User talk:Cold Season

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am temporarily watching it, save for template messages. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

If you want my participation to a discussion in an article's talk page, feel free to notify or {{ping}} me.

Welcome!

Hello, Cold Season, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - your additions re. 'true' and 'artifical' are not correct. These terms are obscure and archaic at best, and are based on a very limited understanding of the subject. I appreciate you have added a reference, [1], but not only is one non-authoritative but it's for different material: such boxes are not made of porcelain, rather they are made of enamelled metal. Where the confusion may have arisen is that in the USA enamelled metal is called porcelain enamel: see [2], and the removal of mention of these at [3] and the associated comment at [4]. Also the reference from Google Books, Syracuse China, makes no mention of 'artificial porcelains'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talkpage so it can be judged in public, I will ignore this private converation. Cold Season (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.226.123 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm, I apologise for sounding that way. It was not my intention, I was trying to be concise. Cold Season (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities: Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources Join in editing our collaboration of the month (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard Have a look at the Trusted Sources recommended by Wikiproject medicine Have a look at the most powerful citing tool Diberri's tool If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page. Again, welcome!. Happy editing, JFW | T@lk 08:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine, tasks you can do: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-12-23 Tools — Article alerts — Recent changes — Tasks — Requests — Popular articles —Assessment criteria {{}} — Templates more... There is also a tool to find all our sub pages here — only for the truly curious

Hello, and welcome also to WikiProject Neuroscience! Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Lacquerware. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you the ongoing SPI case:- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WarriorsPride6565.
STSC (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to http://www.enotes.com/topic/List_of_English_words_of_Tamil_origin read with Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Tamil_origin

K.Ramadurai (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was mistaken. Well, use the Witzel (1999) and John Thorley (1969) references in those articles to cite your info between <ref> tags. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you meant when you said "attribution to former contributors is still needed". Could you clarify? Quigley (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to WP:COPYWITHIN... Since so much got moved/copied, I think it's proper to leave a notice at the talkpage. Although, now, on closer look to the edit summaries in the "view history", it does seem to give proper credit. So do as you will, I don't feel strongly about it. Have a good day, Cold Season (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your swift response to my Project:China article request for Liu Yan (dancer). It was written far more excellently and thoroughly than if I had attempted it. As I was quite taken with her story after reading about it, I appreciate that it now has a place here. Good job again. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please STOP WarriorsPride6565. He is removing words again, from every single article he is editing. Many of them are not being fixed, such as this one which I only reverted recently. Fixkihitter (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will go to WP:ANI for input soon, depending on my spare time to follow up on this issue. It really needs attention, I will notify you when I do. -- Cold Season (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just disappear by themselves, I've asked people this problem before and they said I may have an bug in my browser. Those random words and phrases that keep getting removed are always highlighted in blue, I really don't know how it happened. Maybe I should change to an different account, I know how to change my Ip address as-well, maybe that would help HERE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS: http://i40.tinypic.com/2dlvfr.jpg

This is the reason why random words keep disapearing and I have too keep editing over and over again. (This is the zoomed version of wikipedia, that I copy and pasted. See the word "Flight" highligted and underlined in blue?) WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 4:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your further reverts at Huntington's disease. I hadn't spotted the others. Dubbin^u | t 10:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, I see you've been working on the Sino-Xiongnu War and have been patrolling the Great Wall of China article, so I venture to ask: would you be interested in helping me write an ambitious article covering the whole history of the Great Wall of China? I have a draft up in User:Deadkid dk/History of the Great Wall of China, and while I have made some progress, I have come to realize that I will not have the time and resources to complete this endeavour within a reasonable amount of time (years) - especially when real life commitments started to take its toll on my personal research time. I'd hate to abandon the draft, and the topic is one that the English Wikipedia sorely needs. So if you have time to spare, I'd be glad if someone as knowledgeable as you would be willing to help out :) _dk (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, too much credit though. I'm just a layperson on such historical and cultural things; it just peaks my interest. When finishing that article, I was planning to go somewhat idle and just do small edits awhile until the next thing. Most of the used resources for that article were available online for me to compare and built on (my university library is like the opposite of this area of expertise). I'm interested though, if I can convince myself to properly work on it due to time constraints. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we're all laypeople here on Wikipedia, editing because of our interests :) Thank you for your interest! _dk (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, the History of the Great Wall of China article is up (after like 2 years). If you're still interested, maybe you can take a look at it :) _dk (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely will. It's a beautiful article and I can see the effort put into it. Nicely done! --Cold Season (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sino-Xiongnu War, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the Sino-Xiongnu War, the Han empire attempted alliance with a people whose king's skull the Xiongnu had made into a drinking cup? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sino-Xiongnu War.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you look at the two articles. User:94.175.118.39 continuously keep re-adding information that have been previous removed to articles such as Tocharians and Tarim Basin. I noticed you and several other editors have reverted this anonymous user's edit in the revision history, but the anonymous user keeps coming back to the articles. This time, the user for example has added a reference [5] (the user copied it word for word from the source material, i.e. "The documents date..."), but the reference only supported the first sentence, and several other claims in the paragraph are not supported by any references.--Sevilledade (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sevilledade. Yes, I have both those articles in my watchlist. Quite a deal of synthesis, unconstructive POV pushing and other things too, I see someone else has reverted it already (otherwise I would have done so too). He does remind me of another user, the edit styles, persistence, and the topics in where they edit just reminds me a lot of it. --Cold Season (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please have a look at this[6]? And then see the newest sec. right beneath it. Thanks.--Djathinkimacowboy 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it you're trying to saying I'm disrupting the page WHEN I HAVE CITATIONS + CLEAR EVIDENCE. Seriously...what more do you want? only takes commonsense to understand those interpretions.I don't understand why you think my sources are not worthy.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/12/2265.full

" Although our samples were from the same geographic location, a decreasing tendency of the western Eurasian-specific haplogroup frequency was observed, with the highest frequency present in Uygur (42.6%) "

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/uygurs.html

" Table 1 on page 2434, titled "Haplogroup frequencies in East Asian populations", presents the following Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies for the Uygurs living in Urumqi:

3.2% had Y*(xA, C, DE, J, K) 3.2% had C*(xC1, C3) 6.5% had E 25.8% had J (the most frequent haplogroup in these samples, found in 8 of the men) 3.2% had N1*-LLY22g(xN1a, N1b, N1c) 6.5% had N1b 3.2% had O1a 3.2% had O3a3c*-M134(xO3a3c1-M117) 3.2% had O3a3c1-M117 19.4% had P*(xR1a) 22.6% had R1a

The Uygurs of Yili have the following Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies:

20.5% had Y*(xA, C, DE, J, K) 2.6% had C*(xC1, C3) 7.7% had C3c 2.6% had DE(xE) 12.8% had K*(xNO, P) 2.6% had N1*-LLY22g(xN1a, N1b, N1c) 5.1% had N1c1 5.1% had O3* 5.1% had O3a3c*-M134(xO3a3c1-M117) 5.1% had O3a3c1-M117 15.4% had P*(xR1a) 15.4% had R1a "

94.175.118.39 (talk)) 1;12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the article topics in said sources. You posted that in the articles Tocharian, Tarim Basin, and Tarim mummies, thus making original research, trying to imply a connection uncited, and thus misrepresenting sources. Also, take it to the article talk page as I will ignore this private conversation, since several editors have reverted you, warned you, and raised the issue but you refuse to adress it and persisted with it for the past weeks. --Cold Season (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it's a bit inappropriate to include as a "source" a quote that only refers to the Nanking Massacre in passing as "genocide". I think you need to find a source that makes it more clear that it was a genocide (or widely believed to be one), otherwise it's strictly POV. I mean, seriously, if all it takes is throwing in a random quote like that, then it would be easy to load up the article with all the books and papers by people who claim the Massacre never even happened. Wouldn't that be a fun game to play?

Think of it this way: if it is widely believed to be a genocide, then there should be no problem rustling up an army of books and articles that clearly support that view. It's not like you find a lot of denialists outside of Japan, right? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone went ahead and did so before me, while restoring my source [7] and added several others. --Cold Season (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Harryzilber just put back your ref, and then added four more---one of which was a dead link, the other three of which didn't even mention the word "genocide". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I provided from a peer-reviewed journal does describe it as "genocide", which you removed. I will now point this discussion to the article's talkpage—if you wish not to accept my edits—and not reply here, because it's quite clear where this is headed. --Cold Season (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI, WHAT'S the problem of The Legal History of Chinese Americans? was it the Copy-paste problem? thanks Eric hsu1222 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello, what if i keep the title only, and delete the content that has copyright problem? would the page exist? Eric hsu1222 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i will try to restart my editing in The Legal History of Chinese Americans, and follow the wiki principle carefully, now i delete all the content has copy right problem.Eric hsu1222 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments and correct.Eric hsu1222 (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the copyright, thank you for the willingness for co-operation. Replied on the article talkpage. --Cold Season (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I've had the pleasure to review the DYK nomination of Sino-Xiongnu War, which you've greatly expanded and completely rewritten. Thanks for the excellent article! Zanhe (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Cold Season (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Cold Season, thanks for the work at Chopsticks. The Snowy Courtyard would be proud of you. Defender indeed!—Djathinkimacowboy 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to safeguard people's hard work from vandals. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just to let you know that I've nominated your new article Ming–Hồ War for DYK. You can view the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Ming–Hồ War and respond to reviewer comments when the review starts, if you'll be so inclined. Thanks for another excellent article! -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Thanks. --Cold Season (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad. I thought it was a prank of haters. Actually it could be the haters who only concentrate on the "bad-looking" information of Manchu people. Anyways, I won't remove it since it can be confirmed, but I still doubt it. Let's see this again when I find the reliable counterview. Good to meet you btw!--Šolon (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you forgive me for using uncited infromation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.110.131 (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ming–Hồ War, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after defeating the Vietnamese Hồ dynasty in the Ming–Hồ War, the Chinese Ming empire annexed northern Vietnam as Jiaozhi province? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ming–Hồ War. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I can ask why you want to do this, when there is no reason? --62.143.41.82 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to do that, I find the process a nuisance, and have not done so as of now. There is a reason, since you socked before on that article and now again as IP making similar edits, while you have stated in a previous report that you want a clean start with a new account. Well, move on and make a clean start with your new acc. I see you going back to old issues that got you temp ban in the past as sock, now editting as IP to avoid scrutiny. --Cold Season (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit so far ok? --Greczia (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I obviously misread something and now my edit summary doesn't even make sense to me. Glad you reverted my mistake. Edward321 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not the only information I removed, but apparently you are only interested in that "dick sucking" part of information. It simply tells that you are a racist. So what's your problem, hater? Stop being destructive! It is not difficult at all to find some weird thing in your culture, too. No such an article which talks about race on Wikipedia is gonna like this. --Šolon (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is all ad hominem and you plainly blanked info that is properly and reliably cited without a reason. Anyway, see User_talk:Cold_Season#About_the_deletion_in_Manchu_people, which contains your comment that is contradictory to your actual actions (notwithstanding your misleading edit summary). Also, it would be best to avoid your personal attacks, meaning commenting about me, lest be blocked for it. Take your issue to the article talk page if you please, I know I did and you did not. --Cold Season (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cold Season,

Why did you delete my links posted on the Ming Ancestor Mausoleum page?

I happen to be a qualified historian and respected expert on the Ming Ancestor Tomb. I have been there three times and have published a scholarly article about it in a jouranl published by Australia National University that is listed in the Wikipedia article's bibliography.

My links are NOT SPAM!!!!

Please do not blindly and stupidly delete any of my postings again you FOOL!

I sincerely hope this does not happen again.

Best Regards,

Yangzi Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YangziMan (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks" for casually calling me a fool; didn't know we were on that footing of "familiarity". That won't incline me to cooperate though. Spam is spam; your whole contribution history consists of you adding external links to your site. You obviously have a conflict of interest to promote your site. I could just report the spam, which is reason enough for a block or possibly blacklist. That would make sure that it won't happen again. Very well, keep your links. I'm moving to other things. --Cold Season (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted this user on the zhuang people article for adding original research. User_talk:Kwamikagami#Sockpuppet_william_plant.Jaabaat (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew != fled; the original held "flew," you do not have to be actively pursued to flee a threat; it is not worth arguing over, so have it your way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs) 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: Han–Nanyue War. Should it be renamed it to Han–Triệu War because of various reasons as China doesn't consider Nam Việt and the Triệu Dynasty as part of their own history. They only treat them as vassals. Furthermore, Nam Việt and the Triệu Dnasty are somewhat considered to be a Vietnamese nation and part of Vietnamese history; similar to the title Ming–Hồ War and not Ming–Đại Ngu War.

Secondly: Deep looking into history, the 111 BC conflict is not the only war. The Triệu Dynasty had already fought a war against the Han dynasty between 183 BC and 180 BC. In 180 BC, as the result of Empress Dowager Lu's blockade of trade, Triệu army attacked Changsha country and the war lasted until 180 BC after the death of Empress Dowager Lu. Apparently, there were 2 wars between the Triệu and the Han dynasties. So how should we treat the 183 - 180 BC war? ༆ (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I disagree with that point or reasoning for it, but you could make a move request if you wish. (2) If there's ever a similar-named article created, then there's a need to disambiguate but I don't think there's a nessecity for it now. --Cold Season (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's this new user, Antonio von Horde, who is obsessed[8][9] with proving that Genghis Khan was a Tatar Turk, alleging that proofs of Genghis's Mongolian ancestry are "pro-Chinese and Persian falsifications". There's the classic racist attribution of a "golden bushy beard" to the man, Jin "aggressive"ness, rant about "Uyghurstan", and associated amateur etymology. He's probably related to Timerching, but I'm wondering if you see a link to User:Tirgil34. Shrigley (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is Tirgil34, alright, by the mannerism alone. However, I could not find anything concrete. He has resorted to hit-and-run accounts to avoid scrutiny, which makes it difficult. So it's hoping that he slips up to give us adequate reason to request a clerk to check for other hidden accounts. I did reported one of his accounts this week, but the case was bureaucratically closed as outdated (less spare time for me to follow articles and his new tactic...). --Cold Season (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, I see you edited the Rock-Paper-Scissors article to read that the game was definitely mentioned in ‘Wuzazu’. Is this right? The earliest edits don’t make this clear, e.g. “The history of games using shapes formed by the hand can be found in the Chinese Ming Dynasty writer Xie Zhaozhi's (谢肇淛) book Wuzazu (五杂组), which contains the first known mention of such games, though the rules are described as "unknown".” (Article as of August 2012)

Does ‘Wuzazu’ refer just to hand games in general, or specifically one involving three competing signs for rock, paper and scissors? RLamb (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source refers specifically to "rock, paper, scissors" (as in the game) and mentions that it was known as hand command (in wuzazu). The source doesn't say that the rules are unknown, but it does not give further details about the signs. I can't conclusively say that it is the former or latter since it hasn't be stated. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present the section is saying both that R-P-S began in Han China (Moore and Sward) and also that it originated in Edo period Japan (Dr Linhart). But it can't be both. Either the game began in Han China, survived unchanged into Edo Japan and then spread from Japan to the west in the 1920s: or it reached the west long after it was invented in Japan as part of an evolving tradition of handgames traceable back to Han China. Know anyone with a copy of 'Wuzazu'? RLamb (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. --Cold Season (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You managed pretty well anyway. Congratulations, it makes a lot more sense now.RLamb (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cold Season; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA ref you provided in which Cuju is presented a forbearer of association football is "misleading". Cuju does not have any connection with any code of football.

The root of this was the World Cup in 2002 in which China first entered a team. FIFA were keen to promote their football product in an opening Chinese market so rebranded association footballs origins. This however does not make their marketing work historically correct. In an encyclopedia this should be the case.

Other codes of football such as Rugby, Gridiron, Australian rules football and Gaelic football all have the same origins as association football. None of the governing bodies in any of these sports supports FIFA's rewriting of football world history.

The reality is football can be traced back to a variety of very similar medieval ball games played at Shrovetide, Eater and Christmas in many European countries. The influences for these games were Celtic, Roman and Ancient Greek. There games are also older than Cuju. It is now a part of football history that FIFA tried to rewrite the history of association football and inadvertently the history of all other codes.

Regards Adrian Roebuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Roebuck (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you post this on the more-public talkpage of the article? Also, first, you're the one who made that interpretation of cuju with association football. The text only states that cuju is the earliest form of football, nothing else. Second, the cited text does not state anything about "association football" or its origins. Simply said, you're just making fantasy tales between your ears about what is stated in that wikipedia article. If you wish to continue this discussion, kindly copy-paste this to the article talkpage. --Cold Season (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion to the article talkpage.--Cold Season (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for creating the extraordinary article Treasure voyages. I can't imagine how much effort you've put into this extremely important subject. Bravo! Zanhe (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I actually moved it to the mainspace "in the spur of the moment" *haha*. I hope to take it out of the rough initial stages and complete it in the summer. Cheers, Cold Season (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Treasure voyages, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ming China's treasure voyages were undertaken by Admiral Zheng He's expeditionary fleet (ship model pictured), even though the 15th-century Portuguese thought that the unknown ships belonged to white Christians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treasure voyages. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job on the Treasure voyages. Thanks! Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too for your kind words and effort to clean up the article. Those archive links were particular helpful. --Cold Season (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have later made comments that relate to the proposal. I have posted Google results in addition to Youtube. You can read through and make your own decisions. As for Talk:Ivy Ling Po, well... you have logics. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a stub article for each of the Chinese Gardens in Shaoxing and now they are deleted. Where did they go? and why? is it possible to recover them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.240.62 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of those articles. I can't find them. It might have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Although, you would be able to find it when renamed and moved, since you would be automatically be redirected from the original title. If deleted, you can recover them at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion if you still have the article titles. --Cold Season (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All other articles about the wars between China and Vietnam are exclusively using the naming style of putting Chinese words before Vietnamese ones on the title such as Han-Nanyue, Ming-Ho, and Sino-Vietnamese. Maybe it is more appropriate to rename the article to Sui-Ly instead. I would prefer to add Vietnamese diacritics too. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to do so, you may move it or make a technical request to move it (since I've already created few redirects). I'm neutral to the order or inclusion of Vietnamese diacretics. I don't prefer the latter myself. --Cold Season (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cold Season

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. This was my mistake, I didn't realize there was an article for the Nanyue campaign. I have expanded the scope of the article so that it discusses all of the Han campaigns against the Baiyue, so it fits the title Southward expansion of the Han Dynasty better.--Taiping Tulip (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, I noticed you deleted File:Tianxia en-zh-hans.svg again on 5 July and was going to revert. But assuming in good faith that you didn't see my previous request to explain your reasons, I first will ask again. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Treasure voyages you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Treasure voyages--it's much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Treasure voyages you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Treasure voyages for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season. I noticed that user Philg88 has made some nice maps of early China, and asked if he could help us. As you can see here, he is willing. Your opinions on the 四夷 map will be valuable. Keahapana (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't want to revert your edit and risk starting an edit war over a maintenance tag, but I don't see any inline citations on that page? :O Kayau (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Apologies, I should have read the talk page for Hsigo first. sorry ^^ Kayau (talk · contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for. My edit summary could have been perhaps a bit clearer on hindsight. --Cold Season (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to look in at User talk:Enok#Noodles vs pasta? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the last merger discussion is here, where is the new one? Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last merger discussion was focused on the noodle versus pasta debate, for which it resulted in no consensus. Meanwhile the Chinese noodle vs noodle in general was neglected, noting that this was a multi-proposal, I may make this this bold edit per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Cold Season (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so the next step is revert? Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yongle Emperor's campaigns against the Mongols, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Ming China's armies deployed their cannons to defeat the Oyirad Mongol hordes at the Kerulen and Tula rivers in 1414? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yongle Emperor's campaigns against the Mongols. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I believe you deserve this for all your hard work, notably for your contribution to Archaic human admixture with Homo sapiens. Cheers, Original European (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's a very interesting and dynamic subject to write about. --Cold Season (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for find the Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery link error in Chinese dragon. Apparently there is more than one monastery with that name. I have proposed moving the Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery article and creating a disambiguation page. Your participation would be helpful, so check it out here: Talk:Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery. Badon (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season! I've been moving lots of articles on Chinese history to their new titles with uncapitalized "dynasty". I'm mostly done with the Ming and Qing, and I've done several on the Han, but there are a few pages I can't move. Economy of the Han Dynasty is move-protected. The other ones (presumably with an edited redirect) are Chen Cheng (Ming Dynasty), Economy of the Ming Dynasty, History of the Han Dynasty, History of the Ming Dynasty, Islam during the Ming Dynasty, Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. I'd be very grateful if you could use your superior powers to move them to where they belong! Otherwise keep up the good work! All the best, Madalibi (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cold Season, I know that it was my mistake for not citing information but can you PLEASE remind me next time more politely? Thanks! Dustinliu76 (talk)Dustinliu75

You interacted with me with along the lines of "U mad bro? or just jealous?" (that was one of your socks that I quoted) and you ask me to be more politely in speech. Now that's some sanctimonious fluff right there. I do not have to be anything more than straightforward to you, which is not impolite and more than you've given me. Anyway, I haven't talked to you for months. --Cold Season (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am very sorry that I talked to you in this way. But your tone was kind of impolite. Anyways, this was two years ago so can we put this behind our backs so we can move on? Please reply, thanks. Dustinliu76 (talk)

(1) My tone.... or my manner of speech has been quite consistently straightforward; maybe it's the content that you find negative. I don't know. (2) I responded to the matter at hand, because you decided to bring "this" up after we haven't interacted for many months. I can assure you that I haven't thought about this at all, but sure. --Cold Season (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I brought this up because I felt bad about the things I said to you.Dustinliu76 (talk)

There's nothing to feel bad about, since I do not particularly care or have interest about people's minor mannerisms (those not attacking and malicious). My point was that one should also reciprocate what he or she expects from others, otherwise it's hypocritical. Anyway... I find straightforwardness more appropriate than feigned formality. --Cold Season (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The short and long citations are two parts of the references supporting the content of the article, and some editors prefer to put them in the same "References" section. Both styles are in use in a large number of articles. Please don't edit war to force your preference of style. Kanguole 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, I did one (partly) revert [10], which is not edit warring; you did two [11][12]. So just don't even go there.
• Secondly, you explicitly stated that "these are references" when I changed the header from Works cited to Bibliography. I pointed out that a Bibliography is not the same as Further reading. This is a simple matter. There's no mention that you didn't preferred the "style", so don't tiptoe around next time.
• Thirdly, you know very well what the original style of citations was (long form citations) when the article was beyond a stub, namely not your preference of style. You can have your way, but don't be a hypocrite. --Cold Season (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, there would not have been an edit war' if there were no participants, that includes you and your other account, Balthazarduju. So bring it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddragonawakens (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found it predictable that exposed sock puppet users (like yourself) often retort with the useless "no you" reply when feeling cornered. Considering that User:Balthazarduju and I have a long-standing, differentiated, and considerable contribution history, I will just say... feel free to report as I feel no concern for your "counter" accusation. There's nothing to "bring on", since this is not a battle but you being disruptive. And just so you know, your swearing and cussing (rather than engagement in civil discussion) in your talkpage has been duly noted and added to the edit warring report about you. --Cold Season (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is just combine both figures. "Presumed dead" and "killed" is the same thing anyway. None of it is contradicting the other. Just a suggestion. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed dead and killed are not the same. Anyway, see the article talkpage. --Cold Season (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, "presumed killed" and "killed" are the same then. Happy? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already over, at least hopefully for now. Saying "Vietnamese report" is fine, you don't have to remove it.[13] However, they are all "still" saying the same thing, so it does not matter who says it. I only removed it because you said, "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper an vietnamese figure".[14] Again, it does not matter "who" says it. (For example, if the actual "ships had sunk" then there is no denying that the ships had sunk then, as it's most likely true.) And "dead" and "presumed dead" are the same thing. This wasn't supposed to be some big thing.

And I said I don't care about your conflict of interest defending China, because I defend China too. So if we're both defending China, then I don't care. Only I also go for both sides. That's why it said it does not matter about your conflict of interest (if we both like China) and I like both sides. If the conversation is over, then there is no need to unnecessarily go off-topic. Again, that's why I said your COI doesn't matter. Even though it's clear what your main area of interest is, if you're still angry about the "conflict of interest" thing, then I think it's best if we remove our conversation, avoid each other, and act like we never crossed paths. (and this whole thing was probably a mis-understanding anyway.) It's over, so leave it alone. And lets try to shake hands now and walk away. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point was that the sources state that it is a Vietnamese figure and you shouldn't have removed it, and I only unwillingly made that compromise because you kept removing that it was a Vietnamese figure.

You state that you defend whatever, but I care about what reliable sources explicitly state. I do not give you my consent to remove the talkpage discussion, even if you're throwing accusations without evidence at me rather than comment strictly on content, since I have nothing to hide. You may strike your comments as warranted by the Wikipedia guidelines, but I will not enforce your habit of removing or refracting talkpage comments, which has been in place since your sock puppetry period, your post-sock puppetry period, and even this dispute (without permission). I will not actively look for you. I hope that was your final say, so yeah... "let's". --Cold Season (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go in circles again... First of all, I was only blocked for sockpuppetry, not "refracting talkpage comments" when I was new. And don't comment on something you don't know the situation of. And again, I was allowed to remove your off topic harassment. And now it looks like you still want to drag this out after all. And no, I didn't keep removing it.[15][16][17] We've already gone over this again and again now, and it looks like it is not going to end afterall. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning someone's sockpuppetry history is not harassment. Anyway, you know what's particularly striking; you quoted diffs that show you adding uncited information in front of references (the last diff even showing you stating that I "admitted" that your added bit was supported by the ref, while I admitted to no such thing). Like I said, I care about sources. You did remove it [18][19]. --Cold Season (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is harassment in this case if it has nothing to do with the discussion, and you are only resorting to it because you have nothing else to say and ignoring the rest of the conversation. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy. --Cold Season (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy is throwing around WP:PERSONAL as a personal attack. If you can't cut it out, at least keep it out of article talkspace. betafive 04:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted the exact application of WP:PERSONAL, provided a diff of said edit, and provided an explanation. If you don't have something of value to contribute, then don't. --Cold Season (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy. --betafive 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you can't deny that I didn't substantiated my statements [20] and you can't back up your statement that I just throw it around. So call it all you want. --Cold Season (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did! :-P betafive 05:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocrisy of throwing around "hypocrisy" as whatever. --Cold Season (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agree. betafive 05:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to you, but I'll wait for you to back up that I didn't substantiate it [21] rather than throw it around. And don't post on my talk page until you do. --Cold Season (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we already came to agreement, I had no plans to, but now I need to make sure you're aware that this page is not "yours." It belongs to the community, and you are not entitled to prevent me from posting here. betafive 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no plans to, because you talk nonsense that you can't back up and not because we came to an agreement. And yes, I am aware, let me rephrase it: don't bother me on my talk page with this nonsense. --Cold Season (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How bout this: you keep yours out of article talkspace and off ANI, and I'll give the community's User talk:Cold Season page wide berth. Deal? betafive 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to humor your thinly-veiled pointy requests or sarcasm in your edit summary. --Cold Season (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I have no desire to humour your thinly-veiled pointy requests either. Peace! betafive 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was blunt and there's nothing thinly-veiled about me saying "stop bothering me." And seriously, stop trying to annoy me for whatever point you are trying to make. Bye. --Cold Season (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made new request on another different title; please join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi.... Wifione ^Message 11:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, the user has been socking for a while and evading blocks. --Cold Season (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bixie, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. John Hill (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall finding that that could be sourced, but didn't get around to it. My memory may be fault, the sources may have been unclear. I'm sure I decided not to delete it though. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had glanced at it and saw {{citation needed|date=December 2013}} behind it. Feel free to add a source whenever you stumble at one again, you don't really have to notify me for that. --Cold Season (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, thanks for your continued contributions. I've noticed that you removed the entire section about filial cannibalism from Filial piety. While the section did probably have WP:UNDUE weight and should be summarized, I don't feel removing the entire section is warranted. Filial cannibalism is well documented and was often praised in Chinese history, and I think it deserves a section in the article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found that it had it was placed there not for the topic but for the novelty of it. There was no focus on filial piety. --Cold Season (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cold Season, thanks for filing the WP:AN3 complaint against Cydevil38. I was actually planning to file a complaint on WP:ANI, but since you've already acted, I added my evidence to your complaint. However, please be aware that you're required to notify the user when you file a complaint against them. Bbb23 did it for you in this case, but please remember to do it yourself in the future. -Zanhe (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Anyway, yeah... mixed up policies, I guess. I hadn't filed a case in a while. --Cold Season (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply. --George Ho (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fight a POV pusher by edit warring with him. You can revert once. That's right, just once, and then you have to report him. If you edit war with them it muddies the waters, making it harder for an uninvolved editor to see who is wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In these other move discussions:

• Talk:Lau Kong-wah
• Talk:Jasper Tsang Yok-sing
• Talk:Gary Fan Kwok-wai
• Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen
• Talk:Wong Sing-chi
• Talk:Connie Mak Kit-man

TheAvatar (discuss–?) 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An extreme edit war over the result in the infobox that has lasted for almost a year now. Could use your help. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-French_War&action=history 172.56.32.200 (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit within that area, so I can't really help you with that. --Cold Season (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say something same as well, so I am writing under this thread. Supersaiyen312‎ is now indefinitely blocked again for socking. This time it was worst that he used a sock account and he would do nothing except making copy paste the arguments. Check WP:ANI#WP:BLUD on a AfD. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's resolved and that the user is banned, which I'm rather glad about. I think I will spend a few minutes being slightly smug in being right, since I also had made a report which resulted into nothing. Yeah, I had problems with the user before at a certain article and on my talkpage above. That user seems really sanctimonious in regards to his/her socking and disruption. I'm rather surprised at the large scale of it to be honest. --Cold Season (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are rightfully surprised, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xharm is still opened. I had opened it before he got blocked, maybe a few more accounts are yet to be terminated. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cold Season,

I am Allen Lin, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. We noticed that you've created main/sub article relationship in Chinese ceramics for Yixing clay. So it would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello Cold Season,

I saw your edits here. If you have anything to add regarding the same sock master/long-term abuser (e.g. WP:OTHERSITES), you can share it on LTA page or can mention them on talk page. Such contributions/additions provide a significant informations in SPI cases. Bests, 46.221.228.215 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Perilla—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Diospireiro (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your undo: "It's not 60; And this is worded worse, since it now seems that Euro/E.Asian have 20% of the total INTROGRESSED seq. The text talks about the population and not individuals anyway". You are correct in numbers, I meant 600 (broadly) and apologise for the error. The researchers may have extrapolated to the population level but the study was based on individuals - a future broader study may find an even higher percentage so it is not definitive. The current wording indicates that in any one Eurasian you will find 20% Neanderthal genome, and that conflicts with a DNA figure of 1-4% given earlier in the article. However this is written, it will need to reconcile or explain this difference. My understanding is that the researchers were able to recover 20% of the Neanderthal genome after "pooling" the results of the human sequences. Over to you. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 23:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The current wording indicates that in any one Eurasian you will find 20% Neanderthal genome, and that conflicts with a DNA figure of 1-4% given earlier in the article."

(1) I do not see how the wording indicates that though, so... that would be on me. If it does indicate that, it would indeed be wrong. I don't not oppose a re-wording anyway. What do you suggest? (2) I do think the your new wording also raises confusion, which is the reason to revert.

"My understanding is that the researchers were able to recover 20% of the Neanderthal genome after "pooling" the results of the human sequences."

Your understanding is correct. --Cold Season (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cold Season: "The stories of Manora/Manohara told in Southeast Asia are related to the stories of the Cowherd and the Celestial Weaver Girl, popular in China, Japan and Korea" and another quote, "It is generally accepted that the tale of Manora (Manohara) told in Southeast Asia has become conflated with the story of the Cowherd and the Celestial Weaver Girl, popular in China, Korea, and Japan." Here are the two quotes that you were asking for. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Sure. Related and conflation isn't really just a differing variation, so that could be worded more precise. --Cold Season (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will make that change. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Nevermind, I noticed you already made the change. Thanks. (120.144.19.54 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Cold Season, thank you so much for uploading the pictures of the disciples of Confucius! I've seen them a lot and thought of uploading them, but was unsure of their provenance. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There's like 106 more portraits in the museum database, but the files are of much lower quality, so I'm kind putting off uploading those for now (especially since the files need cropping). The 14 files uploaded were available high quality, only because the museum used them for the website of the Confucius exhibition earlier in this year. --Cold Season (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)