User talk:Xiaoyu of Yuxi

I generally aim to have around 20 inactive sections in one archive, however long it may have taken to build up to 20 sections.

3 Revert Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --nn123645 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Terracotta Army

Hi WikiProject China editor, can you come to the article Terracotta Army and gave your input.

There have been anonymous user that are inserting content describing the Terracotta Army as "fake" and "inauthentic" to the article [1], and several anonymous users in the discussion on the talk page. The anonymous user based the claims on a book "La société du spectacle"/"The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord (who according to the anonymous user calls it a "bureaucratic fake"), a 2007 book "L'Empereur jaune" by Térence Billeter, and "La Chine est un cheval et l’Univers une idée" by Jean Lévi (2010). I checked the book by Guy Debord on Google Books [2], which is the only one of these three that's available and on [3], and could not find anything related to the Terracotta Army in it.

Importantly, I haven't been able to find any scientific studies doubting the authenticity of the Terracotta Army, and did not find anything about this in any mainstream English publications and media.

I found several published articles from Scientific American [4] and Nature [5] about the restoration and preservation of the Terracotta Army, but the anonymous user insist these studies did not study the authenticity of the Terracotta Army and they did not show "any datation of them", though some of the articles clearly contains statements such as "this was triggered due to it having spent more than 2,200 years in water-saturated soil" [6]. There are also many sources from Google Scholar [7] about the Terracotta Army and its conservations, such as this article from International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation [8] and this from Conservation Information Network [9], that contains detail about the age and materials of the Terracotta Army. Please come to the Talk:Terracotta Army and gave your input. Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Xinjiang

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xinjiang. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, HXL. User:Brek is committed to WP:RGW, so don't be surprised if similar edits occur in articles you are interested in. As far as I'm concerned, feel free the delete the 3RR warning above IAW WP:OWNTALK. --S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yer welcome. Unless a negative message is personalised, I choose to archive messages. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Like Srich says, you can delete the message if you want, but please don't interpret that comment as meaning you're not edit warring. While I don't agree with the other editor's edits, the edit warring policy is still policy and if either of you continues then I will have no choice but to block until the issue is settled. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Why don't you go attacking Quigley?"

I don't recall saying anywhere that I opposed independence. I'm actually ambivalent, and don't think it's an important question, as it is unlikely to happen. My personal support or opposition would not change anything anyway. I do oppose the methods that some activists use in working towards that goal, such as falsification of data, racist language, [incitements to] violence, etc. To the extent that this sort of behavior appears on Wikipedia in connection to any political or religious movement, I will consistently oppose it. Quigley (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the comment then. That's what I thought your viewpoint was, and though I was frustrated with that IP, I attempted to keep the tone of my summaries down. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai

Hi, I noticed that you undid my version. Please edit the content which you think is not right or suitable. You can not undo everything that other users have contributed.You can edit like this (eg. change People's Rebpublic of China to China) Please respect other's work. Thank you. Mclarenshen (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

不好意思 你没权利告我能删什么. 这不是尊重的问题. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

如果你觉得哪点不对，你可以针对这点修改。不要把全部都删除了，你说的reference, 一个showpiece我添加进去了，还是原来那个，那个南京条约，本来显示 dead link， 所以就删了，如果你有好的建议，你可以去添加。 我也update一点信息，比如world expo 什么的，所以拜托不要把全部都删除了，谢谢。PS: Where is your hometown in China? Shanghai? Mclarenshen (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

我是洛阳人。

我没把全部删掉，只是全部改回来。另外你的版本有许多语法、散文 这一类 的错误；比如说动词时态等 --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you always restore? What's the problem of the current version? Where is the grammar error? Please point them out!!!.Don't just give vague explaination. I've already said, that nanjing treaty has a dead link. If you have a new reference, then add to the text. Don't restore!!! Thank you, 何献龙 Mclarenshen (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dead link" is never a reason to remove a citation. Because there is a source, there is verification, which is all we need for now.

• "most populous city in PRC". Bad habit from Chinese... should be "most populous city in the PRC". and PRC is not necessary. "China" is enough. SH is many times larger than either Hong Kong or Taipei.
• "As a global city, Shanghai exerts influence over economy, politics and culture in the world" is simply 啰嗦
• "Nowadays" is too informal.

Those are the grammar problems for now. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Change has been made as you suggested. Mclarenshen (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

Beside, I don't see how this version is significantly better than the previous. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? the previous version is much more 啰嗦 Mclarenshen (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

please add signatures on the same line as your text...it is getting irritating to read. Anyway, the previous version isn't that much longer. In fact, it is probably not longer than the current version at all. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

So you want to revert again? I don't want to be involed in edit war. Mclarenshen (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

For a lede, if a newer version is not much better, than don't change to it. It is really not worth the trouble... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But in the previous version, the sentence you described as 啰嗦 "As a global city, Shanghai exerts influence over economy, politics and culture in the world" also exists, even longer. PS:I don't want to be involved in edit war.Mclarenshen (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

This is the previous version, while this is the present version. There is no "global city...in the world" construction in the older version, so I don't know what you are talking about --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the older version. Man, I have already delete this sentence in the newer version, what you want me to do? Mclarenshen (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

I don't understand what you are saying... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

你不是说 As a global city, Shanghai exerts influence over economy, politics and culture in the world" 这句话罗索嘛，所以我在现在的版本中删掉。你再revert回去，这句话不是还是存在与老的版本中吗？你所说的罗索的话来自于老版本！！！理解了吗？Mclarenshen (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

我刚才给你的链接是旧版。旧版中没有 "As a global city...in the world" 这句话，只有 "As a global city...and entertainment"。--HXL's Roundtable, and Record 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

那就是所，你说它罗索就是因为有了3个字，in the world? 好，我现在就去删除，satisfied?Mclarenshen (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Mclarenshen

whatever. 你用个英汉词典吧

第二问题— "World Expo" 重定向 "World's fair"，wiki-link 就不对头了。链接应该是 "Expo 2010"

第三问题— 多用点代词 --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 21:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouting & English

HXL, I hope you won't let Brek get under your skin. Please see WP:SHOUT with regard to your recent input to his/her user page. Also (template message follows) --

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. . Google Translate is wonderful (and it was interesting to use it IOT see how the Chinese here translated out), but our collaboration will work better if we use English from the get-go. Thanks again. --S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I know as part of online etiquette that caps strongly indicates shouting, and I will admit to being an angry mastodon, but I hope you understand why. It reflects poorly when any user as inexperienced as Breke is (after 800 edits he still didn't know how to provide a diff) to simply dismiss the expertise and experience of a user like Rjanag. Rjanag had explained to Breke on the Xinjiang talk page about mind-reading (Breke: "with the voiced/tacit agreement of all but a HXML") and consensus, and yet Breke continues to regard me as the lone opposition to an edit that gained approval.

Secondly, I could tell from his edit summaries that Mclaren's English is not that good, so I was trying to provide him an easy pass. Otherwise, it's e-mail (for privacy) or the usual talk page guidelines. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No Sweat! I get frusterated with Brek as well. Wish I had not given him a WikiCookie. Best regards.--S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my edits. They are reliable. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.67.175 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

@Random IP. Because they included nonsense such as "Governor General of Canada and the United States" or deliberately false things. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. 24.87.67.175 (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

too bad. see your user talk. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

thats not nice. i thought you were supposed to help new users. please help/ 24.87.67.175 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

maybe you could help yourself by not vandalising or introducing deliberate factual errors. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

those words are too big. i do not understand. i am not a good english speaker. 24.87.67.175 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

tough luck. just act more intelligently around here. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

what? i am very confused. i thought wikipedia people are suppose to help people and guide new users. all i am asking is what i should do. please help. I like wikipedia. thank you. 24.87.67.175 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

are you there? please help. 24.87.67.175 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

help users on the condition that they are here to make constructive edits and not here to disrupt in any way.

and no, don't treat Wikipedia users as if they were in a chat room. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Climate of US cities

I hadn't known about the NCDC's CLIM20 previously. Thanks for showing me, it is indeed the superior source.

I do find the abrupt jump between 140 and 280 ridiculous; the difference in conditions and vegetation between near identical locations that were to differ only by an average of 1% of precipitation falling in the given period would be nil. I simply have not found a source outlining criteria that would make the classifications more closely follow actual climactic conditions and vegetation. 1brettsnyder (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you happen to have broad knowledge on downslope winds such as the katabatic wind? If you do, I hope you can take a look at my post on the talk page there. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

About copyright issue of Ningbo climate.jpg

NMC website claims that news, information and materials from this site cannot be used without permission (本站所刊登的新闻、信息和各种专栏材料未经授权，禁止下载使用) under every page on its website. Hence whether this image violates the copyright is apparent and there is no need referring to another user to justify this deed even if he or she is more experienced. Unless you give concrete reason that your image have another free source (it seems impossible because the website is printed in the image), the copyright violation still holds. -- Siyuwj (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

All right... I can read Chinese reasonably well, and every time I look up an image I search for 版权所有. I was just testing to see if you had another reason.

And if you could help out by reading that graph with precision to the level that is presented at Jingdezhen, among other articles, that would be great. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I found an English link from NMC just now that provides precise readings of temperature and precipitation data (http://eng.weather.gov.cn/forecast_city.php). I hope it could be helpful.--Siyuwj (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah...I was wondering how some editors could have such good judgment and eyes. Thanks much! For my own browsing purposes, I would prefer the Chinese version _with the same precise averages_ because the layout of the English is poor, and fails when I try to select the city... Do you have it? I have tried finding it on Chinese version, but without any success... it seems that all they give is a graph --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that. I didn't notice that climate data of many cities are missing and the website return the data of Beijing by default. I think you may turn to weather.news.sina.com.cn and click on "climate in history" (历史气候) tab for these data, though they are less reliable.Siyuwj (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. Just give me the Chinese directly in the future...I can read it with or without the English translation. A big issue with that site is for the Northern cities; Beijing has gone >90 days without significant precipitation. Another issue is I have to input all of that data into a spreadsheet. Not as if it were your problem anyway. Sigh, oh well... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Greater Mongolia

Dear HXL! Your edits regarding Greater Mongolia were (or in the case of da4 appear to be) correct, thanks for pointing out the guideline to me. But to repeat a comment made elsewhere: please respond to such matters not on personal talk pages, but on the talk page of the article in question. It does have a personal taint not to do so! Best regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wife selling

Hi, I left a message on your post on the talk page of Wikiproject China about wife selling - just posting here in case you are not monitoring that page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I am leaving this simply as friendly advice. If someone deletes your comments from their talk page (as was done at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo‎), please do not readd them. Behavior like this can very easily be construed as WP:HARASSMENT, even if that is not your intent. If you are concerned about an editor defaming you or harassing you, take that to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. This is not a lecture nor a demand ... just some advice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't hold a grudge at you for now simply for reverting, but it is of utmost cowardice for someone to attack someone and not allow the victim to defend himself. Heaven forbid you serve as Kintetsu's agent. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China

You're close to 3RR. Step back for a moment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would still be edit warring... but thanks for stepping in for me; that "country" is formally used in a geographic sense and not political didn't occur to me. Using that reasoning may have stopped the IP sooner. And If you look at this IP's contributions, you should see that (s)he is a clear POV pusher. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is generally known that China means PRC but not ROC. I do not see any non-neutral point of view.Frozenriver (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is generally known that the ROC continues its claim that it is the only legitimate government of all of China. placing China in parentheses next to PRC is both unnecessary and slightly implies that it is THE China. Usage of the "not to be confused" template is meant to be simple, so this issue is not open to compromise. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ROC ONLY claims sovereignty of all of China(Mongolia included) in its constitution. Everyone having common sense would agree with that the territory claim in the constitution is inappropriate and ridiculous. In fact, ROC never claims sovereignty of China in international events(even in domestic events) at least in the past decade. Furthermore, "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan,..." and "The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly known as China,..." are the contents cited from Wikipedia. Do you think these are POV, too? Thus, I insist that there is no POV problem. But I will accept that if you classify it as a format problem.Frozenriver (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)