User talk:TheLeopard/Archive 4

1820 Map vs Globe

The image in the infobox should be a geographic locator as well, showing where the state is within a larger context of the world.

It doesn't seem consistent with map of other Chinese dynasty articles (e.g. Ming, Tang, etc). Geographic locator map is mainly used for current country map (not historical map), e.g. People's Republic of China, United States, etc Durianlover1 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty, although is a dynasty of the past, is also largely a modern political entity, and its history is intertwined with modern world history. That's why I think a geographic locator is better suited, as it also mirrors the Republic of China (1912-1949) article. Another thing to consider is that because there are so many contemporaneous maps of the Qing that's available (where as such maps are rare for prior historic dynasties, such as Ming and Tang), it is difficult to choose one that truly represent the whole article in the infobox.

I agree that showing all the different maps of the Qing Dynasty at its various extent and time periods is informative to readers, but they don't have to be in the infobox; a general geographic locator is a good fit there. Plus, the maps of the Qing Dynasty at 1820 and 1833 are already in the article.--TheLeopard (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

上海\沪\滬\Shanghai

I am not going to respond in full at the moment, as I would like to sleep. I will, however, return to it when I feel like it (a few hours at the very least). so where should I respond? my page or yours? 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Equal Standards

TheLeopard, I thank your for your unending quest for the truth, and your campaigning for the integrity of Wikipedia. However, there are other areas of Wikipedia that would greatly profit from similar vigor. Take for instance the previously widely unknown National Capital Region (China). You rescued it from obscurity caused by a redirect. However, it must have escaped you that this article does not contain a single reference, and that there are several claims and outright speculations that deserve at least a dubious tag. A National Capital Region (China) is worthy of the same attention to detail as China’s capital, or other cities such as Shanghai. While it is the job of the author to provide these references (lest the author would risk a deletion), the lack of verifiable sources should at least have been pointed out. I have done so in the meantime. Thank you --BsBsBs (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I rescued that article was because it was redirected to Bohai Economic Rim, which clearly is not the same thing as National Capital Region. The article needs to be tagged with "unreferenced" and a bunch of other tags.--TheLeopard (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Beijing

I know we've had some issues before, but I have to commend you for the Beijing edits. I wanted to make the same, but didn't dare. Thank you. --BsBsBs (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate term in lede section of Standard Mandarin

Hi, TheLeopard,

I hope you've seen by now the new section I opened in article talk about Standard Mandarin, where I link to an example of a Wikipedia page that has two different bolded terms in the lede sentence—because those two terms are both used for the subject of the article. My proposal is to add Modern Standard Chinese back into the lede sentence, I hope for good, in that article after readers have had a chance to look at the talk page comments. I imagine I'll see you on some other articles from time to time, and I appreciate your efforts to make sure that Wikipedia articles are well edited. 有朋自遠方來，不亦悅乎！ -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your revert.

I checked the rules, based on your friendly suggestion, and posted to article talk on Standard Mandarin a link to an example of an article (there are many more) with two entry terms in one lede sentence. So I'm here to ask why you feel compelled to revert my most recent edit of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

China and oldest civiziation

I was wondering why you changed the reference to China being the world oldest continuous civilization. I provided substantiation and reedited. Macrhino (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I think this discussion would benefit greatly from your input. We don't seem to be getting anywhere.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mongol, Manchu and compound nouns

I appreciate your acceptance of my reasoning for including Mongol and Manchu in the intro of the History of Beijing. A word about grammar though -- Manchu and Mongol are both adjectives. The Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty are both compound nouns. Adjectives modify nouns. The Mongol Yuan Dynasty or the Manchu Qing Dynasty are both grammatically correct usage. It's like saying British North America. Your insertion of "-led" does help signify that Manchu and the Mongol are leaders (and therefore people), which a reader might not otherwise know. ContinentalAve (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Tartar huntsman.JPG

The image was uploaded by me and is dated from the 17th century as it is seen in the date, the error you say about 15th century is a mistake i made when i uploaded i copied the information from another similar image File:A Tartar Huntsmen on His Horse.jpg to avoid copying the categories,template,etc,again, still even without the description right it is obvious that it is a 17th century painting because the man has an arquebus that wouldnt have existed in the 15 century.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be careful when upload images, and try to avoid mixing different images' content, especially time frame. The descriptions you gave, and what you stated above, frankly doesn't help readers in terms of clarification.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your advice appreciated - Three Councillors of State

Hi, I would appreciate your input into the discussion on the Three Councillors of State article now in progress. Thanks and best regards.Philg88 (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move of Standard Mandarin

As you were a former participant of the late August and early September discussions to rename Standard Mandarin to "Modern Standard Chinese", you may be interested in participating in the proposed move at Talk:Standard Mandarin. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Leopard, I don't know why you insist on deleting the common term Modern Mandarin and replacing it with the uncommon term Modern Standard Mandarin. Your original approach of adding uncommon terms in a footnote was IMO a good one, but since you insist on deleting MM, I've deleted the equivalent term SM as well. Really, the lead is for the most common or accurate terms, since adding every rare variant makes it difficult to read. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin Chinese

I have posted a query about your deletions at the article talk page, and would be grateful if you could respond there. Kanguole 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. If you're going to continue to revert my edits, please explain your concerns on the article talk page, where I have presented my reasons. Kanguole 00:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On Yuanshi society

Hi TheLeopard. I re-opened an old discussion on the talk page of Yuanshi society. Since you have commented on this page before, we're eager to know what you think. Keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Qing Languages

Hi Leopard -- I put a comment on the Qing dynasty talk page apologizing to you and others for not explaining in more detail why I took off the SW Williams The Middle Kingdom. Maybe you have worked on this page and would like to fix up that point, or else I would be happy to do it. I'm also interested to know the Wikipedia policy on old sources. Must every source which is out of copyright have the tag? That doesn't seem right, but I see the tag many places. I notice that when you reverted, you did not restore the tag. Would I be out of line to remove it from articles that I am working on? Cheers. ch (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, after a few years! I notice that you changed "Mandarin" to "Guanhua" on the Qing page, though without an explanation or comment. I hesitate to change it back without consulting you, but I think that "guanhua" will mean nothing to most readers. I realize that Williams uses the term (though in a different romanization) but when I tried to put a better source, it was reverted to Williams again. I thought that "Mandarin" was a good compromise. Would it be ok with you if I put it back? Did you have anything else in mind? All the best in any case. ch (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply on my talk page.

I sympathize with your feeling that we should respect the usage in Chinese. It's a problem to decide what term for Qing dynasty would be accurate but not anachronistic, such as putonghua, guoyu, or Huayu. Still, I'm not convinced: I lived and traveled in China for a number of years and never heard the term guanhua. This of course does not decide anything, since Wikipedia does not allow Original Research.

The decisive point is that the Wikpedia article Mandarin Chinese#Name,citing Jerry Norman, says "In everyday English, "Mandarin" refers to Standard Chinese, which is often called simply "Chinese".... Chinese speakers refer to the modern standard language as Pǔtōnghuà 普通话 (on the mainland), Guóyǔ 國語 (in Taiwan) or Huáyǔ 华语 (in Malaysia and Singapore), but not as Guānhuà." Since we have a direct statement citing standard modern scholarly authority that guanhua is not in fact used by Chinese speakers, perhaps we could change it back to "Mandarin."

I do notice that the next paragraph states that "Chinese linguists" use the word guanhua, but there is no citation for this statement, which is doubtful. In any case, Wikipedia readers are not Chinese linguists! ch (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Terracotta Army

You reverted my edits noting some exhibitions in Spain and Chile and you said "(Too many listed already. Cut it down.)" I disagree. The exhibition was shown in Spain first which already makes it more important. Also, it is more important to mention all the places where it was shown that to mention only the English-speaking places. If you want to cut back why don't you cut back all the information given about the British Museum? I do not see why the exhibition in the British Museum should have extensive information and other places should not be even mentioned in passing as I did. I intend to revert. GS3 (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw you rearranged it and moved my text down. I still disagree as I think chronological order makes more sense and I can't see why London should take precedence over Barcelona or Madrid. GS3 (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Alt text

Hello! I noticed that you changed the Alt text of images (e.g. here) from being descriptive to being caption-like. You should know that "alt-text" is not meant to be a caption but should describe the image in words (to somebody who cannot see the image for whatever reason). So in the example I linked above, "temples at Mount Wutai" is a bad alt text since it only tells that there are "temples" in the image but does not tell what they look like. Mount Wutai could be removed since the average reader will not know what it looks like. If you wish you can read all the details in WP:ALT. bamse (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The text and several others have been modified.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The administrative section defintion

What is the administrative section? --NewFranco (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I and the IP troll

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese art

Oh really? Could you be saying this because you have actually never read a book on either subject? Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Then gave citation to that claim. Without reputable reference, the statement is just a gross generalization without any details.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Tuoba vs. Tabgach

You said: "Why is this title redirected to Tabgach? It should be the other way around, as Tuoba produces far more results on both Google Books and Google Scholar. Also, most of the article uses the term Tuoba." My response is as follows.

There is indeed a large body of literature that refers to the Tabgach as Tuoba. However, "Tuoba" is a modern Mandarin pronunciation of the name, which is attested from the time period as "Tabgach" (a reasonable transcription of how it was written). Using "Tuoba" as the primary name of the article on the "Tabgach" would be like renaming the article on Bilge Qaghan "Pijia kohan". The fact that there is more scholarly work on the Tabgach that refers to them as "Tuoba" does not mean that this name is more correct—it just means the scholars are referring to Chinese sources, and may not even know that other sources exist. There seems to be consensus in the literature that "Tabgach" is the more true-to-the-original form of this name, and my impression is that the English-language literature is gradually switching to using the term "Tabgach" and abandoning "Tuoba" for most purposes. Mere prevalence of the latter form should not dictate which spelling is the primary entry on Wikipedia. —Firespeaker (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we don't name ancient languages, peoples or states according to their "more true-to-the-original" pronunciations. We base it on common name, see the guideline Wikipedia:Common name. We don't do original research here, or evaluate materials based on our "impression".--TheLeopard (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Help reverting sockpuppet

None of his edits are sourced, they are all extremely biased and POV, all pushing his original research claim that southern chinese are not han chinese and that confucianism and han chinese are evil colonizers from north china and are oppresing allegedly "non han" southern chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_Plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Profwujiang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moviecloth

LLTimes warned himin edit summaries to stop using sock accounts and did nothing else. he didn't even report him for his adding pov original research and uncited info, let alone sockpuppetry

Since every single one of his edits are not unsourced but also original research and POV, they all need to be reverted in a mass blanket revision. Can you file this case as the sockpuppet investigation and get him banned?

William Plant has been editing since june and profwujiang editing since july. Much of the original research he added is still on the articles, and William Plant has also been warned on his talk page for over eight copyright violations related to images

William Plant also edited LLtimes userpage and it has not been reverted. Considing that LLtimes knew that he was a sockpuppet , he is being way to kind to a clear POV pushing vandal. Other people who reverted him also did not bother to warn or report him.

I need help in reverting his edits.Jaabaat (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Map

I think the IP's issue (and it bothers me too) is that the orthographic projection displays the Qing's territory when it was significantly reduced by unequal treaties with Russia and other powers. Most other maps of historical empires display them at their greatest territorial extent. And, truthfully, the Qing existed with the enlarged borders for longer than it did from 1890-1911. So maybe, put the 1820 map in the infobox and the orthographic map on bottom? Or create a new orthographic map? Just some suggestions. Shrigley (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jicheng (Beijing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dadu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Beijing: Air Quality

"Trimmed this whole paragraph that is being tagged for no citations. Why adding it?"
...pity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John ~ripe.program 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripe.program (talk • contribs)

Natures of commentaries from journalists

Hi! I found this edit. I added back all of the content removed.

This is your edit summary: "Removed these as they are not "international reactions". The section is for reaction from "notable" international figures and parties. These are commentaries from American journalists. It strays off the topic."

International reactions can also come from a country in general, or a group in general. These "commentaries" from journalists are describing what the reaction is, and why. The Chinese reacted with grief due to the Boston bombings because they know the One Child Policy means the loss of an only child (Sentence #3), and because they understood that studying in the US means a lot to Chinese students (Sentence #2). This is why a whole country feels sad about the woman's death. Likewise "Boston University established a scholarship in honor of deceased student Lü Lingzi." is the domestic reaction to Lu Lingzi's death. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But its not "actual" reaction. The content in the international reactions usually are responses from international groups or notable figures. None of the commentaries are actual "responses". They are just descriptions from journalist.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They are summaries of an actual reaction from groups of people, and the quotes describe the reaction. The articles themselves quote individual Weibo users. Western media sources rely on Weibo to gauge how the Chinese public feels about an issue. Intl reactions should not be limited to famous individuals. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sinocentrism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Huaxiasiyi.svg|thumb|''[[Huaxia]]'' ((華夏) and the ''[[Siyi (Four Barbarians)|Siyi]]'' (四夷) "Four Barbarians": ''[[Dongyi]]'' "Eastern

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hi TheLeopard, I noticed that you've been removing red links from several articles I created. Please note that I've only created red links for highly notable subjects. For example, Kong Yingda was one of the most influential Confucian scholars in history. Before you remove more red links, please read WP:REDYES. Also, it would help if you could mark minor edits as such. Thanks! Best regards, -Zanhe (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Qing dynasty

Hi TheLeopard. It's been a long time! Just back to Wikipedia briefly, and noticed CH's entry about the multiples faces of Qing emperorship here on the talk page. This seems like a fairly minor issue, so would you mind if I just went ahead and restored the deleted content? Thanks and keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It had been pointed out that the Qing fully identified all their territories as "China", and not "Manchu empire" (e.g. here). However, a user named ༆ had earlier changed/reverted the term "Qing Dynasty" to "Manchu Empire" on page Template:History of Tibet (see diff here) without any reasoning. He had also done a similar thing on pages such as Manchu (disambiguation) (diff here). Is there anything to do with it? Thanks! --Cartstyle (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

British term for Manchu

The British called the Manchu Bannermen "Tartars" in their reports. Look at their records of the war. And modern sources will specify Manchu Bannermen for those battles they participated in.Rajmaan (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mongolian ultra-Nationalist user writing anti-Qing, anti-Manchu, anti-Han garbage

See Khereid's edits on Mongol related articles. This guy is spamming pan-Mongolian nationalism everywhere on how the evil Qing and Russians conspired to divide the Mongols and destroy their nation and why Oirat and Buryat and Inner Mongolians should rejoin the great outer Mongolian State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khereid

Rajmaan (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

hi

can you check Naimans they are turkic but when i write someone say vandal to me:/ Mehmeett21

Global account

Hi TheLeopard! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)