Xiaopo

• Keep: Fellow Wikipedians, please pause and think for a second: do you know the exact origin and meaning of "penkyamp" in the Cantonese language? Proper nouns(let's have no doubt that "Penkyamp" is indeed a proper name for the orthography), have varying degrees of SPECIFICITY. The fact that the name "penkyamp" does not automatically lead us to the origin of such system doesn't mean that such system wasn't in use under different names. Let's see: "penkyamp" as a GENERAL NOUN is inspired by Mandarin "pinyin", which is itself both a proper name for a system and a general noun designating "phonetic script". As a result, "penkyamp" as a general noun has been in use among the Cantonese referring to any phonetic script since at least the birth of the Mandarin Pinyin. And "Penkyamp" as a proper noun for a specific system might not be in place well after this system was in use for many years, only until it was introduced to us as such. What if on-line records before 2003 has been mostly erased?

Besides, the article started under the entry Cantonese Romanization instead of Penkyamp. Maybe back then "Penkyamp" wasn't finalized as its only proper name. It could be "Lomazi" or "Zeuyamp". At least it's nothing as specific as "Jyutpin" (a name that is hightly stylized and specified as a "PINyin"--note: not a Cantonese pronunciation--- of the "Jyut"(Guangdong)-- nothing can get as specific as this, which will garantee to trace back to its origin as an officially sponsored scheme). But "penkyamp" is not as specific as this. It means "phonetic script", is spelled as is pronounced in Cantonese, and is in circulation among the Cantonese thanks to the already existing Mandarin "Pinyin". I urge you to think twice about our obsession with the specificity of the proper name of the entry: what you call "Penkyamp" is actually of secondary relevance. The question is, what kind of usage, or systems were in existence before this name was finalized, on Wikipedia? look a nazi was here hahah

Did you look up the Yale of each char from that Amazon.com dictionary? I use Jyutping from Lin Yutang's -Menchi (Talk)â 07:59, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)willfardo was here being hi

at Image:China imperialism cartoon.jpg --Jiang

What you wrote about Yale Romanization#Cantonese Chinese is long and encyclopedic enough to be its own article. I recommend you slice it into Cantonese Yale Romanization or another article with similar title. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:01, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But the Yale Romanization article itself isn't as long. If we siphon off the different types of Yale, will it be a perpetual stub? --Jiang 13:03, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Replying here since Jiang already replied) Seems like writing a longer article for Mandarin Yale and making Yale Romanization a disambiguation would be a good solution. Or maybe it just seems that way because I'm so sleep deprived. :-P You can move it if you like, I'll talk to you about this again after I wake up. --Xiaopo's Talk 13:17, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yale Romanization, from my understanding, can only be a disambiguation. As the 4 Yales are not one system at all, therefore probably completely unrelated linguistically. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jiang. Stop trolling my talk page. :-P --Xiaopo's Talk

Hello. I let you know that "manju" is the Manchu name for the Manchus and that "Hong Taiji" is the Manchu spelling for the Manchu emperor called "Huang Taiji" in Chinese. --Nanshu 02:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Die, heathen swine. --taion 05:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism is traditionally considered to be a branch off from Protestantism - its development happened after the PR, and in the environment created by Protestantism (and American colonialism). So, in Christianity, there are generally considered to be 3 main branches - HRC, EO, and P, of which M remains an anomaly within P. Of course this is not a subjective classification - the LDS may say something quite different. -SV(talk) 20:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK- I understand. Im not disagreeing with your statement that Mormonism doesnt quite fit into the Protestant category, but does it not fit in the same way that the UU church doesnt fit? If you say there are four categories -HRC, EO, P, and Other, then yes Mormonism, categorically could fit into the other category. If you have three categories (which tends to make a bit more sense, when talking long term history) this would include mormonism, and perhaps UUniversalism, though I, having a POV on that might argue for a whole new category for UU, but someone can argue that it belongs under Protestantism. Are you a Mormon? It may have bearing as to how you see this, and in terms of your view as POV. Sincerely,-SV(talk) 07:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Xiaopo,

I adapted the Media wiki cults I hope you find it okay now and that you reconsider and change your comments on Vote for deletion of media wiki

It is a complicated but important subject and I think the Media Wiki cults helps people to understand it. Andries 20:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emperor Norton was not an emperor, a monarch, or an official of the United States. As such, his article belongs under the name he was known by: Emperor Norton or Joshua Norton or Joshua A. Norton, not a name that Wikipedia conventions would dictate if he had actually been a monarch of some kind! - Nunh-huh 00:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The naming convention is that people's articles belong under the name they were most known by. For this dude, that's "Emperor Norton". "As he was emperor" is simply wrong: he wasn't. If you want it moved somewhere else, by all means argue your case on his talk page and gain a concensus for moving it there. - Nunh-huh 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Sanskrit message you posted has been transliterated on VP. If you have any questions, leave me a msg on my talk page. Salasks 06:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

 

Hi Xiaopo,

I've rephrased the options a bit (hope you don't mind ;) ) and added my vote. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Please give your comments on the following two votes for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penkyamp

You are invited because I have found you on Penkyamp's talk page and I believe that you can make a fair judgement. -- Felix Wan 19:43, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edit of the Eastern Orthodox. The statement was made that:

Its claims of originality are easily verifiable and are generally not disputed by any other major Christian group including the Roman Catholics.

You have said that the Roman Catholics do dispute it. This is incorrect. I quote directly from the decrees of the Vatican Council II concerning the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

1. The Catholic Church reveres these Eastern Churches, which are "living witnesses to the tradition which has been handed down from the apostles through the Fathers..."

3. ...Similarly, the Council recognizes the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the Eastern Churches...The Eastern patriarchs ranks as cardinal bishops.

Phiddipus 18:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just to acknowledge your message on my talk page. It's always gratifying to know that someone's reading my site and that it's shaping and moving world opinion :)

Bathrobe 15:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just though I'd note that. Every now and then I find an old comment of yours that really makes me smile... +sj + 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Given a choice between HAF and FOSA, HAF is more reliable because the US government recognizes HAF as a taxed non-partisan org whereas FOSA is known to have terrorist connections (See FOSA article on wikipedia and refs to the "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India" incident) and so fails reliability per the extrmist clause of WP:Reliable Sources. Thank you.Hkelkar 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which sentence are you talking about exactly?Hkelkar 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=78179518&oldid=78178450 Then both FOSA and HAF/HEF's claims are presented.You can't delete a sourced statement.Hkelkar 03:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, my personal opinion is irrelevant on wikipedia (bear in mind that the original edit wasn't mine either). It is about reliability. HAF/HEF are recognized by the US government as a tax-exempt, non-profit and non-partisan organization under 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code. (Tax I.D. 68-055-1525). The IRS does not make partisan orgs tax-deductible wrt donations. However, no such recognition exists for FOSA, which has Pakistani members who are affiliated with terrorism. Thus, HAf is reliable and FOSA is not. FOSA thus, must be cited with qualification and HAF does not have to be.Hkelkar 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I checked WP:RS. It states that partisan sources should be qualified. HAF is registered as a non-partisan source.Hkelkar 03:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

the theory is nonsense. It is forwarded by a few fringe authors. I agreed there can well be an article about it, which I suppose is fair enough at present, but now people go about misrepresenting it as a valid scholarly alterantive in all possible and impossible places. This isn't honest, and I reverted it where I saw such activity. The idea may well be briefly mentioned here and there if that means we'll have peace from the constant stream of Hindutva nonsense (which I doubt), but it is not acceptable to portray it as anything other as a fringy minority view. I should be glad if you helped watch articles in this respect. regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comments here on this topic. Note that I am one in apparent "constant stream of Hindutva nonsense". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi Xiaopo -- I created the map with OMC. This tool has the considerable advantage that it lets you choose the projection, useful for maps of large territories (Eurasia) and the polar regions. Other than that, you might find the tool by demis.nl more useful (which I used, for example, for Image:Iron Age Italy.png. I used the GIMP for adding layers. regards, dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw that you translated the Sanskrit Babel boxes. You may consider joining Sanskrit Wikipedia, which only has less than 1000 articles and is in need of great help. Thank you Gizza^{Chat ©} 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

looky here [1]. "You don't seem to have any edits or you don't exist." That's right. You are being deceived into thinking that you are editing wikipedia when you are not.

Keep up the same level of editing as today and you can be on the path to true wikiaddition. 2000 before december! --Jiang 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not very familiar with Linux/Unix and I have found the information you posted on my talk page very informative. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Note to BhaiSaab—I happen to think it's unlikely that he and Subhash bose are socks." That would quickly change after a two minute conversation with aksi great. Regardless of what you think of the case, I'm still appreciative of this info. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't particularly want to get involved in this mess, and in any case, I think aksi great only offered to show interested admins. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will ask permission from Dmcdevit and aksi great to disclose this information on the arbcom case since much of it is already available due to Hkelkar's/Subhash bose's disclosures. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your edits to BhaiSaab:

Like I said, there are easier ways to go about this than all this SSH nonsense, which is BhaiSaab's absurd thesis. He contends that I have been using twist.ph.utexas.edu remotely using SSh and I have demonstrated how impractical that is. As for the SOCKS proxy server theory, just go ahead and run an nmap port scan on twist.ph.utexas.edu and show me the ports where a SOCKS proxy server is running. You won't find any :). I don't need to take anyone for fools, evidently... Hkelkar 06:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Plus, if I were to set up an stunnelled proxy server on twist.ph.utexas.edu, I'd need root access, wouldn't I? You know of any admins who indiscriminately give root access to their users?Plus, if they ran one by default, they'd say so on their info pages where they have listed all running servces (only SSH is forwarded out of the lan).Hkelkar 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hkelkar, you should probably keep this centralized to one talk page so it's coherent for anyone who wants to look back at it. Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is your position regarding my edits to the criticism of Human Rights Watch? Do you regard them as not NPOV? I invite your contribution if you can site specific passages that you may have a problem with.Hkelkar 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you will see my post to the talk page Talk:Human Rights Watch, you will see that I have provided some crude preliminary evidence that establishes the notability of SAAG. It is an academic think tank with some really good and unbiased articles on terrorism and religious communalism in South Asia.I believe that ADL, while a notable org for advocacy for Jews and other minorities in America, are less notable on international and political matters than SAAG, which has a team of qualified academics on these matters (bear in mind that ADL has been criticized even by Jews in USA for being too liberal and ignoring antisemitism coming from some personalities like that Italian politician whose name escapes me at the moment, or, more importantly, Fidel Castro).Hkelkar 01:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you would like to add some scripts to Hindu articles that need them. They are listed there.--D-Boy 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I was not aware that we could link to a section of a page on previous revisions and that is why I did not do that. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, if Hkelkar is a sockpuppet, than that means Shiva's Trident week-long block that began on August 21st was circumvented. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The paragraphs about historians presenting conflicting theories on Ta Mo do not belong in the opening section of the article. They should be placed properly in the subsequent sections. Plus the article did not mention Ryuchi and others and the conflicts within their theories. Thanks for your intrest in this and your message. Cheers and Happy Editing. Freedom skies 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Per your suggestion, I have started a South Asia Analysis Group article.Care to contribute?Hkelkar 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original Message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unre4L&redirect=no#Panini

I dont wish to break any rules, but the information is clearly wrong, and if you notice, its only Indian members who are arguing with me. (If you can call that arguing) I really wish to get this matter sorted. Can you put a disputed sign on the article as I dont know how to.

Thx. user:Unre4L

It is not "only Indian members", I for one am no Indian, and I certainly agree that "India" was in use as a term for the subcontinent long before the foundation of the Republic of India. If anything, "RoI" is a misnomer (since it doesn't even include the Indus), but one we've to put up with now, of course. dab (𒁳) 09:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

A China/Ireland/Congo/Macedonia solution for India seems the most sensible way out of this mess. I've proposed this here, and would welcome support. Note also the problems of History of Turkey vs. History of Anatolia (similar to History of Pakistan vs. History of India) dab (𒁳) 09:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

My username is Xiaopo, my master IRC nick is xiaopo, and I would like the cloak wikipedia/xiaopo. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Jenny shipley.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Michel-foucault.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, there is a content dispute in the Malayalee article regarding the origin of the word Malayalee. The region of Kerala was also known as "Malayala" for a while (I believe, before Malayalam evolved) therefore, it would seem logical that this word would have come from Old Tamil (Malai + Āzham or Malai + Āli). However, certain editors there seem to believe that Malayalam did not evolve from Tamil at all. They go so far as to say that it evolved independently and seem to think that it is "utter nonsense" (verbatim) to say that Malayalam could have evolved from Tamil. These editors keep asking for references (which I have provided) and I have even pointed them to the Tamil language and Malayalam language articles. However, they either haven't or don't want to check out these links/references. I see that you have some expertise in Dravidian languages and linguistics. Could you please weigh in on the discussion? The page is currently protected pending resolution of the discussion. Thanks a bunch! --vi5in^[talk] 20:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello please ignore this person's comment. He is bluffing.we have not told anything contradicting the relationship b/w two languages Malayalam and Tamil. He has not provided any link(atleast) which says the words(Malai and aali) come from any language. I think wikipedia is not the place to add unvarifed content and anyone's political views.Tulu war 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

  A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).Reply

• Hi. Do you feel certain enough one way ofr the other to Support or Oppose the Quemoy --> Kinmen move? Tks. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your upload of File:Copper complex.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 22 June 2014 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply