User talk:White whirlwind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For all your good work[edit]

Barnstar of National Merit.svg The Barnstar of National Merit
For your excellent work in the translation and improvement of China-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done! Philg88contact 23:08, January 29, 2015 UTC (purge)

TUSC token e5543d7d6c132f23e1bad9e4b700906b[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Luo Yixiu[edit]

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

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

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

Luo Yigu[edit]

Hello there White Whirlwind! Just to let you know that your suggested corrections over at Talk:Luo Yigu/GA1 have now all been implemented. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

Please let us know whether you intend to finish this review. If not, a new reviewer will need to be found. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Let me be more clear: here's how the section's opening sentence looked over a year ago after I created that section:
  • "The LDS Church expects all male members to serve a two-year mission unless physical, mental, or emotional health issues prevent their service." Here's how it looks today:
  • "The LDS Church expects all male members to serve a two-year mission unless physical, mental, or emotional health issues prevent their service."
After I cleaned up the prose from the intervening edits, we're just at the same place. Hence I said editors need to quit "adding fluff" and, if they decide something needs to be added, make it relevant and written in properly good, succinct, encyclopedic prose.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We both know what you've described is the whole intent of Wikipedia. Obviously, not all contributors, even when acting in good faith, understand that. I also think this particular issue raises some wondering in the LDS community about what it really means to "expect" that missionary service take place - so they end up trying to take a more measured view of it - such as the editor trying to quote Thomas S. Monson's words to "encourage" service. Thanks for all your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Han-Nom Barnstar[edit]

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

Editors Barnstar.png The Hán Nôm Barnstar/漢喃栫𡫡
For your excellent contributions with regard to language templates.

your Wen xuan article[edit]

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

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

宋代俗语。谓熟读《文选》,考取秀才有望。 宋 陆游 《老学庵笔记》卷八:“国初尚《文选》,当时文人专意此书……士子至为之语曰:‘《文选》烂,秀才半。’” (

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

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

Fan Ju versus Fan Sui[edit]

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

Thanks for responding. First of all, other Wikipedia projects are not inherently WP:Reliable sources, see that link for for info. Secondly, I am well aware that there is debate regarding this issue. On a related note, whether or not "Sui" was a common name or not is, on its own, poor evidence: "Humbert" is not a common English name, but it does exist, and one would be silly to change it to "Hubert" simply because "Humbert" is rare. I see no clear consensus in the published, reliable sources on "Ju" over "Sui" (as I said I feel it's the other way around). Until there is, please leave it as "Fan Sui", though perhaps a note on the controversy would be appropriate.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you got it backwards. Shiji used Fan Sui, and that became common because of its influence. However, the earlier texts Zhan Guo Ce and Han Feizi both used Fan Ju. Han Feizi actually wrote Ju as 且, which is unlikely to be mistaken with anything pronounced Sui. As for the common name argument, it's not something I came up with myself, but one of the reasons historians cite to support Fan Ju over Fan Sui. And if you search "Fan Ju of Qin" and "Fan Sui of Qin" on Google books, Fan Ju gets about twice as many returns (even more if you leave out the Qin part, but many would be false hits). -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm just following the reliable sources here, my friend. In any case, Google Books is mostly used as a source when a common name for something or someone needs to be determined, not with a philological issue like this one. On a related note, it's been my experience that Nienhauser, et al.'s Shiji translation is better regarded than Watson's, as Watson's translation, while nice and readable, is barely annotated at all. Let's leave it as "Fan Sui" with a note about the alternative possibility "Ju" until a clear consensus is reached in the scholarship – sound good?  White Whirlwind  咨  01:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese template[edit]

Hi! I found this edit so I would like to explain some things.

  • 1. Every subject should have both traditional and simplified listed no matter what. The only difference is which order (modern PRC and Singapore/Malaysia subjects have simplified first and everyone else has traditional first). When the other form is not included the template lists it as "Chinese" not indicating that there are different forms of writing it.
  • 2. Because he lived during the time that Wade-Giles was used in the Mainland, Wade-Giles is relevant to him. The time when not to include Wade-Giles in the lead (AFAIK one still can in the infobox) is if we are talking about a modern subject, particularly one from the PRC, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, and Malaysia.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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


I am frequently told that the first use is the one that should stay when someone reverts back several years the way I did. It appears from my experience that this only applies if the first use was BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound sour, but that actually is my experience. The guideline needs clarification but that seems impossible also. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak to your experience, but that's not good if that is the case. I certainly try to follow the guidelines. As long as an article is consistent why not just leave it? Surely we Wikipedians have better things to do with our time than to patrol articles looking for years-old reasons to make era switches.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It is a pain and a waste of valuable Wikitime; DougWeller is right, the BC/AD camp seems to be much more active than the opposite one. Maybe there should be a template Use BCE dates along the lines of use British/American English. I don't know if it's politic to just create one (the associated category would potentially end up with millions of articles) or whether it needs to be suggested somewhere. My two RMB's worth. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ironically I would say that I was wrong to revert. But having lost the argument the other way too many times.... 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)

Talk:Zhuangzi (book)/GA1[edit]

Hi White whirlwind, it's been a month since my review of your GA nomination, but you haven't done much to address the issues. I sincerely hope you haven't given up on it, as I think it's a very high quality article, and it'll be a pity if it doesn't pass because of some relatively minor issues. If you need more time please let me know. -Zanhe (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe, thanks for the reminder. I started a new job recently and haven't been devoting much time to WP. I will address your suggestions within the week. Thanks for your cooperation.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That's good to know. Congratulations on your new job! Real life is certainly more important than WP, so take as much time as you need. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I addressed your concerns and opinions. Take a look and see what you think. I raised an issue or two on the Talk Page you may want to take a look at. Thanks for your encouragement.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi again, White whirlwind. Regarding this edit, what do you mean by "as is"? Kanguole 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Undo Autoblock[edit]

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
White whirlwind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Open proxy: webhosting

Accept reason:

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins – my work's IP provider is auto blocked on all Wikis. If someone could sort this out I'd be grateful.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

GA Barnstar[edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks for improving the important article Zhuangzi (book) to GA quality. Keep up the excellent work! Zanhe (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

DYK for Zhuangzi (book)[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping to improve the Zhuangzi article. I hope we can help clean up Zhuang Zhou as well. Shii (tock) 19:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)



White whirlwind 您好,



敬希垂注,不勝感激。--Jose77 (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Records of the Grand Historian‎[edit]

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

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

135 BC[edit]

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

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

Basic Wikipedia policy and Idema and Haft[edit]

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

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

Nomination of Bill Wiltrout for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Wiltrout is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Wiltrout until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alex (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment[edit] Alex (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm qualified to give a nuanced opinion on that discussion, so I'll abstain.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Fielding Smith[edit]

If you think we should keep it the "way it was" before the dispute, the repetition of the full name should be removed. You added it here] just over 24 hours ago, and it was like that for at least a year prior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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


Sorry, a careless reversion of mine undid your edit at Liu An. Fixing now. Cheers, Basie (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)