User talk:虞海

Hello, 虞海! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dave1185 (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Re Karate -- please don't move prominent pages to new titles without first discussing the change on the article talk page and getting consensus. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remind. --虞海 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 虞海, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note we do not say an article is too large - WP:MOS might be well worth a good read SatuSuro 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got it. You mean the format. Thanks! --虞海 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Asia topic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well，I've already expressed my point in the comment of the edit and again here. I think I should keep this state until he reply me. --虞海 (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the edit war and three-revert rule. I support stoping edit war but I keep against stoping three-revert rule (Personally). But what if I replied sb but he/her doesn't reply me? Should I edit the corresponding article as if he/her has agreed with me? --虞海 (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you to decide whether to edit a page or not. However, you are not entitled to keep an article in a certain state, whether you are waiting for a reply or not, because you do not own it. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how to solve a problem like one side keeping silence? I mean, maybe not for this time, for the future. --虞海 (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why they can delete my image within only 8 days that I didn't my watchlist? Evidence here. --虞海 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know I do not own Wikipedia, but Wikipedia belongs to everyone, and everyone has rights to edit it.

You might not agree "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", but you must agree everyone has rights to edit Wikipedia. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the deletion policy for details of why pages might be deleted. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your other concerns. Please try posting at the administrator noticeboard if you have an issue that any admin could resolve. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Shuǐshū, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuǐshū. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Mark Chovain 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been improved. And the first deletion request was denied. Why do you requested it again? --虞海 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chovain replied me here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights in South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India

Speedy deletion of Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India[edit]

There was an alert for speedy deletion here. And it's with a personal attack accuse. However, later the author deleted it and admit:

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Some remains undone in User:虞海/Sandbox/Talk:Human rights in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet and Tawang, as well as human rights of Tibetan people in India.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DLX Linux, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've offered references, why it's still under the shadow of WP:N? By the way, I think you should mark it as Template:Notability not Template:AfD. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, third party media references are needed. The article shows that the subject exists, now it needs to show why it is notable. Take a look at WP:NOTABILITY to see the kind of sources that are good for this. Also see WP:PROD for a brief explanation of how PROD works. Basically, if no one removes the template after five days it is deleted. Anyone can remove the PROD, at which point to be deleted the article must be nominated for WP:AFD. Anyone (including you) can remove the prod template, although you should explain why you are doing so and try to address the concerns One other note: I believe there is a rule requiring that usernames use only Roman characters. I'm not sure the exact policy, but I'll see if I can find it for you. You should be allowed to change your name, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:USERNAME#Non-Latin_usernames is the relevant guideline on usernames. I was wrong, you CAN use non-Roman usernames, but this does make it very difficult for other Wikipedians to read, and causes problems with browsers, so it might be good to get it changed anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it. Thanks! BTW, Could your browser show Pinyin characters (ú, ǎ, etc.)? And are AfD and PROD the same? I didn't remember you told me not to use Non-Latin usernames. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually can see the Chinese characters, and the Pinyin, but some browsers will have trouble displaying them. AFD and PROD are not the same, see WP:AFD and WP:PROD for a full explanation. Essentially, the difference is that with PROD, if no one removes the PROD tag after five days, the article is deleted. With AFD, there is a discussion and the communityt forms a consensus on whether to keep or delete. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kham, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Gimme danger (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not generally a good idea to rename an article without moving it. You might want to suggest a move, or if you have good enough sources that you don't think anyone would challenge you, just move the article. But even if you do, we should keep alternate names. kwami (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. -JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete content as you did at Ordos people; if you think that the redirect is inappropriate ask that it be deleted by adding the template: {{rfd}} and following the directions that appear. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving pages, I suggest that you should put the move up for discussion. That will avert situations where your moves are summarily reverted. It will also help people understand why you are making these moves. For instance, you have been moving the names of ethnic groups to "xxx people". Are these moves based on Wikipedia policy? Or are they simply based on your own personal preferences? It would be very useful if you could explain what you are doing.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I once wrote Lepchas, and it was changed to Lepcha people so that I know speaking "xxx people" is English habit. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the article because I think this is a more common name. Maybe Γada meiren would be even more common, but apparently such gammas are not very popular on WP. I also removed your link to the Chinese article on the Duguilang movement because I think linking to foreign-language WP articles is so helpful for users of English WP. If you can wait some days, I might come up with a properly sourced article on that topic myself (but don't count too much on it). Regards, Yaan (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. In fact, I'm about to do it too, but I don't know how to transcript it from Mongolian. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make controversial moves without a discussion in the talk page of the articles. The new titles that you have used are not widely used and the way that you have moved the pages, makes it harder to to revert it. Alefbe (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I looked at the discussion on talk:Pamiris in China. No matter what's the consensus there, it's not enough for a controversial move for a much more important page like Tajik people. It's like making a drastic change on the article China or it's title, based on some talk in the talk page of Tashkurgan Town. Alefbe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you tend to put large numbers of very verbose section headers into articles. In general, it's not necessary to put so many section headers. Section header titles should be brief and logically organised. Avoid empty sections. And making wikilinks from section headers could interfere with screen readers of users who are blind or have poor vision. See Wikipedia:Accessibility#Section structure for further information.

Also I have done some cleanup on Tashi delek in accordance with the above, and also to remove citations to self-published sources like Baidu Baike and blogs. These are against the policy on reliable sources and shouldn't be used as the basis for article content. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've noticed that. But how do you think it's possible that Baidu Baike is a self-published sources? Baidu Baike is a mostly pasted Encyclopedia. Articles in it are pasted from other source. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate term in this case would be "user contributed source". The material in Baidu Baike is added by many anonymous individuals, similar to Wikipedia. For the same reason, Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable reference either. --Latebird (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Menksoft Slav Mongolian Input Method Disc.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Menk Mongolian Whole-Word Input method.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the merge tags on Menksoft IMEs and Menksoft Mongolian IME had been there for weeks and you didn't consider it necessary to participate in the discussion about them. Now that I've actually merged them, you reverted me without comment. Can you please explain why there must be two articles to explain exactly the same thing? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for advertizing (see WP:COI), and that Wikipedia is not a manual. You may also want to study WP:STYLE, because the two articles are structured in a way that makes them very difficult to read and understand. And lastly, WP:SINGULAR mandates that page titles should not be in plural form. This means that your original version and your revert violate quite a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would have been perfectly fine to add the new information to the merged version. --Latebird (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't discuss it and now if you take a look at the article Menksoft you'll know why:

1. Menksoft Mongolian IME=Menksoft Mongolian IME;
2. Menksoft Mongolian IMEs=Menksoft Mongolian Input method series=Menksoft Mongolian IME+Menk Mongolian Whole-Word Input method+Menksoft Mongolian Phoneme Input Methods (Menksoft Mongolian Phoneme Input Method, Menksoft TUOTE Input Method, Menksoft Manchu Input Method, Menksoft XIBO Input Method, Menksoft Slav Mongolian Input Method and Mongolian Uyghur style Mongolian Phoneme Input Method);
3. Menksoft IMEs=Menksoft Mongolian IMEs+Menksoft Khitan small script Application system+Menksoft International Phonetic Input method.

To aviod the confuss, I moved Menksoft IMEs to Menksoft#Input method series and Menksoft Mongolian IMEs to Menksoft#Menksoft Mongolian Input method series.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, collecting all that information in one article about the company and its products is much better. So why is there still information duplicated in Menksoft Mongolian IME? As far as I can tell, there's only one or two sentences there that are not redundant, and should really be merged with the rest. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a product catalog. --Latebird (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arrangment is this: the article Menksoft offers info about the company, but there's nowhere to write products other than Menksoft Mongolian IME, so I wrote them here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not able to Wikify the article, but I think there will be somebody to do it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menksoft already includes the same (if not more) information about the product as Menksoft Mongolian IME does, so there's no good reason to have two articles. I have already tried to wikify and translate the text into proper English, but you reverted my changes. --Latebird (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have already tried to wikify and translate the text into proper English, but you reverted my changes": You mean this? I'm sorry I didn't see this, and I'll proceed to do it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done 1 2. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Menksoft already includes the same (if not more) information about the product as Menksoft Mongolian IME does, so there's no good reason to have two articles": if we move Menksoft to Menksoft Mongolian IME, where to place the whole-word IME? And if we move Menksoft Mongolian IME to Menksoft, it's hard for the reader to find the Menksoft Mongolian IME? That's like relations between Macromedia and Macromedia FreeHand. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should all be collected in Menksoft as the most general entity. Finding things mentioned in an article is no problem, that's why we have a search function. The other other titles can also stay as redirects, which makes it even easier. But the first priority right now is really to find independent sources. Are there any reports about the company and its products in software/computer magazines, in linguistic publications, or in other media? --Latebird (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has nominated Menksoft and the other related articles for deletion, because they don't document the notability of the company through reliable independent sources. You'll find the relevant discussion here. To prevent the article from being deleted, you'll have to do the following: Read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) very carefully, to make sure you understand the requirements. Then find sources that are independent of Menksoft, have a good reputation, and explain what makes it stand out from other small software companies. Of course, add those sources to the article. And lastly, since most of those sources will probably not be in English, it's probably a good idea to explain them in the deletion debate. I can't help you find those sources (not fluent enough in the relevant languages), but if you have any questions, I'll try to point you in the right direction. Good luck! --Latebird (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BabelStone is interesting that he notified you but didn't notify me. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've communicated with BabelStone about those articles before. Forgetting you was probably just an oversight, without any bad intentions. --Latebird (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very sorry, it was just an oversight. BabelStone (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so serious, sometimes I do that too. E.g. in many article Template:Merge is only a connection tag and no editors care it, and consequently I did't mention Latebird's merge tag until he merge it, and so is the former talk. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

----

The only thing made me somewhat angry is in Wikimedia Commons, people (incl. me) never notice the uploader then they nominate the uploader's medium for deletion. (I asked for an notice->so he notice me, otherwise, no one do it.)

But when you removed the license of your image (e.g.since you know there's no suitable license), you want to delete it, an robot will notify you. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please explain how Uyghurjin script differs from Mongolian script? You created the article using exactly the same description, so obviously the reader must think they are the same thing. The other question (assuming they are different) is whether English language sources actually make that distinction, and if "Uyghurjin script" is the term they use for it. I have strong doubts on both accounts. First, "Uyghurjin script" is a Mongolian term not common in English (actually, in this mixed language form not even common in Mongolian). I also seem to remeember that Mongolian sources use "Mongolian script", "Old script", "Uyghur script", and possibly other terms largely as synonyms. I see no reason to create a seperate article for just an early variation of the same thing. --Latebird (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uyghurjin script was used before 1269 Phags-pa script released. It was almost the same with Old Uyghur alphabet. The Hudum Mongolian script was used after the abolish of Phags-pa script, and looks different to Uyghurjin script. Some of them are even not fully distinguished.

--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very simplistic explanation. Uyghur-Mongolian was used before, during and after the introduction of Phags-pa, and there is no sharp difference between pre-Phags-pa Mongolian and post-Phags-pa Mongolian. As Mongolians became more confident in the script they had borrowed from the Uyghurs they made some modifications to letters, but this was a continual process, not a sudden leap from an old script called "Uyghurjin" to a new script called "Hudum Mongolian". Most scholars would agree that your so-called "Uyghurjin" script and the classical Mongolian script represent different stages in the evolution of the same script. Please remember that orthographic reforms do not necessarily turn Script A into Script B -- for example, in English we used to have a long s letter a couple of hundred of years ago, and a few hundred years earlier we had the letters thorn and wynn; just because we no longer use these letters in English does not mean that the modern Latin script is a different script to the one used in the 18th century.

Therer's no sharp difference between any two script, if the latter script is derived from the first. There's midbody between Oracle bone script and Seal script, between Bronze script and Seal script, between Large Seal script and Small Seal script, between Seal script and Clerical script. Will you say what I use to write Chinese is Oracle bone script? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tend to make a lot of radical and controversial edits that reflect your own personal point of view, but not necessarily that of most scholars -- that is a very un-Wiki way of editing, and causes unnecessary edit warring. In future please consider discussing controversial changes on the talk page before making them ! BabelStone (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I'm subjective when editing arts. But I don't know how to be objective in arts. Perhaps I can only be objective when study science. Thanks for your remind. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging the two articles -- please discuss at Talk:Mongolian_script#Merger_proposal. BabelStone (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently renamed, on French Wikipedia, Xian de Dawu (Sichuan) to Xian de Dau Zong. I reverted to the previous name for the following reasons:

1. I didn't find any reference for that name (the Chinese Wikipedia article, which gives Dau Zong as the tibetan transtiteration is not a reference according to Wikipedia's rules),
2. Zong is the Tibetan equivalent of the Chinese word Xian, and should not be used simultaneously.

Do you happen to know some source for Dau instead of Dawu (an official one if possible)? If so, the article might be renamed to Xian de Dau. Croquant (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Welocme to the page india. I will request you to please provide some nuteral refrence for your change--Sandeep (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Sandeepsp4u#Edits of Page India. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit wikipedia articles to make a point, as you did at India. If you disagree with the edit made at Mêdog County, discuss the issue on that article's talk page, instead of taking a tit-for-tat route. Abecedare (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Well, I'll do what you did to me to others (as you "teaches" me that "revert false and pointy disclaimer" is "right"). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend i think u had posted in wrong talk page i had done nothing on medog country article please check it properly. --Sandeep (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's my fault. I thought it's Wikipedia rules to add such information like what Croquent did. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem my friend. This type of things happens in life.--Sandeep (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I do not understand clearly your complaint about Mêdog County. Are you telling me that, when I say in the legend of the map: "this map includes a territory under indian administration as a part of Arunachal Pradesh", it's not the truth? Croquant (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll deal with this after ANI2009. Will reply tomorrow again. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the fact is, I must let Abecedare answer me the very similar case, and then I can answer you. If he can't answer me, then what you did was right and I'll and similar informations to Aksai Chin. Thanks! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 虞海. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and before you go there to leave your comments, prepare a good speech that explains to the uninvolved what exactly it is you're doing or trying to do/prove. I took a look at your latest contribs. Anyone who won't get a reasonable explanation might conclude you are (or have become) obsessed. I am really curious about your rationale. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海 by User:MiszaBot II. Will reply there. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive563 is blocked, view with this link. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again! This is something I have to do before you make another mistake, please note that any improperly cited or sourced edit in article page (read these: → No original research, neutral point of view, verifiablity, citing sources and What Wikipedia is not!) are no different from edit when you do not provide a valid explanation in the edit summary. It might have been notable to add that line of yours into the article of History of Mongolia, but your explanation in that edit summary really leaves a bad taste for others to read. Please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with your fellow Wikipedians, no matter how correct you maybe, stick to it like glue and you will stand on clear grounds for nobody to judge you. Thus, I'm going to provide you with a Welcome section at the top of your discussion page for you to familiarize with Wikipedia's policies. Remember, two wrongs does not make one right! --Dave1185 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on India. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dave1185 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to History of Mongolia, you will be blocked from editing. Dave1185 (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made a citation but it's not in english so we can't even verify it. In the interest of not starting an edit war, I will not revert it without consensus but in the future, I recommend you post citations in English only so that they can be verified by an independent body. Posting a Chinese citation on the English Wikipedia is a great way to start a conflict.Vedant (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the citation, sooner, but it's still in Chinese. However you'll find easy to verify it, for I'll point out the exact sentence in it. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply pointing out the citation is not sufficient. Please read these guidelines for citing non-English sources on the English Wikipedia [1][2]. You MUST provide an English language translation and failure to do so would likely result in your citation being removed. Vedant (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will revert the edit, a bit too controversial to add this cite now without anyone being able to positively verify it. Although I can read and understand Chinese text, the book is not available in Singapore... so there's no way I can help verify it. For lack of a better source, we'll omit this for the time being. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hujia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Merlion  444  07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received. The article is still in writing, so it's of course empty. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've moved the Shannan Prefecture article to "Lhoka Prefecture" again with no explanation on the talk page, and without changing the article to be in keeping with the new name. Nor, to my knowledge, have any other articles been changed to be in keeping with the prefecture's new name. I did specificly ask for clarification on the article last time you moved the article, and you have failed to provide any. This seems inappropriate to me. Please clarify the reason for the move on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Keithonearth (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a proposal to move the article Tajiks of Xinjiang back to it's original name Tajiks in China. Since you were involved in many of the edits of this page, you may want to leave a comment.David Straub (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's your source on the official name of Chifeng? Cheers, Yaan (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Encyclopedia of China - Geography> - Appendix: Chinese and English from Minorities' names. (1980s)--虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tashi Delek.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Tashi Delek.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg's invention of movable type was by scholarly consensus a separate, independent one. Printing presses (see footnote 39), as in fact screw presses and even the screw itself were completely unknown in the Far East which only knew hand printing and which adopted Gutenberg-style printing in the 19th century (see Global spread of the printing press) so that today all movable type printing actually derives from Gutenberg's development line, not at all from that of Bi Sheng. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article DLX Linux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced to anything other than self-published sources, non-notable and not likely to be notable. Tagged for 18 months.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notify! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Mongolian)#Mongol script proposal. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DtN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion and we decided the best place was Gansu. Please do not move pages like this without discussing it first.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been told before to discuss moves before you make them. This is something you've done before and should stop.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BRD is your favorite policy, as you claim on your user page, please consider following it instead of edit warring (as you started to do here). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it's an edit-war, since I puted comments before (or on) every edit I did. See User_talk:Rjanag#BRD. :) --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have "no objections", my objections remain the same as before. Your additions are poorly written, both in terms of grammar and flow. If you are not comfortable writing in English, ask another editor at the talk page to help you. Nobody at the talk page has supported your original wording or the edit you are making, they have only agreed with your general sentiment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of your edits this month are conflating different topics (e.g., matrices of polynomials and polynomials of matrices), or separating two concepts which do not need separate articles (e.g., equivalence classes (set vs. class) or Euclidian space (finite-dimensional vs. infinite-dimensional). The different topics may be due to a literal translation of the Chinese name, as the zh: interwikis you have created are clearly different concepts, as looking at the displayed formulas clearly show.

Please be more careful using mathematical concepts.

I recognize that your edits indicate confusion as to some of the concepts expressed on Wikipedia, and some of the confusion may be due to errors in the articles (but, apparently, not the ones you are editing.) I recognize that your edits are made in good faith, but they are disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for notification, I've nominated the redirect λ-matrix for deletion, nominated Equivalence class (disambiguation) for speedy deletion (as it's a disambiguation with one line), moved Finite dimensional Euclidean space back to Euclidean space (see discussion at WT:MATH#Undiscussed move of Euclidean space to Finite dimensional Euclidean space), and reverted most of your changes in regard modules and matrices of polynomials, which you read as polynomials of matrices. Please do not change these back without discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this question, since you are the only person so far to voice a dissenting opinion about the current proposed naming conventions.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, talk pages such as Wavelenght are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Excellent question for the wp:Reference desk/Science. DVdm (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But there's no reference desk for certain article in Wikipedia, and plus, it may affect the article. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your current signature is too long: as per WP:CUSTOMSIG a signature should not be over 255 characters and "signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures;". Yours is over 20 lines long. It seems to be cause by a template, and again from WP:CUSTOMSIG "The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the signature box. If substitution of templates or another page is used, please be careful to verify that you are not violating the length limit, as the software will not do this automatically." Please take steps to remedy this as it makes replying to your comments very difficult.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My raw signature is "––[[User:虞海|{{SUBST:Lang|zh|虞海}} ({{SUBST:Unicode|Yú Hǎi}})]]", which is shorter than 255 character. I want to change the rendered version, but Wikipedia does not have the technic to remove "SUBST". But ANYWAY, my current SIG is shorter than 255 and plus, WP:CUSTOMSIG is a guideline, not a policy. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see the last quote from that page. If you use subst (which you should for stability, otherwise your sig could change with the template) it is your responsibility to check that once substituted the signature is still not too long. As it clearly is too long (I can see it now as I edit this reply - it has forced my original post off the top of the edit screen) you need to find some other way to create a signature without the length problems.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way but it's not as good as the former, but ANYWAY, why is it my responsibility, did any Wikipedia policy stste that? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote again, with my emphasis:

"The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the signature box. If substitution of templates or another page is used, please be careful to verify that you are not violating the length limit, as the software will not do this automatically."

The 255 is meant to be a hard limit that the software enforces, for the convenience of other editors. Subst can bypass it, but as there should be no exceptions to that limit users the above advice is offered.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a guideline, that is, it depend on the user whether to obey. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A behavioural guideline is a guideline on how editors should behave, i.e. one that editors should respect and follow, and as with others it's not usually considered optional. I've also just noticed further guidelines further down the page at Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates, which basically says template transclusion is forbidden and substituting is "highly discouraged". It's something two different editors have noticed independently in a very short time, so is clearly a problem: I have never had reason to comment on an editor's signature before.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to and will to improve my signature, but NOT for the guideline, only for others' convience. Now it's already short enough. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SL2(R). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I did only make 2 reverts for each edit, and I'm revert vandalism so I have unlimited chance to revert in a day. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of reverts is per article, not per edit, and you have reverted both me and other editors in the last 24 hours. I just thought it best to point it out to you in case you had not noticed, as it's easy to do 3 or more reverts without realising in a situation like this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, then you did also do 3 reverts on that page. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count only 2, [3] and [4]. I try and be careful not to revert too often, taking the issue to the talk page before I do.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the third. You did 2 thing in an edit: 1. remove “'''” of R; 2. add “'''” of SL2(R). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also careful to revert: unless no reply in talk page, I seldomly revert page (except for the first revert and when the discussion place is the "edit summary" rather than the talk page). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR restricts editors to 3 reverts per day, even if JohnBlackburne did miscount. (I haven't checked his count.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I did never meant to ban him from editing. Just llike him, a warning. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, that is, when someone reach 3, rather than exceed it, we can warning someone. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Title added)––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that your knowledge of English appears to be inadequate to make significant edits in en.Wikipedia. I can generally understand you, but you seem not to be able to understand us. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify it? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, I will read the corresponding comment again. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native English speaker, and my English level might be poorer than other English Wikipedians but if notified, I'll do "read-again" job (but you need to copy the original comment here so that I know what to "read-again" more carefully). I don't think it will eventually impede me from improving Wikipedia. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(also, till now I haven't done one significant edit in English Wikipedia. if there is, it would be short.)––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've removed over two dozen articles' wikilinks to Rosetta@home. Why? Emw (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove the Rosetta@home-to-otherpage lanks, but didn't see any changes. You surprised me that the otherpages-to-Rosetta@home links are modified. Could you rollback them (but do not rollback other edits)? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 16:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with changes you have made to the Hmong language article.

First: You added a template that says "This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style." This does not apply to the article. The template references "a work of fiction". Clearly, Hmong language is not a work of fiction. It is unclear to me what you are implying with this template. I will remove it again and you can discuss it further on the talk page if you want to re-add it.

Second: You added this heading: "This article introduce the Hmong language used in the United States. For the Hmong language used in China, see Chinese version of Miao language; for Hmong language used in Southeast Asia, see corresponding version." This is incorrect. "Hmong language", as described in the article, refers only to Western Hmongic, or what Chinese linguists have referred to as Chuanqiandian (although, it is unclear if all speakers of this dialect/sub-dialect of Miao identify as "Hmong".) That is to say, the Hmong language in the article is the same one that is spoken by people who identify as Hmong in China, SE Asia, and elsewhere. There might be some confusion due to the recent trend to identify all Miao nationality people as Hmong, but this is incorrect and is discussed in detail on the Hmong people article. It is problematic that the Hmong language article only discussed White and Green Hmong, but these are the most commonly spoken dialects of Hmong. Eventually, it would be best if these dialects had their own articles, but I see no immediate problem for the article. As for your suggestion that people read articles in Mandarin and SE Asian languages for more information, this is very problematic. Do you find there is better information there that should be added to the English language article? Again, I am removing this and invite you to discuss it further on the talk page if you would like to re-add it.

A good introduction to issues about differences about the terms Miao and Hmong can be found here. Nposs (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“First:” Get it! Will change it to {{Globalize}}. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Second:” That's the issue: the article tried to introduce all Western Hmongic lects, but covers only those in United States, so it failed to introduce all Western Hmongic lects, and as a consequence I tagged it in-universal and “: This...”. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Mongolian language. Since you had some involvement with the South Mongolian language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Daba script is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daba script 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Fences&Windows 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 虞海. You have new messages at JorisvS's talk page.
Message added 11:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Let us discuss your edits on Template_talk:Table_Hanzi. Asoer (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely check other sources before correcting things in the future! — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you undid some of my recent edits without explanation, namely the removal of the Tibetan template from Bhutanese cuisine and Sharchop. I have reverted your unexplained reverts. When you don't put an explanation, you actually state that you were correcting vandalism. In fact, when you undid my edit, there was text at the top of your window advising: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only" – however you left no explanation. My edits were clearly not vandalism. I removed those templates because they requested Tibetan to be added in the first line of the article whose name refers to a concept originally in Tibetan script. To those articles, I have added not only the script but the transliteration, so the template requesting script is no longer needed. Again, please put explanations for when you undo edits unless they are vandalism. Thanks. JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get it. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoiding adding text which is both Chinese and English, as you did here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flickr account that it was from released it under the license i put into the image, go ahead and delete it, but I did not Deliberately upload it knowing of infringement, i uploaded it because the original image on the article here violated its flickr license], which said all rights reserved.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flickr accounted violated the license and i do not own the account, i was looking for a replacement image.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your two changes with the comment "this was discussed at length in 2008 (Olympics days) - China encompasses everything Chinese, history, people and countries - "civilization" is the core orientation here". Also see the top of the talk page where people say this has been discussed so many times before.

This is one of those articles where each person has a different idea what it "should mean". China is obviously wrong. And that might be the only answer that everyone could agree about. 对不起。 ～～～～— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Chinese language appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Nlu (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your move of the Xinjiang article: it is not necessary to move articles back and forth if you want to create redirects. Just go to the page where you want the redirect to be and edit it to say

#REDIRECT [[page name]] 

rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When considered a name having potential possibility of becoming article-name, I move articles back and forth to make redirects. However, for the name Qurighar, it's unnecessary. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You moved "Dörbet" article to "Dörbet (Choros clan)", but this name is unknown as "Dörbet" is a primary sense. If you think a new disambiguation page with a secondary sense would be created "Dörbet (disambiguation)" is a right name, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

And an other one question: why did you used Chinese name in disumbiguation page, but not English? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The two “Dörbet”-named aimags are equally weighted, so Dörbet it self should be a disamb page. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean dorbets out of Mongolia? But the primary sens has ethnic group in Western Mongolia in Uvs (former Dorvod) Aimag, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say a primary sense in Eastern (Inner) Mongolia is the Dorbod Mongol Autonomous County. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 05:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Baekdu Mountain. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Also, please don't move without Consensus. Thank you.

你切勿题目边境. 这需要共识. --Idh0854 (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd deal with this later, but hope you're not a Korean extremists (if you're, I'd have to bring some Manchu nationalist here, to “neutralize” you). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yu (or Hai, sorry, I don't know which is your given name). I saw that you've edited Mongolian script and its talk page quite a few times and I was wondering just how familiar you are with the language? My second son is going to be born soon, and I'd like to tattoo his name on my arm. My first son's name is tattooed in traditional Chinese around my wrist, but I'd like my second son's name to be tattooed vertically down my arm to "balance" it with my left arm, which also has a large pictoral tattoo. Mongolian is the only vertical language I can think of, and I think it's quite pretty, too.

If you do know the Mongolian language and alphabet (or any other elegant vertical scripts), would you be willing to write my son's name and upload it somewhere like Commons, Flickr or Image Bucket for me? Hand written is fine, as is a computer generated image from a Font. His name will be McKenzie Hunter, Hunter being his middle name, not his surname.

Please feel free to say no if you're uncomfortable or unwilling. Thank you in advance, Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm interested in Monglian culture, but not capable to speak or write Mongolian (or in a starter level). You'd better ask User:Yaan to get an Mongolian name.

Grts!

--YU Hai (Yu is my family name) 07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well thank you for replying! I will contact Yaan. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Yaan is not active, you may also contact User:G Purevdorj. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There is currently a debate on whether International TLDs should or should not be included in the article of Singapore. Anyone is free to join the discussion. --RaviC (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently nominated File:Yalu1.png for deletion, but apparently because of a Twinkle error, the nomination page and discussion was never created. I have removed the tag. If you would still like the file to be deleted, feel free to renominate. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Need your views and comments, on my personal page. One should also go through ['no consensus' discussion].

I would need to have clarity on naming standards for India page as of now. Any help would be very useful, thanks.

I just want to point out that the issue needs clarity for standards which I think is important. If some inconsistencies are introduced, the examle can be made as a reference for changing look of pages on other countries, and then further many related pages. let me also know if there are such issues in some pages with similar context ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit? Where does my bot made any vandalizm? Masti (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It destroyed the link structure. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just undone your change, as you actually removed a number of valid edits, covering more than one month, are put it back to immediately after the bot edit. I.e. you did not undo whatever the bot did. As for the bot edit it seems correct: fixing a number of out of date links and removing some odd structure around the Chinese interwiki links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I misused the "revert to" function. But the Bot DID destroy the link-structure. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 12:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the bot also made perfectly valid changes, and looking at the history you're reverted other bots making similar good changes. Please in future don't just revert such bot edits but check them in case they include good changes: it may be because of them that the bots keep coming back to the page. I've reverted those changes, but left your link-structure in place, even though I'm not sure it's needed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the bot made a few "perfectly valid" changes, which is trivial (without these changes the transwiki-links works fine). But I think the "{{#ifeq:" structure is more important, because it is functional, while whether to use "Wikipedia" or "Uicipeid" is not function-related. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Zhuang is not written using superscript characters - for example "Mwngz youq gizlawz?", which means where are you is written using the ordinary alphabete, not superscript characters. Johnkn63 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superscripts are not used in standard Zhuang orthography, but tone marks are confusing in English. So we can use superscripts to help readers pronounce them correctly without modifing the orthography substantially. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, however, follows existing conventions regarding orthography, it is not the place for introducing new orthographic conventions. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce any new orthographic conventions, but give exist orthography a new look, to make it easier to read. When the reader copy the text and paste it to the searchbox, it would be no difference to the general-used one. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such changes are very idiosyncratic wikipedia is not the place to try out new ideas. The use of superscript certainly does not make it easier for me, and many others to read. Please remove these asap.10:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkn63 (talk • contribs)

I can understand your reasoning, as it does make it easier to read. However, the result is not Zhuang orthography. Your opinion on what is or is not a "substantial" modification of the orthog. is a matter for discussion on an MOS or Wikiproject talk page. If you convince people that yours is the way to go, we should add it to the MOS somewhere; otherwise, we need to stick to actual Zhuang orthographic conventions.

This would seem to apply to Hmong as well, and AFAIK no-one superscripts the tone marks there. We should probably discuss this in conjunction with the Hmong people. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An abugida, like an abjad, is a subtype of alphabet. The reason I moved all the articles is that we had ended up with a system where funny Asiatic squiggles are called "scripts", while nice intelligible Western writing is called an "alphabet". I didn't think that was a good way of doing things. With the current MOS, abugidas and abjads are called "alphabets" too. See the difference between Latin script and Latin alphabet (the latter is used to write Latin, but not English), also Arabic script and Arabic alphabet (the latter is used to write Arabic, but not Persian). There's the Mongolian script, and then there's the Mongolian alphabet which uses the Mongolian script (as opposed to the Mongolian alphabet which uses the Cyrillic script). — kwami (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the wide alphabet difinition does not include syllabaries, and Mongolian have some syllabaric feature. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English has some syllabic features! That's not the point. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda  Talk 11:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have some backround in thsi matter, why not build on that in the article. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our convention with article titles of Chinese names is to follow the most commonly used English romanization of the name, which typically puts the surname first. It's often possible to gauge which ordering to use by looking at what name the subject of an article puts on their publications. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Happy editing, Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your move (rename). In English usage, "Solid-state drive" is by far the more common term for these devices; furthermore it is the term used throughout the very article! Even if you still think the move is a good idea, a move of an article of this long standing, that has had NO dissension over its name in the past, should be discussed first. The requested move template ({{Requested move}}) would be appropriate in this case to obtain wider community input. Jeh (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Solid-state drive, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". (I noticed that you have done several page moves recently, all of which you marked minor. I am not qualified to comment on the merits of your other moves but since most of them have been reverted they obviously do not qualify as "could never be the subject of a dispute".) Jeh (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the redirect, but removing "Mar" title from the Syriac clergy is just application of Wikipedia guidelines regarding Syriac names and Syriac bishops. This is different from naming conventions for Popes. Mar should only be used for disambiguation purposes as the guideline explains. See for Wikipedia guidelines on Syriac bishops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Syriac_bishops So Mar Dinkha IV should remain a redirect and the main article should be Dinkha IV Khanania. Kindly see the guideline and reverse the redirect if possible. werldwayd (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notion!

->Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)#Syriac bishops.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 15:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your additional comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Syriac_bishops werldwayd (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that "Yü" is the correct spelling? In Tibetan, "Yü" [jy] is not pronounced the same as "Ü" [y].—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard SASM/GNC/SRC transcriptions for geographical and personal romanization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]