User talk:Jiang

POST A COMMENT

Archived versions:
18VIII03 | 21X03 | 30XII03 | 21II04 | 17IV04 | 07VI04 | 28VII04 | 2X04 | 5XII04 | 18II05 | 14IV05 | 3IX05 | 12XII05 | 22III06 | 21VI06 | 13X06 | 14II07 | 02VI07 | 11IV08 | 11IV10

---

Dalai llama owned slaves

I totally agree, the Dalai llama is just a pseudo-westernized old monarch who doesn't want to see the future of asian politics

Tainan

Hi, I just posted my version of Tainan history in the old Tainan city discussion page. I decided not to rearrange current one just thinkin it could be structured to contain more information. Would you like to have a look? Feyhsiang (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User talkpage guidelines

Per this edit; according to the user talkpage guidelines, if somebody blanks a page full of warnings, it means that they've read it. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lu Haodong.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lu Haodong.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LiuShaoqi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LiuShaoqi.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sea lion.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Sea lion.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:J. C. Watts.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J. C. Watts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hello! How can i learn to speak your languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.21.181 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chinese military history

A tag has been placed on Chinese military history, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Signpost Interview

Hello Jiang! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Mabeenot recommended that I contact you, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you'd like to join in, I've posted interview questions here. Thank you!  ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

File source problem with File:USMC flag.png

Thank you for uploading File:USMC flag.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You blocked the founder falsely!

3 years late but I'm just curious. Why did you do this?

14:39, 7 May 2007 Jiang (talk | contribs) blocked Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (imposter) Puffin ^{Lets talk!} 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx

Because you participated in a previous discussion on the subject, I'm letting you know that a discussion has started about opneing a Request for Comments concerning "Bronx" versus "The Bronx" as the article title. You can find it here Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of List of sovereign states

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to List of sovereign states was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

i have a coin

Hello, I have a n t $50 coin 2004 that i am wondering if it has any value? my e-mail is dstn2bl8@yahoo.com

thank you

Paula ammons little rock arkansas --75.222.36.14 (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problem your recent edit helped to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Li-dazhao.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Li-dazhao.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Tibet market.gif missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Tibet market.gif is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RFM reminder

Just a reminder that I filed a WP:RFM for our dispute at List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Mediation can't go forward until every involved editor has agreed to the process. At this point, we are just waiting for your consent. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with starting mediation here. Thanks. TDL (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Shakers.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Shakers.jpg is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Free area of the Republic of China

Hello, I noticed that you've reverted the move from "Free Area of the Republic of China" to "Free area of the Republic of China". Although the term indeed looks like a proper name, it's actually always written lowercase in all the official ROC documents. See [1], [2], [3] for instance. Any chance you could reconsider moving back the page to the lowercase title? Laurent (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Presidents of the Republic of China

Howdy Jiang. Since that's the convention, no probs. Thanks for notifying me. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The numbering of the Japanese Prime ministers are in tad mess, btw. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tibet market.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Tibet market.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Jiang! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:0408 USA Olympic fencing.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:0408 USA Olympic fencing.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tense

Please see Wikipedia:Mosbio#Tense for an explanation of why we should write Mubarak is a former president, rather than using was in the lead.  Frank  |  talk  21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

list of sovereign states

Jiang - as mediator, I'd like to make a request. This is a very subtle point, mind you, but it would be better if you didn't phrase things is strong declaratives like "It is not an option for us to...". While I don't disagree with the sentiment behind what you're saying, absolutist declaratives like that tend to get under people's skin, which makes discussion difficult. it's better if you phrase things more gently (e.g. "I don't think we ought to...") because people will feel less like they're being ordered around, and be more likely to see the sense in what you're saying. thanks! --Ludwigs2 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of École normale supérieure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article École normale supérieure 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/École normale supérieure 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RFD Review

Could you take a look, but not comment on, this RFD discussion, and then close it? Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Wang Hastert.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wang Hastert.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Shakers.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Shakers.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Jiang}} will produce an appropriate expansion,

or the {{own}} template..

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

As a member of WikiProject Countries, I'm seeking your opinion on a possible issue identified at List of sovereign states. If you have some spare moments, please contribute a comment at the Discussion of criteria. Best regards, Nightw 05:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM

Hi, I have reactivated this after some discussion on collaborative editing on wikipedia. My idea is to give it a few months and see if it works out. If not, so be it, but might generate more discussion. I note you were interested many moons ago..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

China move

If you are concerned about changes to other articles request an arbitration motion to prevent anyone changing other articles until we can figure out a process for doing so. If you want I will go and do so myself if I'm around or ask User talk:GTBacchus - I'm sure he'll be able to help. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of T'ai Chi Ch'uan

A tag has been placed on T'ai Chi Ch'uan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Would like the page deleted to allow for page move Tai chi chuan to T'ai chi ch'uan per consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tai_chi_chuan#Page_Move_to_.22T.27ai_chi_ch.27uan.22

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wikipelli ^Talk 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California)

Hello, Jiang, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) whether the article Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Template:Z82 Edison (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ROC talk followup

Hello, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to ask for a clarification for your comments on the ROC discussions here, where I hope they won't be swamped by others. I'm hoping to understand your viewpoint better from this, as I think we have a basic agreement but are confused about each others details.

1) Why do you want to create an island article if we already have an article which (nominally at least) is already focused on the island? If it is just overlap, would sorting out that problem beforehand (ie the problem of overlap between the current Taiwan and ROC articles) fix the issue, as I assume the overlap problem is exactly the same now?

2) What sort of information do you think that in the end should be on a state apparatus (or however you would describe it) focused Republic of China article? My idea is that it should be focused on basic history (ie what's in the current ROC article), politics, the changing international status of the ROC, and anything else government orientated which carried over (eg military and the constitution).

3) Would you agree to a similar agreement as the PRC article had, that all naming conventions, subpages, etc., will not be automatically affected by any moves made in relation to the major page moves, but be subject to further discussion?

Also, I suggest you make a move request on Republic of China (1912-1949) based on your suggestion. No opposition has been made, and discussion has stalled. A move request would fix that, and I think there's a very good chance it would pass and be something that would be seen as an improvement by all parties. If you're unsure whether it should be called Nationalist Government or something else, then just Republic of China (1928-1949) would make a simple stopgap change in the meantime that is still an improvement. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I think the only relevant portion of the Taiwan article that should be in the Taiwan (island) article would be Taiwan#Geography. The rest should remain in Taiwan as part of the Countries template. Taiwan (island) should focus exclusively on the geography; otherwise, I don't see a reason for it to exist. People will not naturally go to Taiwan (island) to seek this information - they will go to Taiwan and be directed to the Taiwan (island) as something more detailed on the island as a geographical entity.
2. Agreed. There might be overlap with the Taiwan article, but given that people would go to either article in search of this information, I think a little overlap is okay.
3. Agreed.

--Jiang (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some overlap is not only necessary but good. Otherwise no articles would make sense. Taking into account 1 and 2, surely then the problem lies not with the move ideas but with the current Taiwan article. The current Republic of China article is set up to use the country template. It's pre-made. The current Taiwan article is not (and I have no idea what it's set up for). Do you feel the current Taiwan article should exist? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For quite a while, the Republic of China article was bifurcated, with each major section having two subsections, one for the mainland era, and another for the Taiwan era. Though too unwieldy, there was some logic behind that setup. Now the article seems to be entirely on Taiwan, so I don't see how given the current content there needs to be two articles. But I think the Republic of China and Taiwan are distinguishable concepts and we do need to alter their content so that we have two articles, especially when people don't always mean Taiwan when they refer to the Republic of China. This was why I found the most recent move request to be problematic. I think the current setup mirrors the Kosovo and Republic of Kosovo articles (the infobox at Taiwan even looks similar), but then, given the geographical overlap, I don't believe those two Kosovo articles should be separate.--Jiang (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That Kosovo split was a terrible idea, creating an article on a geographical area which is based on political borders, and making two full country articles, which would all be completely redundant to each other. The current ROC setup isn't the same, a similar setup would be to create a Province of Taiwan article which looks like any other PRC province article, which I'm sure we both agree would be a terribly POV page. As Taiwan is an island, there's some justification for an island page.

I'd say that what we have now, a modern article and a 1912(or28)-1949 article, is better than a single article trying to cover both.

To be clear, you suggest 1 shifting geographical information on Taiwan to a new page, merging a large amount of information from the current ROC page to Taiwan, and then editing the ROC page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially what I suggest. But the ROC page should give a topical overview of the 1912-1928/1928-1949 periods as sections or subsections (perhaps as a history of the polity), while the there will be two historical countries articles (Beiyang + KMT) and one existing country article (Taiwan).--Jiang (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your final ROC plan, but it just seems like your method will result in far more work than the one I suggested. I still don't really understand why you'd prefer not to just move the pages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it would involve more work. We are allowed to transport text from one article to another as long as we attribute it in the edit summary. It's not a copy and paste move in that only parts of articles will be shifted or duplicated, and if we look into the edit history, the Republic of China article did not focus exclusively on Taiwan until a year or two ago. I just think that not moving the articles will achieve better consensus: even if the end result is similar, there is quite a bit of symbolic and ideological meaning to proposing that Republic of China be moved to Taiwan. The opposition to any such changes is ideological, not practical based on reader friendliness, and whatever we do must take this into account to get everyone on board.--Jiang (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be more work because there's far more information on the ROC article that shouldn't be on a government article than there is information on the Taiwan article that shouldn't be on a geographical article. The end result won't be similar, it will be identical. If someone's opposition is based on whether or not a page move will be made, even though the same thing will happen in the end, that's an opinion that can be ignored by admins. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can take a glimpse at the final result by what Shrigley has done. He's created a new island article and partially shifted some information from the ROC article to the Taiwan article. As it's done halfway, there's currently no reason or rhyme to what's where. To finish your idea, we'd have to shift everything across. That leads to complications such as which lead to use? Which politics section to use? These are the kind of decisions (and eventual work) that would be circumvented by a couple of simple page moves. We'd be rewriting most of the new ROC article anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand how there will be more work involved when we use the "copy" and "paste" functions to reorganize the articles. The difference is between merging Republic of China into Taiwan, or moving the articles and then merging Taiwan (island) back into Taiwan. Whatever the method, it will involve merging the current Republic of China and Taiwan articles into a single article using the Countries template. The only disagreement we should be having is over edit history attribution.

Quigley's creation of the Taiwan (island) article is harmless as few articles will link there and temporary redundancy shouldn't cause confusion. The half-way conversion of the Taiwan article is however problematic, and has been reverted. It would not cause confusion if he went all out with the Taiwan article, but going part way does make that article look like crap.

It's not question of which politics section to use or which lead to use: the end result is neither, so that's not the answer a couple page moves can make.--Jiang (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The writing on the Taiwan article has been written with a focus on the island in mind, rather than the whole country. However, Quigley does seem to have forced my hand here, so if you're willing to begin your proposal with an explanation of what information will be moved and how the information will be merged together, I think you'll obtain consensus. I'm thinking of just moving the 1912-1949 article without a move request, I doubt there'll be much opposition. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Nationalist Government, which seems duplicated from other pages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing to consider is that with a move GA status could probably be kept. If we're redefining the subject of an article, I doubt it would be appropriate to keep that status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello from Anna

Hi Jiang. I'm Anna. I understand you've had this image up for a long time. Well, it sure does make a statement. I think it chases users away, and that's bad for the project. It's also against policy, definitely disruptive, and frankly, for an administrator to have it there is pretty surprising.

Your insistence on keeping there makes a statement too. It says that you're passionate about the whole thing, and using your userspace to deliver a message to the public.

We bust our humps around here trying to add keystrokes to the mainspace. Petty crimes like vandalism, copyvios, or socking can take lots of our time. This whole fiasco has drawn millions and millions of keystrokes off the mainspace. It's sort of like an Enron.

Well, for an admin, it doesn't seem that responsible. If it's not there to make a statement, then why not just remove it? Then NWA.Rep can remove his, and we can all get back to work. What do you say? Would that be okay? (Actually, I removed it when I saw it. I'll tell you what, I'll put it back, and let you remove it yourself. Then we'll be done with this whole thing.) Thanks for your understanding. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

First, there is a difference between posting a picture of a middle-aged Chinese man (who is a well known personality in the San Francisco area) with fanciful Chinese nationalist placards based on fringe theories and posting the actual words of these placards. The former is not an endorsement of the message, but is meant to be a joke for those who could presumably read and understand the image (note its caption). NWA.Rep has done the latter. When a newspaper posts a picture of protesters, has it endorsed the views of the protesters themselves? A newspaper, on the other hand, would be nuts to make its own protest signs and have them displayed in their articles....

In the six years this image has been up there, only a single user, User:NWA.Rep, has ever taken issue with it. This user has seemingly made it a personal crusade to pressure me into removing images from my user page by posting inflammatory material on his own. If you look at his contributions, you may notice that of 4000 or so edits, only 500 or so are legitimate edits to the article space, while the remaining consist of edit-warring and trolling on policy pages, many in the form of personal attacks against me. Therefore, I disagree with the notion that the image chases users away and is disruptive. If it did, I would have expected to receive angry messages on my talk page every so often - I have not. It wouldn't be disruptive if we all simply ignored NWA.Rep. The relevant rules here are WP:HARASS, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:POINT.

Third, the "China=shame" label on NWA.Rep's page is in response to the File:Happy Happy Happy2.jpg, which used to be on this talk page but has since long been removed by me.

This all said, whether the image stays on my user page makes no big deal to me. The political message, if anyone understood it, would be very outdated anyway as the picture was taken in 2004. I can certainly remove it to give NWA.Rep less to chew on, but no guarantees that it won't reappear. Furthermore, the delete discussion is not only taking issue with the "China=Shame" label but the fake biography; removing this won't cause the page not to be deleted. Please let me know what your thoughts are in light of this response. --Jiang (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I am pleasantly surprised. I was sort of expecting a curt response. Sorry that I came on a bit strong. I think the great thing here is that you say whether or not the image stays is no big deal. The main thing for all of us is that our beloved project gets as many mainspace keystrokes as possible. This 6 year ordeal has surely meant the project has suffered. NWA.Rep has said that he'll remove his if you remove yours. So, what do you think? Maybe it's time. Would that be okay? Then this whole thing can melt away. Best wishes, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I humbly disagree with your characterization that this project has suffered as a result of my user page. If you look at NWA.Rep's contributions starting from the month he signed up (and I encourage you to spend a few moments to that so you can digest his comments in context) you will notice a consistent history of disruptive editing. To put things bluntly (and I'm sorry if he happens to read this), if he doesn't leave on his own accord, another arbitration case will sooner or later be brought against him, leading to a wastage of time far greater than what is currently suffered by the current deletion request. Either that, or someone will have to coach him to be a little less provocative.

If I remove my image, he will remove his "China=shame" label, but that still leaves the fake biography on his page. Your response to the deletion discussion was the first directly pointed at the "China=shame" label, while the others focused on the fake biography. Removing that label alone will not solve the problem at hand. He will still think this project is out to get him because others think much more content has to go. I'm afraid I can think of no way out of this issue, except not to get involved in the first place.--Jiang (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!!! :) I guess I could put it best by saying that the image lead to disruption. The image wasn't a huge deal. It was a huge deal to him. Right or wrong, if that lead to disruption, then doing what you did seems right. Heck, if I had a picture of a kangaroo on my page, and some editor hated kangaroos and made a big deal out of it, I'd remove the kangaroo.

But, your removing the image will have a far better result. Now that it's gone, and with him saying that it was the thing bugging him, if any disruption continues on his part, then he will be the common denominator, and won't have a leg to stand on. But, I must trust his word. He said that the image was the thing bugging him. Now it's gone, and so now it's his turn. We can all probably live with the bio, and the fake "messages" bar. But now, we must all fully expect him to remove anything on his page that could anger another group. If he wants to keep bits and pieces and split hairs over what's offensive and what's not, then that won't make him look very good. My wish is that he blanks out his page and replaces it with a couple of sea otters holding hands or something like that. That would show a nice fresh start with the community, and buy him a world of good things. Your gesture was 100%, and it came first. Now, the onus is on him to reciprocate 100%. Then we can all get on with building the encyclopedia.

My greatest respect and thanks to you for taking the first step. You're aces in my book.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Li-dazhao.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Li-dazhao.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Undo the previous move

A move request has been submited here. [4] 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you suggest to do then? 61.18.170.202 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

read: User talk:219.76.80.86.--Jiang (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate on both of the two options, and please let me know which is better in your opinion. 61.18.170.204 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PRC/ROC/China

Now I need your opinion about my proposal before I go forward with it. I been looking at Wikipedia in different languages to see how they have dealt with the issue that we are currently having. Several of the major languages(Russian, French, Polish, Dutch, German, Japanese, Simplified Chinese and etc) have created a China page separate from the People's Republic of China and Republic of China. Shown here http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B. Now since your username is Chinese I hope you can read Simplified Chinese. Do you think we should do something similar?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for National without household registration

Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 Hello. You have a new message at Eraserhead1's talk page.

Kinmen Daily News: Pinyin versus the Danzig/Gdańsk rule

[5] It wasn't about something before the Wade–Giles and Postal Map romanisation systems were introduced that we gotta rely solely on Pinyin. Are we obliged to follow an exception for Chinese-related topographical proper names and to use only Pinyin? Is there any particular reason why the Danzig/Gdańsk or Königsberg/Kaliningrad rule shouldn't apply? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[6] You are confusing the popularity of romanization systems with actual name changes. The underlying Chinese name has not changed. We would link to Chang'an instead of Xi'an for the Tang dynasty, but we use pinyin to romanize all historical Chinese place names, except those (like Taipei) that exist popularly in non-pinyin form in the present day.--Jiang (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, neither were Calcutta/Kolkata, Bangalore/Bengaluru, Pusan/Busan, Inchon/Incheon and Agana/Hagåtña name changes. Am I right? 218.250.159.42 (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Are we dealing with a transliteration or an English name? It's only a name change if the actual name in whatever language it is supposed to be in, not the mere transliteration of the native language, changes. Note the difference: "Nanjing (formerly Nanking)" is incorrect as it implies a name change where there was none; but "Nanjing (formerly known in English as Nanking)" would be better since it only implies that the English rendering of the same Chinese name has changed. --Jiang (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. But I don't think it's necessary to figure out whether it's an actual name change or only a change in transliteration/romanisation. Why don't we just say 'Nanking (now known in English as Nanjing)'? We use terms like the Nanking Massacre, the Battle of Inchon, Pusan Perimeter, anyway, to refer to historical events. It clearly demonstrates that the rule is to use the names of the time of the events rather than the present names. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Events are stand alone proper names that can be distinguished from locations. We have to follow common name usage. The practice of English language historians since the 1990s has been to use pinyin for everything except names like Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek that have overwhelming non-pinyin usage. Some of their pinyinizations like "Guomindang (GMD)" aren't followed in other fields such as print journalism, but on most topics the conventions of historians prevails as common usage.

While adding "now known in English as Nanjing" is not wrong of misleading, it is unnecessary. In context we are solely interested in the location, not how the name of the location has been romanized over time. Perhaps an exception is if we use the former name in the other article title, like Nanking Massacre instead of Nanjing Massacre. How a place name like Nanjing has been romanized over time is usually only within the scope of the specific article such as Nanjing.--Jiang (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

Some may appear to be apparent, such as Nanking, Hankow, Chengtu, but many are remarkably different, such as Peking, Amoy, Soochow. It isn't easy for readers and editors to associate the old names with the new names and to identify which were actually name changes and which were not. It's easier for both readers and editors to follow if the names at the time of the events are used. It sounds a lot more natural, for instance, to say 'Immanuel Kant was born and spent his lifetime in Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia)', instead of '.. Kaliningrad, Russia (then known as Königsberg)', or 'The Convention . 218.250.159.42 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing changes to the prevailing language used by the locality with changes to the method of transliterating non-Roman script into Roman script. Königsberg's name was changed to Kaliningrad. Chengtu's name was not changed to Chengdu; instead the popular method of romanization used by English-language writers was changed. Unless the "old name" forms part of a proper name, it needs not be mentioned in the article at all. We would only consistently use the pinyin name throughout. We don't use 17th Century English to discuss 17th Century topics; we use modern grammar and spelling conventions. --Jiang (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My position is that it's inherently confusing, and therefore it's unrealistic to require readers and editors to associate the old and new transliterations by themselves. It isn't even possible to require them to identify which are new names and which are only new transliterations.And to readers and editors who have little understanding of the Chinese language and its transliteration systems, examples like Peking, Soochow and Amoy are nothing different from a name changes. Statements like 'the Convention of Peking was signed in Beijing' is leading readers to ask why it was named Peking instead of Beijing. Modern English isn't actually immediately the same language as Old English and I think it isn't quite applicable for comparison. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite my point. There is no reason to mention the old transliterations in the Kinmen Daily News article. Only the place name is relevant; that the place was transliterated differently in the past is irrelevant. As I said, if the old romanization is used somewhere in the article title as part of a proper name, then both the old romanization and the pinyin romanization should be rendered. Otherwise, the old romanization need not appear at all. There's no confusion if it's not mentioned at all.

English is a constantly evolving language. An article from the New York Times in 1942 will be written in a slightly different style of English than an article is written today. It would be pointless (and very difficult) to replicate 1940s English in an article on WWII. --Jiang (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese American cuisine

Regarding the recent move I made, please see the talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiPRoject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Happy Happy Happy.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Happy Happy Happy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

China linguistic map source

Since you are listed as the original uploader of File:China linguistic map.jpg, I was wondering if you had the original source of that image. I'm currently in a dispute about a derivative of that map at Talk:Uyghur language#Map "Geographical extent" so I would like to know the criteria that the author used to color areas in a certain way. Shrigley (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The earliest archive I could find of that page is from 2007, and even then each map is hidden behind a paywall. Oh well, thanks anyway. Shrigley (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1990 version is on there as "Chinese Linguistic Groups 1990 (165K)", and it had a map ID which I used to find it at the Library of Congress. The LOC image is higher resolution, so I updated Commons with it. Still, I'm not able to find the methodology. In your experience, don't we take reliable sources like these at face value most of the time? Shrigley (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jiang,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of "or" in Jeremy Lin

Hi, I reverted your change to use "and" back to "or". There is a FAQ at Talk:Jeremy_Lin/FAQ#Q4. This is based off of previous discussion at Talk:Jeremy_Lin/Archive_1#ethnicity_edit_war. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi Jiang,

Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)