User talk:White whirlwind

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

For all your good work[edit]

Barnstar of National Merit.svg The Barnstar of National Merit
For your excellent work in the translation and improvement of China-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done! Philg88contact 21:19, 23 July 2016 UTC [refresh]

TUSC token e5543d7d6c132f23e1bad9e4b700906b[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Records of the Grand Historian‎[edit]

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

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

135 BC[edit]

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

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

Basic Wikipedia policy and Idema and Haft[edit]

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

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

Nomination of Bill Wiltrout for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Fielding Smith[edit]

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

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


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

Thanks for your Economic inequality edit.[edit]

@White whirlwind: Yes check.svg Done - Thank you for suggesting a supporting reference re the Economic inequality article - hope the noted reference[1] helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:David Nivison.jpg[edit]

Regarding your image David Nivision.jpg, three comments here: (1) if you are in contact with content creators and are seeking their permission to use their work on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for information about the kind of permission we request and WP:CONSENT for a sample statement of permission that we ask the copyright holder to submit. (2) We do not accept images with "Wikipedia-only" permission or which are licensed for "non-commercial use" or anything like that unless we are fully confident that we could have used the image under a claim of fair use, even if we lacked that permission. If you are saying that we cannot use this image without the copyrightholder's permission, then we should not have been using it under our fair use rules to begin with. (3) Since you are the uploader and have requested deletion, request granted. --B (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Xunzi RM[edit]

I relisted your move request at Talk:Xunzi. If there is no further comment, I will withdraw my opposition to your request. Thank you for all of your work on these topics. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Ok, thanks for letting me know.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsien Tsuen-hsuin[edit]

Hi White whirlwind, thanks for your work on Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. I've added you as a contributor to the DYK nomination. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tsien Tsuen-hsuin[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Chinese[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Infobox Chinese has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

IPA in China related articles[edit]

I'm still at a loss to understand why we need IPA at all, since most English readers don't understand it and pinyin provides enough of an indication of what something sounds like. Sure, there are some exceptions, Xi'an for example, but these are few and far between. Maybe we need to have a centralised discussion resulting in the addition of a some words to the Chinese style guide covering IPA inclusion. Best,  Philg88 talk 05:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: It's certainly not widely understood at present, but I think it's still helpful; editors have recently added it to most France-related articles and it is a huge boon to me personally. I agree that we ought to have a centralized discussion on the Chinese MoS page about it.
While we're on the subject, we also probably need to have one regarding the inclusion of characters in leads when the Chinese infobox is also used, as an ancient edit (2007, not long after the China MoS was created) to the China MoS states that characters shouldn't be included in that situation, and there is a user who has very strong feelings about that and is implementing it with great vigor. I think it's an incorrect policy, as the reliable sources all do it and Chinese infoboxes tend to get buried under other ones.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I seem to recall that infobox usage came about to avoid cluttering the lead with every Romanisation known to man. In some cases there were two lines of crap before the content started by which time most readers had probably expired from boredom. I'm all for including simple, traditional and pinyin in the lead and nothing else, although there would be not unreasonable objections over Taiwan and Hong Kong related articles requiring alternative Romanizations. I'm not sure whether this is a matter for discussion at Wikiproject China or as an RfC. Thoughts?  Philg88 talk 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi White Whirlwind -- I'd like to second Philg88's concern to say that I don't see any need for IPA since pinyin is pretty much OK by now with most readers and that I myself find IPA unintelligible. Looking through the Chinese style guide I don't see that IPA is mentioned, much less required, and I certainly don't think it would be a good use of your valuable time to add it systematically to all China articles. I would even suggest that the IPA be removed from the lead of Tsien Tsuen-hsuin. But renewed thanks and admiration for all your good work! ch (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Philg88: Yes, in fact I'd shorten it further — one form of characters (probably not both) and some pinyin/YaleCanto/Tai-Lo/POJ (as appropriate) if the English term is significantly different therefrom, that seems very reasonable to me.
@CWH: Ok, I'll cease changing the IPA's and just delete them for now until we have a proper discussion. Thanks for sharing your bona fide concern.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle. Since the Chinese style guide makes no mention of IPA, we have consensus in absentia that it should not be included. Until someone provides a valid rationale to change the status quo with the appropriate supporting consensus then IPA should be removed. The Infobox issue remains a separate bete noir.  Philg88 talk 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philg88: That sounds a lot like argumentum ex silencio to me, I wouldn't take its absence to mean anything.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but don't forget Wikipedia is not a democracy. Face-smile.svg  Philg88 talk 06:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your understanding, WhiteWhirlwind, and thanks once again to Philg88 for helping to keep our eye both on the horizon and on the pesky details in front of us. I think we are still feeling our way in regard to the China articles. This discussion is very helpful in seeing what the problems are in balancing professional precision against accessibility to general readers. There was an article (not a MOS or other policy), which I can't find right now, that advised editors to write to one level below what they thought the primary audience of an article would be. That is, for a grad student type topic, to write at an undergrad level, and for a college level topic to write so that high school people would find it clear. Hard to say exactly what this means in particular cases, but probably a good principle to keep in mind. Cheers! ch (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for efforts - Kimball article[edit]

Thanks for your continuing efforts on the Spencer W. Kimball article. I have no concerns about the updates or corrections you made. Thank you. At least on the initial use of Andrew, so you're aware - I understand the typical full name use on first instance, but it had not been shown that way previously. It just said "Andrew" there when first referring to his father, with the full name and link much later in the article. I should have included the full name, but given the amount of time and effort that you in particular have put on the article, I figured the "consensus" to this point had been that it be shown with just the first name there, so I added the lacking link. In a similar way, the lack of nbsp on the pm existed before, that was the real issue, as yes - either pm or p.m. is acceptable. Glad to see the update on their son's name, since it would have seemed natural for what he was known as to have always been listed that way in the article before. Thanks again for your efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@MJChristensen: Understood, thanks. The rest of your edits, especially the capitalizations, were needed and helpful, I think, so thanks for making them.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yep, I also didn't mean to have so many in one big block like that, I'd noticed a couple of the capitalizations, etc. and started reading through it and it kind of just happened. I know it's a lot harder to follow and see things that way. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Cullen[edit]

Noticed you nominated this for AFD, but the template you placed at the top of the article leads to a discussion that closed in 2013. Would you consider replacing that template with one that links to the correct discussion? Everymorning talk 23:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Everymorning: If I knew how to, I would. Never encountered such a situation before, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi. I came to your page out of curiosity after taking part in your AFD of Julia Lovell. I want to urge you to look carefully at WP:BEFORE and consider looking for reviews of Cullen's books before staring another AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: So, just to confirm: if a person writes a book and it gets some reviews in major periodicals, they then automatically satisfy the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article under WP:AUTHOR?  White Whirlwind  咨  22:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: Wow. Well, thanks for enlightening me.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Once in a while the decision is to have an article on the book but not on the author. And those reviews do have to be in major places.Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}[edit]

Hi, may I know why you reverted my edit? Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: It broke the template, so that Xiaoerjing was appearing all the time even when not called.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops my bad. Could you tell me on which article you noticed that? I'd like to see if I can fix it. And please leave a short edit summary next time :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Abjiklam: I noticed it on a number of articles that called the template, I can't recall which one, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Non-rhotic accents don't lose the R "after a vowel" (compare words like carry, sorry), they lose it when it's not before a vowel (a subset of the cases where it comes "after a vowel"). That many sources use "postvocalic" for this subset is perhaps unfortunate, but in any case we need to define it correctly - this use of "postvocalic" is not correctly and fully explained by saying "after a vowel". I note we actually have a stub called postvocalic consonant - although unsourced, that seems to define the term correctly for our purposes, and "after a vowel" is only one half of the definition. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@W. P. Uzer: Hi there: I think your confusion comes from the fact that "postvocalic" seems to be used in the scholarly literature in its narrow sense, so "carry" and "sorry" would not fit that definition (they'd be "intervocalic"). I'm open to some elucidation for unfamiliar readers (as WP policy makes clear is our duty as editors), but I'm very cautious about cluttering up the lead and/or altering the wording of directly sourced material, which in my estimation your edits have done. I think this still needs work.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is any confusion on my part - I know that "postvocalic" has this narrow sense, and that is what I wrote above. It is because it has this narrow sense, that we mustn't imply to readers that it has a wider sense, which is what we were doing before I made my edits. If the source being cited mistakenly defines it as having the wider sense, then we should simply not use that particular source, but use one of the countless other available sources that does not make that mistake. I also don't agree that my edits "clutter up" the lead - I just added some examples to make it clear in what cases non-rhotic speakers do use the /r/, to go alongside the existing examples showing cases where they do not use it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Position's strength[edit]

Re this edit summary: I don't think your position's strength is very robust at all. As MOS:U.S. says, "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods and without a space) is the dominant abbreviation for United States". It's not unanimous, of course, but certainly it is dominant, and given that Richard G. Scott is an American person, the usual way of formatting the article would be to adhere to American English. It doesn't have to be that way, I just found your insistence that you were not technically incorrect to be a bit of a silly game, that's all.

I think it should be noted, though, that the guideline also says that "Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article", and before you made your additions of using "US", the article already used the abbreviation "U.S." a number of times, so now the usage in the article is not consistent, as recommended by the guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: It was *relatively* robust, though, as evinced by your ad hominem that you slipped in the edit summary, and that's what counts! ;) Your two positions from the edit summaries were: 1.) that "US" was "incorrect punctuation"; 2.) "U.S." is "recommended for American topics", yet neither of these positions were supported by the Manual of Style, as we have clearly seen. There is a very significant difference between a thing being a general practice and it being "recommended" in some ontological sense. I have no problem with having my additions questioned, but I do take exception to them being labelled "incorrect" based on spurious reasoning.
I see that "U.S." is indeed previously used in the article (I think that's actually an old addition of mine!) and I am perfectly happy to change it based on the "consistently" basis, which is completely valid! Was that so hard?  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Relatively robust—no, not in my opinion. Pretty weak, all in all. The "ad hominem" comment was a result of surprised frustration at the perceived pettiness of your reverts of my edits, not a reflection on the strength of my own position or yours. Some users like playing word games and focusing excessively on the precise meaning of (typically hastily) typed edit summaries as opposed to the substance of the matters in question. These editors can usually be spotted using words like "ontological" in their criticism of other users' summaries. Anyway, I'm not one of those editors, and in this regard, this conversation has been one that generally yucks me out (which is why I have to remember to generally avoid discussing edit summaries, even when prodded into doing so). Best, Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Good Olfactory: "[your] perceived pettiness", "some users like playing word games", "these editors can usually be spotted using words like 'ontological'" — this is the textbook definition of ad hominem, and I rest my case. I'm sorry my reverts bothered you.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)[edit]

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WAM Review[edit]

Hi White - I'm Kevin, one of the organizers of the English Wikipedia Asian Month. Thanks for participating, and awesome work so far. Just letting you know that I've reviewed and accepted all the articles you've submitted so far. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello. There is no indication in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China-related articles that IPA transcriptions of the English pronunciation of Chinese names is prohibited. Omnipaedista (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: that's right, we haven't added it. However, favoring Mandarin IPA is a trend we've been following for some months now.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, what does "favoring Mandarin IPA" mean exactly, where are the relevant discussions, and how does all this relate to how English-speaking people pronounce Omnipaedista (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Chinese names? Omnipaedista (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Omnipaedista: oh, they're around in various places, to my knowledge no formal summit has yet been done on it. I think the general consensus was that since IPA is so rarely known in the English-speaking world, when we use it we may as well actually be accurate to the native term.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the following claims are not substantiated: (a) there is no official Wikipedia policy yet regarding the removal of IPA transcriptions, (b) there is no basis for the claim that the IPA is not used in the English-speaking world (just browse any authoritative English dictionary there is or just browse the English Wikipedia), (c) you cannot seriously suggest that you (or any other Wikipedian) are in position to dictate native English language-speakers how to pronounce words—this constitutes linguistic prescriptivism (see WP:NPOV) and original research (see WP:NOR). The basic rule of Wikipedia is that editors should follow what reliable sources say (see WP:V and WP:RS); editors are not supposed to propagate their personal truths or conduct original research. Omnipaedista (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Omnipaedista: I never claimed either A) or B) as you characterized, please take the time to actually read and understand what I write before responding, please. I don't waste time dealing with trolls anymore, sorry.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Omnipaedista: If you feel that strongly about the prudence of adding Anglicized-form IPA for Chinese terms, please start a discussion at an appropriate talk page, such as the Chinese MoS.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Please avoid personal attacks. I did not troll you; I did not say that you personally made the IPA popularity claim. You cited it and I just remarked that—whoever made it—it is unsubstantiated. I also remark that you edited repeatedly the 'Laozi' article based on some discussions which you cannot explain clearly, which you cannot actually cite (since they are in "various places"), and which are not adopted policies, while I edit based on official policies. Omnipaedista (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bao Zhao[edit]

Hi White whirlwind, thanks for your new article Bao Zhao. I've nominated it for DYK, see nomination page. It's a bit past the deadline, but hopefully it'll be accepted. Always enjoyed reading your articles! -Zanhe (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zanhe: thanks, friend.  White Whirlwind  咨  16:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Asia medal.svg The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bao Zhao[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


this was wrong of me. Saw what you were doing and self-reverted here. can't strike an edit note. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No worries.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter A. Boodberg[edit]

This isn't a big deal, but I'm curious: why did you revert my change? Even if it's true that "it is fairly common to repeat this info at the opening of body," there are lots of things that are "fairly common" in Wikipedia articles that aren't ideal. Do you really think the article is improved by repeating that information, which any user of Wikipedia will expect to find where it always is, in the first line? If it's important to have it in the bio as well, should I start going through articles adding it? If not, why (I ask again) was it worth your taking the time and trouble to revert my change, which I thought was a real if minor improvement? Languagehat (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

> "Do you really think the article is improved by repeating that information"
Yes: if I didn't, I wouldn't have done it.
> "...should I start going through articles adding it?"
That's up to you. I believe it is a prudent practice, especially when an article is nicer and more fleshed out and its lead is substantial enough to put quite a bit of space between the first line of the lead and the first line of the body. This is the case on many biographical FAs.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. Clearly we have a difference of opinion, but it's certainly not worth fighting over. Thanks for replying. Languagehat (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Chinese/Sinhalese[edit]

Please help to create my language

Template:Infobox Chinese/Sinhalese

Thank you! Pasindu () 12:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@පසිඳු කාවින්ද: your edit here broke the template. Please do not edit templates unless you understand them. You may test out your edits in a sandbox if you aren't sure what effect they will have.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation from English to Chinese[edit]

Hello User talk:White whirlwind. I would like to request if it is possible to create a page on chinese wiki based on an English article. It is a very short article and here is the url:

I would appreciate it very much if you could help me. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need any information or details. Thank you, Irene000 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Irene000: A page can be created on any Wikipedia, as long as it meets that Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you're asking for me to translate it for you, I must decline, as I only translate from Chinese into English.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User talk:White whirlwind, thank you for letting me know. Do you know of anyone who can do the translation from English to Chinese? If so, that would be helpful. Irene000 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Chinese literature

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for all your contributions to the coverage of Chinese literature, and China-related topics in general, on Wikipedia – for articles such as Zuo zhuan and Fu (poetry). Be proud of yourself, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: thanks very much.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Rather than reverting Potala Palace yet again, I am trying to understand why you keep insisting on placing the Chinese name and script before the Tibetan one. I fully agree that both should be represented, but articles like Basque Country always list the native name first. Why not here? Mhoenig (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mhoenig: If you "fully agree that both should be represented", why did you delete the image twice instead of simply altering it?  White Whirlwind  咨  21:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)