User talk:Xufanc

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

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-grin.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Xufanc! I am DiverseMentality and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013[edit]

WP:Food[edit]

It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013[edit]

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

are you Thai, I am Thai.

Supotmails (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

André Servier[edit]

Thanks for suggesting the name, but I believe, the template you are using is not as popular as this template is Template:Criticism of religion sidebar.

Also, how many religions did André Servier criticized? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I see, anyways, reading about him now. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Churro[edit]

Hello, thanks for your edits to Churro. When I reverted them I gave a rather bland edit summary, because before checking further I thought your edits were associated with the vandalism edits that 99.15.113.237 had made to the article at around the same time (the "breakfast pretzel" vandalism). However I haven't reinstated your edits because they cited a blog, which is not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, and the cross-cultural variations are listed in the see also section. Graham87 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Catalan culture Challenge[edit]

Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of several Catalan culture articles and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Dear Xufanc, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Vijaynagar State. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!Xufanc (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Historical districts of India[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have created the template Template:Historical districts of India. Unfortunately, that template has to links that lead to disambiguation pages: Imphal District and Nimar District. In both cases I have not a clue what the correct article is that should be pointed to. Can you fix that? The Banner talk 11:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Those disambiguation pages need to be transformed into articles.Xufanc (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mongpan State
added a link pointing to Tak
Wa people
added a link pointing to Lawa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lua, Lawa, and Wa[edit]

List of tribal students

Hi there again Xufanc. I just saw your recent edits on Kentung. The link to the Wa ethnoarchaeology paper is great and many thanks for having found it, but unfortunately the Wa did not establish Kentung. Kentung was established by Lua people as per the other reference, another spelling of Lawa people, who are a related ethnic group living more to the south of the Wa region in what is now mainly northern Thailand and its immediate surroundings, and perhaps even central Thailand (there are indications that Lopburi was originally a mixed Lua/Lawa and Mon city). I searched (did not read yet) the article for mention of Kentung (and the various other transcriptions of its name) but it wasn't mentioned. I had these two related ethnic groups mixed up too in the beginning, which seems a common problem. - Takeaway (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read elsewhere (can't remember any more where though so would have to do a search) that the Tai groups who took over the lands of both Wa and Lawa, regarded the Lawa as "civilised" whereas the Wa were considered "uncivilised". - Takeaway (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely long and complicated to explain. The quote about the establishment of Kengtung is in Page 127 of the pdf. Magnus Fiskesjo is a trustworthy authority. Lua and Lawa are not very trustworthy names when not used by linguists. Regarding those names (Lawa and Wa) they are synonymous, especially when used by Thais and when referring to ancient legends. At a school in Chiang Rai (see picture) the Wa kids were listed as 'Lawa'. But all of them were refugee Wa kids from Burma. Xufanc (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I know about the problem that Thais register Wa as Lawa as they still don't regard them as a separate group, similar to how China lumps the Hani and Akha together in one group, which, when you ask either of them, they will consider each other as related but distinct groups. I am slowly researching the Lawa people and here are a few of the links that I have found so far (unfortunately, some other interesting links that I had found are now dead links). Especially the first link is of interest as you can read there how the two are mentioned separately: 1, 2, 3, 4
I think it is better if it is put like this: The names Wa and Lawa they are often used in a synonymous way, especially when used by Thais and when referring to ancient legends, but mostly not in a scholarly context. It is difficult to find scholarly works on the Lawa, except in linguistics. Xufanc (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I just read page 127, and it would seem that Fiskesjo also combines these two groups into one, whereas the academic sources (see 1 for instance) that I have been reading, treat them as two distinct groups. It's indeed very complicated. - Takeaway (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a paper on exactly this problem! :) -> [1]
I am not familiar with the author. Linguistically Lawa and Wa are two distinct groups now, in our time. But regarding the aboriginal Austroasiatic group that had previously been in present-day Tai-dominated areas, what would be correct label? I think it is there that the difficulty resides.Xufanc (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Having (quickly) read the paper, from it I can only derive that the only safe thing to state is that Kentung was settled by Paluang people (who could be Wa or could be Lawa). - Takeaway (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Not a scholarly paper but a talk (just found, not yet read) about the difference between Wa and Lawa/Lua. It might perhaps give some insight? -> [2]
This whole issue of Wa, Lawa etcetera merits more research. How about we agree to let things stand as they are and try to figure out how the whole Wa, Lawa/Lua, Tai Loi mix up can be resolved? It's become clear to me now that even the academics are still out on this problem. The real world is calling me now so I'll have to go for a bit. How about we come back to this issue in a few days. I'm downoading a whole bunch of academic papers right now and it'll take a while before I have ploughed my way though them. - Takeaway (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started on my reading and after a few papers it still isn't clear at all, if anything, it has only become more complicated as there are many contradictions between the scholars. So far I can only say with certainty: 1. In Myanmar the different groups tend to be lumped together as Wa. 2. In Thailand the different groups tend to be lumped together as Lawa/Lua.
As for using Fiskesjo as source for Kengtung's origin being Wa: he actually dismisses the whole idea writing "'...such as the traditions that it was the Wa who built the city of Jaingtung... ( ) ...may be relatively easy to disregard as a hindsight reconstruction of the present relationship between civilized lowlanders and primitive highlanders". This story is exactly the same as the story told about Chiang Mai's establishment but then involving the Lawa/Lua instead of the Wa, and it is this exactly this Chiang Mai story that you have used as a reference that Kengtung was conquered from the Wa, which is a bit odd. At least in Chiang Mai there are still extensive remains of the original Lawa settlements left. Also for Fiskesjo, the Wa and Lawa are not the same people. If they had been, he would not have written in his introduction that the Wa only are found in the Myanmar/China border region; he would also have had to mention that they also occur in Thailand and Laos, which he doesn't.
Fiskesjo also mentions that all Wa fortified towns and villages are found up in the hills and mountains, mainly on a ridge. Kengtung lies in the valley. And it is actually known, that the Lawa originally lived in the valleys before the Tai people's immigration from Yunnan into northern Thailand. Seeing how it can not be proven that the Wa established Kengtung, I think it is best to remove that content until a definitive source can be found. I wish it were different though as it makes a nice story. - Takeaway (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The linguistic difference between Lawa and Wa can be assessed today, but transferring that difference to the past is tricky, for there is no scholarly proof at all that there were two separate aboriginal groups in the past. I would not dismiss Fiskesjo for he is a sound, careful scholar. Fiskesjo talks about remainders of fortified villages on hills, but that does not rule out that the aboriginal groups built also settlements in the valleys which have left no remains for the Wa are agriculturalists, rice planters. (The statement that you mention about Kengtung is followed by another that qualifies his supposed dismissal "But the general thrust of Wa traditions is also supported by Shan chronicles" —this is a very Scandinavian way of introducing an issue). Basically the assumed difference between Wa/Lawa (as aboriginal people group of the region) that you personally choose to emphasize is based on unsound scholarship, for I have not seen a scholarly work on it, and comes down to something similar to what you mentioned before about the use of the words Akha/Hani or Kuki/Chin (the Indian officialdom uses the word 'Kuki' and the Burmese the word 'Chin'). Thus the Thai officialdom chooses to use the word 'Lawa' and the Burmese 'Wa' for the same people group. This seems to be a common pattern in Asia, especially among people groups overlapping modern state borders, where nationalistic considerations override scholarly evidence. Xufanc (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Lua, unlike the Lawa/Wa they are not classified as Waic, but are a Khmuic group. Only the name of the language and people group 'Lua' is somewhat similar to 'Lawa', but perhaps the grouping together Lua/Lawa is again a reflection of the general unsound sources of Thai 'scholarship'. Like I stated at the beginning, the issue is just the tip of an iceberg and it is extremely long and complicated to explain. At the heart of the problem clouding proper scholarly assessment of the aboriginal settlement of the whole region before Thailand and Burma as such existed, lies the question regarding the reasons why nationalist 'scholars' in Thailand have chosen to popularize the term 'Lawa' for the Wa. Those reasons and their implicit agenda deserve proper study. Since the situation is not going to be cleared by us discussing here, in the case of the history of Kengtung city it is better to use the term 'Wa', for the town is within Burma or Myanmar, and for Chiang Mai it is better to keep the term 'Lawa' for it falls within the sphere of the Thai nomenclature and its preferences. Xufanc (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the eastern Lawa also compound to this problem by calling themselves Lua and not Lawa. These are the Eastern Lawa from Chiang Mai Province, not the Khmuic Lua from Nan (see this survey). The Western Lawa though, prefer being called Lawa per the same survey. Now that I have done some more reading in the meantime, I've found that the more recent (serious) Thai (and also Western) research since the 80s, when using the designation Lua, now specifies which Lua by also stating the region where they live instead of lumping everything together as was the often the case before that time due to the fact that in-depth research on these groups had been virtually non-existent before the 70s. But most now generally use the term Lawa for those in Mae Hong Son and Chiang Mai, splitting them up in Western and Eastern Lawa, and the term Lua for those in Nan.
I still can't see how it is possible to state that Kengtung was a Wa settlement before being taken by Mangrai from Fiskesjo. How I read "'...such as the traditions that it was the Wa who built the city of Jaingtung... ( ) ...may be relatively easy to disregard as a hindsight reconstruction of the present relationship between civilized lowlanders and primitive highlanders. But the general thrust of Wa traditions is also supported by Shan chronicles" is that Fiskesjo states that there is no proof that Kengtung was actually a Wa settlement but instead a probability as he continues, writing "but probably reflect a real displacement in that area" quoting information from 1965 from the Kengtung scholar Sao (Prince) Saimong Mangrai. Your edit has changed what is proposed as a serious possibility, that merits further research, into a fact. Perhaps it would be best to state in the article that it is a probability?
Instead of using the story of the coronation ritual of Chiang Mai as a source for the coronation ritual of Kengtung, here's a source I found that actually mentions what happens in Kengtung: Google Books: Civility and Savagery: Social Identity in Tai States edited by Andrew Turton
As indeed we do not know of the prehistory of the people now named Wa and Lawa, and who, although related, now have different languages and cultures, it is not known when these two ethnic groups split and as such, we can not claim them to be one group now, nor at any specific period in time until more research into the relationship between these two groups emerges.
I saw that you used the Joshuaproject missionary website as a source in the Wa people artilce, stating that there were Western Lawa in Yunnan, China. I am quite certain that their info comes from an older version of the Ethnologue website which has since been changed to state that the Western Lawa only are found in Thailand because I came across this webpage stating the same and referring to Ethnologue as their source. The only other mention of Western Lawa in China comes from another Christion prayer website, no doubt copied from the Joshuaproject page. I also don't know where you found the information that these supposedly Chinese Lawa are called "tame Wa" as that is not found in the provided source. Perhaps it came from this other Christian missionary website of unknown reliability?
There is an interesting piece on Lawa courtship rituals in this Siam Society Journal of 1985. It also mentions a Wa chief retelling a myth, and circumstantial evidence in the form of crocodile motifs, that the Lawa and Wa originally lived in a coastal region and moved away from there to their present deep-inland locations at an unknown date in the distant past. - Takeaway (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
In this paper, the Swedish academic Klemens Karlsson chose to use the term "Lawa" to designate the supergroup of Wa and Lawa. He states in this paper, although unreferenced, that the Wa as a people came about some 1000-700over years ago with the arrival of Tai groups into the Kengtung region. This academic also seems to be part of a group who want to include the Khmuic Lua speakers into a greater, pre-Tai culture by quoting Cholthira Satyawadhna, who's theory is already disproved by David Filbeck back in 1985 (see this Siam Society Journal, David Filbeck, The Lua of Nan Province). The paper is of great importance for the Kengtung article though, as it quotes extensively from Sao Saimong Mangrai's translation of the Kengtung Chronicles on the role of the Kengtung Tai Loi people, who are the Tai-ified remnants of the Wa in the Kengtung region, and their role in Kengtung festivals. The paper mentions 3 different stories about the establishment of Kengtung by Tai peoples.
Having now come across the term "Lva" a few times for the pre-Tai Wa/Lawa people, it's something that is growing on me. Too often scholars either operate in Thailand, thus calling them Lawa/Lua due to the name they use for themselves there, or in Myanmar and China, calling them Wa due to the name they use for themselves there. It doesn't really seem to be nationalistic thing, just a difference of names that these people who have been split up many ages ago have for themselves. - Takeaway (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The term 'Tame Wa' was first used by Sir George Scott, who elaborates on it in his work 'Burma'. If indeed the Western Lawa are only found in Thailand, then that further confirms the fact that 'Lawa' is very little more than merely a name given to the Wa in Thai official circles in order to forward the hackneyed emphasis that "no Wa were ever in Thailand". Fiskesjö is well aware that he is not dealing with history, but with oral tradition. Therefore the most he can do is to forward a hypothesis. So I will state in the article that it is a probability as you suggest. Both the Wa oral tradition and the Tai traditions (including the Kengtung Yazawin) are largely mythical. The historical approximation that can be reconstructed from the myths and legends will thus necessarily be approximate. And yet much shoddy Thai 'scholarship' ventures to go further, giving as historical facts that which are mere approximations at best. I am very sceptical about assertions that "Wa and Lawa have different cultures" or that they are "different groups" and in my eyes they have much to do with an agenda to claim that 'there were never any Wa in Thailand' (the image of the list in the Chiang Rai school above renaming as 'Lawa' Wa boys and girls having come as refugees from Burma confirms a continuation of the policy which raised my suspicion). The fact is that the Wa are a far from homogeneous group and have differences in language and cultural traits even from valley to valley, so any "scholar" with a political agenda could use those differences to come up with any wild theory in order to forward his agenda. So far we are going round in circles here and we could be here discussing for ages basically going nowhere. Perhaps it would be better if you read dispassionately the chapter about the Lawa in this book in order to understand my scepticism —I am not asking you to share it— and then I suggest that we both agree to disagree. Xufanc (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never said that there were never Wa in Thailand. The academic sources that I have put forward never say it either. They are researches on the Lawa people of Mae Hong Son and southern Chiang Mai provinces, and not on the Wa (refugees) of northern Chiang Rai Province. I have already in the beginning mentioned that I knew that the Thai government lumped the Wa in with the Lawa, a name that the Lawa ethnic group apparently uses for themselves, except the Eastern Lawa, who for some strange reason prefer to be called Lua in spite of only being distantly related to the proper Lua of Nan and northern Laos. I don't know where you have gotten this idea that I sympathise with the Thai government? And why wouldn't Wa and Lawa have different names for themselves and different cultures after 700-over years of separation? Even after just 200-300 years of separation, the Normandy people didn't even speak old Norse any more, nor were they viewed as being Vikings any more. After just a bit over 100 years of separation, the Afrikaners of South Africa have developed a very different language than the Dutch it is derived from, as well as their own specific culture due to having gone through unique experiences. The Kristang of Malaysia, and the Burghers of Sri Lanka have also achieved it in less time. You keep repeating "shoddy Thai scholarship". I have avoided Thai scholars as much as possible in the links above, with the one exception being the lovely piece on Lawa courtship rituals. The Thai scholar restricts her research to the Lawa on the Bo Luang plateau and makes no assumptions whatsoever on any other groups. The other Thai scholar who was named above is indeed shoddy and I linked a text disproving her work. As for the Shan scholar Sao Saimong Mangrai, his translation of the Kengtung Chronicles is widely accepted by all scholars.
I still don't understand your new rewording of the establishment of Kengtung without also mentioning the written history of the Shan as Fiskesjo himself does. And I also don't understand why you insist on using a source about Chiang Mai's court ritual which names Lawa/Lua people as a ref for Kengtung while I have given you a much better source specifically on Kengtung's court ritual involving Wa here above?
As for the Wa people article, I have now also read Sir George Scott's account as you advised me, and in it I don't see any mention whatsoever there about Western Lawa people living in China who are also called "Tame Wa". He never even mentions the Lawa people, all he does is mention that the Wa who live on the periphery of the (relatively small) core Wa areas are called "tame Wa". As I wrote, I have only found mention of "Western Lawa" being called "Tame Wa", and allegedly living in Yunnan, in the Christian missionary websites, which, as I also wrote, probably (as found on another website) based themselves on an older version of Ethnologue which in the meantime has been changed.
Thank you very much for also pointing me to Gordon Young's book about the Northern Thai ethnic groups. It is very insightful and full of information that isn't easily found elsewhere. I will ask some of my Akha friends if what he wrote about the Akha can be used. Some of the things he writes about the Akha is a bit "risqué" and I wouldn't dare quote Gordon Young on it without some verification at least, as it might be a bit embarrassing. But as for Lawa, he notes many similarities between them and the Wa but still calls them "Together with the Htin, Kha Mu, Kha Haw and possibly the rare "Phi Tong hang", (they are) a Wa-related ethnic group" (p.51). - Takeaway (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I think perhaps your impression was formed by my first message in this thread. I was misguided by farang amateur-historian writings about the Lawa/Lua/Wa people as these writings are the first ones that I found through Google. I have in the meantime gotten a much better picture of Wa and Lawa history, and how the Lua of Nan is only a distant related group. If it hadn't been for you, I wouldn't have conducted this more thorough research this soon. For this my thanks! - Takeaway (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the consideration. I did not have time to check on the other issues because these last days I have quite involved updating the article on the Southern Thai insurgency so my mind was somewhere else. Scott uses the term 'tame Wa' for those Wa populations who have undergone a process of acculturation owing to contact with Buddhist groups. The interesting thing about the Wa people is that they are one of the few groups in the area whose oral tradition does not tell that they came from somewhere else. Instead they claim that they always have lived in this area of the world and that the territory they originally inhabited has been shrinking. Gordon Young knew well the Wa for he had lived among them, and when he met the Lawa he sees that what is common —and that what is not— with the group he already knew and that is what makes his article valuable. Very few people have such a neutral and scientific point of view. If I would go to Alsace after having lived for a long time among Germans in Germany, what I would find of value would be assessing what is common between the Germans and the Alsatians —and what is not— according to the evidence. Volumes have been written by the French about the Alsatians not being really Germans. But I would find such literature bothersome instead of helpful. And yet, I understand and am aware about the historical reasons why the French produced those writings. However, in the case of the Thai and the Wa what makes the nomenclature issue difficult deserves a study, for I am not aware of the reasons. Could it be because they wish to proclaim that such "wild headhunters" were never in Thailand? The question remains open.Xufanc (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing with the name "Lawa" is that we don't know if that is a name given to them by Thais, or the name they gave themselves. Gordon Young consistly calls them Lawa. As to why your Wa friends in Chiang Rai (in Mae Chan District by any chance?) are categorised as Lawa might also have to do with the fact that Lawa are a recognised indigenous population of Thailand, whereas Wa would be seen as refugees. It has advantages to be part of a recognised indigenous population so the people might themselves have chosen for the Lawa designation. As your assumption that Thais don't want to know that there are former headhunters living in Thailand, the myths surrounding the Lawa are far worse! The Queen Chamadevi Chronicles (written in 15th century Chiang Mai about the 7th century Mon queen of Lamphun/Haripunchaya) the Lawa are seen not just as headhunters but as cannibals! There's a fairly funny story about the Lawa that it was actually the Buddha himself who convinced the Lawa, in the form of a Lawa couple who are depicted as giants, to stop eating human flesh when they threatened to eat him. And he did it so well that their son became completely vegetarian and also became a sage, living on Doi Suthep. The son's name was Sudevi, and it is after him that the mountain is named. In the myths that surround King Mangrai, he has Lawa friends who help him conquer Haripunchai. In other myths, King Mangrai is actually partially descended from Lawa, being the heir to the principality of Chiang Saen, who's dynastic founder is said to be a Lawa chieftain from that other most sacred mountain of northern Thailand, Doi Tung, with the princely family called Lawacarat. The well-known story of the Inthakin pillar, the city pillar of Chiang Mai, involves only Lawa and how they received their first pillar from the god Indra himself. Thais of any sort do not feature in this story at all and as such, the Lawa of Chiang Mai are still needed for the yearly ceremony. They also are needed for the blessing ceremonies of the sacred trees at the corners of the city. As you can see, the Lanna Thais seem to have a fairly large amount of respect for the Lawa for it was they who have met the Buddha, and not the Lannathais. My biggest problem now is that the only reliable numbers for Lawa in northern Thailand are for the amount of speakers of their language. Many Lawa that live near the city of Chiang Mai itself apparently don't speak it any longer, similar to those who are now called Tai Loi, descendants of the Wa who live in the vicinity of Kengtung. - Takeaway (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Barisan Revolusi Nasional
added a link pointing to Islamic school
List of rulers of Shan states
added a link pointing to Manmaw

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nāga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian mythology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saharat Thai Doem[edit]

This website of Historical Source [[3]] for File:Saharat Thai Doem map 1942-1945.png Saharat Thai Doem map that I edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murashel (talkcontribs) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is a dodgy website, not appropriate for history. The author is not mentioned, nor his credentials as a historian. You should put up your map first in the Thai Wikipedia article and not keep trying your luck in English Wikipedia with that unsourced map.Xufanc (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phi Tai Hong may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Thai culture blames this evil spirit as one of the main ghosts that |haunt houses]] and one of the most difficult to [[exorcise]]. Exorcisms can be very complicated, involving

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)