User talk:Kanguole/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kanguole. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RFPP request for Adoption of Chinese literary culture

Hey Kanguole, I've responded to your request for protection here (this is a permalink). On an unrelated note, does your username translate from Chinese to "I've seen it before" in English? Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 19:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Thanks for that, and yes it does. Kanguole 20:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with vandalism

Bookworm8899/Gustmeister is seemingly back with their vandalism to promote Kra-Dai-only (Tai-only) pseudo-scholarship advanced by Jim Chamberlain. Currently, I'm in a dilemma: I've decided not to revert all their edits; yet I want to revert their vandalisms on the Vietic languages article. Still, they, by using multiple IPs like 111.241.43.44, 180.57.3.184, etc. to, has been provoking me into an edit war which may result in my account being blocked because the paranoiac Bookworm8899/Gustmeister stupidly considers me, a student editor, to be a sockpuppet of their rival WorldCreaterFighter.Erminwin (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite book

FYI: The template has 2 non-hyphenated ISBN-10s listed as examples. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I see only one such example, with corresponding rendering, but I guess it's consistent with the statement lower down that "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Kanguole 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

edit approval request

I'm looking at Hippocrates. Citation bot suggests changing numerous ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s. Problem though - the resulting ISBN-13s (and ISBN-10s) have a mix of hyphenated, partially hyphenated, and non-hyphenated formats. Other problems: some of the first names have initials with spaces and some do not; the article has "B.C." where the MOS says use "BC"; and there is "p. 56-62" which I think should be "pp. 56–62". What should I do? – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There were a dozen hyphenated ISBNs and three unhyphenated ones (which I've fixed). The MOS has guidance on the latter three points. Kanguole 22:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What a Team we are! All of those pesky ISBNs are fully hyphenated. (BTW, how do you efficiently figure out where the hyphens should go?) Let's do this -- I'll run the Cite bot, Auto-ed, and perform other edits. You are welcome to follow me and do the ISBN changes you prefer. The "several other" editors who believe hyphens in ISBNs are important can follow me too. – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a local program. How about you do your changes but without removing hyphens, abbreviating page ranges or the other things people object to, and I'll follow along as I have time? If you like you can put a list of articles needing fixing in User:Kanguole/ISBNs. Kanguole 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Srich32977,Cwmhiraeth: Jeez, we've been hyphenating our ISBNs for years. Recently, one of you has been going about REMOVING hyphens from ISBNs; now you guys are putting them back. Look, we "content editors" don't give a hoot whether they're in or out, but please, make your minds up! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: my understanding of the above is that Srich32977 has agreed not to remove the hyphens from any more articles (with few exceptions), and we are working together to achieve the uniform presentation that Srich32977 desires. I have also been restoring hyphens removed in the deletion spree. Kanguole 19:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. I've also seen one set of editors going around adding quotation marks to parameters (like mode="packed") and another set removing them. Keeps the workers busy, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole and others. Per-leeze, dee-sisst! Commence from WP:ISBNs: "including hyphens is preferred if their proper placement is known". Then, in that page and in H:ISBN, count the ways in which adding hyphens can go wrong. It would also be very easy in the process to change a number. Are you checking each ISBN before adding "missing" hyphens? It seems to me that you are undertaking a huge amount of work for very little benefit and at significant risk. So the hours of an assiduous editor could be more fruitfully employed. Wikiain (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiain: The hyphens were stripped from ISBNs in a pass through all of the WP:VA3 articles beginning in November of last year, and I am restoring the hyphens to all of these articles. I'm doing this, instead of the many things I'd rather be doing, because I object in principle to this attempt to overturn style guidance using a fait accompli of bulk changes.

I am using a program to do the changes, but inspecting the results before publishing them. Have you noticed any errors? Kanguole 01:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are doing a bulk revert using a program, that is a leetle different as to both effort and reliability. I haven't been looking for errors. Wikiain (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I thanked you for one ISBN fix out of many you have done. After reading your talk page, I am going to do some research of my own on books I have on Jersey and Guernsey which I may use on new articles there. I have already done work oncles on Channel Islands topics. I will keep in touch on this page.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: thanks. I think I've pretty much done what I set out to do with ISBNs, and also hope to return to reading and writing now. Kanguole 02:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting for ISBN hyphenation. I noticed them being edited out of some of the articles I watch and assumed it was an MOS decision. I'm glad to see them back.--Srleffler (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ISBN hyphenation in "Function (mathematics)"

Hi! I wonder by which rules you restored the ISBN hypenation in the Function (mathematics) article. For example, why is it "978-3-540-44085-7", but "978-0-88385-081-7"? How do the hyphen positions depend on the numbers? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: each part of the space is indeed divided up differently, and in a completely ad hoc manner. There's a definitive long list of prefixes issued by the International ISBN Agency here in either XML or PDF format. (No need to read that page, just skip to the bottonm and generate the "pdf sorted by prefix" version, from which the idea should be clear.) Kanguole 10:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Kanguole and @Jochen Burghardt: Please forgive me for intruding; there is also the very useful section on Pattern for English language ISBN numbers, which I consult when I cite a book and its ISBN. Hope it helps. With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

- according to WP:ISBN the dashes are not necessary - there's also an editing bot that automatically removes dashes from ISBNs except for the one separating the first 3 digits in ISBN-13 (I can't remember which bot right now, but if I come across it again I will add the name here) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: WP:ISBN and {{cite book}} say the hyphens are not necessary, but are preferred. If you're thinking of User:Citation bot, it doesn't change existing hyphenation. There was a human editor making the change you describe in bulk, but he's agreed to stop now. Kanguole 15:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole, Pdebee, and Epinoia: It is probably easy to write a "find-and-replace" script to insert hyphens according to the rules in https://www.isbn-international.org/range_file_generation automatically. If there is a consensus for it, I could (try to) come up with a Linux-sed script for that task. However, someone else would be needed to convert it into a form needed for a bot, as I don't know anything about bot progamming syntax. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: I have a local program that does this job, though it's written in a more exotic language. It might be a bit tricky in sed, with over a thousand rules and the need to limit the change to the appropriate contexts, namely inside |isbn= and {{ISBN}}. Kanguole 11:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got an ISBN tool that can hyphenate as part of its functionality; once I've got SSL on the domain (currently pending), I'll enable CORS headers in the (PHP) API so that it can be used via AJAX in JavaScript here; that should make the process of writing a replacement script much simpler. The API hides the RangeMessage.xml server-side because the ISBN organization asserts copyright and does not allow the file to be publicly redistributed or proxied. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 06:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

You've been getting my goat!

– S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

you need some milk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.245.30 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

About Japanese

Hello Kanguole,

I am sorry that I did not correctly read and included the AA-content, but I think that we should mention that Vovin suggests that AA had influence on proto-Japanese.

I would suggest that we include this into the section "Southeast Asian languages"

Possible Austroasiatic influence

According to Vovin (1998), the Yayoi people may have spoken an Austroasiatic language, based on the reconstructed Japonic terms:

• (z/h)ina-Ci 'rice (plant)'

koma-Ci '(hulled) rice' pwo 'ear of grain'

Vovin assumes that these words and other terms are agricultural terms of Yayoi origin. According to him (1998) these Austroasiatic tribes of the Yayoi period (Wajin) were assimilated from another group that migrated into Japan during the Kofun period. Vovin claims an ultimate origin of the Japonic languages in southern China.

Because he clearly states that these Yayoi were assimilated and contributed at least this agricultural words into the Japanese language. As he says these words are found only in Japanese and AA.

Do you agree or have a better suggestion?

Thanks. --AsadalEditor (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@AsadalEditor: I think this is part of a larger problem with the section, which I've raised on the article talk page. Kanguole 17:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan Page

Hello Kanguole,

Could you change the map on the Taiwan page to this? If possible, could you also change the file name?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#/media/File:Taiwan_in_China_(%2Ball_claims_hatched).svg

Thanks! Est12345 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Est12345: The current map is the result of a previous discussion at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 25#RfC: map(s) in the infobox. If you want to change it, you should open a new discussion on Talk:Taiwan and try to get consensus for a different map. Kanguole 06:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

response

Ok. I have responded on my talk page. Please check there before I clean up my talk space. Alexkyoung (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dravidian

This time you were faster XD! Suggestion: "The Dravidian languages with the most speakers are (in descending order of number of speakers):..." Do you think this might stop'em once and for all? –Austronesier (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: It might help. Then again, language boosters have been known to fabricate speaker figures, so they might feel the need to do both. Kanguole 15:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the Varieties of Chinese

Hello- I would like to invite your comments and edits on a new page, Protection of the Varieties of Chinese, which is based on a Chinese Wikipedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to remind you that 'dialect' and 'language' ([1]) are apparently not the Wikipedia terms when we are talking about the different types of Chinese. English Wikipedia is currently calling them 'varieties of Chinese'. (I see your comments on the talk page of that page from 2015.) It's the most neutral terminology apparently. I continue to invite you to comment on the page I mentioned above. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@Geographyinitiative: You are mistaken. "variety" is an appropriate term for the fairly uniform speech of a particular area (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai or Guangzhou), but not for larger groups of varieties (like Mandarin or Wu), for which "dialect group" is the usual term in the English-language scholarly literature (see e.g. Chinese in the Cambridge Language Surveys series, or Norman's chapter in the Routledge Sino-Tibetan volume). See also Varieties of Chinese#Dialect groups. Kanguole 10:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Thanks for your reply. Your reply helped me understand your original edit in a way that I previously did not understand it. The reason I'm here is that I'm trying to find a neutral wording that won't get changed all the time- that's why I changed it to 'varieties' of Chinese. I take your point about the difference between varieties and dialect groups under advisement, and I praise you for being very precise in your terminology.

I see that in your partial revert, you only reverted one of the 'varieties of Chinese' that I added to the page. To me, that meant that you were really paying attention to the words. I respect that a lot.

Here's what I'd like to say: I think that using 'dialect groups' as if there is no question in English-language scholarship that 'dialect group' is the correct terminology is insensitive to people that think that some forms of spoken Chinese are not the same 'language' as Mandarin.

If only 0.1% of Cantonese speakers think Mandarin is a different language from Cantonese etc, then people will being trying to write 'language groups' in that article from now 'til the end of time. If you look at stuff [2] Vic Mair has written, you'll see that there is some degree of uncertainty and controversy in the area. It's not a settled scholastic issue: it's a semi-political, semi-academic issue that scholars try to navigate at great peril.

I propose to use a different term which seems to be a neutral alternative. The wording 'major subdivisions' is used in Template:Chinese language. 'major subdivisions' doesn't conflict with 'dialect groups' or 'languages' or any other terms- you can understand it the way you want to. I love it. It is so Wikipedia. No politics or game playing in a term like that. Pure fact.

'major subdivisions' lets you know that there are major differences between ten groups, but also doesn't force people to accept that their native language is "only" a dialect, or "only" a variety of a dialect- something that is not as important or meaningful as a full-fledged language. That's the reason they want to change the word from 'dialect groups' to 'language groups': they want the dignity of understanding the language they use as a language. We know that "Chinese" is used in a very broad sense- pretending "Chinese" is equal to MSM. We shouldn't ignore the feelings of others. That's why I'm looking for a neutral alternative.

I have made an experimental edit ([3]) to the Mandarin Chinese page- what do you think? Make edits to my edit as you see fit. Let's make a compassionate, neutral Wikipedia.

Thanks for any help. If you need to yell at me, feel free to do it. I need to learn from your perspective. Thanks again. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Is there any indication that "dialect groups" (rather than "dialect") is considered incorrect for Mandarin, Wu, etc, in English-language scholarship? I would also dispute the term implies anything about the language status of Cantonese, Hokkien, etc. That is simply a separate issue. That random passersby keep changing stuff is not evidence of anything – they will change whatever is written to push their POV. Our guide has to be the scholarly literature.

The reason for saying "seven or ten" dialect groups, is that those are the numbers in the most widely quoted classifications, those of Yuan Jiahua and Li Rong respectively. This is also covered in Varieties of Chinese#Dialect groups. "approximately ten" seems to have no basis in the literature.

Also, adding large justificatory HTML comments next to your chosen term makes editing of the wikitext difficult, and should be avoided, especially when the matter is covered by the Varieties of Chinese article linked just above in the article text. Kanguole 10:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your response. I will try to keep it brief.

I believe that through this discussion, you and I can improve Wikipedia in such a way that will make Wikipedia more informative, user-friendly and possibly more neutral. The reason I say that is that I'm pretty sure that I am of the same general mindset as the passers-by who make these changes. Through this interaction, we may be able to find better ways of communicating with the readers.

I would like to bring up the notion that the term 'dialect' has a derogatory meaning in English. ([4]). Southern American English is considered a regional dialect of the United States in the field of linguistics. That's all fine and proper. But use of that dialect is considered a marker of "cognitive and verbal slowness, lack of education, ignorance, bigotry, or religious and political conservatism"([5]). The schools seek to root it out from day one. The middle class sees it as a poor man's thing. It's an ingroup marker. Politicians exploit it for populist politics. "Respectable people don't speak dialect."-1994, H. Nigel Thomas, Spirits in the Dark, Heinemann, page 11 (pulled from Wiktionary)

No matter what the wording of the English-langauge literature may be concerning the 'dialect groups' of Chinese, I would like to ask you whether or not you can believe that, in the English language, the word 'dialect' can be used as a hostile term of socioeconomic/ethnolinguistic discrimination- a weapon used to vilify the language of others, to make their patterns of readin, writin and grammer seem "lower" than more socially accepted forms. You may think 'grammer' is the "wrong way" to spell 'grammar', but Middle English spelled it like that ([6]). The spelling standards imposed in the English of today are a form of imperialistic oppression. A word is only misspelled if your target audience didn't understand what you meant.

The word dialect can have a seemingly neutral meaning in linguistics, but the word is also a vicious weapon used to hurt people. In the context of China, the use of 'dialect' is considered offensive to some (see the Mair article I mentioned). 'Dialect' can be used to marginalize socially unacceptable forms of Chinese. It can be used as what is tantamount to a slur on the heritage of others. Use of the English word 'dialect' in 'dialect group' leaves me with the incorrect impression that users of a Chinese dialect may have, "cognitive and verbal slowness, lack of education, ignorance, bigotry, or religious and political conservatism". The feeling is that there is a concerted, malicious policy to build up MSM and hopefully get rid of the worthless, yucky dialects of Chinese.

If the 'dialect groups' of Chinese are languages in their own right (as they are in my view), then they might be worthy of active use and growth for the rest of human history. If they are just groups of 'dialects', only the idiot rubes would use them, and hopefully they can be eliminated at an early date (Guangdong National Language Regulations). That's the problem that the passers-by are trying to correct- the emotional and political content in the English langauge word 'dialect'. We have got to be sensitive to the way the readers will understand the words they are seeing. Can you see what I and the passers-by are getting at here?

A respectable person would never speak in a dialect, but only a fool would abandon his mother language.

We, these anti-academic fools you seem to suspect we are, want to give more dignity to the 'dialect groups' of Chinese than the word 'dialect' can allow us to.

A 'dialect' is dirty and disgusting- something you need to stop using as soon as possible. A 'language' is noble above all things- something to be cherished and passed down to the great-grandchildren and their great-grandchildren.

Mair put 'dialect' in quotation marks in the title of his article because it's a charged term when we are talking about Chinese. I still have the same gut feeling when I see it in the term 'dialect group'.

Once I kind of have a grasp of your viewpoint on this issue, then I will be able to work with you about how the literature uses the wording 'dialect groups' etc and how we can present the wording in a better way. If you're not interested in the discussion, I 100% understand. But in order to have this discussion and make a useful change to Wikipedia long term, I need to try to convey to you that the word 'dialect' is an emotionally charged term used for political purposes in my understanding of "the English language". Yes, it is used in the field of linguistics. But especially when we are talking about hundreds of mutually unintelligible forms of language, calling (for instance) Min Chinese a 'dialect group' can be understood as insensitive (at best), and I would say that we need to take that fact into account on Wikipedia. Sorry for writing so much, but I want to let you and the world understand what I am seeing. (I will get to the "seven or ten" question later on- I am basically trying to count the number we have on Wikipedia and give the readers that number, plus an adverb signalling uncertainty in the academic community (hence I used "approximately").)

Once you can kind of undersand why these silly passers-by are changing the darn words from 'dialect group' to language group etc., then we can make progress in improving Wikipedia and giving the readers an academically balanced viewpoint with an appropriate wording. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In Sino-Platonic Papers, 29 Mair put dialect in quotation marks for the same reason he put regionalect or topolect in quotation marks further down: To mark it as an English term that is discussed and is an item that belongs to the object language.

Do we avoid the words woman and socialism because a number of users view women and socialism as "inferior" and/​or ridiculed? We must stick to the notions and expressions of current scholastic literature, and we can't afford to have our terminology determined by the speech of biased people. As used here, the word dialect is not "a vicious weapon used to hurt people" either, but a label that even applies to standard varieties. We have an article that explains the word in its encyclopedic/​scholarly use, and that article disproves any claims that we are vicious. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: You say you want an academically balanced viewpoint, but the above essay is all about feelings, rather than the academic literature on this topic. You did not respond to my querying of the basis of your earlier reference to using 'dialect groups' as if there is no question in English-language scholarship that 'dialect group' is the correct terminology. Your position seems to be that any phrase containing the word "dialect" is offensive, but that is going too far. As LiliCharlie has noted, words have different connotations in different contexts. Kanguole 18:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read what you said yet- if you are interested, what do you think of this edit? [7] Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your question is completely off topic, and we shouldn't dwell on it. But since you're asking, I think your edit is off the mark, as the Standard Chinese translation of the UDHR provided by the OHCHR is not in any way related to the six official languages of the UN. The OHCHR currently provides 520 UDHR translations, for instance into Cantonese, Beijing(ese), as well as many other Sinitic lects. — It is the job of judges at law courts to decide which languoids belong to some legally defined official language, not the job of Wikipedians or the OHCHR. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again. --Blackmane (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Old Tibetan

Hello, this may sound strange, but may I ask you if this IP's contributions at Old Tibetan were constructive? The IP appears to belong to a long-term abuser and I was wondering if the edits were disruptive in nature. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: I think they were constructive. I partially reverted them at first, but re-instated the change after checking the source. I think their second change was incorrect, but it appeared well-intentioned. Kanguole 19:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall not report but keep an eye on them then. Nardog (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Proto-writing. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bowler the Carmine (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bowler the Carmine. The original usage on that page was BC/AD. It was changed contrary to WP:ERA with this edit. Kanguole 06:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Our guideline says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page first..." There's no guidance on "established" but I've always seen it as meaning how long has it been there and has there been much editing of the article. The first use of an era style isn't necessarily relevant. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case it was there for a long time before it was changed by a drive-by editor. That was in 2016, but the article has a rather low edit rate. Kanguole 11:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I wonder why it didn't get changed back earlier. Bowler the Carmine (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your wise and sensible patience when facing registered and IP editors with strong and stubborn POVs, and your openness to consider the other side's viewpoint and create a solid and sustainable compromise (like in this edit), where most editors would resort to Pavlovian reverts.- Austronesier (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks. Writing about language does seem to collide with some dearly-held national beliefs. You're right: going back to the sources and trying to find a third way often helps, as does trying to anticipate problems by giving commonly raised theories context and a thorough source-based treatment. But still, they come. Kanguole 11:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Re "in:"

Regarding the "in:" modification: do have you any recommendations on how to proceed? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Unless you can muster more interest (which seems unlikely for such a narrow case), it seems that the change is blocked. (No, I don't think the situation is satisfactory, but that is what it is.) Kanguole 01:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An RfC might "muster more interest", but, as you say, it's such a narrow case that I don't know how many responders would be just shooting from the hip. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims about the Voynich manuscript and Chinese

Hello again- I have just now deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([8]).

Zanhe suggested I should tell you about this, and I thought it was a good idea. Thanks for any input you can give on the issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not something I know much about, sorry. Kanguole 21:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Amordad magazine is not a reliable source?!!

Amordad magazine is the only source of peer-reviewed articles about the history and culture of ancient Iran in Iran, for what reason you say it is not a reliable source?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MojtabaShahmiri (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@MojtabaShahmiri: I see no indication on the Amordad News website that articles go through an academic peer-review process. Perhaps you could point it out. Also, are you the author of the article you want to link to? Kanguole 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: I think those who know Iran and reliable sources in this country, should review articles which relate to the history of this country in Wikipedia. It seems you even don't know what Amordad magazine is, there is no reason its news website talks peer-review process in this magazine, if you want to know about it, you should contact the magazine's office. MojtabaShahmiri

@MojtabaShahmiri: You claimed that the magazine was peer-reviewed. It is up to you to justify that claim. Also, are you the author of the article you want to link to? Kanguole 19:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Yes, I'm the author of this article, the process of peer review took more than 3 months, I had to edit this article 8 times before publication, anhway this article has been published and several historians, linguistics,... have read it. You can read it in Academia website too: Decipherment of Linear Gutian/Gothic (Formerly known as Linear Elamite). MojtabaShahmiri

edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello Kanguole, can you please answer my question regarding an edit in Dravidian languages? I included this content which I copied from proto-Dravidian article:

• Nevertheless, according to Franklin Southworth, the Proto-Dravidian vocabulary is characteristic of a more complex economy based on agriculture and animal husbandry.

But an user reverted it with a non understanding reason but acknowledged that it is reliable content but mist be included by another user? Can you please look onto that and reinclud it. It directly relevant to this section thus I included it here. Thank you in advance.38.121.43.208 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The issue is that you appear to be evading a ban. Your account of the edit summary is also inaccurate. Kanguole 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Taz dialect

Hi Kanguole,

Would you mind reviewing if I translated this okay from WP-zh? There's one phrase I didn't even attempt (just left it in kanji), and a few others are iffy, mostly in the phonology section, but also the sample sentence about a glass of water.

Thanks — kwami (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm a bit wary of taking stuff from zhwiki. In this case, the Shandong bit in the first sentence was contradictory (and not in the source) – I see you've removed it now. Most of the linguistic data comes from an article written in Japanese (so double translated). In addition, the author (Vladimir Viktorovich Podmaskin) is an enthnologist, and it seems he got his linguistic info from:

• Belikov, Vladimir and Elena Perexval’skaja. 1994. "Tazov jazyk [The language of the Taz]", in Vladimir Neroznak (ed.) Krasnaja kniga jazykov narodov Rossii. Enciklopedičeskij slovar’-spravočnik [The Red Book of languages of Russia. Encyclopedic dictionary]. Moscow: Academia, 50–51.

but I don't have access to that. Kanguole 11:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I had simply deleted the article as not having a RS that Taz was a distinct language -- as I had once before, only to have the article recreated -- but with the sources on WP-zh, I thought it would be better to have an article that clarifies it *isn't* a distinct language. Yeah, the dbl (or triple) translation's a problem -- the WP-zh article even says they're guessing a bit with the MSC translation -- but I still thought it was better than nothing. I could translate the Japanese if I had access to that, though if it's from Russian anyway it would be better to get it directly. — kwami (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Dravidian languages genealogy

Hi Kanguole! FYI, this template is something we should have a watch on. It's not much in use, but it has been havoced by an IP for several months, which lead to the display of utter nonsesne in Linguistic history of India and Malayalam. –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Ch'ŏphae Sinŏ

Thank you very much for this well written article! It didnt even cross my mind that we could ever create a page for what looked to me like such an obscure long-forgotten book. —Soap— 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Soap: Thanks. I thought it would just be one sentence when I started. There's quite a bit more in the jawiki version, but I don't have access to their sources. Kanguole 20:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Assam

Are these monoliths Tian symbol ? https://revivingforgottenhistories.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-kasomari-monoliths-re-exploring-kachari-grandeur/ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=9wxWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA84 2409:4065:D9C:BFE3:C17:CE15:A8B3:7F4B (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No idea. Replied at Talk:Shang dynasty. Kanguole 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

One of our king claimed his ancestor came from (Han-ti) China. Varman_dynasty#cite_note-:2-20 . This https://revivingforgottenhistories.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/ksm-23-08-20090130.jpg monolith look like Tian of Shang dynasty. Anyway, Thank you for conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:D9C:BFE3:C17:CE15:A8B3:7F4B (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Old Korean

Hi Kanguole! Have you seen the huge addition to the Old Korean page? It looks solid to me, what do you think about it? –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, but goes deeper than I'm familiar with. I guess this is a good time to do the expansion to Koreanic languages that I've been working on. Kanguole 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

대박, hats off![9] You had it up your sleeve all the time? ;) –Austronesier (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been tinkering with it for some time. Kanguole 17:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier and Kanguole: This is off-topic, but I want to admit that I actually put many of other users' sandboxes into my watchlist, including yours (hope you don't mind XD) and, since last year, that of Karaeng Matoaya. Partly because I'm curious about your projects, partly because I want to feel motivated LOL. Watching the long process behind a massive rewrite is a way to assure myself that I can do it to if I'm diligent enough :) Masjawad99^💬 05:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the activities below, I think you should bring this to the attention of Doug Weller parallel to the sockery case. Archeological pseudo-science and dubious specimen are his expertise. –Austronesier (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'd rather let the SPI run its course. Kanguole 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed it anyway now. This is getting out of hand with their continuous antics. –Austronesier (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Kanguole 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ye-Maek survives only through toponyms, but according to external and internal records was most likely ancestral to all Koreanic languages. According to external records, specifically Ancient China... the languages of the northern Koreanic kingdoms differed from the south of the peninsula. Goguryeo was a successor kingdom to Buyeo, thus most likely spoke "Buyeo" or perhaps a tangent language similar in nature. The languages of the samhan were recorded to be slightly different from each other, most likely reflecting the differences of the Kingdom of Baekje, the Gaya Confederacy and Silla. Sources now state that Koreanic speakers from the north, dispelling the Japonic speakers of the south, causing the Yayoi migration. However records show that this does not reflect the language/s and culture of the Samhan. Matter of fact, records prove that the Samhan were ancestral culturally to the modern Yamato people and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AI135 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Koreanic languages, which is the appropriate place to discuss that article. Kanguole 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Heavenly horses

Good afternoon I strongly disagree with your one-sided Chinese views on Chinese history. The history of China is not only the history of the Chinese people, but also the history of many other nations that have lived and are living on Chinese territory. You do not show the views of other nations on history. I'm asking you not to change my views without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rialex217 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Rialex217 that you should include the history of the nations that have lived and are living on Chinese territory. Rhan689 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole!!!

For what reason did you remove all my corrections? I see you have nothing else to do. Next time I'll be complaining about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggg3243 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ggg3243: Your edits are not "corrections". They are all additions of a particular image of a bronze finial. So is there any documentation of the provenance of that object? Kanguole 09:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole, I photographed this object in the National Museum of Kazakhstan. If you did not find information about this object in the Internet it does not mean that it is not of historical value. A lot of historical relics are kept in museums of the world which have no information in the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggg3243 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? How did it get from China to Kazakhstan? From when you first uploaded it until yesterday, its location was "Private collection, New York", so perhaps you can see why further information would help. In any case, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not the assertions of editors. Kanguole 08:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

how do you think the Ordos bronze got into British museums?

you're an uneducated man and you don't know history.

it's a shame that people like you edit the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggg3243 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Good afternoon

Will you please see a historical argument before you accuse me of forgery? I might as well accuse you of falsifying history. You promote the Communist Party of China. You have no place in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesale888 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you replace a true statement:

"The bronze statue, Gansu Flying Horse, is a well-known example."

with a false one:

"The bronze statue, Ordos ancient ceremonial bronze finial with standing horse, is a well-known example."

(for this object is not well-known, and is in fact of unknown provenance) that is falsification. Ditto replacing "flying horse" with "Ferghana horse". Kanguole 12:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, you have not brought more than one evidence. You are a very limited person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesale888 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

They're CU blocked now

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ggg3243. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Many thanks. Kanguole 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your outstanding contributions to the article Koreanic languages. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 19:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Koreanic languages" article -- GA?

Hello,

I was looking over your recent overhaul of the Koreanic languages article, and I'm wondering if you'd mind if I nominated it for Good Article status. IMO it fits the criteria in its current state, but of course you should have primary say as the page (re)writer.

Thanks for the top-notch work in any case.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya: Thank you for your kind words. I have two reservations: (1) the Morphosyntax section is sketchy, and (2) stability, given that some of this is politically sensitive. Also, the GA folk don't like a lot of concurrent nominations from the same person, and you already have Jeju language, and should also nominate Old Korean. Congratulations on both of those, by the way. Kanguole 12:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the reply!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Korean Peninsula

I noticed that you have reverted several good faith edits. The Korean Peninsula (a geographic region) is a proper noun, when using a proper noun, both words should be capitalised, e.g. the Arabian Peninsula, the Scandinavian Peninsula, the Sinai Peninsula etc. When describing a proper noun, the definite article "the" should also be used, e.g. the Korean Peninsula, the southern part of the Malay Peninsula etc. Even in the main article Korea, you will see "the Korean Peninsula" is written, not Korean peninsula or the Korean peninsula. Kenwick (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kenwick: It is far from clear from typical usage that Korean Peninsula is a proper noun rather than an adjectival construction (Wikipedia usage does not count). Moreover, whether it is a proper noun or not has no bearing on whether "the" is required before "central and southern parts".

I see from your talk page that other editors have pointed you at WP:NOTBROKEN. You really should listen.

In the same vein, edits such as removing blank lines after section headings and changing the capitalization of templates are not improvements, merely imposition of your personal preferences. Kanguole 14:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't oppose for the sake of opposing. If the Korean Peninsula is not a proper noun, what is it? Geographical use of the definite article "the" is quite tricky, but what I have told you is correct. Please read this article to get a better understanding:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/geographical-use-the/

Everyone has some personal preferences in their editing styles. Wikipedia is an inclusive community where everyone can contribute, and people should refrain from reverting other people's contribution unless it is pure vandalism. Unfortunately, some people just got so engaged in online politics and enjoy picking on someone else's work. From what I can see, you have a deep knowledge and understanding about East Asian languages. I also have my areas of expertise and I have no intention to disrupt your work (because I am not an expert in your field), but we can both contribute in our own ways and make Wikipedia a better place as long as we have mutual respect in each other's work. Kenwick (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kenwick: The alternative possibility is that it is an adjective modifying a noun, as in "the Korean coastline" or "the Asian continent". From a quick survey of usage, it seems most authors see it that way.

As for "the", it seems from this edit that you are overconfident of your grammatical expertise.

Yes, everyone has personal preferences. If you edit to impose your preferences, and the next person edits to impose theirs (which might be opposite to yours), we get a continual unproductive churn of watchlists. This is the principle behind MOS:VAR. So I'm asking you, please don't impose your personal preferences. And again, please don't "fix" WP:NOTBROKEN links. Kanguole 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't overconfident about my grammar, I have supported my edits with links to references that backed up my edit. I have not imposed my style over other people's style either, I reverted your edit because I knew it was a mistake (but I am not taking it personally, everyone makes mistakes). You may have noticed that no one has complained about me for a long time now, that's because I have made adjustments to my editing style to avoid getting involved in those nasty Wikipedia politics. So far, I have not made any accusation against you at all, but you seem to pick on me because I've reverted your edit. If you like to fight other people because they have reverted your work (even though they have done it in a proper and respectable way), you would be involved in a lot of time-wasting edit wars which actually contributes nothing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't do that. I hope you would agree with me on this one. Kenwick (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you / 고마오니ᅌᅵ다

	King Sejong's Award
	For finally creating Middle Korean. Have some kkul-tteok, or I should say pskwul-stek. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was surprised that there was no article on this key topic. It's only a start, though. Kanguole 14:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yuezhi

Hi Kanguole, Thankyou for your comment. i have added further references to support my edits in relation to the article Yuezhi. Please have a look at them and i think that information should be part of that article as it clearly relates to Kushans and Yuezhi. I think all relevant information should be part of that article rather then just one perspective. Would appreciate your insight on this too. Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kami2018: I have commented at Talk:Yuezhi#Languages. Please discuss there instead of trying to edit-war your change into the article. Kanguole 19:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That horse again

Hi Kanguole,

an IP added a source to the notoious File:OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png, which I reverted because the source was linked to a page on a Latvian site dated from May 2020. Another IP added the link again, plus this revealing post[10]. Two statements caught my eye: "The artifact is kept in a private collection." and "It is quite possible that a bronze top horse would also be included in the list of significant historical artifacts prohibited for export to exhibitions outside China because of its high historical importance for the history of modern China." What do you think about it? –Austronesier (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: It always looked like a scam to promote a sale, though the details are obscure. I'm not sure that the blog posts really date from 2013 (the English version looks like a Google translate of the Russian), but those dates simplify the Commons deletion decision. Kanguole 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these trolls are desparately trying to promote that dubious artefact on various platforms. The second blog post (whenever it was posted) looks utterly pathetic[11]. –Austronesier (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Page <List of languages by number of native speakers>

I could see you have reverted a change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers&oldid=prev&diff=967469671&diffmode=source, and in comment section you mentioned either remove the inherent from both Hindi or Urdu. Yes I think we are good to remove those from both the languages. Since Urdu is also not inherent from Persian only but this is developed in India with Indian languages. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rashid Jorvee: It wasn't me that reverted you – it was User:LiliCharlie. But in any case the talk page Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers would be a better place to discuss this. Kanguole 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

ohh sorry Kanguole, my bad luck. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Romanization Talk page Invitation

Hello, I created a new section in the Talk Page for the Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. I was wondering if you would like to contribute to the discussion.

[12]

As for the latest edits, I was just trying to provide more examples of other kinds of names. I was not trying to change any criterion. I have re-edited my previous versions so that it does not sound like it is changing any guidelines, but rather simply just giving more examples.

We can discuss things further on the talk page if you so wish. Henry Capital Hill 3 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Status of Watford Grammar School for Girls in the 1980s

There is (rather idle) speculation at Talk:Priti Patel about the status of Watford Grammar School for Girls in the 1980s. Back in 2008 (glad to see you are still here!) you wrote it was comprehensive from 1975 to 1990[13] sourced to a school web page and a month later added another reference Mrs Fuller's Free School: Three Hundred Years of the Watford Grammar Schools, Hart (2005). The current version of Watford Grammar School for Girls still seems to regard it as somewhat comprehensive (though not, it seems "bog standard"!). Can you help? From my own knowledge I know that even at the time its status may have depended rather on who you spoke to. Thincat (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thincat: Sourcing is difficult. The county was reorganized an comprehensive in the mid-70s, so all the schools were notionally comprehensive, though I believe the heads of overscribed schools had some latitude in choosing applicants, and the WGs may have used interviews. Kanguole 11:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Since messaging you I've found the school is now a partially selective school[14] and the most recent OFSTED reprt[15] says it is a comprehensive school.[16] Thincat (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Laska666. I noticed that in this edit to Literary Chinese in Vietnam, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laska666 (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit was to article Chữ Nôm rather than to Literary Chinese in Vietnam, and the one who removed/replaced content without any explanation was Laska666. Kanguole merely reverted their five unexplained edits. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: Laska666 just added an {{Infobox writing system}} to Literary Chinese in Vietnam — again, without any explanation. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: I have reverted the last changes as unexplained and off-topic, and given the editor an ew-warning. –Austronesier (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Explanation: In Vietnam, there are two logographic writing system that existed mutually.

Chữ Hán 𡦂漢 - or Hantu 漢字 : was adopted Chinese characters for Vietnamese language, read in Sino-Vietnamese. They are the same class with Hanja, Kanji, where all mean in English are "Chinese characters". Hanja, Kanji both have their own page, but Hantu doesn't. That is unequal.

Chữ Nôm : an native script that was based on the idea of Chinese characters "Hantu". Started in late 8th century AD, it continued became the official script for national in 15th century. They are the same class with Khitan large script, Tangut script, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laska666 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have posted on Talk:Chữ Nôm. Kanguole 21:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

An Lushan Rebellion

All other wars gives a death toll figure, low estimates to high estimates. Putting Heavy, no one will get a clear idea of how massive this war was. If you want to add a death toll citations to the death figures, go right ahead. But don't change the death figures please. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@TaipingRebellion1850: We should not add figures that are not supported by the article just to have figures. Indeed this article cites historians criticizing this interpretation. Per BRD, please present your arguments for these figures on the talk page rather than adding them again. Kanguole 17:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The only figures we have is by the massive drop in censuses. That's how most death tolls of wars of old and even today are counted. for instance the ongoing Syrian Civil war, has a death toll of around 300,000-500,000. it's even stated under the Casualties and losses. The Thirty Years war death toll is between 4,5 million to to 8 million, it is located under Casualties and losses box. Taiping Rebellion has a death toll of 20-30 million deaths. They are all under the subheading Casualties and losses. They also have a section breaking down the death toll just like the An Lushan Rebellion has. So why can't the An Lushan Rebellion contain the death toll under Casualties and losses? TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not the death toll, as the cited historians point out. It is inconvenient that historians are unable to supply a figure for our infobox, but that is the situation. Kanguole 17:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Everywhere else they use that death figure. and it considered to be one of the most deadliest wars. So it valid to use both estimates TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If I add citations will you then calm down? TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required. Kanguole 22:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)