User talk:Qwinntrell

June 2020
Note: Same for any post-independence Singapore related articles, simplified takes precedence over traditional Chinese. There is no need to add traditional Chinese characters for these articles. There are definitely exceptions, but the articles thus far you have edited do not warrant the additions. – robertsky (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. By no means did I ever remove simplified Chinese from those articles. Your removal of traditional chinese, on the other hand, is unwarranted. There is merit in adding traditional Chinese characters to those articles. In Singapore, both scripts are used all over Singapore either in signage or handwriting. Koenfoo (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Official government signages are in simplified Chinese, mostly. Singapore uses exclusively simplified Chinese officially. Students are taught simplified Chinese since 1976, 11 years after independence, with official Chinese media are mandated to switch to Simplified Chinese as well. Any traditional Chinese usage are typically symbolic and/or stylistic in modern Singapore. Your claim as to the older population uses traditional Chinese, is there statistics? Hence, the removal of traditional Chinese characters in geographical locations articles especially. I do compromise, with more recent edits to update articles to simplified Chinese to take precedence. – robertsky (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Any traditional Chinese usage are typically symbolic and/or stylistic in modern Singapore." This is simply not true. Please check the article on Chinese characters I think. I have come across mixed trad simp handwriting very frequently and it is very likely out of habit. It's safe to assume that older Singaporeans brought up with education in traditional Chinese would continue to execute a mixed script of sorts, at the very least. The use of traditional Chinese in signage or other print text is for the same reason, which is why we occasionally see mixed script even in print text or advertising. (E.g. 當、達). Koenfoo (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, are there any statistics, reputable sources/research to show the current usage of traditional Chinese in Singapore? The fact is Singapore is primarily on simplified Chinese most of its independence (1969 with the aborted localisation/local simplification efforts, 1976 with the wholesale adoption of simplified Chinese from China) is undeniable. Most signage, logos you see with traditional Chinese in Singapore typically belong to institutions that were established before independence (possibly before the switch to simplified Chinese), i.e. The Chinese High School (Singapore) (which I left it untouched by the way). Even tourism signage printed by authorities and attractions typically do not have traditional Chinese. We can counter argue that such use of mixed script in print is accidentally even though it may be ingrained in the older population, like mixing English spelling variants. Take for example this sentence, 'The fact that her enrollment into XX school was due to her own efforts is recognised by everyone.' There is a US variant word and a UK variant word mixed into the sentence. Without spell-check or an impeccable command of the English language, it might not be noticeable. By the way, the default Chinese input by pinyin on Windows throws out both 当 and 當 for simplified Chinese. I needed to scroll through multiple suggestions before hitting onto 當, but if someone has been regularly using 當 instead of 当, the software will readjust the suggestion ranking to align both 当 and 當 to be the first few words to be suggested (like it just did after I searched and used 當 here :o ). – robertsky (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not specifically, but as a Singaporean, I'm suree you are aware of this. Here is a research paper which you might be interested in: https://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/srn/archives/58037, https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/d/3927/files/2018/04/Linguistic-Landscape-of-Singapore-Food-Stall-Signage-1fb57so.pdf, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guowen_Shang2/publication/307571091_Linguistic_landscape_in_Singapore_what_shop_names_reveal_about_Singapore%27s_multilingualism/links/5bff9c8492851c63caafe3ae/Linguistic-landscape-in-Singapore-what-shop-names-reveal-about-Singapores-multilingualism.pdf. And hence I quote "However, given the fact that language choices on non-official signs are not statutory in language policy, we found that some divergences exist between the language uses and the officially adopted standards or practices. A good example is the extensive use of traditional Chinese characters on shop name signs, which goes against the promotion of simplified characters in Singapore’s education." "Traditional Chinese characters and cultural psychology In Singapore’s education system, simplified Chinese characters are designated as standard orthography due to its ease of learning. In the shop names studied here, however, the official orthography policy seems to have little binding force. The vitality of traditional Chinese characters in shop names might be caused by at least two factors. On the one hand, for Chinese Singaporeans in middle-age or above, there is an emotional attachment to traditional characters. Singapore started to promote the use of simplified Chinese characters in education in 1969. Before that, Chinese students learnt traditional Chinese characters in schools. In this regard, people educated in such a context may feel more comfortable to read and write traditional Chinese characters. Especially for those Singaporeans in their 50s or beyond, their literacy of traditional Chinese characters is presumably higher than that of simplified Chinese characters. Moreover, for those shop owners who treasure Chinese traditions, using traditional characters may be a representation of their Chinese cultural values. Therefore, when they run shops in neighbourhood centres, they tend to use traditional Chinese characters in shop names to show their emotional clinging to the writing system. This may also be a business strategy to attract customers of similar age and/or educational backgrounds. On the other hand, traditional Chinese characters may be deemed to have higher prestige than simplified characters. The People’s Republic of China had a prolonged history of political separation from the outside world in the 1950s through the 1970s. In that period, the country experienced severe poverty and turmoil. In contrast, the other Chinese-speaking communities, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, where traditional Chinese characters were used, achieved great economic success. Since the polities using traditional Chinese characters were economically more developed than Mainland China, traditional characters procured symbolic values like modernity and internationality (Zhao & Baldauf, 2008)." "Third, contrary to the official policy of promulgating simplified Chinese characters, traditional Chinese characters are preferred by local shop owners." Check Table 5 for the statistics, which show higher use of traditional characters, interestingly. "Historically, the right-to-left text vector was a writing convention for traditional Chinese, which was written vertically as a rule. However, in modern times, the left-toright horizontal writing has become dominant, though the right-to-left horizontal writing can still be seen in Chinese-speaking areas, especially in signs. In the shop names, shop owners may use the right-to-left text order to indicate their allegiance to the Chinese tradition." "The numbers of Chinese shop names presented in traditional and simplified characters are 344 and 221 respectively, showing that traditional characters are preferred over the simplified version in Chinese shop name signs. Although simplified Chinese characters are standard forms in official policy, the statistics provides empirical evidence that traditional characters prevail in bottom-up signs. Especially for the stores doing business characteristic of Chinese culture and tradition, such as traditional Chinese medicine, tonics and pawn broking, traditional Chinese characters are more likely to be used in their shop names. In our data, nine out of ten of such stores use traditional Chinese scripts to present their shop names. On the other hand, the Chinese names of private schools and learning centres are more likely to be presented in simplified scripts. This might be because the simplified characters are the standard form in education domain." And regarding your points, "We can counter argue that such use of mixed script in print is accidentally even though it may be ingrained in the older population, like mixing English spelling variants." This is actually far from the truth. you can't accidentally write mixed script in print. The aforementioned study has listed some of the more convincing reasons. "By the way, the default Chinese input by pinyin on Windows throws out both 当 and 當 for simplified Chinese. I needed to scroll through multiple suggestions before hitting onto 當, but if someone has been regularly using 當 instead of 当, the software will readjust the suggestion ranking to align both 当 and 當 to be the first few words to be suggested" Actually, the older generation uses stroke or handwriting input. Even my parents who are in their late forties have trouble with pinyin. The older generation are brought up with zhuyin but most have already forgotten how to read them given their scarcity in singapore now. Before the introduction of hanyu pinyin in the 70s, romanisations were ad hoc (there is an article on this on wikipedia), which is why Singapore chinese surnames can take on so many different forms in romanisation, assuming the same topolect is used. Koenfoo (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Moreover, for those shop owners who treasure Chinese traditions, using traditional characters may be a representation of their Chinese cultural values. Therefore, when they run shops in neighbourhood centres, they tend to use traditional Chinese characters in shop names to show their emotional clinging to the writing system. This may also be a business strategy to attract customers of similar age and/or educational backgrounds. On the other hand, traditional Chinese characters may be deemed to have higher prestige than simplified characters." "Especially for the stores doing business characteristic of Chinese culture and tradition, such as traditional Chinese medicine, tonics and pawn broking, traditional Chinese characters are more likely to be used in their shop names. In our data, nine out of ten of such stores use traditional Chinese scripts to present their shop names. On the other hand, the Chinese names of private schools and learning centres are more likely to be presented in simplified scripts." Doesn't this show symbolism? Only stores with strong traditional connotations would most likely use traditional Chinese characters, while others would use simplified script? "Actually, the older generation uses stroke or handwriting input. Even my parents who are in their late forties have trouble with pinyin. The older generation are brought up with zhuyin but most have already forgotten how to read them given their scarcity in singapore now." If you suggest that using handwriting/free-form and/or zhuyin is the predominant input preference for the older generation, it can also mean that the usage of mixed script is accidental as in the process of learning simplified script and replacing traditional script with simplified scripts, one simply may have forgotten to switch to simplified form for certain words or 'unlearned' the simplified form, just like how some may type 'recognise' or 'recognize' mistakenly crossing from EngVarB to American English dominated articles. Heck, even the effort to use the simplified script by the older population and its actual use may suggest a WP:COMMON towards simplified Chinese usage. The romanisation effort is besides the point here. – robertsky (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't this show symbolism? Only stores with strong traditional connotations would most likely use traditional Chinese characters, while others would use simplified script?" Don't go cherry picking information now. There are other reasons I cited which are not part of these. Besides, without education in traditional characters, these reasons are inapplicable. "If you suggest that using handwriting/free-form and/or zhuyin is the predominant input preference for the older generation, it can also mean that the usage of mixed script is accidental as in the process of learning simplified script and replacing traditional script with simplified scripts, one simply may have forgotten to switch to simplified form for certain words or 'unlearned' the simplified form, just like how some may type 'recognise' or 'recognize' mistakenly crossing from EngVarB to American English dominated articles. Heck, even the effort to use the simplified script by the older population and its actual use may suggest a WP:COMMON towards simplified Chinese usage. The romanisation effort is besides the point here." Likewise, being accidental or not is besides the point here and mixed script writing is very common in traditional script areas in the first place, which is never accidental. Some words for example are 範 with a simplified radical for 車 which clearly shows effort to conform but still holding on to traditional roots. It is incorrect to say that there was a process of "learning simplified" to begin with as formal education in simplified did not exist back then. The fact that some characters are ad hoc simplified proves that they were not educated with simplified chinese. As a result, there is no unlearning of simplified forms when there is no learning to begin with. The fact that this is prevalent already highlights the extent of traditional script learned individuals in Singapore. The romanisation effort I mentioned was to support the non pinyin usage. This is more than enough to justify the display of both scripts. The effort to use simplified by the elderly is out of exposure to simplified characters, yet traditional character knowledge and its subsequent use remains. Koenfoo (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have your view, I have mine. I will circle back to my compromise: if you want traditional Chinese to be included, go ahead, but simplified Chinese takes precedence over traditional Chinese in the order for articles that are predominantly post-independence Singapore related. The preference of the order is in consideration of your views that there are still people using traditional Chinese, but that that simplified Chinese is the official script in independent Singapore, and WP:COMMON in Singapore currently. – robertsky (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean in the infobox? Shouldn't the order be from t->s considering that sc came from tc? Koenfoo (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Everywhere. Simplified first. official over unofficial – robertsky (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand. Koenfoo (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Simplified Chinese characters into Chinese characters. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Original research
Hello, please have a look at No original research and  Reliable sources, and maybe check the relevant discussion page before you once again add material to the article on Chinese honorifics without quoting any sources. Cheers, Babel fish (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Elon Musk, you may be blocked from editing.  General Ization Talk  02:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)