User talk:Evecurid/Archive

Accusation

Hi, A guy is accusing you as my sock puppet. Plz, comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Uniquark9Uniquark9 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about this. This accusation is obviously wrong. --Evecurid (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Evecurid, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Evecurid! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For Tibet under Qing administrative rule Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Evelyn Rawski

Hello, Evecurid,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Evelyn Rawski should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evelyn Rawski .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome, and thanks!

Just a quick note to say how much I appreciate your recent contributions and your patience with Wikipedia's aggravating side, such as the ridiculous move to delete your Rawski article (she is clearly Notable: she holds a Named Chair. end of case). You did just the right thing in hanging in.

It's not up to me to act too welcoming, though, since Wikipedia is as much yours as it is mine, and maybe you've been doing things for years.

Cheers and keep up the good work in any case.

PS Maybe you should think about creating your User Page with a little info about yourself to feed the curious. No need to do so, however. ch (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

CWH: Thanks a lot for your kind message. Both New Qing History and Evelyn Rawski are important articles, and I really appreciate your improvements to these articles too. Also, I have just created a user page as you suggested. It is currently only a start-up however, but I think there will be more contents later on. Thanks again! --Evecurid (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Association for Asian Studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Scott. 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) 09:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tibet

Could you participate in this discussion? Talk:Tibet_during_the_Ming_dynasty#Title. Thoruz (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done renaming. --Evecurid (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Turkic dynasties and countries

This list needs major change. I would be grateful if you would help. Toghuchar (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to help. Thanks for the invitation. --Evecurid (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Laura Hostetler

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Laura Hostetler, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://history.las.uic.edu/history/people/faculty/laura-hostetler.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Laura Hostetler

Thanks for expanding in this New Qing History category, but I'm worried that we will run into trouble on WP:Notability, and that Hostetler will be a harder to get accepted than was Rawski. For an example of failing to keep a stub on an influential scholar, see Articles for Deletion Brook Ziporyn.

As I mentioned there, Wikipedia notability covers a soccer (football) player who has appeared in one game in a secondary league in Brazil, but not a scholar who is not a named chair professor or some such. The notability for a book is only that it has been reviewed, leading to the weird result that Wikipedia could have articles on ten books by a scholar but not an article on that scholar.

If I had time and stomach, I would push for a change in the rules.

I also would worry that the Prominent Scholars in the New Qing History template will get criticized for some of the same reasons, that is, that it doesn't have a clear rationale for inclusion or exclusion. I would have to partly (though only partly) agree. Would you include Bill Rowe? Beatrice Bartlett? Johanna Waley-Cohen? David Farqhuar?

Still, you are doing great work and these comments are meant to edit around the edges, not change your basic thrust.

Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your worries do make some sense. For example, I had tried to find the birth year/date of Laura Hostetler in order to write it in the article, but I was not able to find it, unlike for example Evelyn Rawski and Mrinalini Sinha. Also, I agree that the inclusion of scholars in the template is somehow a problem too, although I think the template itself would obviously make the navigation far more convenient. Maybe we should only add a scholar in the template if there is an article for that scholar? Any other thoughts? Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what I think yet. Would it be possible/ desirable to change the navigation template to "Scholars of the Qing dynasty"? That way we wouldn't have to decide who is "New Qing" and the question of "prominence" wouldn't arise because it would list only scholars with articles.

I created a Category for Chinese listed in Hummel's Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period, but not a navigation template. Maybe I should have.

These questions of Categories, navigation templates, and notability are tough. We need some but not so many that they become narrowly focused. I suggest that we move this discussion to the New Qing History Talk Page because it's of more general interest and should be open not just to you and me. I'll sign off for now but check back tomorrow.

BTW, to save the trouble of going to an editor's Talk Page to make sure that they see a comment, you can notify them by using the "{{u|Editor's name}}" format. ch (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

CWH: Interesting. Considering your suggestion "Template:Scholars of the Qing dynasty" and my new template Template:New Qing History, I think it may be better to have an even more general Template:Qing dynasty topics template instead, similar to Template:Tang dynasty topics. --Evecurid (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Qing Topics Template

		The Special Barnstar
		Great work on Qing Topics navigation template!! ch (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe divide the category "Society" and add a category "Culture" to encompass art, literature, and popular culture?ch (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

CWH: How about "Society & Culture"? I think the Tang dynasty topics template also has a category of the similar name. --Evecurid (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Manchus or the Qing Empire didn't write Bolor Erike and your edit is making bad impression. It would be better stop claiming everything of subjugated nations is property of the Qing state. Khorichar (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Khorichar: Just want to mention that it was in the Society & Culture category, not in the Compilations & Documents category, so it certainly was not giving the impression that Manchu or Qing rulers themselves wrote it. After all, the author of Bolor Erike (Rashpuntsag) was a subject of the Qing, so it was a Qing dynasty topics. However, I'm not interested in (re-)adding it to the template. --Evecurid (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So you are a sock-puppet of 50+ users in Wikipedia including Ancientsteppe, Khiruge and Ceithe. What a shame. Stop destroying Wikipedia. For other users, please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe/Archive for more information. --Evecurid (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed on the Template:Qing dynasty topics you included a section for Buildings & Architecture. I don't think the template should have this section for several reasons. The template as of right now, is getting quite big, so we should think of some ways of reorganizing/condensing, and making it easier for navigation. There are countless notable architectural examples of Qing era, and it is impossible to include them all. I think it is better to include a link of Category:Qing dynasty architecture in the template (perhaps in the "Other topic" section), since it encompasses the whole topic, than it is to keep adding all these links, which could grow "astronomically".--TheLeopard (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

TheLeopard: It is a fine idea for me. I only tried to add links into the template if there are actually articles for them. But if even in this case the template becomes big then I agree there should be measures to shrink it. --Evecurid (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tungusic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolic peoples. 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) 08:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oirats are Mongols?

Hi. Can you look at this dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring ? You seem to be interested in Mongol related topics.TodHirilla (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, why are you calling me an sockpuppet?216.185.114.219 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So this in fact proves you are. Now you just make a comment with an IP. There are more to say; however, since this will be outside the scope of Wikipedia, I think it's better to communicate with other methods like emails instead. --Evecurid (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am just logging out to show you my ip. File a sock investigation instead of accusing.216.185.114.219 (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You tried to use a different IP range, didn't you? Of course sock investigation does not necessarily show all of the socks. But quite surprisingly, it already showed a lot (50+). --Evecurid (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Think whatever you want. But thanks for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.114.219 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Have not seen you for some time. Are you taking a break or retired? However, I agree with your words that "Think whatever you want". No one cares with what you think. Whoever does the opposite is not among us and subject to different (negative) treatment. --Evecurid (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

So it seems that TodHirilla is not a sock. I was wrong about this. Sorry for the mistake. However for 216.185.114.219: if you are indeed TodHirilla, please try to login whenever possible so that it won't be regarded as if you are two different persons during editing or discussing in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just want to mention that one of the main reasons (probably the most important reason) for the misunderstanding was that I was asked twice to join in certain discussions previously in this talk page, and it turned out both of them were socks of Ancientsteppe. I will not suspect anyone who does so in the future any more. --Evecurid (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This topic seems to be over now.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think SineBot was wrong in this case. Since I was trying to add some info in the middle of my own message, please don't sign in the middle, thanks! --Evecurid (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia

Hi Evecurid, I'm trying to understand why you reverted my changes on Inner Mongolia. Does this ("with it came the change of English translation from Inner Mongolia to Southern Mongolia") mean that the English name was changed to Inner Mongolia, or does it mean that the English name was changed to Southern Mongolia? Sorry if I incorrectly understood the sentence. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Natg 19: I am simply following what the source is actually saying. Please see: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23615321?sid=21105873573751&uid=4&uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720 --Evecurid (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)