USERGENERATED). In addition, it says "Telugu speaking / origin", which is not the same as Telugu-speaking.  It is difficult to find reliable sources on speaker populations.  I understand the government has not yet released the language statistics from the 2011 census.  Kanguole 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

About the tree of dravidian language family in dravidian languages page
Hey Kanguole, You told me to refer to 20 & 21 pages of The Dravidian languages by Krishna Murthi. I dont have those pages. So I request you to send those 2 pages only in any form to me. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sri Harsha Bhogi (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On page 20 he says "South Dravidian I and South Dravidian II must have arisen from a common source, which is called Proto-South Dravidian." He summarizes shared innovations, referring to later chapters for details.  The tree at the top of page 21 expresses the same thing.  Kanguole 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese language
Hi. Regarding your removal of my message at Talk:Chinese language, the point about it being the wrong language is taken. But apart from that, you also said that it was inappropriate. How was it inappropriate. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was off topic. Maybe a WikiProject talk page would be more suitable.  Kanguole 21:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm Helmut von Moltke. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Shenglei because your reason for removal of contents was not sufficient to justify the scope of the changes. If you would like, you can propose these changes on the article's talk page for discussion. In future, please do not make edits of this scope without consensus, as this could lead to an edit war over the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Helmut von Moltke (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * we are already discussing this on the talk page - please join in if you have something to add. Kanguole 18:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Newar language and another mal-formed RFM
Since your name was left off the list of parties involved, I thought you might want to be aware of this Requests for mediation/It's "Nepal Bhasa". Future Perfect removed a previous mal-formed request prior to this one. The current one is so mal-formed that it doesn't even show up on the WP:RFM page so I expect nothing will come of it either, but you should be aware of it nonetheless. Cheers!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now been properly formatted and moved to Requests for mediation/Nepal Bhasa.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 09:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lack of Moral Fibre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wing Commander. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Middle Chinese
hi--I'm really sorry about editing this here but I'm not really knowledgeable about how communication usually works, and I'd like to discuss the Pulleyblank work? I've read the cited work, and the problem isn't that Pulleyblank used ʜ but instead how the IPA standards have changed, so which sound ʜ denotes.

When Pulleyblank mentions ʜ he names it as a fully voiced laryngeal onset, but ʜ in modern IPA standard is used for a voiceless epiglottal trill (in 1908 standard, it is a bronchial/pharyngeal fricative, which I think was taken out in the 1932 standard but not actually replaced). I'm aware he uses ʜ but a small capital H means different things, especially considering the source work is published in 1991 prior to the 1993 standard.

Have gone through the work and can find nothing stating 影 as a pharyngeal approximant or fricative. Everything on the reconstruction of the sound seems to be ʔ, which is a glottal plosive, as opposed to the flipped ʕ, which is a pharyngeal approximant as I was trying to convey with the edit. Pulleyblank also names 影 as ʔ.

Also would be happy to provide images and documentation of any of this.

p.s. sorry for the poor grammar and again for not really understanding where to discuss this! If you hav a better place to discuss it I'd be happy to do that instead

Kitgen (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hastily confused ʕ and ʔ. I've put it back, but I'm a bit worried about us trying to work out the correct IPA equivalent for what Pulleyblank wrote, and wonder if indicating a zero initial might be better.  Kanguole 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem, I have done the same thing a dozen times. Indicating it as a zero initial would probably be fine--I was mostly worried about the implication that 喻 was a voiceless epiglottal trill. Though keeping it in the laryngeal approximant part of the table is also good since people can work out generally what sound it is from that. Kitgen (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty and Imperial Epithets
Hey, I saw you reversed my revert, and I wanted to have a discussion before this falls into edit war territory.

The usage of the moniker 'Great' is not synonymous with only the Tang Dynasty, but also a number of other Chinese dynasties, including the Ming, and Qing along with the Yuan. All of these are known by their common names: no one refers to the Empire of the Great Ming as such.

However, these were the official names designated by the dynasty, not just a mere moniker. In this case, the guideline is not to eliminate them for ease of reading by English reader, which may be the case elsewhere, as it is thereby an omission of historical fact.

Therefore, there are two grounds on which the epithet would remain, aforementioned above, and also maintain synchronicity with the other pages who also have the dynastic epithets in their introduction paragraphs.

Sleath56 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking.


 * Bolding in the lead sentence is for common alterative names in English, and as you say, no one uses these names. Wouldn't a footnote serve to hold the information you want?  And do you have a reference for the prefix Dà being part of the official name (rather than a courtesy) for Tang (or other dynasties before Yuan)?  Kanguole 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The situation is that we should maintain synchronicity. If the Yuan, Ming, and Qing pages all exhibit their epithets, the Tang page should likewise. To circumvent the direct addition of Tang's epithet on the article page via footnote, we would have to go to the other dynasty articles and apply the same rule.
 * The simpler thing to do would be to maintain the present guideline by just adding the moniker on Tang rather than changing it and thereby needing to edit the other pages. The reference is from the document Da Tang Xiyu Ji, or the Great Tang Records on the Western Regions. Sleath56 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is those three articles that do not fit MOS:LEAD. (The Yuan one is particularly bad, with vertical script in the introductory sentence.)
 * That reference is an example of usage of Dà Táng, but not a statement that it was the official name. According to Endymion Wilkinson, Chinese History: A New Manual, p6, the qualifier Dà was a common polite form from Han times, but did not become part of the official name until Yuan.  That argues against taking the last three dynasties as models.  Kanguole 11:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

may i ask why do you undo my edit?
Hello I am WEIjukainen I notice that you undid my edit on "standard mandarin", the standard mandarin is now the official language of china, i think that's enough, it's not neccesary listing taiwan alongside. Firstly i need to claim that taiwan is only a province of china, it's NOT a sovereign country. If you want to emphasize its current status of independence and different government in each side of taiwan strait, i suggest you use the title "people's republic of china" and "republic of china" instead of simply "china" and "taiwan" ,please. If you have some reasons i'm not quite clear, tell me please. I'm a chinese by the way, sorry for my poor engl ish. WEIjukainen (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I re-edited it by the way. WEIjukainen (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Mandarin page is a disambiguation page, whose purpose is to quickly direct readers to the page they are seeking. The target in this case, the Standard Chinese article, describes the language as the official language of both China and Taiwan.  This illustrates wikipedia acknowledging the de facto situation of distinct governments ruling distinct territories, and using the common names of these entities, following lengthy discussions at talk:China and talk:Taiwan.  The phrasing here merely follows those established conventions.  Kanguole 09:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty clear about current situation, that's why i suggested using "people's republic of china" and "republic of china", or more detailedly, "mainland and hainan province of People's Republic of China" and "taiwan province of Republic of China", instead of simply and ambiguously "china" and "taiwan".You should notice that the government of "Republic of China" never claimed anything suggesting taiwan a sovereign country, this is also the truth . WEIjukainen (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't re-edit it, i don't want to start a editing competition, but honestly i hope we can solve such point of divergence, ok? WEIjukainen (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia we refer to things by their common names. That is why the article on the PRC is called China, and the article on the ROC is called Taiwan.  It is quite clear what these refer to, and those long forms would be particularly inappropriate on a disambiguation page like Mandarin.  Kanguole 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

ok...got it, "taiwan" here is of geographical legions...clearly I'm still new in Wikipedia, i'm not quite clear with those "common names". For now i just want to say that such names can be easily mistaken for political reasons by newcomers, at least that why i edited it, i thought that "china" and "taiwan" there suggest that they are separate countries, but actually they're not. I still find it hard to understand why Wikipedia allows such ambiguous words exist...i 'll try to adapt it, but honestly i think these problems should be solved more properly. OK, thanks for your explanation with patience . WEIjukainen (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way i find your name is quite like a...um...sinophonetisize, 看過了? WEIjukainen (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I imagine it can seem a bit weird on the first encounter. Anyway, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and hope you enjoy it.  There's a lot of really interesting content to work on here if you look past the names.
 * And yes, my username is from 看過了. It's not a real name.  Kanguole 22:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

所以說你也是中國人？ 告訴我 是 吧，我會很高興的. 自打轉到英文維基起我就沒怎麽用過漢文了. 額那個，準確的說我不算新人，我已經做了五年維基人了，只是這樣的事情我確實沒有碰到過幾次. 我的興趣一直在歐洲語言和歷史、星際迷航、福爾摩斯等地方，那邊真的幾乎碰不到諸如此類的爭議. 以前在別的地方聽過有關於維基上大規模編輯戰的事，當時還不相信，現在看來是真的啊...... 還是很高興認識你，我的qq是1014446204，希望有空能聊聊 . WEIjukainen (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Shit, were they?
They looked like poorly displaying first-tone on my screen. Is there something wrong with my encoding? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Try these: Kanguole 01:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ā ā LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH MACRON
 * á á LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE
 * ǎ ǎ LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH CARON
 * à à LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH GRAVE
 * ē ē LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH MACRON
 * é é LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE
 * ě ě LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH CARON
 * è è LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH GRAVE
 * ī ī LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH MACRON
 * í í LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH ACUTE
 * ǐ ǐ LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH CARON
 * ì ì LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH GRAVE
 * ō ō LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH MACRON
 * ó ó LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH ACUTE
 * ǒ ǒ LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH CARON
 * ò ò LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH GRAVE
 * ū ū LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH MACRON
 * ú ú LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH ACUTE
 * ǔ ǔ LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH CARON
 * ù ù LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH GRAVE


 * Huh. For some reason all of those caron-ned letters except for e are showing up looking like macrons but with the size of the letter blown up and looking pretty hideous. I'll just stay away from changing tones until I can figure out what the hell is going wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Qin-Lian Yue
In your latest modification, the reference "Language contact in Nanning" is about the languages in Nanning. Is Qin-Lian Yue mentioned in it? Otherwise it might be somehow misleading. As for the mutual intelligibility, I prefer to call it partly mutually intelligible, because most urban variety speakers find rural varieties confusing sometimes (and understandable other times )but the intelligibility usually goes up as the conversation continues, due to the similar pronunciation and common words. (Actually I met no difficulty when I traveled in Lianzhou without Mandarin) 'BeBoy' Talk  04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As I read the p162 on the reference, I found nothing that points out the mutual intelligibility directly. Have I missed it?
 * I've responded on the article talk page. Kanguole 16:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tungning RM redux
You recently participated in a move discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Tungning. I have made another proposal based on that discussion here if you would like to weigh in. —  AjaxSmack  14:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hokkien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhyme book. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the headings of the wikipage:History of Taiwan
What's wrong with repeating the country's name in the page headings, many wikipedia pages of the histories of other countries repeated their headings as well such as Libya and Italy, and mind you I have not edited any of those wikipages. I have actually considered your suggestions, I have even changed a few headings to your desired such as the heading Prehistoric Taiwan to Prehistoric Period and Dutch and SPanish Taiwan to Dutch and SPanish Settlements, in fact I also previously accepted many of your changes to my edits regarding the japanese occupation subheading which I accepted. I hope you would also same as I have, reconsider my suggestions and hopefully accept all if not at least some of them, thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodyducklips (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article talk page. Kanguole 14:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Chinese
Hi. I'm curious then: what classification do the Qin and Han era Chinese languages fall under, then? We have ample evidence for their languages, don't we? I'm thinking about the dictionary of different dialects, the Fangyan, written by Yang Xiong (author) by the early 1st century AD. There's also the Shuowen Jiezi dictionary of the 2nd century AD. Before each of these was the Erya, a dictionary and encyclopedia of the 3rd century BC. So Karlgren, Pulleyblank, and other sinologists weren't able to classify the Qin and Han era languages, even with all of this evidence at their disposal? Pericles of Athens Talk 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's not Old Chinese...and it's not Middle Chinese...then what terms are used for the Chinese language during this huge span of time? Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * as you say, there's a fair amount of documentation from the indigenous grammatical tradition for the Eastern Han, so one sees presentations of an Eastern Han stage, e.g. from Weldon South Coblin and Axel Scheussler. But for many periods, the  nature of the script and the conservativism of written style tend to yield little info on how people spoke. Kanguole 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh. Fair enough. I just find it rather amazing that we were able to reconstruct the spoken language of the late Shang and Western Zhou but not the Qin or Han periods. Seems totally backwards. Lol. Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It depends what's available – that's the period when most of the phono-semantic compound characters were created and also (slightly later) the rhymes of the Shijing. There's nothing so comprehensive between then and the Qieyun in the Sui.  Kanguole 10:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

List of the oldest schools in the United Kingdom‎
Good catch, I'd scrolled down and only seen centuries, not counties. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yuezhi=Massagetae
Hello,

I have posted on the talk page of article Yuezhi some arguments why I think that Yuezhi are the same people as Massagetae and my opinion that this information should be on the article. Can you review them and what is your opinion? Thank you.

--Sabir Hun (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox on Chinese languages
Hello, regarding the use of on Chinese language articles, it has been established by administrators that the common native names of languages be placed only at the top of their respective infoboxes. Detailed native pronunciations and less common names (if any) are to be placed into separate infoboxes below the main language infobox such as in Chinese language. This actually makes the language infobox itself neater and less redundant. Examples for other non-Romanized languages include Japanese language and Thai language, where the native pronunciations are kept at the top and mentioned in the article. I do not object to you adding more detailed information on the Chinese varieties' native pronunciations or alternative names, but it will be much clearer if the standard language infobox format is retained. --Moalli (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give a pointer to where the decision you refer to was made. Kanguole 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the lengthy discussion on using meta templates on Template talk:Infobox language/Archive 3 and the standard format for Template:Infobox language. --Moalli (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I read that lengthy discussion, which is about alternative implementations of conditional display in – arcane history of no relevance to the issue of embedding.  Is there a discussion that is relevant?  Kanguole 02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Infobox language/Archive 2 outlines the discouragement of adding subtemplates into the language infobox. Template talk:Infobox language/Archive 2 also discusses about using a language's native pronunciation at the top of the infobox (possibly including IPA which I personally do not support as the average reader has no knowledge of that system). Keeping the current format for Chinese languages' infoboxes makes it neat and consistent with all the other language articles, but your addition of other native names in a separate can be done. --Moalli (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've explained, that old discussion is about using CSS tricks to avoid calling templates like the old version of (now replaced by #if) and  (still used) from the code of  – it is irrelevant to embedding.  You've pointed to where nativename was proposed, but that also says nothing about this issue.  You are reverting to enforce your preference.  Kanguole 14:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

CSD on Adesh Katariya
Hey, just letting you know that I declined the A7 on Adesh Katariya since 1) there's at least a credible claim of significance, and 2) the article has been A7'd so much that it would be nice to get a deletion discussion done so it can be G4'd in the future. Considering that second point, I have nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Adesh Katariya, where you may comment if you so choose. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic Atlas of Chinese Dialects
Further reading or not, that is a predatory open access journal, it's essentially vanity publishing and is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Taipei or Nanjing?
Since Taipei was considered the provisional capital of the Republic of China in December 1949, Nanjing was still the capital of the ROC even though they lost the Mainland before the ROC loses that claim in 1991. Taiwan at the time was still Japanese territory (by international law) even though their ruled ended in 1945 before Japan renounced Taiwan in 1952, making the ROC government in exile. Recently, the PRC wanted to take Taiwan by force due to the Trump-Tsai call. I don't know if Taipei is been permanent, but Chiang Kai-shek said Taipei has been a provisional capital of "Nationalist" China if the Kuomintang takes back the Mainland from the Communists. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better to discuss this on the article talk page, with sources. Kanguole 02:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the word use of colonization
Hello, have you seen the article " original sin on the island paradise? Qing Taiwan's colonial history in comparative perspective"

I think it's a great article, giving insights into how we always conceptualize colonialism as a quintessentially Western practice.

It also discusses in great length about how there's absolute no reason to not characterize Chinese rule as a colonial rule.

In Taiwan, we all too often only regards Japanese rule as a colonial period.

The word choice is paramount in subverting the propaganda the KMT is trying to impose, as well as to reconcile with Aboriginal Taiwanese.

To remove such words would be as damaging as removing such words from, say, Australian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienlih (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page. Please make your case there.  Kanguole 18:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite
Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ISBN and ideogram
Hi, I see you changed the link to google books to an ISBN code. When I click on the ISBN number I am not redirected to the book. I might be misunderstanding something, but isn't it better to have a direct link? BangkokBeauty (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The ISBN link takes you to a page with links to Google books, Amazon, as well as various online databases and library catalogues. So it still gives access to the same information (with a couple more clicks), but without priviledging a particular supplier.  Kanguole 14:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Google is not trying to sell books, of course, while Amazon is. BangkokBeauty (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Google does sell eBooks (though not this one), and offers the print book through commissioned links to booksellers. Libraries, of course, aren't selling books.  Kanguole 14:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was not aware that google sells things. Thank you. BangkokBeauty (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Violation of Topic Ban
I don't seem to understand your edit here. Topic ban only includes India-related articles doesn't it? Filpro (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It includes material related to India anywhere in Wikipedia. This is explained at WP:TBAN.  Kanguole 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made edits like these on other lists but for the one I linked, I edited a whole list of countries (including India). How different is this edit compared to the one I've just made where I only edited Hindi's entry in the list? I'm willing to admit ignorance on my part for not thoroughly reading WP:TBAN beforehand. Filpro (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Hindi note you deleted was all about interpretation of the Census of India, so very clearly covered by your topic ban. So was this edit.  The edit to the GDP list is more borderline, but you'd be safer avoiding edits relating to India in any way.  Kanguole 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Err, so what now? What's done is done. Are you supposed to report me or will the mods find me automatically? Filpro (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to report you over the above, and the admins won't find out automatically, but you need to be careful in future, because violating your ban could lead to someone reporting you and you getting blocked. Kanguole 19:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm sorry for the hassle. Filpro (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450 Closed
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Np
It's ok I was saying Hi to the IP vandal haha.損齋 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Flag of the Republic of China
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Flag of the Republic of China&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Wrestlingring (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dravidian Languages
When you say most number of people you should not consider whether it's in majority. The Immortal Excalibur (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've explained on the article talk page. Kanguole 18:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Politics of the Republic of China
Template:Politics of the Republic of China has been nominated for merging with Template:Politics of Taiwan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Howard and Erith- then Ripley St Thomas.
Thanks- the area is a mine field- I do a further check. If true that will be a good thing.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the Medway admissions procedure and Medway thinks it is a bi-lateral. Go to the pdf http://www.medway.gov.uk/pdf/LA%20Secondary%202017%20-Determined%20v1-1%20151215.pdf Section 10 page 7.


 * I have looked for Bi lateral evidence at Erith and not found it- as an academy it has an detailed governors report. e. g. http://www.erith.kent.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/16-12-20_2015-2016-EOY-Accounts.pdf There was no mention of bi-lateral in there. I assume te status went in 2013. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, it looks like Howard does function as a bi-lateral within the Medway system, and should be re-instated to the list. It does seem that the number of students coming from the exam has dwindled considerably, though.  Kanguole 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Baxter-Sagart reference needs to be checked
Hi Kanguole, I just came across a statement to me does not match the citation given, and where your knowledge could be very helpful. Please see Talk:Classical Chinese. &mdash; Sebastian 10:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * responded there. Kanguole 12:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Dismissive Reedit is Unjustified
You recently reverted the change that I made on the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters". If you take a look at the Wiktionary page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A5%BD#Glyph_origin you will see that I am not incorrect, and (unbeknownst to me) there are multiple interpretations of the character 好 that are in debate, including the one I posted:

"However, broader interpretations of the second character 子 could lead to other theories. 子 could also mean "son", so it may have meant two children, a boy and a girl next to each other, which is a good fortune to have a boy and a girl. 子 could also mean "man", so it may have referred to the love between a man and a woman, which is good. Duan Yucai, in his annotated version of Shuowen, interpreted it as originally referring to the beauty of 女子 (nǚzǐ, “woman”). Lastly, it could mean that the "attitude" of a girl was considered good."

additionally, a quick google translate will find that 女 also can be used to mean "daughter", just as "子" can also be used to mean "son".

From this Wiktionary page I cite I understand your reaction to maintain the original translation, but whith this new context I think that it is most reasonable to either post both translations, or post only one and place a note and link to this wiktionary page noting the differing interpretations.

Pjbeierle (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have copied your note to the article talk page, where we may get more input, and responded there. Kanguole 02:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school
Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fanciful precision
Good morning! Regarding your edit, while in principle I'm willing to accept that pinpointing by century may be too precise, I wonder how this matches with the article text of Xia dynasty which pretends to be accurate by decade? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Marcocapelle. Infoboxes do ask for simple answers.  The second paragraph of the lead gives three wildly different datings (and more have been proposed), while the third paragraph covers the uncertainty on whether this dynasty existed at all.  Kanguole 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we edit the infobox accordingly? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle: How do you fit such complexities in an infobox? I was trying to think of parallels to check – maybe Theseus or the Trojan War, or Gojoseon?  Kanguole 21:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See my bold edit. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle: OK, I've trimmed it a bit more. Kanguole 22:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tribal Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tribal Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Tocharian languages
Thanks for your improved Tocharian languages map, Kanguole! Your version is clearly better than mine. :) Y-barton (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wonder if the colour relief background is distracting and a monchrome relief would be better.  Kanguole 22:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bai language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonym ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bai_language check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bai_language?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tocharian
On your reversion of Tocharian image, why did you claim this is non-Tocharian? Any insights to repute the opinions of Hermitage Museum historians? Sgnpkd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page. Kanguole 13:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sino-Tibetan languages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Burmese and Irrawaddy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sino-Tibetan_languages check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sino-Tibetan_languages?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you think
of this edit? Doug Weller talk 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. Sourcing seems to be .  Kanguole 23:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm reverting this, we seem to have a problem. If you don't want to fine, but if you could warn them so they don't think it's just me? Doug Weller  talk 12:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A mess caused by a sock splitting of sub-articles for languages
See my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Yuan dynasty
No response, why not start a wp:RfC? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've solicited more comments from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China‎ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese history. Kanguole 23:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Pai-lang
I just wanted to point out a new relevant publication for this article that you have contributed to. Some of the conclusions are different from those of Beckwith or Coblin. Tibetologist (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hill, Nathan W. (2017) 'Songs of the Bailang: A New Transcription with Etymological Commentary'. Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, (103), pp 387-429.

Peiligang culture
Hello Kanguole. Thank you for adding page numbers to the "references" section of the Peiligang culture article. Since you have access to these resources, would you please provide the necessary in-line citations as well, so that we may remove the no footnotes template? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio tags
Our paths crossed after I spotted a possible copyvio on Harrow School. My reading of WP:DCV lead me to tag the talk page rather than the article page. Can you confirm that I was wrong or should I ask at the Teahouse? I have never known what should happen next. Should an admin be automatically alerted, come along and delete the copyvio from history?SovalValtos (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it as saying that if you can't resolve the issue, you should start a discussion on the talk page and place the tag on the article or section in question. See also the documentation for .  In this case, the copying is clear, and even if the original book is out of copyright, it is at least WP:PLAGIARISM, and the BHO site asks that people not copy more than a few lines.  So reverting the addition is appropriate.  Asking for an admin to delete it from the history is done with, but I'm not sure this is a clearcut copyvio, as required for that.  Kanguole 14:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Hertfordshire has been nominated for discussion
Category:Districts of Hertfordshire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Scriptions. Matthew_hk  t  c  14:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)