User talk:White whirlwind/Archive 2

Formatting?
Hi White whirlwind,

Do you think this format looks ok? My plan is to add Ho Tu to the Lo Shu article, and see where it goes from there. I have rough draft but its hard to motivate to work on sources when similar articles have fewer.

乾 Qian ☰ "Heaven"

I know the Lo Shu page is really inconsistent, with parenthesis following afterward: "Five Phase" (Wu Xing, 五行) and different quoting styles and stuff.My thought was, if people can't read the Han character, their eye would have an easier time skipping over it to the left, like an icon. Plus, they tend to be the same width so vertical alignment on lists is nice.

Bagua is a more consistent example. The thought was introducing a term with the Han characters first then a space and the pinyin followed by English (with whatever punctuation seems to work), for example: 五行 Wǔ Xíng, Five Phases.

I think diacritics look cool. I used them all them all time but, of course, not everyone would. Just for the first instance?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you have a good idea vis-a-vis formatting the lists of Qian and Li and Kan, etc. It's important for us to use pinyin but in modern academic writing the tone markers are not used...  White whirlwind (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lo Shu Square
水, 火, and 天 are the most basic and simplest Chinese characters for "water", "fire", and "heaven", so your edits to the article would seem to require further explanation... 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My dear anonymous friend - it seems your knowledge of classical Chinese and pre-Qin history is quite rudimentary. Those characters are, in a sense, the "most basic" characters for the terms, but they are certainly not the characters used in the divination rites of the Yi Jing. Each element had symbolic words associated with it. The same was true for each of the cardinal directions (they used a mix of the Heavenly and Earthly Branches), as well as animals (Earthly Branches). Whether or not a character is the most "basic" or "simple", as you said, is completely irrelevant. We must use the correct characters. Grab a copy of the Yi Jing and see for yourself. White whirlwind (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the name of a gua and the image, would this format work ok for everybody? 乾 Qián, ☰ (天 "Heaven"), … Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems a little unwieldy with the parentheses in there. I think including 天 is only necessary if they were in a table, and that's already done in another article. In the context of the 九宫图 I think it a bit too much. White whirlwind (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice Job!
Hey White whirlwind! Nice job on translating Nanyue article. Congratulations on finishing through the final steps, your translations are well done! The article can passed as a good article, but only need some further improvements now to achieve it, but it certainly look pretty good right now. A job well done! If you're interested in translating more Chinese history articles, then you should look at Jin Dynasty (265–420), Three Kingdoms, and Sixteen Kingdoms. They have feature status on their Chinese Wikipedia. :) Anyway, awesome translations again and hope you can translate more. --LLTimes (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer  Waters  11:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Minnan and shijing
I wrote a lot in the discussion, maybe a little too much. I do hope you take the pain to read them and reply. Anyway, I want that sentence rephrased.

I propose:

Modern scholarship on the Book of Songs often focuses on doing linguistic reconstruction and research in Old Chinese by analyzing the rhyme schemes in the Odes, which are vastly different from modern Chinese languages most of whose vowel systems resemble Middle Chinese spoken thousands of years after the Odes.

Thank you. --Tricia Takanawa (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. White whirlwind (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Help Wanted - Qin (State)
As you are one of the few English/Chinese bilingual editors on Wikipedia, please join in the discussion of the meaning of “子” at Talk:Qin (state). Thanks. Philg88 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to help however I can.   White Whirlwind  咨   16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

叔
Hi White Whirlwind, After our fun and games with Man Under Starlight regarding 子/Viscount I've started thinking whether "uncle" is a satisfactory translation of 叔. I can't think of any immediate alternatives but I don't believe that "Uncle" is the true sense of the word plus it sounds a bit patronizing. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Best Philg88 (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Brother-in-law" seems to be the most ancient meaning of the word: the Erya has: "Husband's ["grown man's"] younger brothers are shu 叔". 《爾雅·釋親》：夫之弟為叔 (Wikisource link).  Baxter gives 叔's Old Chinese pronunciation as hjiwk.  (夫 meant either "man" or "husband", at least according to the Shuowen entry for 夫.)


 * My personal guess (which certainly could be wrong) is that 叔's "uncle" meaning derives from the "brother-in-law" meaning, which itself was probably colloquially used for any man younger than oneself. As you've probably read in a dictionary, 叔 is the 3rd spot in the ordering of brothers that was used in names or as a polite suffix (伯, 仲, 叔, 季 being the order I've read).  These meanings certainly seem to be all somewhat related.


 * The "One of these things is not like the other" meaning is the one given in the Shuowen and is probably the final entry in most dictionaries, meaning "to arrange". Looking at the Shuowen entry, it says: "叔, equals 拾. Following the 又 radical with 尗 for phonetic. Runan calls harvesting taro as 叔. [Alternate character with 寸].  試竹 fanqie." .  This is so different that I'm almost certain it's a non-Chinese or dialect word that was borrowed in to give the character meanings described above.


 * So, yes, I think "Uncle" would probably be a bit patronizing. Some respectful term for an older man would convey the original meaning in English much better, it seems to me.    White Whirlwind  咨   05:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where it gets tricky because the accepted (but not necessarily correct) translation of 伯 seems to be "Count", which takes us back to the 子 thing. Possibly the purest translations for 伯, 仲, 叔, 季 are First Brother, Second Brother etc..., except that 季 can just mean the youngest. That would suggest Elder Brother, Second Brother, Third Brother and Younger Brother as possible options. Certainly it fits with Chinese cultural norms but I'm not sure what "Old China Hands" would make of it. Best Philg88 (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As we talked about with 子 on Talk:Qin (state), I wouldn't feel comfortable using those European equivalents unless jue/zoek3/shaku/jak 爵 explicitly follows the character. On the other hand, using the series of "brothers" seems unwieldy, and that English method of translation is generally only used in Qing Dynasty literature (三哥、四哥, etc.) anyway.  Are there specific cases you're looking at on here?   White Whirlwind  咨   08:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No specifics but it would mean that all the articles with 伯 have "uncle" substituted with "Bo" What do you think? Should we ask Man Under Starlight? Philg88 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 班固《白虎通·姓名》：故以时长幼号曰伯、仲、叔、季也. 伯者，长也. 伯者子最长，迫近父也. 仲者，中也. 叔者，少也. 季者，少也. 适长称伯，伯禽是也. 庶长称孟，以鲁大夫孟氏. Shu meas middle ,not third.Eg.《史记·管蔡世家》：其长子曰伯邑考，次曰武王发，次曰管叔鲜，次曰周公旦，次曰蔡叔度，次曰曹叔振铎，次曰成叔武，次曰霍叔处，次曰康叔封，次曰厓季载. —星光下的人 (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Warring States - Conquest of Chu
Hi White whirlwind, when you get time please take a look at the Warring States Period page history and talk on the date of the conquest of the State of Chu. There is a dispute going on over the dates. Thanks and regards Philg88 (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help.  White Whirlwind  咨   14:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

三公
Hi White whirlwind. I'd appreciate your input into a discussion going on here. Best, Philg88 (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lin Chi-ling
Hello! Your submission of Lin Chi-ling at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Yan Emperor
Hello! Your submission of Yan Emperor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese diacritics
Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering about that but figured I'd be notified of such a policy when I edited Zhou Dynasty, Western Zhou, and Spring and Autumn Period. I guess those articles don't have many people watching them. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 13:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! I didn't know about it until I was in university.   White Whirlwind  咨   22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be a butt about this, but I just realized that the MOS you pointed to is not an actual guideline but a proposed one. The bit about not using diacritics in the normal flow was added by you and I can't find a discussion in the archives that shows a clear consensus on the issue.
 * It seems that, as is, neither method (with or without tones) is prescribed. Either way, I won't revert your revert before a satisfactory discussion at the pMOS's talk page.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did add it indeed. No notable Sinological organization in the entire world (as far as I know) uses tone diacritics in the normal flow of writing.  There's no call for using them on Wikipedia.   White Whirlwind  咨   19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my latest comments on certain articles were just to find out where we stand, if you get my drift. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 12:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Taiping Huanyu Ji move
Hi White whirlwind. Thank you for your message, and I'm sorry for not leaving a message either here or on the article talk page before proceeding. I went ahead because it is a straightforward rule of pinyin to put compound words together, so I thought the move would be uncontroversial. As you will see at Talk:Pure blood theory in Korea (particularly this edit), I usually go out of my way to justify a move when I think it might be controversial. So I don't think I'm a rash editor who just "lucked out" in this case. Anyway I'm glad you agreed with my conclusion despite my haste. Sorry again, and keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow - those are some of the longest "edits" I've ever seen. That's impressive.


 * Glad you got the message. Thanks for spotting the "error" in the title - please add to the article if you've got some good sources on it!  Hope to work with you in the future.   White Whirlwind  咨   12:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, those edits took a while to write! And the problem is not even solved, so there's still work to do. I just added a bit of info to the Taiping Huanyu Ji from a book I own. I also see that Taiping huanyu ji is mentioned many times in this Google Books search. I have too much on my hands right now to go through everything, but maybe you can use some of these sources to develop the article. Finally, would you agree to changing "Tai Ping Huan Yu Ji" to "Taiping Huanyu Ji" throughout the article? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work. And, yes, if an article gets moved (i.e. its name gets changed) then certainly we would want to change all references in the article itself to match.   White Whirlwind  咨   13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese
The infobox still displays the Middle Chinese header even if nothing is filled in. Just letting you know. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm still not sure why it's showing up. Might need some expert assistance.   White Whirlwind  咨   20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed.  White Whirlwind  咨   22:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! Glad you could fix it so quickly. -- Cold Season (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

On the "citebook" and "citation" templates
Hi White whirlwind. I just saw your edit summary at Tsinghua Bamboo Slips about italicizing Chinese characters in the "citebook" template. I used to find this and the "citation" template very annoying, until I found out that I could remove the italics, strangely, by adding italics inside the template. The two instructions to italicize just cancel each other out. So you write this:



And you get:

(The "author-name-separator=" thing is to avoid getting a comma between "Li" and "Xueqin" even when you put Li under "last=" and Xueqin under "first=".) Ok, just to point this out! Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that! Thanks for pointing it out.   White Whirlwind  咨   02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Madalibi (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

More on "dynasty" vs. "Dynasty"
Hi White whirlwind. I'm contacting all the editors who have commented on whether we should un-capitalize "dynasty" in wiki titles. I have just proposed a new and simple way to make a final decision on this issue. Could you go to this new section to say whether you support my proposal? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.  White Whirlwind  咨   01:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Falun Gong’s Theory on Male-Female Dual Cultivation
Hi-- I found your name under Translators available-- I wanted to request your help in trying to 1) determine whether the sources at the above article and the way they are being cited in the body of the article, and 2) To address some of the concerns about WP:COATRACK and otherwise. If you are able, please participate at the AfD listed above. Thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help! :)  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Inclusion of reference to the film 8: The Mormon Proposition is currently under dispute here: [] Is it your independent, unbiased opinion that the film is not notable enough for inclusion? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Defender (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Thank you.Light Defender (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OC form for Yue
Hi, White whirlwind. I think we should be getting OC pronunciations from Baxter's book rather than the Baxter-Sagart site (convenient though it is). The system represented by the book is widely accepted, and has replaced F.K. Li's as the most commonly cited. On the other hand the Baxter-Sagart system is unpublished and regarded by most in the field as tentative. The authors say it is experimental and evolving. Kanguole 07:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Negative. :I've heard from Professor Baxter very recently – he and Prof. Sagart indicate Baxter-Sagart is suitable for public, formal citation and that a formal publication (fingers crossed) will be arriving this year. Have you spoken with Prof. Baxter on the subject?  White Whirlwind  咨   07:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It needs a formal publication and much consideration by others before it can reach the level of acceptance by other authors enjoyed by the system in his book. We should follow the mainstream of the subject, not try to be on the cutting edge.  Kanguole 08:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a "no", then: you haven't. I am comfortable with your assertion, though surely you understand the inherent difficulty in using one system in one's own work and another in Wikipedia work.  White Whirlwind  咨   08:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that would be awkward, but I don't think it should be a factor in deciding what to use in Wikipedia. Kanguole 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * True, that. Well, hurrah, it looks like Baxter 1992 lives to fight another day. Let me know when you decide it's ok to proceed.   White Whirlwind  咨   08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Family tree of ancient Chinese emperors
I'm having a problem at Family tree of ancient Chinese emperors. Can you check [編輯 越國君主列表及在位年份] and see If I'm doing this right- Family_tree_of_ancient_Chinese_emperors

the chinese wiki seems to conflict with the list at baidu and over here

Will this be of any help to complete the familt trees?

I've stopped all work on the family tree of the yue kings until I can get a concensus from other users about the proper list.Sonny Fin (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oracle bones
Hi, White whirlwind. I wonder if the material on the discovery of the bones that you recently added to Oracle bone script wouldn't fit better in the Oracle bone article. Kanguole 00:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had the same thought as I was finishing it. If you'd like to move it over, go ahead.  If not, I can do so in the next day or two.   White Whirlwind  咨   00:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. It was a pretty complex merge, and may need checking.  In particular there are now two different accounts of Wang's discovery.  Kanguole 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

re: "Tang reconstructions"
Hi,  White Whirlwind  咨  , please be assured that I have no plans to push reconstructed Tang phonology throughout Wikipedia. In fact, I share your concerns in regard to this area. On the other hand, there are other legitimate concerns which should be addressed (see Template talk:Infobox Chinese). The way Shijing was pronounced during Tang is unimportant to the article, and I removed it. The pronunciation of Li Bai is of undoubtedly of encyclopedic importance, including how his name was pronounced during the Tang dynasty. What "Middle Chinese" means in this context I am unsure. "Ljɨ Bɐk" is significantly different from Lǐ Bhæk, which is the form given by Hugh M. Stimson (Fifty-five T'ang Poems, page 52). Dcattell (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Images
Hi again, White whirlwind. I see you've uploaded some photos of books to Commons. Would it be possible to do some of the Guangyun, say the 東 page? Kanguole 11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, give me a minute or two and I'll get that one up. Let me know what pages you'd like.  I have only the Songben 宋本 edition.   White Whirlwind  咨   19:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, look for File:Guangyun_Dong_Rhyme_1.jpg over on Commons.  White Whirlwind  咨   19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's lovely, thanks very much! Kanguole 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

your GAN Fu (poetry)
Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and left some comments at Talk:Fu (poetry)/GA1 which are meant to be helpful. I'd like to see this article become GA and I believe it's close. I think it's a fascinating topic. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the GA1 page. Excellent job. Just a few minor issues to address and it's ready to pass. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * hey! I thought of a way you could get feedback on this article. List it for Peer review and say there that you are thinking of making it a featured article. That way interested editors will provide comments on the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the GA. Mathew suggested I look into the topic and propose suggestions for further improvement.  I intend to start combing through my books on Chinese literature and poetry to familiarize myself with the subject,  but would be happy to try and help (even if that just means offering suggestions for article structure, etc.).  As an initial comment,  I found that most of the page is organized as a chronology—which is fine—but it might be useful to have a couple sections approaching the topic from different angles.  For instance, was wondering if you had considered having a section dealing with notable Fu poets, and briefly describing them and their contributions to the field? Homunculus (duihua) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick opinion on Cantonese phrase at Miranda warning
At Miranda warning, the article includes a Cantonese phrase similar to a Miranda warning: 唔係是必要你講嘅，除非你自己想講喇，但係你所講嘅嘢，可能用筆寫低及用嚟做證供嘅. An editor changed that to: 唔係是必要你講嘅，除非你想講喇，但係你所講嘅嘢，我會用紙同筆記錄低，將來可能會用嚟做呈堂證供嘅. I reverted the changes on the grounds that the source cited included the original version, but I'd appreciate a second opinion from someone who can read it and comment on whether the second version is an acceptable way to represent the same thing (or if the original version is obviously erroneous). TheFeds 08:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese translation
Hello. I was on Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Chinese to English translators and wondered if you could translate some of the stub articles for the King of Eastern Zhou at Template:Kings of Zhou? Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do a few. Could you point me to a few that you particularly need?  White Whirlwind  咨   21:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

chinese article
Hello, I saw that you are on a list of translators for Chinese. Do you take requests for translating English articles into Chinese? Please let me know, thank you. --Turn685 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I do in real life but not on Wikipedia. Find someone who's more active on the Chinese Wikipedia, maybe.  White Whirlwind  咨   20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Luo Yixiu
Hi, I noticed you are the original reviewer of the Liu Yixiu good article nomination. I just finished up implementing the rest of your style recommendations. I've also done some research, and honestly I feel that the article contains almost all of the reliable information on Luo Yixiu that exists. Would you be willing to have another look a the article and consider listing it as a good article, now that your recommendations have been met?

Also, I'm looking at getting more involved in contributing to China-related articles and translating articles from Chinese to English. Do you have any tips for a beginner?

Thanks! TI. Gracchus (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Luo Yigu
Hello there White Whirlwind! Just to let you know that your suggested corrections over at Talk:Luo Yigu/GA1 have now all been implemented. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Please let us know whether you intend to finish this review. If not, a new reviewer will need to be found. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Expectations
Thank you for your efforts regarding the missionary expectations of the LDS Church. Obviously, there was an attempt to bridge the gap between editors on whether to use "encourages" versus "expects" - as noted in the edit, "expects" is more correct and direct - might be well to be a little cautious when implying fluff and excessive verbiage is being added constantly, when that is not the case. Thanks for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me be more clear: here's how the section's opening sentence looked over a year ago after I created that section:


 * "The LDS Church expects all male members to serve a two-year mission unless physical, mental, or emotional health issues prevent their service." Here's how it looks today:
 * "The LDS Church expects all male members to serve a two-year mission unless physical, mental, or emotional health issues prevent their service."


 * After I cleaned up the prose from the intervening edits, we're just at the same place. Hence I said editors need to quit "adding fluff" and, if they decide something needs to be added, make it relevant and written in properly good, succinct, encyclopedic prose.  White Whirlwind  咨   03:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We both know what you've described is the whole intent of Wikipedia. Obviously, not all contributors, even when acting in good faith, understand that.  I also think this particular issue raises some wondering in the LDS community about what it really means to "expect" that missionary service take place - so they end up trying to take a more measured view of it - such as the editor trying to quote Thomas S. Monson's words to "encourage" service.  Thanks for all your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Han-Nom Barnstar
That was quite a blowout. I feel I should award you some sort of "Standing up to IIO" medal. So few people do. If you haven't figured it out already, his only interest in this issue is to make trouble for me. Kauffner (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

your Wen xuan article
Re: your use of the saying: 文選爛，秀才半 to prove the anthology's diminished position in Song society, perhaps you could consider the possibility of an alternative reading? Although 爛 "rotten" is a modern colloquialism for describing bad writing, it is almost never used (if ever) in this sense in Classical Chinese. The ancient habit of memorizing books, often in their entirety, meant that students often wore out their copies of the classics in carrying them around and thumbing through them (while pacing back and forth), a process that literally reduced the books to a ragged 爛 condition. (You may have seen used books from the mid-century or earlier that look like this.) Even now, close familiarity with a given book is described as 爛熟 (the metaphor comes, not from cooking as one might supposed, but from the wearing out of the pages in the process of repeated reading).

Anyway, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Please consult, for example, the following entry in the Handian online dictionary, which glosses the quotation thus:

宋代俗语. 谓熟读《文选》，考取秀才有望. 宋 陆游 《老学庵笔记》卷八：“国初尚《文选》，当时文人专意此书……士子至为之语曰：‘《文选》烂，秀才半. ’” (http://www.zdic.net/c/7/13c/301668.htm)

Also, there is a new book (2012) about the Wen xuan by Wang Ping, who quotes the same popular saying and interprets it in the meaning I have suggested.

In that case, perhaps the saying could indeed be translated as: "When you've worn your Wen xuan out, you're half a scholar, or just about!"

I apologize for altering the text of your article directly instead of sending you a note first. I am new to editing Wikipedia and wasn't aware that one could "talk" to contributors until I received a "welcome" form letter after I'd already logged the emendation.

Tarquinius Asiae 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Tarquinius AsiaeTarquinius Asiae 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquinius Asiae (talk • contribs)


 * Your translation is definitely an improvement. All I meant was that when you make a significant change or improvement, like you did, make sure and cite your sources with ref tags.   White Whirlwind  咨   23:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fan Ju versus Fan Sui
I see that you undid my changes of Fan Sui to Fan Ju. I know Fan Sui is also common, but nowadays most Chinese scholars agree it's Fan Ju 范雎 not Fan Sui 范睢, per Zhan Guo Ce and Han Feizi. Ju was a common given name of Qin and Han, Sui was not. In English translation, at least Crump and Watson now use Fan Ju. See also zh:范雎, which uses Fan Ju. -Zanhe (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. First of all, other Wikipedia projects are not inherently WP:Reliable sources, see that link for for info.  Secondly, I am well aware that there is debate regarding this issue. On a related note, whether or not "Sui" was a common name or not is, on its own, poor evidence: "Humbert" is not a common English name, but it does exist, and one would be silly to change it to "Hubert" simply because "Humbert" is rare.  I see no clear consensus in the published, reliable sources on "Ju" over "Sui" (as I said I feel it's the other way around). Until there is, please leave it as "Fan Sui", though perhaps a note on the controversy would be appropriate.    White Whirlwind  咨   07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you got it backwards. Shiji used Fan Sui, and that became common because of its influence. However, the earlier texts Zhan Guo Ce and Han Feizi both used Fan Ju. Han Feizi actually wrote Ju as 且, which is unlikely to be mistaken with anything pronounced Sui. As for the common name argument, it's not something I came up with myself, but one of the reasons historians cite to support Fan Ju over Fan Sui. And if you search "Fan Ju of Qin" and "Fan Sui of Qin" on Google books, Fan Ju gets about twice as many returns (even more if you leave out the Qin part, but many would be false hits). -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just following the reliable sources here, my friend. In any case, Google Books is mostly used as a source when a common name for something or someone needs to be determined, not with a philological issue like this one.  On a related note, it's been my experience that Nienhauser, et al.'s Shiji translation is better regarded than Watson's, as Watson's translation, while nice and readable, is barely annotated at all.  Let's leave it as "Fan Sui" with a note about the alternative possibility "Ju" until a clear consensus is reached in the scholarship – sound good?   White Whirlwind  咨   01:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese template
Hi! I found this edit so I would like to explain some things. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Every subject should have both traditional and simplified listed no matter what. The only difference is which order (modern PRC and Singapore/Malaysia subjects have simplified first and everyone else has traditional first). When the other form is not included the template lists it as "Chinese" not indicating that there are different forms of writing it.
 * 2. Because he lived during the time that Wade-Giles was used in the Mainland, Wade-Giles is relevant to him. The time when not to include Wade-Giles in the lead (AFAIK one still can in the infobox) is if we are talking about a modern subject, particularly one from the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, and Malaysia.


 * Nope, neither of these are actual policies. See WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) and WP:Manual of Style/China-related articles. Your edits, while not inherently bad, are cluttering up the lead sentences and dramatically reducing readability.  If you wish to add Wade-Giles readings, please keep them confined to the infobox unless the article subject is widely known by its WG name.   White Whirlwind  咨   06:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first one is actually a guideline and there is a difference between policies and guidelines: a guideline is usually held up unless someone can make a case for an exception, and there is "common sense applies". The second is a manual of style, and notice the Zeng Guofan example which lists both Pinyin and Wade-Giles in the intro sentence in its example: Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles. So while the manual of style doesn't say it's a policy to include W-G, I notice it as a de facto best practice. It makes sense for people living in historical periods and the Qing and Republican Era as well as the early Communist era because scholarship used Wade-Giles and therefore one has to search by the Wade-Giles name to get much (older) academic scholarship, even if the subject today is better known with Pinyin. But for modern day PRC figures (Xi Jinping) and many other modern figures I agree using Wade-Giles would clutter since sources today don't use Wade-Giles with those names. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep reading, friend: "However, where there is more than one parameter in use in a given article, prefer using a Chinese box instead of zh. This removes the characters, romanization and pronunciations from the opening sentence, thus making it more readable, while retaining the information off to the side so that the reader can still see it&mdash; see the top of this section for an example that uses the Infobox Chinese template (see Infobox Chinese/doc on how to use it)." That Zeng Guofan example is there primarily for illustrative purposes and probably needs to be removed.  Again, let me be clear: I have no objections to you adding Wade-Giles or other characters to articles, but please confine them to infoboxes for the sake of lead readability, which is crucial for improving Wikipedia articles' quality.   White Whirlwind  咨   06:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I used the template here. However I would like to see a proposal to remove the example (on the basis that it's too complex) and/or use a simpler one. In the case of Li Bai he definitely would need a template since so many Chinese forms are involved, but as long as the example stays it looks like it could go either way for someone with only Mandarin forms stated. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BC/BCE
I am frequently told that the first use is the one that should stay when someone reverts back several years the way I did. It appears from my experience that this only applies if the first use was BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound sour, but that actually is my experience. The guideline needs clarification but that seems impossible also. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to your experience, but that's not good if that is the case. I certainly try to follow the guidelines.  As long as an article is consistent why not just leave it? Surely we Wikipedians have better things to do with our time than to patrol articles looking for years-old reasons to make era switches.   White Whirlwind  咨   16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a pain and a waste of valuable Wikitime; DougWeller is right, the BC/AD camp seems to be much more active than the opposite one. Maybe there should be a template Use BCE dates along the lines of use British/American English. I don't know if it's politic to just create one (the associated category would potentially end up with millions of articles) or whether it needs to be suggested somewhere. My two RMB's worth. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ironically I would say that I was wrong to revert. But having lost the argument the other way too many times.... 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Talk:Zhuangzi (book)/GA1
Hi White whirlwind, it's been a month since my review of your GA nomination, but you haven't done much to address the issues. I sincerely hope you haven't given up on it, as I think it's a very high quality article, and it'll be a pity if it doesn't pass because of some relatively minor issues. If you need more time please let me know. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Zanhe, thanks for the reminder. I started a new job recently and haven't been devoting much time to WP.  I will address your suggestions within the week.  Thanks for your cooperation.   White Whirlwind  咨   23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. Congratulations on your new job! Real life is certainly more important than WP, so take as much time as you need. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I addressed your concerns and opinions. Take a look and see what you think.  I raised an issue or two on the Talk Page you may want to take a look at.  Thanks for your encouragement.   White Whirlwind  咨   03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

neighbor/neighbour
Hi again, White whirlwind. Regarding this edit, what do you mean by "as is"? Kanguole 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean to not mix spelling varieties. The article seems to be in an American spelling format, so the neighbor -> neighbor change just keeps it uniform.    White Whirlwind  咨   17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the article consistently used Oxford spelling. Do you want to change the other occurrences of "neighbour" too?  Kanguole 18:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the Wikipedians on your side of the Atlantic were generally kosher with Oxford spelling, but I suppose if they are and it's a WP-acceptable form of British English then that's good enough for us. Incidentally, as an American I do like when British writers use Oxford spelling, as their reasoning on "-ize" is pretty ironclad, but I think both American and British writers need to go further: I've always liked this user's scheme and wish it was more widely known.   White Whirlwind  咨   03:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Zhuangzi (book)
Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Barnstar
Ditto that. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  11:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Undo Autoblock
Admins – my work's IP provider is auto blocked on all Wikis. If someone could sort this out I'd be grateful.  White Whirlwind  咨   17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a global range block. Do you wish to request an IP block extension? You will be checkusered to verify the above. MER-C 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, please.  White Whirlwind  咨   19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * checkuser needed. This may take a little while, depending on checkuser availability. MER-C 06:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with IPBE is that it would only be effective on this wiki. In any case, CU returned no results for this range, which isn't surprising considering that the range has been blocked since November. Clearly, you are still able to edit from another location, but if it is necessary to be able to edit from this address, I will talk to the blocking steward. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really only active on this wiki, so that's fine. If you could just give my account an IPBE so that I can use my free time at work to edit I would be most appreciative.   White Whirlwind  咨   19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
=

Records of the Grand Historian‎
Hey WW! Sorry, I didn't spot that the Nienhauser series was already included in the "Notable translations" section. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but it wasn't you that reverted it, was it? I thought it was this "Til Eulenspiegel" character?  His edits seem wildly irrational, I've made a note at Talk:Records of the Grand Historian documenting things and asking for level-headed reason to prevail.   White Whirlwind  咨   16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't revert—I moved the duplicate sources to a "Further reading" section by mistake. Looks like you have the situation under control now. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 16:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

135 BC
Shaugnessy has stated multiple times, including in his Ph.D. thesis, that the Yijing was canonized in 135 BC, and Tze-ki Hon repeats this as if it is a well-known fact, but I can't find any detailed information about it. Are you aware of any books or articles? (If it is a journal article I might have to ask you to email it to me as well.) Shii (tock) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't think of one off the top of my head, but let me look around and get back to you.  White Whirlwind  咨   23:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found the details in Smith 2008 (a rather difficult book to locate!). By the way, you should look at the article talk page, I don't really understand what is going on right now. Shii (tock) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you! I haven't read that one.  Shaughnessy's date of 135 may be off by a year (Nienhauser 1986: 310 gives 136 B.C.), as far as I can tell he's just referring to when Emperor Wu installed the erudites/professors for each classic, I'm not sure that the order mattered a great deal.  See what Smith has to say about it.    White Whirlwind  咨   18:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I again plead with you to look at the talk page of the article... Shii (tock) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Basic Wikipedia policy and Idema and Haft
Hi White_whirlwind: Through the general past content of your edits you seem to be as a stable, competent, and constructive editor on Wikipedia: therefore, I am quite astounded at your actions in systematically removing cited material and related reference citations from Wikipedia articles. For example, Angela Murck in the case of Fu (poetry), and touting Idema and Haft?. Is there any justification for breaking Wikipedia policy by deleting cited material and the accompanying references? If so please let me know; however, it is against the basic spirit and rules of Wikipedia. It seems to me that you are undermining the continuation of the Good Article status which you have seemed previously to have wished for the article. Best wishes, Dcattell (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I'm not sure why you're "quite astounded" at my recent edits.  Let's examine the example you gave: I removed the citation of Murck's book, which is entitled Poetry and Painting in Song China: The Subtle Art of Dissent, and was used to cite a detail about Jia Yi's exile.  Now, why an editor who professes to have any knowledge of sinology would be using a work on Song dynasty poetry and art to cite a source on the fu article is beyond me.  Imagine if I used Gong Kechang's Studies on the Han Fu to cite some fact about Song dynasty poetry, and then got angry when an editor removed or altered it – I would be insane to do so.  A citation on Song dynasty poetry ought to come from an academically respected source on that topic, not Gong's book, even if the fact was mentioned in Gong's work for some reason.  To answer your second example, Idema and Haft's book is widely used by professors of sinology in the leading centers of Chinese scholarship as a broad overview of Chinese literature (I was specifically recommended it as an initial preparation for the literature portion of my master's degree exams, in fact), so I'm not sure why any reasonable editor would have an issue with it being consulted in relevant articles.  Sources are not universally reliable, they're reliable in their own domain.  A book on German Romanticism might be a reliable source for an article on that subject, but it would not be appropriate for an article on ancient Germania, even if that was mentioned in the source once or twice. This article has achieved Good Article status, and I, as an expert on this topic with a graduate degree in this field from possibly the leading institution in this field in North America, will do everything I can to ensure the citations in this article are of the same high quality I learned in my training.  I hope this has cleared things up for you.   White Whirlwind  咨   03:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Wiltrout for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Wiltrout 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/Bill Wiltrout 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. Alex (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Bullpen_catchers Alex (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think I'm qualified to give a nuanced opinion on that discussion, so I'll abstain.  White Whirlwind  咨   06:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Fielding Smith
If you think we should keep it the "way it was" before the dispute, the repetition of the full name should be removed. You added it here] just over 24 hours ago, and it was like that for at least a year prior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - I meant "the way it was [before you got the reverting party started]" (I would've thought that was obvious), but I'll acquiesce to that.   White Whirlwind  咨   03:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't understand that. Typically, if we go back to a holding pattern for a period, things go back to the "status quo ante"—the way it was before the changes were made that led to the dispute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - No worries. Thanks for enlightening me on that.    White Whirlwind  咨   05:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking into it further in the history of the article, and it turns out the full name did appear in that paragraph for quite some time prior to 2013. I removed the full name in 2013, and it remained removed until your edit. But for the majority of the life of the article, it was there. So it may not be totally fair for my choice to be the default, if there is no resolution. If no one else comments about the issue in the next few days, I'm fine if you want to add it in again and we can see what, if anything, happens. (Maybe adding it in again would prompt someone to comment.) I recognize that it's kind of a dumb issue to fight over, and I think I probably made too big of a deal out of it in this case.
 * Anyway, I made an inquiry here asking if anyone knows about any previous consensus or discussions about the issue. I kind of doubt there's anything concrete on it, apart from what is written, which is probably open to multiple interpretations. (As you mentioned, the "generally" could be interpreted to include more exceptions than those listed, though I don't interpret it that way.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - That inquiry is really the best way to solve it – one would think that this issue would have come up already. As you clearly showed, the current policy only talks about the use of the full name in the lead, but as I showed, it's nearly a universal practice in FAs and GAs to repeat the full name at the beginning of the body of the article, usually in connection with the person's birth.  I'd certainly like to see some clear direction, regardless of which method it is.   White Whirlwind  咨   02:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)