User talk:Rigley

Archives

I feel a great disturbance in the force... :)

Hi again! I know you must be going crazy with all this. I'll do everything I can not to let this turn into an edit war, but that might require some patience. If I may venture some humble advice, just ignore some of the comments you read, and just focus on what you do best, which is to add content to the great page you've just created. Otherwise we all fail and Wikipedia fails with us. I'll try to see what I can do with Goguryeo in 2013, but one project at a time! Happy holidays wherever you are! Madalibi (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a random idea: if you're in the middle of editing and you don't want edit conflicts, you can tag a page with the {{in use}} template. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrigley. I notice that you didn't edit KNH today. If this means you're done, just let me know and I'll try to consolidate it. Otherwise, just disregard this message. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Crimea

If you care, please reply to my response to your comment at Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea#Requested move. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Denialist

You say: Denialist is a fairly well-established term, firmly in line with the consensus among genocide scholars that it did exist, whereas this attempt at a descriptive title is confusing and leads credence to fringe views.

Genocide scholars? You mean Armenian historians, Taner Akcam? I wonder why one side considered better than the other - why would we listen Armenian historians and completely discard what Turkish historians have to say? Seems very biased! After all there are many historians who are not Turkish and write very objective books. But because the Armenian lobby and nationalists don't like this, they are called denialists. This is where Wikipedia becomes a very handy tool for spreading propaganda. And it does.

They don't deny the Armenian Genocide because they ignore evidence, they deny it because of the lack of evidence for it. As any scientist would reject a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/what-do-real-historians-and-experts-say

Thats right, denying means they are ignorant and don't want to see evidence what was presented to them. In reality, those historians give arguments why they think events were not genocide. They don't DENY, they DİSAGREE. Both of these words are not the SAME!

Kind Regards --Ankara Kedisi 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Ankarakedileri--Ankara Kedisi 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankarakediler (talk • contribs)

Vietnam's "50 Cent Party"

Yes it'll be a great to have a new article on Vietnam's version of this. Problem is, its hard to find resources on Vietnam's "50 Cent Party" because very few journalists know and report about this group, and when i checked in December, i found no articles on this on VN, only on China (in fact i confirmed it's existence about these hired regime commentators came from NTDTV on China's group), but this BBC article should be one of our first sources to start with. Despite the scarcity of news material (English & Vietnamese) on this, this group i know for sure exists, i've seen them on social networking groups and forums myself, and they're quite vicious and low-minded in my opinion...As far as i know, there isn't a term that the Vietnamese have coined for this group, i just called them "Viet Cong tren Web" (Vietcong on the Web), but that won't be appropriate here Nguyen1310(talk) 17:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I just searched up the Vietnamese-language version of the article [1] you showed me earlier, and the name the regime called people in this group is "dư luận viên" (opinion shapers), and name of the group is "chuyên gia bút chiến" (professional oral fighters, meaning professional/hired writters/bloggers who use their writing to "fight", in this case, their propaganda writing attacks dissident voices). There's a Vietnamese wiki article on this group [2], and another (Vietnamese) article backs this up [3] From personal experience, many of these commentators, in VN, came from Ha Noi, Hai Phong, Thai Nguyen, Vinh, Thanh Hoa, Hue and Sai Gon, when they list the city they came from, most from the North, but still a sizable amount from the Central and Southern regions. Nguyen1310 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Vietnamese-language article is at vi:Chuyên gia bút chiến ("professional polemicist"). This phrase originated recently from the Chief of Propaganda in Hanoi who admitted that they hired at least 900 "professional polemicists" for this purpose. There's a discussion in the talk page of that article about making it more generic to represent a worldwide phenomenon instead of focusing only on Vietnam. DHN (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Cleanest Race

Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Minority education in China and a history of internal migration

I noticed you edit controversial topics relating to minorities of several countries.

There is conspicuous absence of an article on minorities education in China and internal migration. Basically every year, the media (mostly al jazeera) prints a libel against China over allegedly forcing Uyghur students in Xinjiang to eat during ramadan, based on notices the government gives to certain schools. They fail to mention that the Chinese government runs two separate parallel school systems in Xinjiang, one with uyghur language schools and the other with mandarin chinese schools. Uyghurs are given the choice to place their child in either system with no pressure put on them. At the uyghur schools, they can observe islamic practices inclduing fasting during ramadan. Uyghurs who attend chinese schools on their own choice give up the right to religious practices if they want to attend. However, the media keeps on pringint the libel that china forces all uyghur children to eat during ramadan.

I gathered sources here Talk:Education_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Minority_education_for_the_uyghur.

There id also a lack of an article on internal migration in China. As you know, Xinjiang is divided into several regions and were only brought together when China made the whole region into one province in 1884. There were no uyghurs (turkis) in Dzungharia (northern Xinjiang), until they were moved there by the Qing imperial government after the Qing defeat of the Dzunghar mongols in 1759. The uyghur people (turkis) previously only lived in the tarim basin oases states and were under Dzunghar rule. Neither did the Qing conquer a previously independent uyghur state nor did dzungharia belong to the uyghurs.

The Qing government moved both uyghurs (taranchis), Han chinese, Hui chinese, salars, xibe and manchus into Dzungharia after the defeat of the dzunghars. I have sources for these, there were several well planned and documented migrations launched by the government. It was from these Taranchi settlers the modern uyghurs descended from, in addition to later Uyghur settlers. The Qing did not settle han chinese or manchus in the tarim oases, the homeland of the uyghurs (turkis).

There are sources for the Qing migration policies at Talk:Taranchi

Rebiya Kadeer's grandfather and his family moved themselves from Khotan (in the tarim oases), to Gulja (in Dzungharia) after participating in rebellion against the Qing government, per her own autobiography. (And her family background is not mentioned in her wikipedia article)

http://books.google.com/books?id=eUfsjYQU-lwC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

In modern times, the People's Republic of China's migration policy mirrored that of the Qing. It does not settle han chinese in uyghur land in the Tarim oases. Instead, it directs almost all han chinese migrants to Dzungharia where the majority of han chinese in Xinjiang reside, and has kept most traditional uyghur land with a uyghur majority.

One western historian has noticed that many western tourists mistakenly think that china destroye uyghur culture in urumqi, while the city itself was never uyghur and was originally a han and hui (tungan) chinese city.

The mosques in urumchi were hui (tungan) and not uyghur

I want to create the two articles on the topics I just mentioned and I need help.

Rajmaan (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hello, could you please do copy editing on Armenian American? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just

wanted to say that I immediately thought of this section of your userpage when I read this article in the Asia Times. It may interest you. Shrigley (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

wanted to say thank you for pointing out that article to me. I wonder if the author read my opinions before writing up his. Since truth is universal, someone will come up with the same idea sooner or later. I looked up the edit history on my user page, I found that I initially wrote about that topic in 2004. OMG! 9 years later, finally the same idea is in print. Perhaps you should let the author know about my user page too. :-) Actually, there are several threads of discussion on that topic on my user talk page. He probably would be more interested in the other's feedback because he already agreed with me. Other views would be more relevant to him. See User_talk:Kowloonese#Re:_use_of_Chinese_and_Japanese_words_in_the_English_language_and_Wikipedia also near the bottom of User_talk:Kowloonese#Fu_Dog.2FImperial_Guardian_Lions_merger Kowloonese (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

the painting on your user page

The square seal stamped on the painting says
韓漢
越和
which literally is equivalent to CJKV that lists the 4 languages Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. Ancient Chinese text is read vertically from the upper right corner of the page towards the left. So these characters are read in CJKV order (i.e. 漢和韓越). Do you happen to own the book CJKV Information Processing by Ken Lunde? See http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596514471.do

Kowloonese (talk)

Tibetan Civil War

Check this currently stub in progress - User:Rajmaan/Tibetan Civil War.

I will need more sources to expand on it, I only have two so far. A small scale war erupted in 1947 between secularpro ROC Tibetans and monastic pro British pro independence Tibetans.

I acquired alot of sources, I need help writing the article.Rajmaan (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, William Tam, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "William Tam" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I wanted to edit the causes of the article[[great Chinese famine]I think that the missing causes are cultural collectivization,counter revolutionist, and Social pressure. I was wondering if you can help me start editing the article. best, --Sahra.Hassan (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mongolian Court Music

I understand you moved Mongolian Court Music to Music of Inner Mongolia.

While it is true that it is being revived in Inner Mongolia, there is no need deleting the content from Music of Mongolia. Mongolia and Inner Mongolia are culturally the same region. Soviet satellite status has nothing to do with music. In the 17th century the Khans had power over both Mongolia. But most importantly:

Music of Mongolia gets 120 views a day.

Music of Inner Mongolia gets only 4 to 5 views a day.

So I request you leave at least a link in the main Music of Mongolia article, so people might actually become more aware of this rare artform.

Thank you. Sincerely.

I would say include another copy of the text in the Music of Mongolia article. Only emphasize there that it is being revived in Inner Mongolia. Then readers will have a clear idea that it is currently an Inner Mongolian phenomenon. It is still important that no one loses sight of the fact that Mongolian music traditions are a unified tradition in the broad sense and too much distinctions risk being artificial, as Purevdorj said. The Outer-Inner Mongolian distinction is only a late Manchu invention, one could say an artificial political demarcation. So there's no need to bring politics into music. What I meant by "link" was "include a paragraph in the main section titled Court Music with a link to Inner Mongolian Music". That way you will actually alert people to the existence of the artform. And maybe even get more views for Inner Mongolia. That one Music of Inner Mongolia link at the very bottom of the page is obviously being ignored by everybody, especially considering it is hidden away among other links. It is obviously not doing a good job garnering views. So please, emphasize what you want to emphasize on the Music of Mongolia page, but leave the Court Music heading there, while enriching the Music of Inner Mongolia article separately. Knowledge leads to knowledge. By obscuring this artform, you might just be preventing many future scholars from knowing of its existence, future scholars who may do very valuable research of their own. Yastanovog (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vajara

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

About those Soviet lies

Answered at my talk. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on your "tendentious editors in the EEML field and related Russophobic, anti-Communist, nationalistic project" I don't expect we'll be having any constructive conversations. Sorry to see you jump to small-minded premature conclusions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon consideration, how about, instead, you point out an edit of mine which you believe reeks of Russophobia, baseless anti-Sovietism (politically I'm not against Communism), or nationalistic falsehoods--that is, unsupported by scholars whose surname does not match nationality in question.

You made the accusation, now support it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

lol, you are not asking me to substantiate any accusation that I made against you by name. You are actually inviting me to comment about some controversies around which your editing singularly revolves, but in which I have no significant degree of involvement.

Do you think the number of times that you dragged people to AE based on inflammatory conversations which they did not start is not archived, public knowledge? The bait is not tasty enough, so I must politely decline this offer. Shrigley (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I never dragged anyone to AE except one time over a truly egregious incident upon which I cannot comment further. If you've had no involvement, what qualifies you to then comment in the manner you did about editors? What happened to discuss the edit, not the editor? Since your comment does actually directly relate to me, I'm simply inviting you to propose an edit of mine which you believe fits your accusation so we can get to the bottom of tendentious etc., or not, in the crucible of a particular editorial contention of mine. You can choose to not take up my invitation, but then you're just another editor hurling accusations just to denounce editors with whom you don't editorially see eye to eye, and if so, then also have the honesty to admit it at least in private to yourself. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Xiaodao Lun

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. I have added you at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes There is a section for you to place your initial statement.

Guide for participants What the dispute resolution noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What the dispute resolution noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC) IPA-cmn "Please go to Google Translate, type in 伦敦 (Lúndūn), and see how the computer pronounces it." Wow. I didn't realize 伦敦 was six syllables! I wonder why it's only written with two characters? But I suppose you're right: Google Translate is more reliable as a reference than dedicated sources on Mandarin phonology. This may be a change we want to make, but as with anything far-reaching that affects a large number of articles, it's best to discuss it first. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC) >more reliable as a reference than dedicated sources on Mandarin phonology. There weren't any "dedicated sources" presented either way, but it's not controversial. AjaxSmack's and my correction would be immediately recognizable as correct by native speakers and other people who learned the standard pronunciation. Your sarcasm is totally unwarranted here. Shrigley (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Hello, from a DR/N volunteer This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Zunghar I notice that back in 2011 you put the various names of the Zunghar_Khanate in an info box, which is a good thing. At the time, however, you made two decisions which seem curious: 1. Chinese comes first in the infobox. 2. Cyrillic (anachronistic) is replaced by traditional Mongolian script. I'm not totally sure of the rationale for this. In favour of Chinese-first are the fact that the Zunghar Khanate is on modern Chinese territory and was eventually conquered by the Chinese, or at least the Manchus. China claims (although not totally uncontroversially) that the Mongols are part of its national heritage and tradition. Against the Chinese-first approach is the fact that Simplified Characters are equally anachronistic as Cyrillic, and that Zungharia is also very much a part of Mongol history, even though the modern state of Mongolia does not control that territory. Given that Chinese was not a language of the Zunghar Khanate, and that Oirat is linguistically and culturally Mongolian (although admittedly not the same as modern standard Mongolian), the decision to relegate Mongolian script to third place seems, as I said, curious. Would it not be more appropriate to place traditional Mongolian script in first place, with Chinese in second or third place? Also, would it not be appropriate to include the Cyrillic script in the infobox, although not necessarily in first place? As I said, Simplified Characters are just as anachronistic as Cyrillic, and including them but not Cyrillic seems slightly POV. (Note: I'm aware that Chinese has always used simplified forms of characters, but as a 'character set' -- to use the modern term -- Simplified Characters are even more recent Cyrillic for Mongolian.) 124.65.50.210 (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Love the shirt Just got the shirt through the Merchandise Giveaway Programme. Thanks for your vote of confidence!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC) WP:COMMON discussion Because of your participation on Talk:Sinosphere#Does WP give the wrong "Sinosphere" definition?, please check out Talk:Adoption of Chinese literary culture#Requested move, which is about the dispute over the concept's WP:COMMON name.--Ross Monroe (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Your inappropriate warning Despite your warning to me, it appears that you are equally involved in reverting another user's edits on the History of the Korean language page. Please take disputes of this nature either to the article's talk page or to the talk page of the user with whom you are disputing. In the future, you should not warn an editor about edit warring when you are a participant. If you cannot resolve the dispute, there are avenues to resolve it without edit warring. If you continue to do so you may be repored to the Administrators' noticeboard . Koryosaram (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:The Cleanest Race book cover.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:The Cleanest Race book cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Organisation de l'armée secrète http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/organisation#Noun_3 Etymology: organise +‎ -ation Noun: organisation (plural organisations) 1.Alternative spelling of organization. Please stop using the colloquial Americanism. The correct spelling in this context is organiSations and similar amendements that reflect the ENGLISH entymology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.188.101.65 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Good work, but maybe a question? Hi Shrigley -- just a quick note to say that I have admired your work, but I think you got it wrong with your latest edit at Qing dynasty#Name. I explained my thoughts on the Talk Page. All the best ch (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) "John Cruel" again If you still remember Isuzu1001, this shit's going on again at Ethnic issues in China. User talk:John Cruel is obviously the same person, but last time my argument of WP:SCRUTINY was largely ignored, and it might happen again. If my SPI doesn't work, would it be a good idea to take this to ANI? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Notice The usage of "Diaoyui" and "Senkaku" have become the subject of a Request for Clarification of the ArbCom, proceeding here. You are welcome to participate in the Request for Clarification. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Notice I believe your edit on China Marine Surveillance was POV and I have raised the issue at WP:AE. Oda Mari (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 请注意 ISO639中的“Kalmyk”不仅包括维基百科中的Kalmyk Oirat，还包括中国和蒙古国的Oirat Mongolian。请参见《Kalmyk-Oirat: Ethnologue》中Also spoken in: China一段。也就是说xal是整个卫拉特方言的代码，而不仅仅是卡尔梅克语。如果要特指克尔梅克语，请使用{{lang-xal-RU}}。--202.108.128.130 (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)