User talk:Ksyrie/Archive1

User talk:Ksyrie

Welcome!

Hello, Ksyrie/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cool thanks! BlueShirts 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Bookandcoffee 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Hi, I noticed you added a bunch of zh interwiki links, but none of them seem to work? (Hanyang Arsenal etc) Thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? None of them work. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK. But dead links do get pruned out by bots, so they might be gone tomorrow... -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 08-Feb, you blanked Huai. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the page should be deleted, please follow the deletion procedures. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese

Yes. Keep your comments on the talk pages. As for discussions on either genetic, cultural, or linguistic diversity of other ethnic groups, check the pages on Jews, German people, or Turkic peoples other examples that do the same thing. --Yuje 01:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A diversity is a spectrum while a division is a clearly defined seperation. I'd imagine most would prefere the use of the word diversity. But in any case, there's no factual dispute over that part of the article, and your comments on them aren't encyclopedic, and certainly don't belong on the article page. --Yuje 02:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yunnan Lake Newt

Hi Ksyrie, I noticed that you added to the List of extinct animals of Asia that the Yunnan Lake Newt is not extinct but rare. What is your reference? Please post that on: Talk:List_of_extinct_animals_of_Asia. I surely hope it is not extinct, but the the 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (published online 4 May 2006) says it is extinct, and I quote: "Listed as Extinct because many exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, in appropriate seasons, throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual since 1979." Thanks Pmaas 14:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad Warships

Ksyrie -- I think the edit you made to Ironclads was an important one, and I tried very hard to make it into an edit that an English speaking reader could understand and get some information from. I went to the Chinese web site you linked, and tried using Systran to get some further information from it. I looked up several key words on Google to see if I could find any English articles on the same subject. Neither of these were any help. I think it you and I work together, we could clarify the entry into the article and make it a good one. Unfortunately, I'm leaving for a 4-day vacation soon, so I won't be able to work on this until I get back. I'll contact you again in 4 days. KarlBunker 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i, too, have no objection to your info per se, it is actually very interesting stuff. but please note wikipedia policy WP:V: "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." i'm sure you know there are many english sources (not all of them from koreans!) that describe the geobukseon as the first ironclad warships. surely there must be some mention of the chinese ship in english, even if more detail is available in your chinese-language link? thanks Appleby 00:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

= ???

Woah there, please chill out and be civil please! I merely copy+edited some of your works, corrected grammar, and attributed proper source towards it. Please don't accuse other editors of "hating you", and NO, I do not have any personal grudges towards you. If you don't know what Copy editing means, feel free to look it up in Wikipedia Guidelines; it's a commonly used term. Gotta learn how to chill man! Deiaemeth 23:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offended you. Erm, here ya go Wikipedia:How to copy-edit. Deiaemeth 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what copy-editing means, take this for an example. [1] and after my copy-editing [2]. Notice the placement of correct categories, bolding of the name per Wikipedia: manual of style, wikification of Traditional Chinese, grammr restructing, syntax, wikification of several significant words, External Links sorting, etc. Same applies to the ironclad page. Copy-editing is a word not only used in Wikipedia but in many magazine and book publishing as well. See Copy editing.

Compare the phase : Some Chinese historical records indicate that General Qin Shifu invented a ship that was shaped like a Falcon with spade-like iron defence mechanism and If we define the ironclad warship is a ship with ironclad,the possible pioneer could be a chinese warship during Song Dynasty naming 铁壁铧嘴平面海鹘战船 （ Sea Falcon with spade-like coracoid ironcladed warship），in 1203 by a general Qin Shifu. Don't take it personally -.-; Deiaemeth 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, sorry if I offended you. I don't have any problems with your edits, and many of your contributions to Wikipedia are indeed quite good. Good luck editing. Deiaemeth 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please note the above policy, which you are close to breaking on Typhoon Saomai (2006). Chacor 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but your addition unfortunately violates more than one Wikipedia guideline. WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE, and WP:V, which means that it must be neutral, must be cited, and must be verifiable. It also violates style guidelines. If a proper source could be found, then maybe it warrants inclusion. Chacor 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would type in Chinese, but it's a pain to do so on this Mac laptop. All I mean is, if there is an internet news story about not enough international help, then we can add it in. Chacor 13:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

Creationism is defined on the creationism page. What the Chinese creationism page actually describes is an origin belief. It is a different subject. --ScienceApologist 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism is an active promotion of an origin belief that is in contradiction to or an augemntation of scientific consensus. Can you name a isingle advocate of Chinese creationism alive today that uses the Chinese creationist account to contradict the scientific consensus? --ScienceApologist 13:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saomai

The problem is you are comparing this storm to Hurricane Katrina. I note that Saomai isn't that special, for example Tropical Storm Bilis (2006) did more damage and killed more people than Saomai, also in China. On the other hand Katrina was the deadliest and costliest storm in the USA for many years. The way that that sentence about no international response is phrased implies that there should have been an international response. If you can provide a source which says that, add it to the end of the Chinese impact section, not like you have been.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, no. Bilis which was 1 month ago, killed more people in China (637) and did more damage ($2.5 billion) that Saomai. Saomai is the strongest storm to hit China, that doesn't mean it was the most damaging. Yes, its true that they probably need help. However, to say that without sourcing is NOT "neutral" point of view. We can only state the facts on Wikipedia.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, where is the source? A one sentence stub section is bad style anyway, that what raises the NPOV concerns - it makes it too prominent. If you find a source for the non-response add it to the end of PRC impact section. If you don't have a source, it can't be added anyway...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You try to avoid comparing the two storms like that, they are different and its not our place to say Saomai was Katrina in China. As for international response these three pages from the IFRC ([3], [4], [5]), contain information on the response after the event. However, when its added it should be added in the PRC impact section not to a seperate aftermath section like you were creating, thats bad style.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Chao article

Greetings. I have disputed the accuracy of the Huang Chao article and have started a discussion of this on that talk page. I didn't make any alterations to the article pending a discussion of the issues I brought up.

Ludahai 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Please relist your requested move at WP:RM using the correct procedure and templates. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Hong Kong Categories to China

Wow. You are making massive changes to the category structures related to Hong Kong. There needs to be discussion about this, you cannot simply move all the Category:X by country|Hong Kong type cats over to Category:X of the People's Republic of China. Am I missing the discussion that took place? If so, please provide me with a link. Thank you.--Bookandcoffee 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. If you have not done so already - perhaps consider discussing this change with the editors involved at that project.--Bookandcoffee 18:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware that Hong Kong is a SAR, but this is also a politically sensitive issue, and these kind of changes need to be discussed. (Not to mention the use of edit summaries :)--Bookandcoffee 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've been asked to stop and yet you carry on doing it. Please do not do this. -- Necrothesp 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong is a region within China. We often separate regions within countries from the country itself. For example, Category:Towns in New Jersey may be used rather than Category:Towns in the United States because it is more specific and thus more useful. —Cuiviénen 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right,but when some hong kong relating categories went to Category:Xxx by countries,this implies that hong kong is a country. which is not the truth.Ksyrie

Discussion of Yangtze River

Ksyrie, I've been encountering some strange behaviour on the Yangtze River page and the Yangtze River talk page. I haven't been able to access either page, and haven't been able to see your comments. Please have a look at Izaakb's talk page to see what I have been experiencing. (I posted it there because I wasn't sure to what extent I have access to Wikipedia).

Bathrobe

Ksyrie, if you read my explanation properly, you would discover that it is not a problem of Edit Conflict because I was not trying to edit. Nor is it a problem of access to Wikipedia as a whole; it is a problem of access to one single article and its talk page.

At any rate, similar behaviour is continuing today. I'll try a few experiments to see if it has anything to do with the length of the page.

(Later) I have no problems accessing other pages on Wikipedia, even long pages. The only problem is Yangtze River and the talk page. What is more, the same problem occurs when I change browsers (changing from Firefox to Safari). On Safari the Activity window shows the error message "POSIX error: Connection reset by peer", which I do not understand the meaning of. At any rate, this is not just a problem of page length, browser cache, or whatever.

Bathrobe 00:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this morning I can finally access the page again. Sigh of relief.
Bathrobe 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheng Qiang"

I have responded to you at Talk:Cheng Qiang and I will move the page back shortly.--Niohe 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksyrie! I had to fix the cut & paste move that went on, so it would be best if there wasn't any page move warring at the momment. Hopefully a consensus can be reached. Cheers, Khoikhoi 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can point you to one guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). However, I was wondering: is there a common English translation for "城墙"? Maybe we could try using other English sources. Khoikhoi 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khoikhoi's suggestion above.
Also, Ksyrie, I read your remark on Khoikhoi's talk page. Let me remind you that you don't own a page just because you created it.--Niohe 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea to own a page,well,as of now,someone can find a source of justifying Chinese city wall is just the english for it?at least when i started this artcile,non one had found a suited name for it.Ksyrie
See entry for chengqiang in Wu, Jingrong, and Cheng Zhenqiu. New Age Chinese English Dictionary. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2000.
It says clearly "city wall", which is the only possible translation.--Niohe 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I talked of Chinese city wall not city wall.Ksyrie
Please don't be pedantic, this is as close as we can get. As you have noticed, there already is an article (or redirect) called city wall. You created this mess, and we are trying make sense of it.--Niohe 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
monsieur,I am not trying to confuse you.who are we in your sentence

this is as close as we can get?,and do you just blame me to make a fuss? No,it's not me,it's someone else who thought Cheng Qiang isn't english,and make all the fuss.Ksyrie

Well, if you think that Cheng Qiang is English, the burden of proof is on you, not me.--Niohe 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to find the facts,I supported Cheng Qiang owing to no corresponding term in english.Ksyrie

You do need to verify your information, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with you about this. This is English Wikipedia, not a creative dictionary.--Niohe 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be rational,if there didn't exist a expression Chinese city wall,and someone add it to wiki,who will be blamed for creating?Ksyrie

With all due respect, people have been dealing with translation problems before you came along. Now, just in case you thought that "Chinese city wall" was something I came up with, please check the following links:

Besides you need to improve you spelling and punctuation when you make edits.--Niohe 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Chinese

Thanks for your message, please see Overseas Chinese dicussion page for reply. LDHan 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

s'up

? I am cool :) The thing is additions have to be sourced, that's all. Hand-written is not important, they have to be referenced. When did I say something about not "respecting different people" etc? Take it easy man :) Cheers! Baristarim 23:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that they are there, however I will try to look at that article some time later. Nothing is stopping you from transposing the references from that article, if they are there. That's all I am trying to say... Baristarim 23:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okkaayyy.. Hmmm.. Am I missing something here? Are you trying to imply that I am some sort of brainwashed high-school student? :) Tsk tsk. lol. However, that is still not important: You cannot simply include what you know about it. Wikipedia is not an exposé of people's beliefs. If you are going to write something, then bring in the references that support it. See WP:OR. Si t'as des autres questions, laisse-moi une note. En revanche, n'oublie pas qu'il faut éviter de tout simplement écrire ce qu'on "know about it". + ne me laisse pas des notes avec des suggestions subtiles comme si je suis un produit d'une machine de lavage-à-cervaux. La plus grande faute, c'est de considerer les autres comme n'ayant pas de la capacité intellectuelle pr comprendre le monde + d'assumer que les gens qu'on viens de rencontrer sont, par nature, inferieur à nous-meme, intellectuellement. Baristarim 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your link. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. "References" means scholarly sources, not some random travel website. I strongly suggest you to familiarize yourself with how references are interpreted in Wikipedia + how references should be scholarly sources, rather than some commercial websites. Any inclusion of unreferenced content should be deleted. Please do not add random web-links. Again, I advise you to peruse through certain Featured Articles to see how references should be used and interpreted. Cheers! Baristarim 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly well that it was Xinhua, and I also know what Xinhua is. Chinese governmental websites cannot be considered as "scholary sources". Ha ha. Maybe you should cut down on assuming that you are smarter than others. I look and see what exactly is there: a Chinese governmental website. Again, bring in historical scholarly sources: if that is hard to understand, you might want to consider (re)-reading the guidelines of Wikipedia and check other FA history articles. Xinhua News Agency is definitely not an authoritative source on history, let alone for modern day politics. Est-ce vraiment si difficile à comprendre mon gars? Baristarim 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua? You must be really joking my fellow. Xinhua is an integral part of the Chinese governmental structure: there is absolutely no way that its posts can be considered as reliable, let alone authoritative. Baristarim 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not contact me again by saying things like "maybe you want the reference that you want to see", d'accord? D'abord apprennes comment parler aux gens, après apprennes comment marche Wikipedia, puis apprennes aussi que Xinhua n'est que de la merde. References vaut dire: ".edu", ou thèses academiques ou encyclopedies etc. Si t'arrives pas à comprendre ça, c'est toi qui a beaucoup des choses à apprendre sur la vie et le monde, pas les autres. Je sais beaucoup plus que tu ne penses, et definitivement plus que toi, apparement. Xinhua n'est pas une "reference", point final. Je t'ai dit gentillement de trouver des sources. Wikipedia n'est pas une forum, mieux comprendre ça mon gars.Baristarim 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had enough of this nor do I have time for it. I have not contributed at all to that article, so I don't know about those links. However, you are confused about the difference between "external links" and "references" I really got no time to explain you the basics of wikipedia or of the English language. External links are not references, they are simply web-links that are somewhat relevant to the article. Do you really know how Wikipedia works? Please read its policies. References are cited in a different fashion. "Links" can include anything as long as they are relevant to the subject, but they are not used as "references". As I said, Xinhua is not a scholarly reference on history. point final. I strongly advise you to peruse other Featured Articles on history to get an idea about the correct construction of a Wiki history article. Cheers Baristarim 00:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, links can be added - no problems. But all I was trying to say was that they shouldn't be confused with references, that's all. Baristarim 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salut

Je sais que tu n'es pas pro Coree, et ton idee de "Split" est ok pour moi.
Le probleme est que depuis le debut, OpieNn fait semblant d'agir gentiment, en disant "I split it as said in the talk page", et finalement restaure simplement sa version. Ton opinion est modéré et constructive, celle de OpieNn non. T'es intervention étaient tres bien :] Yug (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je pense que je vais devoir faire ainsi. Je pense que OpieNn devrait etre blocké pour 1 jour mais je ne suis pas administrateur sur wiki-en. Donc je vais t'écouter :] Yug (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) A+, merci pour tes interventions et joyeuses vacances a toi Y^0^y[reply]
Hahaha ! l'ambiance sur Wikipedia-en ! la wikipedia anglaise est réputée pour etre la plus rude, celle ou l'on a le plus de conflits (de "batailles"). Il y a maintenant tellement de monde sur wikipedia-en qu'on ne peut plus rien faire tranquillement.
Je te conseillerais de participer plutot a la wikipedia chinoise, elle est encore qu'a 100.000 articles, car il y a peu de contributeur et c'est plus sympas. Mais je suppose que tu ne veux pas parler chinois mais anglais ou francais. Alors contribut plutot a la wiki francaise. Sur la wiki francaise c'est encore assez sympas.
En regle generale, plus la wikipedia est petite, plus c'est sympas.
Je dois continuer a reviser, donc A+. Yug (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Resalut, je viens de decouvrit par hasard que l'un de tes professeur : fr:user:ChrisJ est aussi wikipediens ;] Yug (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fr:Arcade Huang ;) Yug (talk) --14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a banknote. . .

Please add hangon to the article and put up a reasonable third party reference (besides discussing it on the article talkpage).

My apologies! I knew what the food was but not that it was money. I put a source on your page. Ronbo76 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask someone to place a disambulation (spelling?) message on the top of your article (if you don't know how to do it). This message directs the reader to the other page and makes your article look more professional. Granted, you now have the other foodsource listed and a source statement, but it always pays to think ahead of an idiot like me. BTW, your page is now on my watchlist and if some idiot like me comes along, I will be there to back you up. Ronbo76 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feliz año nuevo a ti (Happy New Year to you - in Spanish). One more consideration for your page: in the section titled As a Form of Currency, if you put an approximate value as to what this banknote was, it will help the reader and make the article better. Ronbo76 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing all your edits on crossbow

Sorry, I had to remove all your edits in the crossbow article, but they were unsourced and contradicted the sourced material. I know it is a big issue that many people want to claim the crossbow was invented in China, but this claim is always made 100% unsourced or by turning Needham into a misleading pseudocitation. Your idea of early designs of crossbows is problematic as long as you don't present a clear definition of what a crossbow is and show how these examples didn't fulfill all requirements. Currently it is seen an bow shaped mechanical accelaration system with a stock and a trigger. For s stems like the ballista it can be discussed whether they qualify as bows, but on the other hand if the ballista, development from the handheld gastraphetes, does not qualify neither does any compound crossbow.

A major issue that really needs some knowledgeable contribution is how did the Chinese crossbows look like and how were they utilized. some more dates on the appearance of different crossbow systems would be helpful. Greatings Wandalstouring 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at gastraphetes again and please remember wikipedia articles in general and unsourced(can contain nonsense, not verifiable information) especially can not be used as sources. Wandalstouring 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me. I could not verify the claim that Sun Tzu talks a lot about crossbows in his book about the Art of War, although I have a translation at hand. Perhaps if you point out the specific chapters it might be easier to verify and source. Thanks. Wandalstouring 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I do have the book. Wandalstouring 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same Idea afterwards. well, crossbow is mentioned 3 times.

V. ENERGY once

XII. THE ATTACK BY FIRE twice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Source your edits

You have to source your edits in wikipedia, so other editor can verify the information. (see the little blue numbers? these are implemented for this purpose. An example:

I am stupid.[1]

References

  1. ^ says Wandalstouring on this page

Yangtze River NPOV

Ksyrie, I removed that section for NPOV problems and explained myself in the discussion on that page. I am sure you thought that the removal was an accident, so I am going to remove it again. If you think it should be re-included, please do not re-add it, please post in the discussion as is Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Izaakb 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page. rgds Izaakb 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be civil

stop Ksyrie, I advice you not to revert other editor's contributions by calling them "vandals", you are not helping the discussion by doing that. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else, but if you want others to take you seriously you need to show that you are dealing with other people's arguments. Please refer to WP:VAND and WP:CIV.--Niohe 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to remove and revert your edits, I have stated my reasons for doing so very clearly. I advice you to review the policies above before you accuse others of vandalism. If you want to take this to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, please go ahead and do it. But don't accuse others of vandalism without good reason - that is a form of uncivil behavior.--Niohe 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you got my point. "East Turkestan" is not just one historic name among others, it's a very common name for Xinjiang. You check English language maps of China that are older than 40 years or so, and you will know what I mean. To exlude that from the first paragraph in the article on Xinjiang will only confuse people.
By comparison, "Western regions" is an English translation of a term in Chinese, which was used to refer to part of the region now called Xinjiang. It is not a particularly common name for Xinjiang in English language material and it raises all kinds of questions to include it in the first paragraph of the article. Please note that I'm not against referring to the name in he history section.
As for the use of Xinhua as a source, I think we should avoid government sponsored website for historical claims - especially in the first paragraph of the article. I don't find Turkish government websites in the first paragraph of the article on Kurdistan or Serbian government websites quoted in the beginning of Kosovo.--Niohe 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what you are talking about

you made a mistake. You put the imperial time as a one of the category exclusive to History. You didn't put as 2.1 This is for one.

you are not qualified to warn me in ANY way. Macau's topic I contributed 98%. Although with different IPs, I am the main editor in economy, politics, legal system, demography, climate and geography, references and further reading. You contributed almost nothing here. This is for two 72.138.191.63 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't remove these templates

Please do research before rm sth. For the topic of Macau, please don't remove these templates that are carefully chosen by other contributers. They are all related to Macau, same as the topic of Hong Kong. Macau is not a nation but this region is categorized as territories. For the Portuguese Empire, Macau was a Portuguese colony. It doesn't mean that Macau/Hong Kong are still colonies at this moment. These tables are also included ex-colonies.

Other templates are also necessary included Macau and Hong Kong as these are special admin. regions that they do need to treat individually and separately from PRC even they are considered as subdivisions of People's Republic of China. Refer to the topic of Special administrative region (People's Republic of China). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.191.63 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


I got your message from my talk page and the Macau talk-page. Please re-read the message above. 72.138.191.63 03:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration commitee

Would you join an arbitration commitee to solve an ongoing dispute? See Pontic Greek Genocide and User talk:LordAmeth#Pontic Greek Genocide for more information. Wandalstouring 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is an agreement to accept the offer, however, people want to interview you beforehand. See ongoing discussion at Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide#Arbitration commitee. Wandalstouring 13:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, introducing yourself would have been a nice idea. Wandalstouring 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Latest issue is that every commitee member writes a short personal introduction about himself and answers some questions. Wandalstouring 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclads: new discussion

Hello, Ksyrie.

I have started a new discussion on the Ironclad warship Talk Page, called Neutrality needed, which has provoked some interesting responses. I hope that you will find it to be of interest.

Regards, John Moore 309 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese definition of WWII

What is the Chinese view on WWII, did it start 1939 or 1937? Here we have some discussions about when it started and how connected the wars were. Wandalstouring 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Macao categories

Re [8] - Please refrain from categorising Hong Kong and Macau categories into the counterparts for mainland China, and please stop removing them from by country categories. — Instantnood 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these categories are indeed created for mainland China, and populated with articles and subcategories about mainland China. — Instantnood 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically most of those user:Necrothesp had reverted [9] are good enough examples. — Instantnood 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as what I have said to you elsewhere on Wikipedia - it would be nice if you can better familiarise with the different concepts the English words country, sovereign state, nation and nation-state convey. — Instantnood 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By talking about sovereignty I suppose you wanted to mean sovereign state instead of the general idea of country. — Instantnood 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksyrie, you need not be terrorised by the efforts of POV-pushers like Instantnood. Like basic commmon sense prevail.--Huaiwei 22:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whose common sense are you talking about. — Instantnood 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response re My Edits on One-Child Policy

Ksyrie -- see my comments on my talk page, in response to your message. Why do you think your edits are helpful? Some are harmful and also misleading. I am probably as qualified as you are to comment on many of these issues.--Mack2 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric yingqin

At the time, the article was a substub, and as per this, i merged it into the main article. If you think that you can make a stub or, even better, a full article about electric yingqin, then you are free to do so but at the time it was pretty much that one sentence. Sasquatch t|c 03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Ask for help

The last edit seems to be on the 4th and someone has already blocked it (for 3 hours) and left a message on the talk page. Don't think we'll have more problems with it. If there is, holler on WP:ANB and someone should take care of it. -- 我♥中國 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zh-interwikis: TuvicBot

Responded at your question at my talk page. --Tuvic 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your new article

The History of Education in China has already been covered in some other articles. I suggest that you replace the text of your new article with "REDIRECT #[[Education in China]]", and copy your material into a relevant article on that list. 69.201.182.76 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's your call. I would urge you to provide incoming links from other relevant articles so that your contribution is properly integrated. (See WP:O for an explanation of why this is useful.) 69.201.182.76 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opium and other stuff

I looked at the Chinese article and noticed that it makes the connection between the anti-drug day and Lin Zexu, but I don't find it very reliable. You should try to find a source from the United Nations, that will make the claim more credible.--Niohe 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My concern about issues of conduct

Hello, Ksyrie, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but after reading some of your text, I am concerned that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might not have been properly presented to you, and that you may encounter criticism for appearing not to follow them. After you look over the documents linked above, could we discuss that concern here?

Your incivility while engaging in discussions at Talk:Goguryeo and your edit warring.

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance whether you were aware of these documents, what is your philosophy about interacting with other editors, and what alternative approaches you might willingly adopt that would avoid raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

  • If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
  • If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
  • If you prefer not to deal with me at all, you can ask others for guidance: there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
  • Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post {{helpme}} here on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your conduct is so bad as to get reported straight to administrator noticeboards or get you summarily blocked. I hope matters will never become that severe. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- Nlu (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jiahu Script

The image supplied in the Jiahu Script page is not Jiahu script. It is similar, or more correctly exactly the same as the style used in Oracle bone inscriptions from the Shang Dynasty. I have provided a modern Chinese character form of the characters that are readable.

Moreover, the picture in question is directly taken from the sourced article, which is forbidden by Wikipedia rules, that is, it isn't your own image to freely distribute as you wish, even if you did save it to your harddisk and upload it into wikipedia. Dylanwhs 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mijiu

Hi, nice to meet you. The understanding of us who work regularly on Chinese wine articles is that there are two large categories of wines made in China: distilled wines (baijiu) and fermented ones (huangjiu). (Putaojiu is not part of this system, as it's a fruit wine.) Mijiu for drinking, that we can buy in the store, is about 18 percent alcohol, like sake. So it falls under the huangjiu category. The mijiu we cook with is the same. It's not yellow ("huang") but still a form of huangjiu. That's my understanding. Do you believe something different? Badagnani 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim that huangjiu is a rice-based beverage, that's only partly correct. You should correct your edit based on the Huangjiu article, which clearly states that rice is only one of many grains used in the production of huangjiu. Other grains are used in areas where rice isn't grown, such as in the north and drier areas. Badagnani 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you move mijiu to Rice fragrance Baijiu (a strange title), you'd need to fix the text, which I changed to reflect normal (i.e. low-proof) fermented mijiu used for drinking and cooking. In my opinion, the "rice fragrance baijiu" is already discussed in the Baijiu article. Badagnani 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Right,but their ingredients are different.You cann't regard Scotch whisky and Bourbon whiskey as the same one,cuz they are made from different grains.--Ksyrie 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)"

  • Regarding this, I don't agree. Huangjiu is a generic overarching category similar to "fermented wine." Baijiu is also a generic overarching category similar to "distilled liquor." Scotch whisky and bourbon whiskey would be similar to mijiu, Shaoxing jiu, nu'er hong, etc.--i.e. specific sub-varieties. Badagnani 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, the term "baijiu" is not comparable to "whiskey." It is comparable to "distilled liquor." Distilled liquor includes whiskey, brandy, gin, bourbon, grappa, rum, etc. Badagnani 02:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whisky" is definitely not a generic term for distilled alcoholic beverages. It is a distilled grain alcohol of Scottish origin and is also produced in North America. Rum, cachaca, brandy, grappa, arak, etc. are all forms of distilled alcoholic beverage that are not whiskies by any stretch of the imagination. "Kaoliang" would probably be a more comparable term to "whisky" as it refers to the particular style of brewing and grain from which it is made. Badagnani 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "It depends how you define the term of Baijiu or Whisky.The Rice Flagrance Baijiu and Baijiu are completely different alcholic. One from sorghum one from Rice,why not seperate the two in two different article?--Ksyrie 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

  • I don't agree that "Rice fragrance baijiu" is not related to Baijiu. Rice fragrance baijiu is a particular fragrance of baijiu, the way bourbon is a particular style of Western distilled liquor. If the Western liquors can all have their own articles, then I don't see why the Chinese ones shouldn't also have their own articles. The question is, can you find a lot of information about Rice fragrance baijiu to be able to fill up the article? Badagnani 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't delete anything. I agreed with you that all Chinese wines and liquors deserve their own articles. What is the problem? Badagnani 03:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some questions: is it called "Rice fragrance baijiu" because it smells like rice (as the English translation would seem to imply)? Or because it is made from rice, and is *fragrant*? In the latter case, "Fragrant rice baijiu" might seem a better translation. If sanhua jiu is the only or main variety of "Rice fragrance baijiu" I recommend moving the article to Sanhua jiu. Badagnani 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the classification, I am aware that there are different Chinese classifications. User:Sjschen and I worked for a while to develop a system working between these systems that was most logical. Instead of having articles entitled "Chinese distilled liquors" and "Chinese fermented wines" we went with the Chinese names: Baijiu and Huangjiu, using these as the two headings under which any type of Chinese wine or liquor could be placed. I am aware that some Chinese systems of classification don't regard mijiu as a type of huangjiu but instead a type of "weak white liquor" as opposed to the "strong white liquor" which is Baijiu. I don't find this system to be logical, and the system of Fermented vs. Distilled most logical. We used Huangjiu and Baijiu for these. Badagnani 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Choujiu, it seems that many Asian countries have versions of this:

Badagnani 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "For you and User:Sjschen,it makes non-sense to try to stuff all kinds of chinese liquor into two articles.How can you place Baijiu,you put it after sorghum or[rice]],or both ,or neither?And for Choujiu,in china,no one placed it as Huangjiu,why you try to make the decision for them? I wonder?Why not we classify the chinese ones like western ones,one by one,one by ingredients? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksyrie (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)."

  • To answer your question, Wikipedia does do that. Under Distilled beverage, it lists brandy, whisky, rum, bourbon, Scotch, cachaca, etc. Baijiu is the Chinese name for Distilled beverage so of course it would include all distilled Chinese liquors (those made from rice and those made from grains, as the method of production is essentially the same, as is the strength). Regarding choujiu, obviously it is white rather than yellow (as mijiu is clear) so perhaps it would fit into a "Chinese fermented wines" article. But we don't have such an article. Yes, each wine should have its own article but it does also make logical sense to have Baijiu and Huangjiu articles discussing these overarching categories of Chinese alcoholic beverage, as is done in China. Badagnani 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "::I doubts your claims that they use the same techniques.Maybe you can cite some sources to prove the technique diffrence between the Rice Flagrance Baijiu and Baijiu is much smaller than the Bourbon whiskey • Corn whiskey • Tennessee whiskey--Ksyrie 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

  • That question is illogical. It is like asking "how is Rum different from Distilled beverage?" The question doesn't make sense because rum *is* a distilled beverage. Similarly, baijiu is not a style of liquor, but an overarching category meaning "white (i.e. clear) liquor," referring to Chinese distilled beverages. As such, it includes kaoliang jiu, Maotai, Erguotou, Jiugui, Sanhua jiu, Wuliangye, and dozens more. Sanhua jiu is simply one variety (actually one fragrance) of Baijiu. There's no confusion. I'm not sure why you are focusing so strongly on "rice fragrance baijiu" and not, for example, on "sauce fragrance baijiu." Is it because you personally favor rice fragrance baijiu, or you come from a southern region of China where it is more popular? It's better, I think, to take a wider view of the Chinese liquors (baijiu). Badagnani 04:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just find the chinese classfication is illogical,place different ingrediantmade ones in a single category.Maybe Whisky before was a such term.And for Baijiu,I thought it is just a Umbrella term.So why not using more logical and rational method to classify the chinese ones?--Ksyrie 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Whisky be a term of Umbrela term?Why not place all the whisky into one article.--Ksyrie 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Chinese system is illogical (for example, classifying only by color: strong white/weak white, etc.). But it is true that Baijiu comes out a similar product no matter whether it's made from rice, sorghum, or some other grain. In fact, distilled beverages may be made from fruits, grains, sugar cane, etc. but they are all distilled beverages (and thus Baijiu made from rice or sorghum are all baijiu).

Regarding putting all whisky in the same article, I do think each type of whisky deserves its own article, as I think each type of Chinese wine/liquor deserves its own article. I don't know why you keep saying that I don't think each Chinese wine/liquor deserves its own article. But "rice fragrance baijiu" is only one *fragrance* of baijiu, as is "sauce fragrance," and it's described well in the Baijiu article. If Sanhua jiu is the main/only variety of rice fragrance baijiu, then it's not comparable to whisky, which has very many sub-styles. Badagnani 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I am not a taster and a layman for alcholic production.But I found somethings in Chinese,where clearly the Rice Flagrance Baijiu is produced in different techinique than other baijiu.[[[Rice Flagrance Baijiu]],米香型白酒：以大米为原料，经半固态发酵、蒸馏、贮存、勾兑而制成的，具有小曲米香特点的蒸馏酒。--Ksyrie 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"

  • That is interesting. But, of course, even within a style (such as "sauce fragrance baijiu") each producer will have their own unique and secret ways of fermenting and distilling. That's why the Baijiu article has the basic techniques outlined. If you find additional information that is not described in the Baijiu article, it should probably be added there. Badagnani 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why I want to seperate the Rice Flagrance with others,it is made from different ingredients,and different techs.The rice Flagrance and baijiu are distant cousin.And I find the classification by ingredients is very logic,so I seperated them,and whisky themselve are also seperated into different small parts based on ingredients and techniques.--Ksyrie 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rice fragrance baijiu and baijiu are not "distant cousins" because rice fragrance baijiu is a type of baijiu (it is under the overarching category of baijiu). You should say, more properly, that rice fragrance baijiu is a distant cousin of kaoliang. Badagnani 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention corn whisky. That would be analogous to Kaoliang. Is there a comparable term for baijiu made from rice other than Rice Fragrance Baijiu? How about Rice Baijiu? That would be comparable to corn whisky and kaoliang, in that it refers to the material from which the baijiu was distilled, rather than simply the fragrance of the baijiu. Badagnani 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that "mijiu" refers to fermented wine of 18 percent alcohol or less (like sake). Badagnani 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mijiu (米酒), does refer to a straight fermented wine without distillation. And if we are going to be sub-classing baijius by their key ingredient, we should definitely "call out" the ingredient name as the article name, instead of categorizing by ingredient and naming the article by fragrance. The latter seems a bit awkward, and will be almost like calling "corn whisky" something like "corn fragrance whiskey". I personaly like Rice Baijiu, and then say inside that it is made completely of rice and has the fragrance of rice. Sjschen 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 米香型白酒 is made of rice. I agree completely, but so are all the rest of the 米白酒 family. If this is so, the sub-category should be simply rice baijiu instead of rice fragrance baijiu. Sjschen 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

米白酒 is definitely a distilled beverage. In fact, it is used not only for drinking but also to make sweet fortified chinese liquors: "...加入40％～50％浓度的米白酒或糟烧酒，以抑制微生物的糖化发酵作用..."[10]. Or view the diagram with heading "2、福建红曲酒的传统酿造工艺(甜型黄酒)" at this site.Sjschen 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. There seems to be a conflict of terms used in the chinese sources for describing alcoholic products. For the most part a standard google search for "米白酒" ("米白酒 浓度" and also "米白酒 蒸馏")shows overwhelmingly that it refers to an alcoholic product with anywhere between 40%-80% alcohol, which means it is definitely distilled. As for the article abstract that you provided, they used the jiangsu name [11] for a bright off-yellow sweet local wine, which is incidently called 米黄酒 in zhejiang. Together these are usually lumped together with the "river region" liquors such of 淮南酒 types, referring to them as 南酒 [12]. For this matter, the question then becomes "Which meaning should be accept for the term '米白酒'?". While there should be a disabiguation statement saying that 米白酒 can be a fermented liquor or distilled liquor, the question becomes, should we accept the not so commonly used understanding of the term or not? Sjschen 04:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "mixiangxingbaijiu/rice fragrance baijiu" is most likely the same darn thing as "mibaijiu/rice baijiu". But I have a few problems with the first name:

  1. It confuses the idea that it's only made of rice. I've had other not-only-rice baijiu that tastes of rice. If it's rice-only then why not say it? :)
  2. Literal translations of the chinese words are often quite awkward and (IMHO) should not be used as names. The "right" way to translate 米香型白酒 should be more "baijiu with the fragrance of rice" or badly, "fragrance of rice baijiu".
  3. It's just too long. "Rice baijui" = 3 syllables, "Rice fragrance baijiu" = 5 syllables.

Since 米白酒 is already so commonly used to describe rice-only distilled liquors, let's do mibaijiu or Rice Baijiu. We should definitely incorporate the information on 米白酒 being also a name used in jiangsu for a type of liquour, which you brought up. Sjschen 05:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "rice fragrance" is more "official" but the thing is it really messes up the idea of the wine being just from rice (see point 1 above). Since mibaijiu is already so commonly used, I say we choose the more logical and simpler one for now and leave the "officials" to play with names.Sjschen 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mibaijiu

What is this stuff? If "mibaijiu" is a category of baijiu made from "mi" (rice), then it would be a comparable category to kaoliang. Badagnani 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! That was fun! :) Sjschen 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HK, Macau, Taiwan representatives

I moved the information about HK representatives to the article in National People's Congress.

Roadrunner 04:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]