User talk:Bathrobe

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a response to the comments you left on my talk page. Kowloonese 18:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I live in the US and I've never heard of doufu. We used to called it "bean curd" and the name changed to "tofu" when it became popular. I don't know how it is called in other English speaking countries. I support using pinyin over WG to do all Chinese transliteration. But I am neutral regarding similar treatment to existing English words. Kowloonese 19:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, I think some residents of the US state of Hawai'i (often ethnic Chinese) do use the pronunciation /doufu/ in English, not the pseudo-WG (incorrect) pronunciation /tofu/ (i.e. voiced "t"). --Dpr 01:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most important difference is whether you are talking about an English word or a Chinese object. When the name is already entered the English language as Tofu, it is just silly to argue how the original Chinese word is pronounced. Clarify the pronunciation in the corresponding Chinese article in the Chinese version of wikipedia. The English name has become part of the English language and should not be changed. Kowloonese 01:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/tofu/ is not 'pseudo-WG'; it is from Japanese. For cultural/nationalistic reasons, some Chinese take exception to the fact that English uses a Japanese term for something that was originally Chinese. For such people, ousting the Japanese term and replacing it with Chinese is seen as 'setting things right'. Bathrobe 11:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to deleting the pronunciation for the Hebrew: I felt that it was the semantic content of the Hebrew name for the sea, rather than the pronunciation, which was important to the paragraph in question. For instance, the part which gives the name in the Bible "the Great Sea" in the Bible does not give the literal Greek or Aramaic for this.

I considered deleting the Hebrew characters as well, but for some reason chose not to. I think we should avoid devoting excessive space to any one language here unless the meaning of its name for the Mediterranean is interesting or relevant somehow, as there are too many countries and languages bordering on the Mediterranean to mention them all. Saforrest 16:17, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a big fan of your website, especially the translations of "Mind the Gap" and other oddities. Thanks for putting up such a great resource. :P --Xiaopo ℑ 04:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love it too. Hey bathrobe, maybe you can offer your website's content under GFDL so we can easily use it on Wikipedia? I could imagine a marvellous article about the days of the week... --Mkill 18:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of my article on days of the week is all from published sources. As long as it isn't reproduced absolutely verbatim, I'm happy for people to take information / conclusions from the site and use them elsewhere. The conclusion that 'xingqi' is not the original word for 'week' in Chinese has been reached by others on better evidence than I have. The main "slant" I've given it is criticism of modern Chinese sources (dictionaries, etc.) for twisting the word's pedigree to make it sound like something it is not.

(Actually, it was when I was researching the site that I first came to realise how deeply ideological history is in East Asia. It became clear that there are Chinese who want to prove that everything came from ancient China; there are Japanese who want to show that they are not simply an offshoot of Chinese culture, and that the Japanese day names came not from the Chinese, as the Chinese would claim, but almost direct from an Indian monk who got them from the West. In many ways, the "war" over history is still going on!) Bathrobe 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I just wanted to give you some helpful advice, or maybe just a reminder about a feature in Wikipedia known as an edit summary. The edit summary is filled out using the 200 word text field located right below the editing text box. It is strongly recommended that one get in the habit of filling out edit summaries for each edit, giving a general summary of why particular changes were made, as well as a very terse summary of what those changes were. Edit summaries are a way to defend your edits, especially if you're an anonymous user. Ambiguous edits made by anonymous users may often be mistaken for vandalism. Filling out the edit summary also gives the users who monitor those pages on watch lists or recent changes, an idea of what kind of activity has taken place. If these changes do not strongly affect the content of the article, mark the This is a minor edit check box below the edit summary field. For further help on using edit summaries, consult this guide. Thank you. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 04:53, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bathrobe, I feel the Patua page is packed with information, and by now means in dire need of improvement. I'm probably too liberal in my use of the attention tag. Nonetheless, I usually "tag" pages that I admire! I just think the article could use more technical linguistic terminology and could stand to be copyedited for style and grammar. Parts are rather informal. In fact, if I have a chance, I will try my hand at this task myself. Thanks for the interest. Please let me know if you had any other questions. --Dpr 02:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha, and thanks for your message. I added the POV check template as I wasn't sure of the POV being presented due to the lack of references. Today, I added the template for articles that lack sources. I have removed the POV check at your request. --Viriditas | Talk 21:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe,

I re-added the sentence on Hainan.. --Hottenot

I see your point. Maybe it would be better to start a new page, List of historical place names in Japanese or something. Still there is a precedent on the page; if you look at the entry for "Ethiopia" you see all the languages' words for "Abyssinia" as well as "Ethiopia". Just do a search in the page for the word "former" and you'll see a lot more. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea, and of course it should include Chinese (as many dialects as possible, at the very least Mandarin and Cantonese), Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. List of country names in various languages is already incredibly long, and anything that encourages people to contribute elsewhere is good. The fact that you don't know Korean doesn't matter; it's a wiki, so someone else will come along and fill the Korean in. Now we just have to find a good brief, NPOV title for the page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you don't have to do it if you're busy! But I really don't know enough about East Asian languages to do it myself. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my page were: "I am also a little concerned at the Sinocentric nature of such an attempt. It can't be denied that Chinese characters were the cultural binding force of East Asia and that they lie behind a lot of current Vietnamese vocabulary. Since many people know Chinese and Japanese, putting in characters is no doubt a useful way of linking Vietnamese to a greater body of shared knowledge. But I feel there is a danger of cultural bias. Why put in the Chinese characters and not the Chu Nom, for instance? Because Chu Nom is a minor script? A dead script? Isn't that just belittling things that are uniquely Vietnamese in favour of aspects that are tied to 'great and ancient culture' of her neighbour?"

It's pleasant to see a Chinese speaker interested in Chinese etymology of Vietnamese terminology. I'm the opposite, I'm a Vietnamese speaker who appreciates knowledge of my fellow East-Asian Sinoworld members, as I am not pleased with my own people being erroneously called "Southeast Asians". Historically and culturally that term does not reflect the Vietnamese people, and is almost an insult to some of us, though not myself. You also sound like you are on my side of this so-called "argument". The Chu Nom system was actually written only for vernacular Vietnamese words that had no Chinese equivalent, but Chu Nom would have included Sino-Vietnamese words as well, virtually unaltered in wriiten form.

My Vietnamese name, for instance, is written Lê Anh-Huy, in vernacular Latin Vietnamese. But it would be "黎英辉" for both Chinese and Chu Nom. Take care. User:Le Anh-Huy

You are right, turning back the clock is not the answer, but it is easy to mislead people through "supressed information" (ie. overseas Vietnamese Catholics often deny any Sinosphere cultural roots in Vietnamese culture and overglorify French intrusions into vernacular Vietnamese trends...I noticed you said you're from Australia, I find the Vietnamese community living in your beautiful country most often comes from this misled "modernist" discourse to understanding their own ancestors' history), as I think you mentioned.

It is nice to finally meet the writer of www.cjvlang.com/ Thank you very much for enlightening me about my own roots! I had only "discovered" your amazing website while netsurfing earlier this year. I also noticed you are also a speaker of French and German, languages that I happen to need to refesh. - User:Le Anh-Huy

Hi, would you be able to add the CJK names for Korea? I understand there are two traditional ones: Chaoxian/Chosun/Chosen and Hanguo/Hanguk/Kankoku. Maybe Vietnamese has two names corresponding to the same characters too? Thanks! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew North Korea tended to use the C-words and South Korea tended to use the H-words, but I didn't know South Koreans went so far as to be offended by the C-words. Maybe put in (now used for North Korea) and (now used for South Kora) or something. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Korean names. I just copied them out of North Korea and South Korea. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese names for Korea:

Triều Tiên (Joseon)

Hàn Quốc (Hanguk)

Cao Ly (Goguryeo)

The two modern countries have been called by different names over time: Nam Hàn and Bắc Hàn (South and North Korea, respectively) were formerly used, as were Nam Triều Tiên and Bắc Triều Tiên, and sometimes collectively as Đại Hàn. Officially, DPRK is known as Cộng hòa Dân chủ Nhân dân Triều Tiên (shortened to Triều Tiên) and ROK is known as Đại Hàn Dân Quốc (shortened to Hàn Quốc).

By the way, I enjoyed reading your website, especially the section about Harry Potter names. I sent you some corrections for the Vietnamese version a while ago :-). Keep up the good work! DHN 10:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you aren't aware, the Online Thiều Chửu Hán Việt dictionary [1] has a very useful lookup tool [2] that allows you to give it a string of Chinese characters and it will translate each character into its Hán-Việt form. DHN 10:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You received the corrections and gave me credit for it. Don't worry about it. DHN 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the 'treatise' on naming you wrote for the Yangtze River talk page; it's well-reasoned and does a good job of identifying your personal bias as such. Having bias is no problem, in my book—pretending not have bias is.

I'm also interested in your opinion about something that's been bothering me: the EN version of Wikipedia is for readers of English, but there's a great deal of ZH in articles about Chinese subjects. I find all the parentheses with ZH characters make it difficult to read, and I question their value to EN readers. Is it just there for the (relatively) tiny group of EN+ZH readers? Has an argument been made for or against it? I would think that it belongs on the page, but not in the text itself; the {{Chinese}} template seems like a good way to handle it, but I notice that on, for example, Grand Canal of China it's moving the other direction. Can you give me any insight?

Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 19:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Feel flee to collect my Engrish. ;) Yoji Hajime

Thanks for fixing up Yasukuni Shrine, but please don't arbitrarily change which variety of English is used on the page (British vs. American) as this tends to lead to edit wars and articles with a mix of British and American spellings. No harm intended, I'm sure, but please be aware of this issue in the future. CES 13:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not looking closer ... the article is mostly in American English and in the edit history I noticed that you made several changes from American spellings to British spellings without noticing that the sections you edited were recently edited using British spellings. I will edit the article to make sure one system is used ... probably American, since that is the original and predominant usage in the article. Life would be much easier if we all used the same spelling system! CES 02:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Please see my response on my talk page.-Jefu 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I may have used provocative words, but let me explain what I have felt. To me, it seems Korean posters take almost obsessive interests and politicize historical facts in Japanese history, boasting and showing attitudes like "Japan owes what it is today to Korea (for what happed 1500years ago) ". See Talk:Korean-Japanese_disputes. It is true that Buddhism and Chinese culture was introduced from the Korean peninsula, but that is due to the geographcal location; only because Japan is more far from India and China. I believe these ideas due to Sinocentrism, which you might understand becuase of your contributions to Wikipedia. (It is true Japan also had, but it has disapeared by US occupation after WWII).

Under this scheme of international relations, only China had an Emperor or 'huangdi' (皇帝), who was the Son of Heaven; other countries only had Kings or 'wang' (王). (See Chinese sovereign). The Japanese use of the term Emperor or 'tennō' (天皇) for the ruler of Japan was a subversion of this principle. Significantly, the Koreans still refer to the Japanese Emperor as a King, conforming with the traditional Chinese usage.

Can you stand someone swearing about your parents? Whether it is Thai or Sweden I will totally leave it up to those people about talking about their monarch. Nobu Sho 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started an article on Sino-Vietnamese. With your knowledge in Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese, perhaps you'd be able to help do some factchecking and improve the article. Thanks! DHN 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I received your message about suggestion on starting an article about Korean scholar, Yi Sugwnag. Although I'm not personally an expect on subject of thinkers and intellectuals of East Asia, an article on Yi Su-Gwang would be a great idea indeed. There aren't much English information on his life and works though. I currently do not have the time to write the entire article, but I could start the basic structure for it, and have more editors participate in the article creation process. I don't have much time on my hands now and i'm trying to find more sources to start articles regarding RoK navy/air force and its armamaments, so it take a while for me to start a page on him. If you can contact other editors who are acquainted well with Korean history and get them to start articles regarding Eastern thinkers of Korea, I'll be glad to lend my hand. Deiaemeth 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for removing the two categories was only that a temple isn't an example of political philosophy or philosophy of religion; Confucianism itself belongs in the former category, though not in the latter (it belongs in one of the religion categories).

I had a look at the Vietnamese article on Van Mieu; which photo did you want to use? I've contacted the photographer & uploader of one of them to ask if we can use it. Neither seems to be available on Commons. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first photo, I believe, was taken by the uploader. It was uploaded when the Vietnamese encyclopedia was quite undeveloped (~300 articles a year ago - we now have 5300+ articles), so there wasn't a support structure for copyright notices. I believe that you can just save the picture to your computer, then upload it here to use it (just say where you got it from). I don't think the uploader (who hasn't been seen in almost a year) minds. DHN 03:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow DHN's advice. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that a building doesn't belong in a category concerning a philosophy/religion, but in a buildings category (that's why I added Category:Temples). Starting Category:Confucian temples might well be a good idea. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the red link above, and edit the new page just like any article. You'll need to add parent categories: Category:Temples, definitely; probably Temples,Confucian too. The best thing to do is to look at similar categories and see how they do it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying really hard to think of one to add and could not. I realised that pretty much all Sino-Korean words that have entered the English language are such neologisms, which is what led me to write that disclaimer-type statement I added. Chaebeol, for instance, was borrowed in hanja/kanji form from the Japanese zaibatsu, which is a Japanese neologism of the type I described. Even words like kimchi that seem to have an obscure Sino-Korean etymology (and are not ordinarily considered Sino-Korean words) derive ultimately from Korean neologisms (in this case, 沈菜 chimchae) that do not correspond to any words that were actually used in Chinese.

The list of English words of Korean origin is not very extensive in the first place, so it is quite probable that there are no widely used English words of Chinese origin that came via Korean. --Iceager 10:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between disagreeing with an argument, and simply not presenting that argument at all. If an argument is solid and has merit, than it should be able to withstand objections and criticism, and similarly, if an argument is completely without merit, then such should be easily spotted by a reader, should it not? That argument you quoted is one I'm familiar with. As you said, Sinocentrism is a complicated subject encompassing many historical concepts and different perspectives.

Certain accusations of sinocentrism merely state that the various Chinese states regarded (or continue to regard) themselves as superior to others, others that they exibited signs of sinocentrism through their interactions with the rest of Asia, sinocentrism as conquest, sinocentrism as cultural imperialism, sinocentrism displayed by individual people, etc. That argument seems to be an objection not to the tribue-vassal foreign relationship system, but to the specific sinocentric charge that those old Chinese states enforced cultural imperialism through its forced adoption by other cultures or maybe that China's sinocentrism was used as a motivation for conquest, and sinocentrism as a percieved sense of racial or cultural superiority. Particularly, this line: "In modern times, this can take the form of according China unwarranted significance or supremacy at the cost of other nations in East Asia or elsewhere in the world." But of course, if sinocentrism isn't clearly defined, then it can't be clearly objected to, can it?

I'll comment on my deleted line. This line, to me, seemed blatently NPOV:

While this possibly means that "chauvinism" was not everpresent, it also suggests that the Chinese, like many civilizations that consider themselves superior, were willing to accept people from other cultures as long as they conformed to metropolitan standards.

Instead of discussing whether or not the Chinese self-perception of superiority was true, it simply assumes it so, and then uses it to support the argument of sinocentrism.

The other line, I think the reason for deletion was rather obvious for its factual shortcomings. Were such an attitude about Manchu and Mongol conquests to actually hold true, all of Central Asia, Persia, Siberia, and Russia might well be regarded as part of the Chinese heartland. (which obviously isn't true) And Zhonghua Minzu is supposed to be a response and reversal of centuries of Han chauvanism, yet both somehow seem to get tied into sinocentrism.

Personally, I think there are too often confused attempts to conflate historical Chinese attitudes towards barbarians, various historical Chinese political concepts like the tribute-vassal relationships, experiences of the Europeans like McCartney, Han chauvaunism, Chinese military conquests, Zhonghua Minzu, anti-Japanese sentiment, Chinese nationalism, communism, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Chinese names, characters, and language, etc from various stages and aspects of several thousand years of history and collectively lump them all together into, "Chinese are racist and bad, mkay?" and call it by the convenient catchall of Sinocentrism.

Personally, I would divide it up into sinocentrism by ancient imperial politics, by culture, by historical narrative, etc. and then put the specific counter arguments, if any, after each section. Currently, the article looks incredibly disjoint right now, explaining ancient imperial politics on one hand and then showing spaghetti as a sign of modern cultural imperialism on the other. --Yuje 08:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to eventually reorganize the article. It'll just come down to finding the free weekend to spend on doing it. I'm somewhat bothered by the article's lack of sources, so I'm hunting some down as well as digging through some of the Confucian books for the philosophical justifications of the ancient tribute-vassal system. --Yuje 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been assigned to be the mediator for the Japanese Macrons case. Discussion will be carried out on the Talk page of the case request. I will have some preliminary questions up soon, I am looking forward to working with everyone to get this resolved. Thank you, pschemp | talk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not using edit summaries, which makes life just a little more difficult for people going through their Watchlists. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I suggested the merge because basically the Sino-Korean article is very short and both it and the article for hanja suggests that they are the same thing. I'll give an explanation in the talk page for the Sino-Korean article. --Hong Qi Gong 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're essentially right, I'd like to make a couple points. Tokyo was originally spelled Tokio, and then eventually Tokyo, and at about the same time people began trying to spell it Tōkyō and Toukyou. Accurate romanization of languages that don't use roman characters is a rather new phenomenon. But all that's beside the point.

I realize that it's quite an uphill battle. I've put the quote on my user page to remind me of that. I don't mind the concept of macrons at all; I believe Japanese has the right to be represented accurately as much as any other language. I just can't see past the technicalities of inputting macrons, and using them in Wikipedia. For the record, I kind of disagree with the use of "orthoghraphical" accents and macrons in the titles of articles for other languages as well (Vietnamese, Pinyin), although I would never challenge a French or Spanish spelling. That's one of the reasons I wanted to call this meditation as well, the Wikipedia infrastructure has no means of controlling large issues like this, and it should not be left to a vote between Japanified editors. As long as someone that has some real feel for the way Wikifoundation works makes the final decision, I won't make any more fuss about it.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm brand new to Wiki, and am not even sure if this is the correct place or way to respond to your comment on my user page as follows:

"I saw your note on the simplification of Chinese characters (many being pre-20th century). I agree that the current statement is rather broad brush. If you want a more sophisticated explanation, why not Be Bold! (a principle of Wikipedia) and make the changes yourself?

Bathrobe 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)"

This is only my 2nd day on Wiki (other than browsing contents as a reference). Feel free to delete this from your User talk page if this is inappropriate. Should I have emailed instead? Is my formatting appropriate? Oh, I'm such a clueless newbee right now! Pls feel free to email me to straighten me out -- mailonekms-wpost AT yahoo DOT com. First, thank you for your comment. I'm an amateur scholar specializing in the origins of the Chinese language, and do plan to make extensive improvements where needed. It's just that I'm still learning the ropes (e.g., formatting, signing properly etc.) and am a bit shy about screwing up. :) Second, I've read your changes on Chang Jiang vs. Yangtze, and fully support your position; I've added comments on that talk page. Cheers! Dragonbones 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware that some countries had switched to horizontal writing altogether. In that case, I accept that I should have tried to compromise rather than simply reverting. Apologies for a too-hasty action.

I've edited the article again to try a wording that states that horizontal writing is "increasingly common", which I think is a more accurate summary of the situation than either extreme. If you think this is still misleading, then by all means please adjust it again.

— Haeleth Talk 13:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the trend in Chinese is clear enough that even "increasingly common" seems too weak to describe it, then naturally I won't object if you want to strengthen the wording further - my edit is purely a suggestion and a stopgap measure to ensure that the text wasn't totally unacceptable to either of us. As you may have gathered, my knowledge is largely restricted to Japanese, so I don't claim to have a good feel for how well any given phrasing will describe the situation in other languages.

My main concern is to avoid anything that looks like a prediction that horizontal writing is certain to take over. It does seem to me that the status of vertical writing in Japan is still fairly secure; I've never seen a book other than a bilingual dictionary use anything else. But I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm erring on the side of conservatism.

Perhaps it could be modified to state that horizontal writing is "increasingly common, and now [almost] ubiquitous in some [countries/contexts/areas]"? Would something along those lines be an improvement?

(Incidentally, I believe some versions of Internet Explorer support vertical text layout, which does make it seem rather strange that it's not commonly used. Possibly some link to the general bias of web users in favour of the young and more radical?)

— Haeleth Talk 13:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see vertical writing in Taiwan disappearing in Taiwan anytime soon; I'm not sure the statement that "most" newspapers have switched to horizontal is correct either. Be sure not to carelessly lump Taiwan in with China/Macau/HK in such broad, sweeping statements... Dragonbones 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the words are going to be changed to make them fit Eurasia. First certain political bodies would have to change their name and identity. Europe is acknowledged as a political body in Europe. Asia is acknowledged as a political body in SAARC and ASEAN. Second labeling would be hard for some regions. Far Western Eurasia and Far Eastern Eurasia might be acceptable but the regions in the middle of Eurasia would be hard to label. I don't think the change will happen in Eurasia and I hope you don't change wiki around to confuse users to make it fit the Eurasia concept. -- 18:00 March 30 2006User:Dark Tichondrias

• He really doesn't get it, does he? --Lukobe 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you interested in writing on your website about how pronouns used in Harry Potter are rendered in Vietnamese? Whereas in the original English, Rowling used "you" and "I", the Vietnamese translator did not have that luxury and had to choose the proper Vietnamese term of reference appropriate for the relationship between the speaker and the addressee as well as the speaker's attitude toward the addressee. I'm not sure if the Chinese and Japanese translators had the same problem because those languages have direct terms for "you" and "I". DHN 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that phrase. They have the exact sentiment! DHN 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we have a proposed solution now and need everyone's input as to whether its acceptable so the rfm can be closed. Please add your comment to bottom of the page. Thank you, pschemp | talk 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's gonna be a long uphill battle. I'm reading through the Japanese 百人斬り競争 wiki article and translating it into English, but there's a lot of BS involved with this issue on the Japanese side as well. Someone there went through and changed the references to victims from "people" to "Chinese soldiers", which of course, it doesn't say in the source articles. Damn ideologues.

BTW, technically you aren't supposed to delete things that people post on your talk page, but you can feel free to delete this message if you think it's taking up space. Bueller 007 11:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for asking.

The reason I recommended the merger between the pages is that (from what I saw), there was a correlation between the riots and the holiday. Considering that the page on Muslim hajj contains information on similar situations (there is also the fork article Incidents during the Hajj), and I am looking for incidents that have occurred in Christianity and other religions as well, I thought the two articles should be intertwined or merged.

If the 2006 riots have nothing to do with holi (which, again, from my POV, it seemed that they did), then I'll be fine with a cancellation of a merger. I'm not out to offend anyone at all; I merely thought that it was a valid point, enough so that I'm looking for similar instances in other religions (aside from hajj incidents) so that I don't appear hypocritical or anti-Hindu.

Hope this helps.--み使い Mitsukai 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you commented at User talk:Bhadani over what happened to your message at User talk:Saito Hajime. I did a little investigating, and found out that his talk page had been deleted per his own request. As a result, your message was removed. BTW, even before it was removed, the user himself was continuously deleting all the messages he was recieving, including one by you, one by User:Stephen B Streater, and a welcome message by User:Gflores.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 14:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on FBWOarticle's page that I wanted him to go back to the Nanjing page because it was "me vs. the Chinese nationalists". So I think that guy was referring to that post, not yours.

Thanks for chipping in though.  :-) Bueller 007 09:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think, a month earlier, you contacted me and several other Korean editors about writing an article on Yi Su-gwang. Well, I finally got to it today and wrote a little stub on him. I will try to incorporate more information and correct grammar/structure to bring the article upto wiki standards. Just thought you might want to know. Cheers and happy editing, Deiaemeth 10:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The term Silhak came into being in the late 17th - 18th century. This links explains what Silhak is (very briefly) [3]. It basically de-emphasized Confucianism and argued adopting more modern schools of thought in statecraft. Silhak attacked neo-confucianism. They also argued for modern approach to economy, sciences, and philosophies, arguing that Yangban-class of Korea, who practiced confucianism and was very conservative, was deletrious to the interest of the Korean people and the state. Their reasoning was that the Yangban-class did not participate in any economic activity - all they did was sit around and study confucianist school of thought. Silhak practicionners argued for supply-side economics and revival of economy. [4] Yi Su-Gwang is considered early Silhakja, but he didn't attack confucianism outright. Deiaemeth 04:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I try to maintain some basic civility on talkpages and get accused of being POV-pushing/biased/Chinese nationalist. It's a good thing I chose not to check in and had a nice Easter weekend.

When you're pounced on on the slightest, most neutral issue like basic civility, first being accused of having some ulterior motive and then receiving a niggardly refutation, I think I had plenty of reasons to be pissed.

Lastly, what I did is in no way "restricted" to admins. Like any user can remove vandalism or give {{test}} warnings for vandals, any user can issue warnings for incivility. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will shortly try to understand the problem, and shall come back to you. --Bhadani 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not figure it out. Please see your edit history, and try to locate that particular edit. --Bhadani 11:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, you contributed to the talk page of Nation building. I've just flagged up what I think are a bunch of problems with the article and would welcome your input. Cheers Vizjim 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put this on the Yasukuni-discussion site?

"There's an interesting article in the journal "Japan Echo", December 2004, on Yasukuni. It discusses the rationale for the founding of the shrine and traditional views that make the shrine meaningful to some."

If that is the case, do you have a .pdf copy or a good url or something?

Thanks man =D

でわまた

--Yanemiro 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bathrobe.. thanks for the reply. My point, which you seem to agree with, in the redirect page was that in English, "Chang Jiang" is not well-known. Indisputably, it is the more-common (i.e. official, as it were) name of the river in China. Zai jian! Izaakb 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea of your problem, sometimes I also encountered the same ones,but after for a while,maybe somedays, I found I can access these pages.Maybe you can consult the technicians of wikipedia.Ksyrie

Ni Hao. Thanks for the explanation on my talk page regarding that. It would be nice if the article explained this explicitly, though (it might, but I found it too confusing and not to the point). A short while ago I tried learning Hanzi but eventually stopped; I guess I could always start again. Enjoy your day. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen)

very sorry for that... I meant to use that (to avoid the "oo/ou" discrepancy), but I was then in a haste and forgot to do so, sorry :( Cheers.--K.C. Tang 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I need to brush up on my Wiki policies. I guess I felt that since i wasn't making major changes I wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. As for the talk page thing I was treating it like a message system, so I was deleting a read message. I've restored my talk page. I feel silly now, and I've felt I've disrespected the wiki community. I hope you understand I meant no harm.kojaxs 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Manual of Style is probably what you want regarding avoiding 1st/2nd person. Encyclopediae have almost never, historically, been written using 1st/2nd person, and scholarly works similarly tend to avoid it - if in some circumstances professors use it in lectures, we can probably attribute that to differences between spoken and written english -- the same professor would probably not do that in written works. The important part is encyclopedic tradition and a consistent style. Take care. --Improv 18:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe,

I reverted only because the edit was by a banned user. WP:BAN states that "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". Feel free to revert me if you like, I have no opinion on the matter. Cheers, Khoikhoi 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe: This error is due to a caching server or proxy server between you and the website you are trying to access. IT is entirely possibly the URL for the Yangtze entry is being targeted, there is little way to figure out otherwise. POSIX is a hypothetical Unix standard which is used for a lot of programming by the Linux community (notice the ---ix ---ux endings, all related operating systems). It is my understanding that the Linux OS is widely in use by PRC Izaakb 16:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't really remember removing information on Lokeśvara in Theravada. When did this occur? There seems to be info in the article on it currently.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me. However, the sources you've cited don't seem very compelling in indicating that Lokeśvara is recognised in Theravada Buddhism. There are certainly some residual traces of this cult in southeast Asia. Your sources point to occasional appearances by this figure in old architecture and art. It seems implausible that the name Lokeśvara is used in Theravada Buddhism, since this is Sanskrit. The Pali equivalent would be *Lokessara, I think, but there are no google hits at all for this word. The intro currently mentions Lokeśvara as an alternate name, and that seems like a good solution to me.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bathrobe for those corrections. I only got your note under my name today. I wonder if you could fix the Kada no Azumamaro heading so that when one types a search for him in google or yahoo, that name comes up? At the moment, only Kamo no Mabuchi appears, at least when I do this. Sorry to bother you, but the technical side is something I am learning only slowly, preferring at least in this empirical approaches over mere theory.Nishidani 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this site maintained by you? It's very interesting. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great work. I particularly found interesting the part about how to identify a Chinese translation as an indirect one from English. You've collected an impressive number of Chinese translations. But the best one I know of is a French-Chinese bilingual one published in Hong Kong, are you aware of that? Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can see that edition here (just scroll down). That publisher is the only publisher in Hong Kong who publish French things. That edition is the only French-Chinese bilingual edition I know of (my, I've see a number of English-Chinese editions!), so it's worthwhile to get one. You should be able to get a copy when you go to the Tsim Sha Tsui branch of this bookshop. Good luck. Leave me a message if you need any help. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have sent you email, as our conversation's become personal (and a bit geek!).--K.C. Tang 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll do just that. Bradford44 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sry i forgot to add a comment but yes Toyota is in fact is larger then General Motors!{Sparrowman980}

Appreciate you fixing the automobile.

At my user talk page you have added the following:

Double Fifth query

[edit]

At Duanwu Festival you've added a 'citation needed' tag at the statement that this is also known as the Double Fifth.

I am quite mystified as to why you added this notice.

• The person who put this name obviously has some grounds for giving this name -- perhaps they simply knew something that you didn't. But you personally haven't heard of it -- so you simply add a citation needed tag! Had you done a quick Google, you would have found a number of websites that refer to the festival as the Double Fifth! Your addition of a 'citation needed' tag does nothing but add clutter to the article. (You haven't even bothered to query the name on the talk page first!)

• Had you checked, you would have noticed that Double Fifth is the name of the disambiguation article (see Double Fifth! So not only is your edit frivolous, it is disruptive and poorly executed within the context. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that the name of the disambuation article is queried in the article on the Duanwu Festival itself?

The next time you haven't heard of something, before you put in a 'citation needed' tag, try making a few comments on the talk page and have a look around. Your lack of knowledge shouldn't be regarded as a good reason for adding this kind of cruft to articles. User:Bathrobe

I am quite mystified as to why you added this notice.

• The person who put the citation needed tag has no connection with me. The person who added the tag was user:Alanmak[5]. I don't see any similarity between the two, so I don't know why you thought it's me, maybe by a mistake -- so you simply add an offensive notice in my page! Had you done, a double-check you would have found it had nothing to do with me, what I had done is adding the link to the Chinese version of the page! [6]Your addition of the notice does nothing but adds clutter to my user talk and offends me. (You haven't even bothered to see it twice first!)
• Your tone wasn't very friendly either. If you had used a more appropriate tone, it would have been better. So not only is your edit frivolous, it is disruptive and poorly executed. Isn't it kind of ridiculous to be scolded by a stranger without a reason?

The next time you have found something "ridiculous", before you put in notice in the user talk page, try double-checking. Your lack of discreetness and rudeness shouldn't be regarded as a good reason for adding this kind of cruft to articles.loganfong 06:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe

Please feel free to add Gunyah to the Humpy page. I created that page, but would like to see as many regional names as possible, since many so-called Aboriginal words are Eora, or east-coast words, being the first point of contact and don't reflect the variation across the continent.

You can also do a redirect from Gunyah, or even change the name to Australian Aboriginal Shelter, with a redirect from all the commonly known names. Do whatever you want.

Cheers DRyan 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, It is quite hard to mend an article, than to start out of scratch. I also apologize for the typoes (I am a poor typer indeed)

I reverted your edit, because I took into account that the mention of Japanese atrocities was missing. I prematurely assumed that you were distorting information. Apologize for my ignorance and misunderstanding.

Odst 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, I tried to undo my mess, but It won't work, for some reason.

just to make it more coherent, but I messed it up. I changed it up a bit, but There's more cleaning to do. please help me, as I am trying to correct my mistake.Odst 01:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it back up. It was so confusing...

Perhaps I should have notified you, but I guess I just assumed that you would have the article on your watch list and so see the change. I have no opinion about either translation—I do not read Chinese. I simply felt that the edit was not in keeping with the Chinese section of the text, and I could not make a decision to change that text myself, not knowing anything about Chinese, and so reverted with a summary that it doesn't match. Feel free to edit the full text to what you feel is correct. Lexicon (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to deduce that message was destinated to someone else since I haven't edited the article in quite a long time. Leaving you a message in case you would like to send it to the proper user. Good wiking, --Mariano(t/c) 00:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do call 4 months a long time. But I wouldn't say 'repeated' for 'twice'. My reverts weren't trying to comfirm what was written, but reverted some unconfirmed information (e.i. a comparison between mosquitoes' habits). Perhaps a good clean up of the article should be proposed. --Mariano(t/c) 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest excuses. I sincerelly thought you made a mistake with your first message because I haven't been editing the Wikipedia in months, and didn't take the time to carefully read neither your message nor the blog for my second answer. I'll get into fixing the article. You might consider doing it yourself if a similar situation is to happen again. Thanks for taking the time. --Mariano(t/c) 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the editors on that page can be very stubborn. John Smith's 11:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I listed an RfC on the matter. If you could leave some comments it might help resolve things. Talk:Nanking Massacre#Request for Comment. John Smith's 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Wikimachine 01:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in working on a cheongsam / qipao merge? It has received some support at Talk:Cheongsam. — AjaxSmack 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I invite you to join this discussion? Seektruthfromfacts 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, and do not bite newcomers, not even vandals: diff. Thank you. · AndonicO ^Talk 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try redirecting vandals to Uncyclopedia, like I do, although I usually refer them to the proper page for vandalism, or, in the case of page blanking, here. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that some vandals sometimes become good editors; Arjun was an excellent admin, and happened to be a former vandal. · AndonicO ^Talk 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Arjun...we will never forget. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 13:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...he reverted his retirement! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 13:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say "A" you need say "B". Subdivision consists of subdivisions, isn't it? If you decide to change subdivision to subdivisions you need be consequent - the rest of the aimag articles has to be changed. Either we change all 21 aimag articles or we are back with subdivision.

Are you form UB? Can I ask you for assistance in Mongolia related topics? Bogomolov.PL 11:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter 7 is to be released under the title Harry Potter và bảo bối tử thần (bảo bối = 寶貝, tử thần = 死神) in Vietnamese[7]. Earlier, in an interview, Ly Lan tentatively translated it as Harry Potter và tử thần tích (tích = 迹?). DHN 01:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its publishing date is October 27. For Books 6 and 7, the publisher stopped printing installments not because it wanted to but because the author's agent requested them to. DHN 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first four chapters had been serialized on Tuoi Tre's website. I assume that they will add more as time goes by. DHN 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I haven't seen the hard copy version, I'm pretty sure what they have online is a serialized version. Tuoi Tre is the largest newspaper in Vietnam in terms of circulation, and each chapter has the disclaimer: "Tác giả JK Rowling, Lý Lan dịch, bản quyền tiếng Việt của Nhà xuất bản Trẻ, phát hành ngày 27-10". Furthermore, according to this announcement 2 months ago, the publisher said they would post excerpts on their website and through various other media. DHN 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"chiến binh" in chapter 5 is derived from 戰兵. DHN (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DHN, thanks! I'm all set. I've just taken delivery (this very morning) of the Vietnamese version of Harry Potter 7. And I brought back my Viet-Han dictionary a fortnight ago. So I can enter the Vietnamese chapter titles, etc., and check the characters they are derived from. Bathrobe (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I look forward to seeing the site updated. Also, I think "hồi niệm" is derived from 回念 and not 壞念. DHN (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It was something of a guess and I think it was wrong. I will be able to fix up the errors as I update the page.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some typos in the chapter names: Chapter 6 should be "Con ma xó mặc đồ ngủ" and Chapter 8 should be "Đám cưới". Great job on updating the page; I've been wondering what she translated the "Elder Wand" and "Diadem" into. DHN (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great! That's what happens when you do a rushed update during the lunch hour!

Bathrobe (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Chapter 15: Yêu tinh rửa hận, "rửa hận" literally means "to wash a grudge" (hận = 恨), so the Vietnamese title actually means "Goblin seeking revenge", or "Goblin avenged". In Chapter 29: Vòng nguyệt quế đã mất, "Vòng nguyệt quế" is the Vietnamese term for the laurel wreath. BTW, I'm wondering how "Undesirable Number 1" is translated. DHN (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe,

You are absolutely right. I don't know why I typed Hunan instead of Jiangsu. Thanks. Croquant 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention that on this page you asserted that the Vietnamese expression for "death anniversary" is "ngày giỗ or "bữc giỗ". You probably meant "bữa giỗ", since bữc is meaningless (and unpronounceable) in Vietnamese. DHN (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for all your contributions. I discovered www.baabarpedia.mn just for your information. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Vietnamese isn't that great either. The dictionary I have access to doesn't have an entry for "cốt thiết", but I'm guessing that it's from the Chinese 骨切, which I guess literally means "close to the bone". I'm guessing it would mean "essential". I am not sure what "tinh thể" means besides "crystal", but I think it came from 晶體. I don't think there's any significance in the "các..., cái..., cái" construct. "Cái đó" just means "that [thing]". You can try asking at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. DHN (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this page, you said that "áo" (袄/襖) is a very general term for an article of clothing. That's not entirely true. It only applies to items of clothing that cover at least from the neck down (i.e. the upper body). Trousers, for instance, would never be called áo. Those that cover from the waist down are called "quần" (from 裙). The general terms for clothing are..."áo quần"/"quần áo". DHN 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe
I wanted to talk to you.
You have apologized for your insulting comments. I thank you for that.
However I see a larger picture - I request that you look at WP:OWN, specifically the comment "Are you qualified to edit this article?".
sincerely,
duoo-arph Keerllston 01:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello again
I wanted you to know that I have appreciated comments from you a lot - Soviet Russia in particular - and we have agreed on many occasions
I wanted you to know that I linked to and requested that you look at WP:OWN not as an accusation of ownership precisely - I don't believe you quite understood that comment - I was referring to the comments in the tone of "you don't know much about china, you shouldn't edit"
I think it would do you good to re-evaluate both "Be Bold" and "Ignore all rules" - they are cornerstones of wikipedia - and not much growth could exist without them
I would welcome you back to China given that you reflect on the suggestions in this comment - I would welcome you with open arms - I have greatly appreciated past comments from you
--Keerllston 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Readin, I feel rather upset with Kirlston. I know that my reaction to him wasn't very civil, but I can't accept the direction he is pushing the article in. I know that China may be a rather difficult article, but when the upshot of all our discussions is that Kirlston wants to have Japan incorporated in the "China" article (with the consumption of pork in southern Japan as one of the supporting factoids), I don't think there is much I can do. He really is going over the top, and insulting his knowledge of China only seems to have made him more unstoppable.

No need to apologize to me.

I don't think Kirlston is unstoppable. It's not like you're having an edit war in the actual article (like some of the people discussing etymology seem to be). Hopefully you guys can work things out. For now I'm not actually concerned about whether Japan gets into the article or not. I just want us to settle on a definition. I appreciate your concerns about the nationalistic views of some of the editors, but I think we have to put in the effort, and there seems to be a lot of effort going into it. Readin (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the briefness of this reply and for not diving into the debate on Talk:China. As Enochlau mentioned, I am currently quite busy in real life.

First, just to defuse the conflict a bit, I think Keerblah's reference to "southern japan" was a reference to Ryukyu/Okinawa, whose history, culture and (as mentioned) cuisine is in many ways much more closely related to China than Japan is related to China. It is understandable that some would (on one interpretation of the historical evidence) argue that Ryukyu should be regarded as part of the "Chinese civilisation". Personally, I think that Ryukyu is on the same footing as Korea, Vietnam and other former vassals of Imperial China - they can be regarded as heavily influenced by Chinese culture, perhaps part of the historical Sinosphere, but they shouldn't be regarded as "China" in any usual sense of the word.

Secondly, I think you present a voice of reason and knowledge on this talk page, and I urge you to stay on. While the other two users have good intentions, I fear that their relative inexperience may result in some undesirable results if established editors are not participating —Preceding unsigned comment added by PalaceGuard008 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is going to sound completely random, but I see from the previous few comments that we share a common bond stemming from a certain user attempting to insinuate himself into topics he knows nothing about. I feel your pain, as it were. He has been mucking around recently with the FAC process, including my very first FAC which was recently promoted despite his baseless (and long winded) objections. It got to the point where I just couldn't take anymore, so I gave him the cold shoulder. The more you try to reason with him, the more unreasonable he becomes. I glanced at the China talk page, having been concerned about this individual's contributions to the rest of Wikipedia, and was not too surprised that it's all too similar of a situation. And always, always with the misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially in regards to his "understanding" of incivility (if it hurts his feelings, it's uncivil apparently). Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone. Perhaps if this behavior continues, we'll have a Mediation on our hands. This is seriously not good for the project. Hang in there, María (habla conmigo) 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your HP site doesn't have a page/section that deals with how "Parseltongue" is translated into the three languages. DHN (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe,
On the occasion of the 29th of December I present you these roses.
Wish you health and happiness.
Gantuya eng (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The article is in a mess when everyone write a little bit without making the whole thing consistent. For example, the first sentence says cheongsam is a women dress. I know for sure Chinese men wore cheongsam for hundreds of years in China. Feel free to refactor the article. Kowloonese (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is how people read the word "Cheongsam", is it "THE" English word that entered the English vocabulary decades ago that carried a specific meaning determined back then? Or is it just the transliteration of the chinese word 長衫 which refers to a bigger category of the similar garments?

Another good example of the same kind is DimSum. In the US English vocabulary, the "English word" DimSum means the Hong Kong style DimSum that you get in a tea house. But DimSum is also a transliteration of the Chinese word 點心 (snacks) which may cover 100X more varieties of food than the Hong Kong DimSum. In the Dimsum article, these two different usages were not distinguished. One sentence refers to the English word "dimsum", another sentence refers to Chinese word "dimsum" in the same paragraph. It is just a mess. I have given up on that kind of clean up long ago when every author has his own intepretation of the title word.

I have similar frustration when the "Chop Suey" article I wrote was turned into "Chinese American Cuisine". The Chinese American Cuisine I first encountered 30 years ago was quite different from what I can buy today in Chinese restaurant in US Chinatown. I still want an encylopedia article on the historical background of "Chop Suey" but when modern Chinese American cuisine is mixed in the same article, the article is not readable anymore.

Kowloonese (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are on the same page. I bet Blind Man Walking probably has not lived in the US or Britain and is not aware that a big collection of Chinese loan words has entered the English vocabulary over 100 years ago when the British colonized Hong Kong. It is plainly wrong to assume Cheongsam = 長衫 and DimSum = 點心 etc. because these words have become English words and their meaning took a related but independent route of etymology. Good luck in convincing these people because they only know one side of the story, the Chinese side. You probably should show them this conversation. I am Chinese and have lived in Hong Kong in the first 40% of my life, and in the US for the balance, so I know exactly how and why they think that way because I thought like them before.

Kowloonese (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renminbi yuan, or rather, 人民币元, is the name used in official contexts, used, for example, in Chinese laws and regulations, and by Chinese media when talking about exchange rates or revaluations. Examles from googling "Renminbi Yuan": from the Chinese embassy to the US, a journal article, a Zhejiang provincical law, Websters online dictionary, a badly translated official English version of a national law. (One thing that annoys me is the "Chinglish" tendency to confuse informal contractions with formal usage - e.g. "EXE" instead of "executable file", "Forex" instead of "foreign exchange", etc.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My motive is very simple. I don't dispute the fact, but if you look at the talk page, you'll see the article quick-failed the GA Review and the reviewer specifically said the exact statement needed referencing. Now, you might disagree with the reviewer, but I was just trying to push it to GA so the reviewer's concerns need to be addressed. Certainly I have no POV to push here. Thank you for your time. Josuechan (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Bathrobe - I think that I myself nominated this article on GAC last year. Well, I believe that you should provide sources for "pataca" is locally known as the 葡幣. Your reasons for not providing sources are not sufficient. Please refer to WP:L, it states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. I know you lived in Macao for some time but it doesn't mean that your own experience is verifiable. Please refer to WP:OR, it states: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Coloane (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm a bundle of nerves over it, thanks so much. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please go here to register your opinion on two proposals for currency naming guidelines. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stirring up the pot a bit here. — AjaxSmack 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe, noticed your comments in WP:V. I'm working in a totally unrelated area of 'wiki' but can understand your frustration. I'm not clear though as to whether you think WP content needs greater verifiability or more relaxed. You seem to be saying more verifiability but you're having trouble having your edits accepted? Just curious as to what is the actual cause of frustration. Slofstra (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think the book you are looking for is Uradyn Bulag, Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia, Oxford 1998. Yaan (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on Vietnamese cúc as "chrysanthemum." I think you're absolutely right; it derives from 菊. Badagnani (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked with my Vietnamese teacher and he never heard of "pine" among those four plants. I'd like to figure out why the original editor put pine, as opposed to "orchid." Badagnani (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit. Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right; it was a confusion between the "three friends of the cold" and the "four junzi flowers."

Can you help create an article for the four junzi flowers, as in the Chinese version: [8]? Badagnani (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the ume isn't a plum; it's closer to the apricot. Badagnani (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the part about the other countries. You're right, Song is probably too early for the other countries to have used them. Are you sure Korea, Japan, and Vietnam all uses them? I think they do. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the painting, it's a good one, but too bad there weren't any free ones at Flickr. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_m%C6%A1 . It says that Prunus armeniaca is called "mơ châu Âu" ("European plum") in Vietnamese. Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because mơ seems to signify Prunus. Badagnani (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see--the "plum" type are called mận and the "ume"/"apricot" type are called mơ. The genus Prunus is called mận mơ. Makes sense. Badagnani (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This says that Wu Zhen is credited as having been the first to promote the painting of all four plants in a single painting. Is it true? If so, it should be noted for our readers. Badagnani (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that wouldn't be the first contradiction one has encountered in the study of East Asian historiography of culture... One could simply say that "Variously, X and Y have both been credited as popularizing the painting of all four of these subjects in a single ink-and-brush painting or other artwork." Badagnani (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the "three friends" came before the concept of the "four gentlemen"? That's good and important information. Badagnani (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mustard seed garden" sounds strange for 芥子园--I wonder why it was called that. Badagnani (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Hanja are traditional chinese characters and i haven't removed it. It is still there.

The word hani does not exist at all. As in if you said hani to some Korean he/she would have ZERO idea what you were saying.

The phenomenon does exist but by nowhere near the extent the Chinese claim. There are words of sino origin, more specifically words of religious and scientific origin. However it is patently false to say sino-Korean words are of sino origin. Sino-Korean words are simply words that can be written in Hanja.

Sino-Korean words are spoken in Korean, have been in the Korean spoken language since Koreans arrived. Traditional Chinese was the only written language 2000 years ago ergo the use of hanja(traditional chinese). The context I'm describing is similiar to the Vietnamese language, which is spoken in Vietnamese but written with French.

This is what i mean by "Korean spoken language written using Chinese characters". Languages are usually spoken first before a writing system is developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subvertmsm (talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji and Hanja are not used for the same purposes. Hanja represents Korean phonetics, Kanji is Japanese.

I think you mean the opposite. Kanji and what not represent much more than just a series of characters. The entire Japanese writing system and much of its vocabulary is Chinese. In Korean, hanja represents nothing other than the assigned sounds and have almost no correlation to Chinese.

For example, if you ask a Chinese person to try to learn Japanese, he/she will find an enormous amount of similarities. Ask him to learn Korean, with or without Hanja, it will be difficult and Hanja will not help at all.

The quote, seems really clear to me, although I see your ambiguity.

Hanja is a bit abstract, there is no meaning or logic behind it because the Chinese language has no alphabet while Korean does. Modern Chinese, when you are learning it, is learned by memorization. It doesn't follow like a language with an alphabet.

Most hanja can be written for proper nouns or words that dont exist. If the Chinese invented the computer, we wouldn't have a Korean word for it. We'd make up a word, and then there would be hanja attached to it to clarify it.Subvertmsm (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, a continuation of a discussion you participated in continues at Talk:Chinese_wén#Article_split. — AjaxSmack 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You previously participated in discussions involving the title of Chinese wén. If you are interested, there is a follow-up move proposal at Talk:Chinese wén. — AjaxSmack 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my fill of your attitude. If you can't resist taking cheap pot shots at editors you disagree with, please stop editing Wikipedia. One more insult and I'll take matters further.
Dove1950 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you (albeit considerably after the fact) for the translation you did to bring the Zelda article over to the English Wikipedia. I've been a fan for quite some time, and it's nice to know that they have a place here to call home. (Ditto your work on Ivan Morris.) 99.137.211.50 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Zelda fans on Wikipedia do exist! http://stats.grok.se/en/200802/zelda%20(band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.126.242 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AjaxSmack, I noticed your comment at Ulaanbaatar:

None of this is controversial but it doesn't really matter anyway. Nice was never a part of Italy but the Italian name is listed prominently. Ditto with Nancy, Listing a foreign language name does not denote a territorial claim or signify any type of chauvinism, it's just part of the knowledge that makes up an encyclopedia.

In fact, I have tried listing the Mongolian name of Irkutsk, Эрхүү, at that article but ran into opposition from an American-Russian editor. I eventually backed down and deleted the name from the head of the article (and was unable to find a place in the article where it could be mentioned naturally), but I still feel as you do about the possiblility of listing foreign names -- listing them doesn't signify a territorial claim or chauvinism, just part of the knowledge that makes up an encyclopedia. Since Irkutsk was originally founded in Mongolian-speaking territory and is named after a river (the Irkut or Эрхүү) that ran in such territory, I can't see the harm in adding the name. At any rate, I wondered what you might think about a case like this.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as long as the names have some relevance to the topic.

Check out WP:NCGN: "Relevant foreign language names...used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place are permitted" and "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead"

I've created several names sections (e.g., İzmir, Vladivostok, Ashgabat) where the list started getting out of hand. This helps keeps the nationalist edit warring down and makes the intro line a lot cleaner looking.

The case of Irkutsk is close. It was once part of the Mongol Empire and that would warrant the inclusion of the Classical Mongolian name. I think it shoud be there because the Buryat name also happens to be Эрхүү. Buryat is certianly relevant and it would be easy to include something like "(Buryat and [Эрхүү Erhüü] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help))." I'll try to put that in myself and see what happens. If that gets resistance, a names section might work.

In cases where the name has no ethnic or historical connection, an entry can be made at Names of Asian cities in different languages. — AjaxSmack 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that. I think it's definitely better having the Buryat name there. I was able to confirm that Эрхүү was the Buryat name of the river, but had no information on the name of the city.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from Buryat Wikipedia (the second sentence of bxr:Буряад-монгол) and confirmed it at KNAB (with this search result), a good source for such things since it's referenced. — AjaxSmack 07:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe, thanks for your contribs to Taiwanese aborigines. There is a long, long, long, long discussion on the talk page (or in the archives) about "raw" and "cooked". Please take the time to read through those before engaging in WP:OR. Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe,

your concerns are understandable, but for this topic we are dealing with the experience of peoples and must take extra care in how we present information. This has been archived and after a very long debate, including the input from many of the source book authors and anthropologists. It was determined that the terms "raw" and "cooked" reach beyond simple literal usage and demonstrate the actual pejorative nature of the relationship between Han and non-Han in 17th Century Taiwan. Other examples may include "Raw/Tamed". Please see the source material for more info before you make changes. Thanks!

Maowang (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are different. If you can read Chinese, please see zh:洛河. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe, Thanks for the correction. It was not me who made that change though. (I wonder how that happened) I know practically nothing about Japanese architecture and would not presume to engage in those issues. But all the best with your work.Brosi (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too angry at you, but honestly was rather shocked at "before-and-after of you". Of course, you're not changed, just because I don't know anything about you. However, I wondered as to why you replaced the plural Koreans with the singular form, which looks like you seems to directly point your finger at me, only Korean at those discussions. Your mention of Chinese is also aiming at Palace that makes me very uncomfortable as well. Why do people make fuss about the titles? A name holds a strong power and cultural influence as well as nationalism, that's wnhy Japanese fiercely objects Liancourt Rocks at Dokdo contrary to their claim at Senkaku Islands. That is a double standard. Endroit even tried framed me right after I reverted his non-consensus edit. I'm also very sick of those kind of ill-faith gaming here.

How do you know "the Westerners" here are really "Westerners"? As I don't know of you, you don't know me and we don't know who really the participants are at the discussion. I've seen so many 'fake' people with fake nationality or ethnicity, so I can't totally believe what people talk about themselves here. Their edit contribution partially shows who they're and what intention they come to here.

Why did I stop participating in the ongoing discussion? I'm not a native speaker, so can't keep up with your and others' speed and there are many amusing and "safe" articles hailing toward me. I will go to the 'sakura' talk page soon but I think you should leave an official request at WP:RM to draw people's attention more. --Appletrees (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally prefer Latin binominal names because I have to double-check on whether my spelling is correct. That is tiresome for me, non-English speaker very ignorant of science. However, in my experience, the Asian pear is being called nashi, Korean pear, or even incorrectly 'Chinese pear' respectively where I went/go for grocery shopping to Japanese, Korean, and Chinese market(s). The fruit of "Prunus mume" is even harder to find in Asian markets that the pear except Japanese foods like umeboshi. In this case, I can't support any of the names and if everyone agree to throw hideous binominal names, I would go with "Japanese plum" and "apricot". However, I don't know regarding 'mei'. The case is very similar to Zen. --Appletrees (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note, that when editing a page, say page [[zxcvbnm]]:

[[Category:qwerty]] puts page zxcvbnm in the category qwerty .

[[:Category:qwerty]] is a link to the category qwerty .

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take LL too seriously -- I'm pretty sure she thought you'd find her bluntness as funny as you thought she'd find your flippantness, for what it's worth. And you're welcome to join, and then it will be affiliated with you ;)

Cheers, and happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit seems correct. Badagnani (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I summarized the list of countries into a single statement because there were about 8 or 9 foreign countries that were affected by the tremors. I thought either mention all of them or not at all, rather than just mention two or three (Pakistan and few places). The earthquake details section below also had a list of all the places.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like you to know that I'll be stepping down from talk:Han Chinese, seeing that I actually don't have as much knowledge on the subject. (^^;) You seem to be well-read on the subject, and I enjoyed arguing intellectually with you. I hope that you will be successful in making the article more effective.

Ciao!

余^(姚七) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you on Bardo Thodol- without getting into politics over Tibet's status with regards to government and history, the text in question was composed in Tibetan and relates specifically to the funerary practices of Tibet, and is not used in China generally. Calling it a Chinese funerary text would be a bit misleading, as it creates the impression that it's written in Chinese, or is generally popular in China. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Actually I have never read this novel. It looks pretty fascinating, I'll have to buy it. Even if he might be limited in his knowledge of civilizations outside the Western World, most people reading a fantasy book staged in the 5th century BC aren't going to catch his mistakes, as they most likely won't be well-versed in history. ;) Cheers, and thanks for suggesting this book!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion about my "junk edits". I have often been reading an article, only to click on a link to learn more about something else.Mejor Los Indios (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in discussions involving the title of Chinese wén. If you are interested, there is a follow-up move proposal at Talk:Chinese wén. — AjaxSmack 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Didn't know if you got it before. — AjaxSmack 05:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the Bathrobe Cabal? lol Kevin hipwell (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some time ago you trasferred some deleted comments (by an IP user) from the article to the talk page. Unfortunately, the comments were extremely defamatory and have been removed. It should be noted that the same or similar comments had already been inserted by an IP spammer/vandal recently into the talk page itself (which have since been removed as they were in breach of WP:SOAP). David873 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously participated in discussions on use of English in currency names at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please discuss a resolution of related titleing issue at Talk:Chinese wén. — AjaxSmack 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about your argument to have the Japanese name for 文 listed in the discussion regarding whether it should be called the wén or cash. I think you just gave Dove1950 ammunition to tear down your argument on one little part of the argument, and ignoring the rest, which he usually does. Are you suggesting that the chinese version of the currency was used in Japan too? --Novelty (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination. However I think you need to calm down a bit when talking about Dove1950. I know he can make some people's blood boil sometimes (just have a look at the Brunei dollar talk page for example), but I think he is only doing what he thinks is best from his limited understanding. He is also stubborn as well, but as can be seen on the Brunei dollar talk page and on other pages, he can back down and grudgingly accept a ruling, even when it is against his favour. I just think we need to ensure that our own arguments do not allow him to "sidetrack" and convolute the issue, then he'll be able to "see the light". --Novelty (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to you comment at AjaxSmack — 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe.

One solution to having Cantonese a redirect would be to call use the name Yue Chinese, per Ethnologue. After all, we don't call all Wu dialects "Shanghainese", and calling all of Yue "Cantonese" is equally inaccurate. But that's not something I feel strongly about, so I'll watch the page but probably won't push for one or the other. kwami (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you feel about this justification now? Colipon+(Talk) 10:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping me out. I know my view is not 'main stream', and I know many of those mainland China educated editors would curse me for what I am doing. But the fact remains that Manchu is not China, Manchus were a bunch of nomad barbarians, a mix of Mongols, tartars, Juchens, a bunch of low-life who pretended to know Confucius, pretended to know poetry writing, pretended to live Chinese Han life. All you need to do is google, then you can find out those Manchus SOB are the real SOB.Arilang1234 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, me again. I have done a bit of work at Qing, could you have a look and point out my mistakes? Thanks.Arilang1234 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I would try to answer your question on Chinese emperor's 'absolute power' on your talk page.

“

From 1469 to 1497 the two emperors, Hsien-tsung, and Hsiao-tsung, had no audiences with the cabinet, and only from 1497 to 1505, the last years of Hsiao-tsung's reign, was there a revival of fairly regular audiences. The following emperor, Wu-tsung, spent much time traveling about the country and was not available for regular consultation with his cabinet ministers. The Shih-tsung Emperor saw his ministers only once between 1524 and 1550....The next emperor, Shen-tsung(reigned 1573-1619), followed Shih-tsung's example, meeting with his ministers only once in the last twenty-nine years of his reign. It appears, then, that during the last eight years of Hsiao-tsung's reign showed a normal pattern of court audiences. Absenteeism was the rule.Page 11 The Ching Imperial Household Department. By Preston M. Torbert

”

When issuing imperial decree, which in itself was 'absolute power', only Manchu emperors could issued them with no other human beings on earth to stop him from doing so. Other emperors of other dynasties had Prime ministers or other ministers to check or stop him if need be.

• Please have a look at Yan Chongnian#Face slapping incidence and let me know of your opinions.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for fixing those errors at Yan Chongnian. Please go to Zhou Enlai and have a look, we can have some fun there too.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to improve on the article if you can. Abstrakt (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/UrNepPl.html was cited to erroneously assert that the Vietnamese name of Pluto is the same in Vietnamese as in Chinese and other East Asian languages. In fact, it is different. While 冥王 is just a general term for "King of the Underworld", the Vietnamese term Diêm Vương (閻王) specifically refers to Yama. I suspect the reason for the change was that the "dark" meaning of the word "minh" is esoteric, as the "bright" meaning is much more well-known. DHN (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone misread that page and used it as a reference in Pluto. I already made the changes in that article. DHN (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bathrobe. I understand that you feel frustrated about Arilang. (If interested, see also User talk:Coppertwig#Arilang1234 asking for help.) But it's still important to talk nicely. You said at Talk:Qing Dynasty, "Do you know the difference?" and "You are like a squirrel ..." and "At the moment your broadening of viewpoints seems to go no further than recognising that some squirrels are also interested in storing pine cones." and "you have a one-track mind" I think it's OK to make comments about Arilang's behaviour, and I think it's OK to ask Arilang to post proposed material to the talk page for discussion before editing the article, but these comments seem to me to go beyond that and to talk about Arilang. However, I very much appreciate your help with Arilang. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Bathrobe, and thanks for dropping by. I see there's already a relevant section where I can respond! I've read the talk page of the Qing dynasty wiki more carefully and I'm starting to understand Arilang's "Han-nationalist" agenda. I'm not really planning to take him "under my wing." I just hope he can become a more autonomous editor who doesn't do random edits and assume that others will clean up the mess afterwards. He seems genuinely angry that "the Manchus" supposedly did bad things to "China," but he probably hasn't realized that China's current territory is as large as it is precisely because of the Manchus! Anyway, I'll try to "channel" him when I have time, and maybe to correct some of his edits, but I'm busy writing a dissertation, so I don't know how much time I will have to do these things. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your conflict with Arilang1234 is understandable and I agree with most of the points you've made to him, though you managed to sound exasperated a couple of times! He is right that some topics deserve more discussion, but the "let the whole world know" tone by which he discusses the Qing is usually far too involved. Still, I'm sure he's starting to understand what POV means. And as you said, he's very earnest and he seems willing to learn, so I try to keep my tone completely neutral even when I disagree with him. I think this is the best way to turn him into a good editor in the long run, though his English will probably remain a problem in the short-term. Gotta run!--Madalibi (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another episode to this whole saga! I agree that the structure and content of the page on anti-Qing sentiment needs to be improved (and dramatically). I also know you're allergic to Arilang's messy edits: just try (if I may suggest）not to let your feelings of annoyance come through as demeaning comments. Right now, I'm trying to talk things through with Arilang here on his talk page and he is proving responsive. Let's all try to work together on this, all right? Intellectually, I agree with you, by the way. And thanks for the link to Michael Gasster's article on "Anti-Manchuism": it helps a lot! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adopting a more constructive tone with Arilang. Your perceptive remarks on his English made me smile! ;-) --Madalibi (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe. You're right, the page is still biased, and it's too heavy on examples and slim on analysis. "Jiang Xu" is probably either Jiangsu or Jiangxi, but let me try to find the names in the article in question and I'll get back to you. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections done!--Madalibi (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for noticing the mistake and for finding the new reference! I've just added it to the article and mentioned its provenance in the discussion page. Cheers,--Madalibi (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you will certainly find out, I've added a reference to the Hu Zhongzao case on the Literary inquisition page. I've also split the page into sections to make it obvious that the wiki is very unbalanced. Thanks again for noticing the absence of mention of Hu Zhongzao on the Chinese page!--Madalibi (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself using the same word in an edit summary, and asked myself the same question. Answer: yes. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little on Qing philosophy right now. Your page on Han learning is actually pretty good! I also see that you're the only one who has contributed to it so far, which is too bad. We should definitely find a way to link it to the Qing dynasty page. I'm out of time for today, so I'm unable to discuss all your ideas for now, but I will try to do it in the near future. Cheers!--Madalibi (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is simply standard convention to refer to the neighboring countries in alphabetical order. If we are to list them in a geographical order, we should specify that in the article. Otherwise the reader might not understand why they are listed in that order.

I agree that "for centuries" is vague, but is there really a precise date for specifying the emergence of France as a power? For one thing, there is the problem of deciding when the western successor kingdom of Charlemagne's empire truly became "France." For another, France has gone through various rises and falls in its history. Was France not a power in the 14th century, when it housed the papacy? How about during the reigns of Louis XII and Francis I, when France occupied large portions of Italy? I think it's easiest to just state that France has been an important power for a long time, and let the reader decide for himself exactly how long that's been. Funnyhat (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, honestly, it doesn't REALLY matter to me how the neighboring countries are listed. If you want to put them back in the clockwise order, go ahead. Funnyhat (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement! I am so surprised to see that waka is still one of the topics of interest, albeit mush overshadowed by manga, anime, etc., which I like too, but somehow don't feel like writing anything about.

Good to be making new friends! Shooklyn (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, merry Xmas to you. Sorry for being rude before, now I am more mature and less angry, please feel free to visit my sandbox and have a look at articles I have created.(mostly political charged and controversial). Again I apologize for my previous immature responses. Arilang ^talk 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe,

On the occasion of the anniversary of the establishment of the Boghda Khaghanate of Mongolia you are presented these roses

Gantuya eng (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Thank you. Madalibi (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your comment, it seems you would like to see the article deleted. But I don't think you actually voted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, I have moved the article into my sandbox for more research. Arilang ^talk 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234#Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 Arilang ^talk 22:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

Please provide content:lead section and the rest. Arilang ^talk 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article José dos Santos Ferreira, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article fails WP:Bio

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on the article in keeping some people with intentions from simply claiming Yuan is a "chinese" dynasty. I would not want my countrymen to be associated with that barbarian Genghis. There are many things Chinese should be proud of, Genghis is not one of them.

My reasoning is simple: If a dynasty's rulers identify themselves as Chinese and contributes to the betterment of China, its legitimate. Otherwise, no. Some Chinese like to brag about Genghkis so they have an uproad on Europeans. If they read Chinese history more, they'll realize they don't need him to feel good. China has plenty of things to be proud of.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved abusive comment to Yuan talk page) Bathrobe (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe! If you have time and if you're interested, could you take a look at the above article? It has made lots of progress since an earlier version of it was deleted and since you last looked at it. Your advice would be welcome on how to improve it further, and maybe on how to rename it, because the current title appears a little bulky. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a mole, so I don't usally enjoy opening a can of worms. Nevertheless, your examples make me think that maybe I have inadvertantly done so. At first, I think I'm begining to see, we didn't completely understand you, did we? Although my last message doesn't seem to show it, I want you to know that your last examples have got me thinking and you seem maybe to be onto interesting, maybe something big.

Keep up the good work. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any interest in helping to source the articles on Malaysia–Sweden relations or Denmark–Mexico relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting approach... I think it'll need it's definition flushed out, more morphological detail; what makes them all alike. I love what you did with it. What about the negative definition at whales? Chrisrus (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the situation with quail, where things have been done somewhat differently. This is not to say that what is good for "vulture" must also be good for the word "quail", because there the situation might be different. For example, the Old World Quail are not called that, but simply "quail", though its talk page suggests that this is a more recent change and may not have been well thought through. Also, there's the article "Quail" and there's the disambiguation page "Quail". How best to appraoch it, do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had contributed in the past to discussions on the Chinese languages/dialects. If you have time, please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Language.2FDialect_Names and offer your opinion. Colipon+(T) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bathrobe, given your interest in East Asian art such as Four Gentlemen, if you're active and have a spare time, would you care to look into the recent cut-and-paste blanking/merging/splitting done by Asoer (talk · contribs) who has no consensus or discussion for that? I think your in-depth knowledge of East Asian culture would be greatly helpful for the issue. Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please talk about this in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#What_to_call_East_Asian_calligraphy.Asoer (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that the Malagasy mongooses were recently (2006) reclassified as Malagasy Carnivores, not with the normal mongoose group, where they had been. They changed the taxonomy and removed them from the rest of the mongooses and put them in with the fossa and such. Convergent evolution at work, again, turns out.

First question: Are they still mongooses?

Second question: How, in your opinion, should Wikipedia respond? Look at the article Mongoose for example.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422121858.htm

Hello, Bathrobe. Since you have edited articles regarding plants and been familiar with Asian subjects, I'm writing this to ask for your input. If you are around, would you care to look into these[9][10] at Daikon? And following discussion could be found at Talk:Daikon#Phoenix7777's edit. As far as I've known, terms that become English do not render "its original term in the language other than English" in the intro, but the newbie insists otherwise. So I think WP:3O would be necessary. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe. As you can see I am trying my best to bring out all the compromises possible. I think you are quite a sensible editor and please do not misunderstand me as being opposed to you. Please also remember that we previously had a discussion at "Han Chinese" - and in the end I agreed with your position on the issue even though I did not to begin with. I hope we will be able to reach some kind of resolution on this issue soon. Because I did not want to clutter the page with more information, I just wanted you to make note of this post on Talk:Yue Chinese under the heading "Please take a look at this":

In HK, people do call their language GD'hua and not GZ'hua. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they understand that by GD'hua what they really mean is one type of GD'hua out of many. However, HK people tend to be rather arrogant and ignorant on matters of language, and seem to believe that the 'city' speech used there has the monopoly of being the one and only type of GD'hua. This was encouraged by the British as Guangzhou was called Canton, so under English grammer the language of Canton (Guangzhou) is Cantonese. When reverse translated, Cantonese became GD'hua, as Canton sounded closer to Guangdong than Guangzhou. This is a technical mistake, which should be addressed. Pre-1997 hand back to China, if you spoke with an accent HK people even pretended not to understand you, or to treat you like a peasant from the Mainland. So HK people now have to be educated to realise that what they have called GD'hua is incorrect and it should really be called by its true identity of GZ'hua. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing this guy is a native speaker. Despite the fact that he does not "cite his sources" on this one, his story is basically the same as my "fairy tale". :) You don't reckon that both of us pulled this out of our ass? Colipon+(Talk) 09:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can just answer here next time. I will just watch your talk page :) Colipon+(Talk) 10:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I find you to be a rational voice in these linguistic debates I would like to hear your opinion at Talk:Wenzhou Chinese. It would be greatly appreciated :) Colipon+(Talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the article porcupine? It's a different approach to the issue, one big article for both New and Old World unrelated rodent groups not only known as but also actually independantly of what we call them being porcupines. I suppose it does lend itself to that approach better than, say, vulture, but it is a precedent. I wonder if you approve or disapprove. Also, I was still hoping for your opinion about mongoose and Malagasy Mongoose, a taxonomy so subtle it hadn't been divided until 2006. Also, do you know of any other such cases? I've got a list on my talk page I'd be interested in you adding to if you know of any more such cases. Chrisrus (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you wrote some Chinese signs. I only can copy them around. Maybe you can have a look at the table at Place names in China and the talk? And maybe let's shift aside the recent discussion between us? TrueColour (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with you on wikipedia and chinese nationalism, but I hope you do not look dimmly on all chinese people for it. It's a heady time for China and I'm sure that time will calm the tempst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.242.4 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had earlier proposed that there are "four topical areas" that deal with "Cantonese" and I suggested that this be the new outline of the new 'Cantonese' article. For some reason, after archiving "Talk:Canton dialect", I can no longer find your definitions. Mind helping me? I agree that the primary focus of the 'Cantonese' article is on the HK-Guangzhou dialect, but we also incorporate mention of Yue dialects into the article as a minor segment. It was basically JWB's proposal from earlier, which I believe you had also agreed to. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a feud over "WP:PROMOTION" on Zhonghua minzu, as propagated by an IP editor. You may wish to take a look, as I won't be present for much of the time. Cheers, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask you as a native English speaker to check section History of Mongolia#Bogda Khaanate of Mongolia for grammar and stylistics. I have checked for grammar, but couldn't find any grammatical error. However, I suspect its language should be improved to be closer to native English. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the section. I hadn't realised many mistakes. Now it's improved and is much better. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe,

Receive your flowers here: Flowers Gantuya eng (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Keichu Do. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keichu Do. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bathrobe, there's currently a discussion on Template talk:Chinese language#Second_Cantonese_link on the status of Cantonese as an ausbausprache and whether it should be listed as such on the template. Seeing that you were heavily involved in the discussions on the scope of the Cantonese article, I thought you might want to give your opinion here. Thanks! —Umofomia (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bath, I made noticeable change/expansion on East Asian calligraphy, review, corrections, expansions welcome. : ] Yug (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a poor comprehension of why people (in both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the mainland PRC) claim that the Yuan and Qing dynasty are Chinese nations. It is not because they are ethnically Chinese, the rulers of these Dynasties legally assumed the title of Emperor of China, claiming the Mandate of Heaven, therefore assuming the role of head of state of CHINA. Philip the Arab was an ARAB Emperor of Rome, yet the Roman Empire was still roman, not an arab state. Your rationale for changing every single instance of Chinese to manchu on Qing related articles is absolutely nonexistent.

And by the way, the legal reason why China claims Tibet is because it was internationally recognized as the part of the Chinese state, the Chinese Republic was legally the succesor to the Qing dynasty according to international law. It is not because, as you claimed, that Chinese try to lie that the Qing and Yuan were ethnic chinese so they could claim Tibet as part of China. If that were true, Chinese would claim Vietnam as a part of China, since Vietnam was ruled by Ethnic chinese empires like the Han and Tang Dynasties. China does not claim Vietnam as its territory because it has not legally inhereted the Vietanmese state according to international law. I think all editors would appreciate it if you stop taking your personal POV and issues about Tibet onto wikipedia articles which are a place for neutrality.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrobe: It seems that you hold an incorrect concept to interpret that the existence of 理藩院 as the proof that Qing did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese". In fact, while Lifan Yuan existed as an institution to govern outside China proper differently, Qing rulers did consider all its territory as "Chinese" territory. For example, the book "Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China" (by Elena Barabantseva) pg 20 mentions that "they referred to their expanded empire as both Da Qing Guo (Qing Empire) and Zhongguo (Central State) calling all subjects of the Empire recently and previously conquered as "Chinese" (Zhongguo zhimin, Zhongguo zhiren, and later Zhongguoren or Zhonghuaren)". The book "Empire to nation: historical perspectives on the making of the modern world" pg 232 also mentions that "The early and mid-Qing emperors repeatedly sought to identify their expanded empire as Zhongguo, and the term was commonly used in communications and treaties with foreign states." In pg 251 it further mentions that "The boundaries of the Qing had the advantage of being set by treaty, especially on the northern border with Russia. ... When the educational reforms of the late Qing introduced geography into the curriculum, textbooks were written to publicize those boundaries. As a result, the emerging Chinese citizenry may not have known what it meant to be Chinese (or in what way the Mongols and Tibetans were also Chinese), but it did know that Mongolia and Tibet were included within the territory of China". Clearly, academic sources show that Qing rulers did regard all of their territories as "Chinese", and even tried to teach citizens through geography courses during late Qing reform. For more information regarding Qing's identification with China, see the article "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" [11]. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your rather naive comment on Chinese history relate topics, I hope after a five years of staying in China helps you to develop sub academic level Chinese history with proper method instead of street talks. Wish you all the best in 2012 and thank you for you interest in my culture. ChowHui (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Chinese origin Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is needed here on ways to improve this article:Qing Dynasty Royal Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol. Arilang ^talk 04:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bathrobe,

You are raised to knighthood and from now on nobody dare to address you otherwise than Sir Bathrobe.

Hundredth anniversary of restoration of Independence of Mongolia.

ᠮᠣᠩ᠋ᠭᠣᠯ ᠣᠯᠣᠰ ᠲᠣᠰᠠᠭᠠᠷ ᠲᠣᠭᠲᠠᠨᠢᠯ ᠢᠠᠨ ᠰᠡᠷᠭᠦᠭᠡᠨ ᠮᠠᠨᠳᠣᠭᠣᠯᠣᠭᠰᠠᠨ ᠣ 100 ᠵᠢᠯ ᠣᠨ ᠣᠢ᠃

ᠡᠷᠬᠡᠮᠰᠡᠭ ᠨᠣᠶᠠᠨ Bathrobe ᠲᠠᠨ ᠢ ᠬᠦᠯᠦᠭ ᠪᠠᠭᠠᠲᠣᠷ ᠣᠨ ᠵᠡᠷᠡᠭ ᠳᠣᠷ ᠳᠡᠪᠰᠢᠭᠦᠯᠵᠦ ᠪᠠᠢᠢᠨ ᠠ᠃
Gantuya eng (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bathrobe,

a. I'm jealous now. What brought that on? Something in Mongolian, apparently.

b. You previously voted against a move back to Dragon Boat Festival from an editor's bold move to "Duanwu Festival". You're well aware that WP:ENGLISH & WP:COMMONNAME imply it should be at Dragon Boat Festival, but felt that WP:IGNOREALLRULES should trump those since:

• "'Dragon Boat Festival' sounds weird when you apply it to places like Beijing, where they celebrate the festival but have no dragon boats!"
• "In support of Duanwu, the Chinese government has now made it an official holiday" and
• "Although 'Dragon Boat Festival' is the most widespread term in English, I would submit that it's actually only used in a narrow sense for the South Chinese celebration. It's not actually synonymous with Duanwu Festival."

In fact, with respect, none of those points is actually true. Its general English use precludes it from being narrowly construed; there are far more English sources for all aspects of 端午 celebrations that call it the "Dragon Boat Festival". More importantly, 端午节 did become an official Chinese holiday, but it did not do so under the English name "Duanwu Festival": all official government organs and official English-language media use "Dragon Boat Festival" as the English form of 端午节. That includes Beijing's city government and other locales without crew races. To the extent "Duanwu" is even mentioned, it is simply to explain the Chinese name; the English name remains "Dragon Boat Festival" even in sources where Tomb Sweeping Day is called "Qingming".

That may not change your personal distaste for it but, for what it's worth, links to my sources and discussion here if they might cause you to reconsider your previous vote and establish a better consensus over there. — LlywelynII 10:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Hi Bathrobe. Right now I'm LOL that there are at least three people in the world who care whether "a potato boiled to perfection" entails an object complement or "a shortened form of a relative clause." My dilemma: On one hand, you're right from a traditional perspective that I acknowledge but don't typically employ. More specifically, the term "relative clause" appalls me despite how I use it for readers and audiences who are likely to be familiar with its meaning yet unaware of its frailty under rigorous linguistic analysis. On the other hand, demonstrating how "a potato boiled to perfection" indeed can be deemed to entail an object complement would require a longer example in a full sentence. The result would not be entirely suitable for an introductory paragraph. So, I think you were right to delete my "as an object complement" verbiage. Kudos.

Your deletion of my "ran us ragged" verbiage is a bit different. The drive-by user who deleted it (look here) was (a) right that "ragged does not function as an adverb," (b) wrong at the suggestion that I'd labeled ragged as an adverb when I'd in fact asserted that it functions adverbially in the given example; (c) insightful but beside the point with the comment about resultative. I restored the verbiage with a slightly different analysis taking into account those considerations. Your subsequent deletion leaves me nonetheless committed to its linguistic sufficiency but similarly ambivalent whether the introductory paragraph is the right place for it. Seeing how the ball has been punted and the currently constituted paragraph looks pretty good, I'm not pressing the issue. A participle's adverbial function is addressed later in the article, but if I think of a way to introduce it concisely in the opening paragraph I might give it another go. Still, it's not high on my list of priorities. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should be discussing this here or at the talk page on the article.

I was the random editor who made the changes and the comments at the talk page. I decided to sign on again after many years since the Participle article needs some serious attention.

The second sentence in the lead needs to be removed (or at least deemphasised) because 1) it is not general enough to cover all the languages given at the article (and there are many more than the ones given) 2) use in periphrastic verb forms is a peculiarity of English and does not apply to most languages that have participles, and 3) this isn't really what "functions of both verbs and adjectives" is meant to cover. Even in Latin, the participle is understood as being formed from a verb but looking and behaving like an adjective, i.e., it agrees with the noun it modifies in number, case and gender. It is, of course, used periphrastically in some parts of the verb conjugation.

I pointed out some of the problems at the talk page for Participle. It is a complete mess, particularly with regard to English. Anyone wanting to find out about participles will leave the article seriously confused.

One problem with "participle" is that there are historical 'layers' of usage and meaning. It is a category from traditional grammar that is used in European languages. However, it has been extended widely (and unevenly) to non-Western languages. In linguistics it can be used to describe forms/structures that are not usually given the name 'participle' in that language. For instance, technically speaking, Korean verbs with the present tense ending 는 could be regarded as 'participles', even though they are not usually called that in Korean grammar.

It might be useful to note the above somewhere in the article, perhaps even in the lead. It would save a lot of confusion later. However, without sources it would be regarded as 'original research'.

Regarding relative clauses, there has been a lot of work done on them; they are not as fragile as all that. Try the WALS page on relativisation [[12]]. [User:Bathrobe|Bathrobe]] (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

All duly noted. Thanks for the reply. It might be wise to keep in mind that all of these grammatical terms are linguistic constructs and not actual things. I.e. there's no real world participle in any language except how it's theoretically defined. I suspect that no Korean My own definition differs from what I added to this article. Although I deem my definition to be the best of any I've come across, it would be canned here as original research. I suspect no 한국 사람 ever thought in terms of "participles" until they encountered English grammar and made some linguistic analogies. How valid are such analogies. Depends on the linguist, I'd say.

And thanks for the WALS page on relativisation, but it was no more linguistically rigorous than anything else I've read. I'm still waiting for someone to publicly debunk relative clause vernacular using paradigmatic linguistic theory to disabuse traditionalists who adhere to naive linguistic theory. For a fresh look at the frailty that underlies the relative clause theory, take this quiz and answer (a) subjective case or (b) objective case as the grammatically correct answer:

1. (a) Who is he? (b) Who is him?
2. (a) He is Mike. (b) Him is Mike.
3. (a) Mike is he. (b) Mike is him.
4. (a) Mike is he who eats meat. (b) Mike is him who eats meat.
5. (a) Mike and I eat meat. (b) Mike and me eat meat.
6. (a) We eat meat. (b) Us eat meat.
7. (a) Mike and I are we who eat meat. (b) Mike and me are us who eat meat.
8. (a) Some vegans scorn people like we. (b) Some vegans scorn people like us.
9. (a) Some vegans scorn people like Mike and I who eat meat. (b) Some vegans scorn people like Mike and me who eat meat.
10. (a) Some vegans scorn people like we who eat meat. (b) Some vegans scorn people like us who eat meat.
11. (a) Some vegans scorn who they see eating meat. (b) Some vegans scorn whom they see eating meat.
12. (a) Who some vegans scorn are meat-eaters. (b) Whom some vegans scorn are meat-eaters.

Answer key: 1. (a); 2. (a); 3. (a) or (b); 4. (a); 5. (a); 6. (a); 7. (a); 8. (b); 9. (a); 10. (a); 11. (b); 12. (b).

In my experience, people find questions 1 and 2 to be easy. Question 3 is tricky because it lacks context: (Who is he? Mike is he; To whom did you give it? Mike is him). Question 4 entails a zeugma that naïve grammars routinely ignore. Questions 5 and are easy. The subjective case as the answer for 7 sounds awkward despite being grammatically correct. Question 8 is easy as it requires a prepositional object. Questions 9 - 11 present zeugmas where, as in Question 4, the latter of any two respective clauses control.

Question 12 entails what modern linguists term a free relative clause. Whatever. I call it an object pronoun. The funny thing is how Question 12 demonstrates a syntax that was common until the 16th century, which saw a transition to the modern-day “Some vegans scorn people who are meat-eaters” SVOP prevailing syntax. That’s also when some genius coined the “relative pronoun” term to indicate how “who” pronominally relates to “people” in the objective case in contrast to “whom” in the outmoded PSVO syntax.

My take on this? The “relative” sense of relative pronoun and relative clause is quite naïve since ALL pronouns and clauses are anaphorically or cataphorically relevant to something else. And I laugh at how traditional linguists admit that “Whom some vegans scorn are meat-eaters” is PSV but not PSVO under the theory that “meat-eaters” is a subject complement of a copula, not an object. Excuse me, but the term, copula, wasn’t coined until the 17th century as the PSVO fully transitioned to SVOP primacy. Furthermore, the term, subject complement (as it’s used today instead of object), wasn’t coined until 1923. Nowadays, only transitive verbs and prepositions entail objects, right? Oh really? Under what definition? So naïve.

In my book, i.e. original research, there’s also a stative complement that can entail a predicative adjective (“You look smart,”), adverb (“I’m here;” “Here I am”); adverbial/prepositional phrase (“It was on the tip of my tongue"), a nominal clause (“That’s what I mean”), and so on including a predicative object, (“You are my friend"). For me, a term such as subject complement pointlessly ignores the syntactic function of the relevant verb. Instead, stative object, stative adjective, etc. (instead of the garden-variety subject complement) , identifies the relevant argument. Adjacency is a practical consideration here.

I’m not seeking converts among traditionalists who are wedded to their naïve sets of terms that were hodgepodged and fossilized over the centuries. I’m just giving you a one-off idea of how I, after being inculcated with traditional grammar, rebelled when I saw how the linguistic theory behind it didn’t hold up to rigorous analysis.

A final thought: In my book, a restrictive relative pronoun is a pronominal chimera. Instead, I term it an anaphoric conjunction. A non-restrictive relative pronoun, however, retains its pronominal pedigree but I’ve jettisoned the term itself in favor of parenthetical pronoun to better characterize its function and to facilitate its identification cross-linguistically. I mean, really: translating “non-restrictive relative pronoun” into other languages is hit-or-miss, depending the length and depth of the language adherents’ exposure to English. Determining whether analogous constructs exist in a corresponding language is pretty much pointless. Yet every language distinguishes between sentence items that are syntactically essential and those that are semantically parenthetical. On the other hand, I’ve yet to encounter any reasonable explanation for why restrictive relative clauses are any less adjunctive than non-restrictive clauses or why non-restrictive relative clauses are any more essential from a semantics rationale. I mean, if non-restrictive relative clauses are as semantically or syntactically non-essential as some commentators claim, it begs the question why such a clause is part of the sentence in the first place!

Good grief. End of rant. For today. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal pronoun examples are confusing because there are two competing sets of rules at work in English. One is the traditional grammar rule that we learn at school and takes precedence in writing. The other pertains to everyday spoken (at times characterised as substandard) English.

@Bathrobe: That’s my point exactly!

Kent: I went to a movie yesterday.

Bathrobe: Really? Who’d you go with?

In everyday conversation, no one bats an eye at your reply. Most everyone except old-school grammarians would think you’re full of yourself if instead your reply were, “Really? With whom did you go?” So, is “Who’d you go with?” substandard? Nope. It’s pretty much standard, non-grammatical albeit colloquial English. My dilemma: What do I teach ESL students who grasp the stodgy textbook English but can’t make heads or tails of what real-life English entails? I default to teaching real-life English. The intrepid student who inquires about the discrepancies gets a gold star. Such students comprise the upper five percentile. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My answers would be 1 a), 2 a), 3 b) (but weird-sounding without context), 4 a) (this is unidiomatic in spoken English so the written rule takes precedence), 5 a) or b) depending on the register, 6 a), 7 a) but totally unidiomatic in modern English, 8 b), 9 b) (because 'like' requires the accusative case in current English), 10 b) (ditto), 11 b) (but totally unidiomatic and probably archaic, even in written English), 12 a) (but totally unidiomatic in current English).

@Bathrobe: You’re more forgiving than me I am regarding #5. It strikes me as discordant whenever I hear 5(b) but I’ve learned to live with it. We both answered 7 (a) and I agree it’s archaic, but it’s nonetheless grammatically correct. Re. #9 - #11: I win the grammar points and would sound normal in 16th century England; you win the real-life, modern-day English contest worldwide. Finally, #12 merely highlights why I ridicule adherents to the linguistic relativisation terminology. Things get clearer when we update the given example to (a) “Those who some vegans scorn are meat-eaters” versus (b) “Those whom some vegans scorn are meat-eaters. ONLY (b) is grammatically correct, but I’d age 10 years trying to find anyone who’d say such a thing in real life. Instead I’d expect to hear, “Some vegans scorn those who are meat-eaters.”

And 99.9% of the linguists out there would say “who” is a restrictive relative pronoun, a defining relative pronoun, or a limiting relative pronoun. Count me out. I say it’s an anaphoric conjunction appending the “are meat-eaters” verb phrase (yes, a phrase, not a clause) to the “those” object. Even the staunchest relativisation adherents have to admit that their so-called “who are meat-eaters” restrictive relative clause entails an apposition of “those” and “who.” But, since when does it make sense to apply the notion of apposition to syntax that entails words from different lexical categories (i.e. with “those” as an object and “who” as a supposed subject)?

Okay, I’ve caught my breath. Next question? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free relative clause? Object pronoun? Would you say "I know who took it" or "I know whom took it"?

@Bathrobe: The former is the only grammatically correct phrasing; the latter is a hypercorrection. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Relative clause' is just a name. Whether "ALL pronouns and clauses are anaphorically or cataphorically relevant to something else" is irrelevant. The term refers to a specific grammatical construction. I prefer 'adnominal clause'.

@Bathrobe: This entire thread is irrelevant when it comes to identifying the lexical categories of the syntax we use in everyday English. Of course there are no thought bubbles showing whether you think “who” is a pronoun or a conjunction when you say, “I know who took it.” But there is one bit of practicality here. Namely, when people rely on our speech as having an unmistaken nexus to our intention, we’d better know our syntax. Case in point:

1. You won’t believe who I bumped into yesterday.
2. You won’t believe whom I bumped into yesterday.

Both sentences are grammatically correct but, upon analysis, you’ll note they entail radically different ideas. Namely, #1 connotes “Who it was that I bumped into is a factual matter that you won’t believe.” Sentence #2 connotes “You won’t believe that the person, into whom I bumped yesterday, is a truthful human being.” The good news: I don’t know anyone who would use Sentence #2 except when hypercorrecting. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for restrictive vs non-restrictive, I agree that it's grammatically slippery. Nevertheless it is semantically very real. You need to account for it however you want to explain it linguistically.

@Bathrobe: Well, astrology is very real. Blood-type personalities are very real. They exist because they’re worded right there on your screen. Would you second-guess their efficacy if I gave you reasonable arguments their validity in contrast to a different way of looking at things? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of traditional grammar and while it is useful it quickly gets bogged down when it is used to describe complex sentences. The reality is that language is often difficult to explain in neat categories, which is why there are so many grammatical theories and so much variety in grammatical terminology. As a part of grammatical terminology, "complement" is one of the slipperiest and I gave up trying to understand it long ago.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bathrobe: I hear ya. For me, traditional grammar is like using Roman numerals to explain quantum mechanics. However, I regularly use the term, “grammar,” when I’m actually talking linguistics because (a) most folks don’t know the practical difference in terminology, and (b) “linguistics” tends to sound pretty scary if not useless for ordinary intents and purposes. But this is how it goes when ESL students read the first line from my novel (i.e. Most days, vehicles are few and far between along Louisiana Highway 87 through Olivier”):

Student: Shouldn’t it be “On most days…?”

Kent: Well, there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that, but there’s no need for On.

Student: I don’t get it. Are you saying you can just omit prepositions whenever?

Kent: Not quite. In this case, “On most days” is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb. If you omit On, people generally know that Most days still functions adverbially.

Student: Wait – so, you can use nouns as adverbs?

Kent: Sort of. Like, “Most days I skip breakfast” means I usually or typically” skip breakfast.

Student: Ah – like, “Yesterday I woke up early” instead of on yesterday?

Kent: Exactly! There are very few native English speakers who’d say “On yesterday…” There are some regions of the Deep South and Appalachia where it’s common, but most people consider it substandard. Think of it like this: home is only a noun in the Korean language, so you have to say 난 집에 갈거야 with the 에 preposition postposition. But in English, we just say “I’m going home,” with “home” acting as an adverb. We don’t say, “I’m going to home.”

Student: So, can I say, I’m going school?”

Kent: Not yet. Ask me again in the next century. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Bathrobe: Be sure to click the "View history" tab in the Olivier article!

A quick response: time adverbs are rather special. 'Yesterday' can be a noun. It can also be a sentence adverb. Similarly for 'next week', etc.

Bathrobe (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that, I know that (but I assign them their own temporal adverb lexical category), yet no one told half the ESL population. I have to explain it time after time. A spatial corollary: Did you transitively travel (a distance of) 6 miles, or did you intransively travel 6 (adverbial) miles? Ha! [Note: Synonymously, "traverse" has only a transitive sense. English is so, so special.] --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verbal noun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derivation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AI. Who'd've thunk? Gotta hand it to the programmer. Ha! --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Participle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Subject, Perfect and Transgressive.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sweat on the article is dripping from my computer screen. I credit your perseverance but I think you're fighting a lost cause. As I see it, the problem isn't with participle per se; it's with the past participle (coined in 1798) and present participle (coined in 1864) terminology. The former was created based on its typical form's coincidence with preterit forms; the later was created merely for semantic contrast. Aspectually speaking, you and I know there's nothing intrinsically past or present regarding a number of ways we use participles. I've given up trying to explain the misnomers. In my lexicon, they're perfective participles and continuative participles in sets that are either active or passive, and either adjectival or adverbial. It really is that simple. Trying to explain the sense of the traditional terms is like pressing the bulges on a defective linguistic balloon. I sorta regret my contributions to the article on behalf of anyone who thinks I buy into the premise when I was merely making nips and tucks to what was already there. Good luck to you on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 11:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't add much, except to the lead (which still isn't that satisfactory but is a reasonable introduction to the topic). Material about the problem with 'present' and 'past' participle was already there but poorly expressed. Yes, I just nipped and tucked a bit, and tried to amalgamate all the disparate treatments into some kind of order. Perhaps a losing battle but I can only hope that it's a bit better than what was there before....

Incidentally, there is also a problem with the term 'perfect' in English. Although it sounds like something that has been 'perfected' or 'completed', in fact the perfect is about something that isn't complete. It's about a past action that is still alive in the present. I'm sure kids in many countries studying the perfect as that term is translated into their own language are misled from generation to generation.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source to the East Asian cultural sphere, but there is a source that can't be accessed, don't know where is wrong. Please fix the error and check if this source is reliable ? 186.234.124.127 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere there's a Wiki rule that tells users (1) not to delete other users' posts from talk pages other than their own, and (2) not to delete their own posts from any talk page if the remaining posts reply to deleted text, thereby leaving a ghost post as a remainder. In this case, where you deleted the thread containing another user's post from Doric Loon's page, I doubt anyone cares. Just a word to the wise seeing as I once got an admin warning for not knowing the rules.

There's also a Wiki rule that says we're supposed to flag a user whose handle comes up in a thread to which they're not a participant. I'm ignoring that rule as it pertains here to Doric Loon. Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. I'll be careful in future. Bathrobe (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I highly encourage you to edit the Wikipedia articles on Phrase, Clause (with special attention to Clauses vs. phrases, Dependent clause, Relative clause, Relative pronoun, and Relativizer. Avoid any inclination to think I fully stand by my edits of those article, or that I intended my edits to be the last word. All I can say is that I believed at the time I posted the edits that they represented an improvement.

Before you do any editing of those articles, get your various caps ready and alternately put them on to ask yourself the following questions:

A. With your average native English speaker cap on – What distinguishes a phrase from a clause? Are all relative clauses a type of dependent clause? Can both relative pronouns and relativizers premise a relative clause? Is there such a thing as a restrictive relativizer versus a non-restrictive relativizer? (When I put that cap on, I answer: “I don’t really know and I couldn’t care less. I just use the language without considering grammatical terminology.)

B. With your average ESL instructor cap on –

1. What distinguishes a phrase from a clause? A: A clause has a subject and predicate; a phrase has only all or part of one or the other.
2. Are all relative clauses a type of dependent clause? A: I think so.
3. Can both relative pronouns and relativizers premise a relative clause? A: Sure. They’re just different names for the same thing.
4. Is there such a thing as a restrictive relativizer versus a non-restrictive relativizer? A: Not that I’ve ever seen in any ESL materials.

c. With your average ESL student cap on –

1. What distinguishes a phrase from a clause? A: It depends on which textbook you read or which ESL instructor you ask.
2. Are all relative clauses a type of dependent clause? A: I think so.
3. Can both relative pronouns and relativizers premise a relative clause? A: Sure. They’re just different names for the same thing.
4. Is there such a thing as a restrictive relativizer versus a non-restrictive relativizer? A: Not that I’ve ever seen in any ESL materials.

D. With your average linguistics cap on –

1. What distinguishes a phrase from a clause? A: If you have a spare hour or two, let me explain it in terms of generative grammar versus structuralist grammar.
2. Are all relative clauses a type of dependent clause? A: Under generative grammar, yes. Under structuralist grammar, no since some so-called relative clauses are actually verb phrases (e.g., "Buy the one that works best") or mere words (e.g., "Buy the one that works").
3. Can both relative pronouns and relativizers premise a relative clause? A: Sure. They function the same re bona fide relative clauses, but relativers also have separate complementizer functions (and some would say additional adverbial clause functions) beyond the function that relative pronouns perform.
4. Is there such a thing as a restrictive relativizer versus a non-restrictive relativizer? A: Absolutely. A Google Scholar search gives evidence of that.

E. With your TLS lexical cap on –

1. What distinguishes a phrase from a clause? A: A clause is a word unit comprised of a subject that predicates a finite verb; a phrase is an aggregate of two or more words that perform a discrete lexical function within a clause or sentence.

2. Are all relative clauses a type of dependent clause? A: Indeterminable under TLS, which defines relative clause as:

an old-fashioned taxon (invented in the late 18th century) intended to classify a certain type of postpositive clause or a postpositive phrase that –

1. defines or qualifies the identity of an antecedent object or subject. (Cf. postpositive adjectival clause.)

2. expounds a contextually adjacent element within a sentence as an interpolation rendered in speech via a slight pause or in text via certain punctuation. Cf. parenthetic adjectival clause.)

3. Can both relative pronouns and relativizers premise a relative clause? A: Also indeterminable under TLS, which defines relative pronoun as –

an old-fashioned taxon (invented in the early 18th century) intended to classify a word that:]]:

1. predicates an adjectival clause or an adjectival phrase. (Cf. adjectival conjunction.)

2. predicates a parenthetic adjectival clause. (Cf. parenthetic pronoun.)

See generally anaphoric subject pronoun³.

4. Is there such a thing as a restrictive relativizer versus a non-restrictive relativizer? A: TLS is silent on that question. It's left to the readers to conclude how a restrictive relativizer – as deemed a conjunction in the modern sense – can't rightly be construed to premise a restrictive clause (i.e., in contrast to a verb phrase) in a sentence like “He argued two points that made perfect sense”), and can’t rightly be construed to be a conjunction as a non-restrictive relativizer in a sentence like “He argued two points, which made perfect sense”. The TLS author has no interest in explaining how Old English was inconsistent in frequently using þe or þat as so-called restrictive relativizers versus þe is or þat is as so-called non-restrictive relativizing phrases.

Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was ist TLS? Bathrobe (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]