Jump to content

User talk:Folly Mox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Snuge purveyor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Han Dynasty titles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese history/Translation of Han Dynasty titles is a well written article. You may want to revise the lead and move it to Wikipedia article namespace at Translation of Han Dynasty titles to be part of Wikipedia's Han Dynasty collection. By way of comparison, see Translation of neologisms into Chinese and generlly see this. As for translation standards, you may want to add the info to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) or create a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style page (if none exists) to handle the translation situation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette help for Records of the Three Kingdoms

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Snuge purveyor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. siafu (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Permalink Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mi Heng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fan Ye
Sun Sheng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wang Meng
Zhao Hong (rebel) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fan Ye

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pei Songzhi's annotations

Hi! First, congratulations on completing your revamp of the annotations section in Records of the Three Kingdoms. Excellent work! Next, you may wish to proceed with your idea of creating a separate article for the annotations. Maybe we can call it Annotations in Records of the Three Kingdoms? LDS contact me 06:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've seen other sites who did this, but this is one of the better lists out there right now. Why so much Gao Min though? I've seen that work but it looked a little unprofessional at times. 1990XtoZ (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It was the most recent work I was able to download, and had a relatively convenient table for locating citations. I didn't follow all his recommendations, since he seemed to think that the mere mention of the title of a text was sufficient cause to consider it used in Pei Songzhi's annotations, and he split off classics and their commentary into separate titles. I also corrected him in two instances. Snuge purveyor (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One question: Why did you use "chapter" instead of "volume"? I know there was some confusion earlier, but we use "volume" by convention now. LDS contact me 14:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I knew about that convention. I've always translated 卷 as chapter or fascicle (the latter only if necessary), or merely transliterated it. I feel like 册 is much closer to the modern English meaning of volume, since it represents an independent physical object, while many 卷 can be bound together. That said, if our convention is 卷 = "volume", a global replace shouldn't be difficult. Replacing "chapter" with "ch" might be an even better change, or using the alternate citation style of "chapter_num:page_num".Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no binding consensus in writing, but the de facto translation for 卷 on most, if not all, Three Kingdoms-related articles on Wikipedia is "volume". We also use "volume" when we cite from other historical texts such as Records of the Grand Historian and Book of the Later Han. Previously, some articles used "scroll" or even "book". What I'm essentially suggesting is, we standardise everything to prevent confusion. LDS contact me 03:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited He Qia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yangzi and Sui County (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) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xi Zuochi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Meng (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) 09:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Zu Chongzhi‎

Thanks for the work! One problem: I don't know what you mean by "swapping out browsers", but the Chinese for Zu Gengzhi still appears broken in my system (Linux/Ubuntu, both Opera and Firefox). The first version had a row of about 8 boxes, now there is just one box, indicating that the character is somehow non-standard. Any ideas? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the browser in which I typically do my edits (Opera on Mac OS 10.6) has the unfortunate habit of displaying characters it doesn't understand with a null string. The row of boxes came from successive copy-pastes from different sources, which I was unable to tell were functioning. I've annotated the name containing the problem graph giving its composition in the standard way, identifying an alternate form of the graph which has a lower codepoint (and, unimportantly, different evolution of pronunciation), and providing the appropriate links to wiktionary and the unihan database. I'm sure Zu Gengzhi's name will not appear properly for many users in the body text of the article, but hopefully everyone should be able to imagine or track down the graph from the note. Not sure if that is the best way to handle this sort of problem, but at least now it is explained in the article. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I just removed a stray comma... Incidentally, I guess you are a Chinese speaker? (I'm not, but I do speak Japanese) I'm not quite happy with the way Chinese words are glossed: I presume there is a template for this (I only know the Japanese one), so for example Milü should appear as something like "...the fraction xxx/yyy, known as "Milü" (密率, lit. "detailed approximation")..." I also assume the "Zu rate" means 祖率 (please confirm), in which case it really is "Zu ratio", and I will rewrite it accordingly. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Chinese reader would be a better description. You are correct that "rate" should be "ratio" (or "proportion"); I've changed the article to reflect that gloss. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shensheng, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guoyu (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) 08:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Nicole Prause

(I'm still new here, so please remove if this is the wrong place for me to post!) Thank you for your edits to the Nicole Prause page. You've done the opposite of "disparaging" my work; you were very welcoming and kind in your explanation of the changes. Thank you for pointing me to the Women Scientists project. I wish every Wikipedian was as personable as you. Thanks for helping out the noobs! Pho (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I feel humbled by your praise. Typically we reply to messages right underneath them, indented for threading, like this. However, a user's talk page is usually an acceptable venue to discuss things with them, even if the topic was brought up somewhere else : ) Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people

This RfC had been stalled for weeks and listed on the Requests for Closure noticeboard for much longer. Anyone wishing for me to explain my rationale in closing or explain any part of my summary, please request so in this section. Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of the close, but what exactly is the purpose of "Participating in these discussions was one editor identifying as non-binary/trans"? It looks to me like it's either implying that trans people have some sort of conflict of interest when discussing trans topics (which is a terrible argument for many reasons) or it's saying that trans people weren't involved in the discussion (which isn't necessarily true, since Wikipedia editing is largely anonymous). In either case, it seems to put an unnecessary spotlight on whoever that one editor is and doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the close. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 16:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@TheCatalyst31: You're absolutely correct that it's not relevant to the rest of the close, which is why I mentioned it on its own line at the very end. The purpose of noting that one editor identifying as trans/non-binary participated was to record the representation of their group in the conversation about the MOS guideline specially applicable to it. You're also correct that we will never know how many trans editors were involved in the conversation, especially considering how many IP editors contributed. I said "one editor" instead of "one or more editors" because only one editor identified as trans in that discussion, and imputing transness beyond them would have been guesswork.
I intended that sentence to be fully neutral, but I can understand how it could read as implying trans editors either were underrepresented or ought not to have been represented at all. To clarify, I feel it's important to involve trans editors, if possible, in a conversation about deadnames in biographical articles. As it happened, while the editor identifying as trans did bring some first-hand experience to the discussion, I remember them spending most of their text agreeing with the points raised by an admin of long tenure. That is to say, they made valuable contributions to the discussion, but did not change its course or alter its structure in a fundamental way. No proposal arose from their comments, for example.
I hope that the editor in question can forgive me for spotlighting them out of questionable necessity. The conclusory sentence was in the nature of an historical note recording the participation of the trans demographic, not meant to be a judgement on whether they were too involved or not involved enough. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad to know that you didn't include the note for negative reasons; unfortunately, thanks to some of the arguments I've seen tossed around (mostly during the Chelsea Manning move request, which was one of the ugliest discussions I've seen on Wikipedia), it's hard not to assume the worst sometimes. I absolutely agree that trans people should be represented in these sorts of discussions, and given your reasoning I'm fine with having that note there, though I would recommend asking the editor in question if they're okay with the note. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Snuge purveyor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Folly Mox. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wang Fang (Han dynasty), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Yun. 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) 09:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hello, Snuge purveyor. I noticed your template formatting question at the Teahouse.

It may be tedious, but it is also possible to custom-format citations. To do this, instead of using templates such as cite-book or cite-web, the reference can include free text and URLs, i.e. <ref>...</ref> where ... can be the text you would like.

Another possibility, if no existing citation template can format in the way you would like, would be to create a custom citation template. I have not written one myself yet, but some other editors did, an example being those cite-prefixed ones at User:Beyond_My_Ken/code. Even for the standard templates like {{cite book}}, their source can be read, the latter at Template:cite book for instance. By clicking view source or edit there, its source code should be shown. The source of this particular one is not very useful as it delegates to a function in a Lua module. The other examples may be more worthwhile to read. It is also possible to access other templates to look at them using categories, such as Category:Citation_Style_1_templates.

Note that those standard templates should not be edited without consensus, but copying their source code into another template and altering it can be done. Also, for such technical questions, sometimes it may be better to consult at the Village Pump's Tech section (WP:VPT).

Happy editing, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 05:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PaleoNeonate, and thanks for your tips. I've been primarily using ref tags to format my citations, but I wasn't sure if it was still within best practices, since just about every other cite I see uses a template. It's not too onerous anymore since I have a stash of already-formatted cites in userspace. Glad to hear ref tags haven't been deprecated! Thanks again, Snuge purveyor (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Conferred for this thorough, well researched, and well argued vote. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Snuge, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Cheers, ansh666 23:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious

sinology

Thank you for quality articles around China's culture and history and its studies, such as Cao Cao's invasion of Xu Province, Du Ji and Hans Bielenstein, for gnomish work such as fix broken links and move articles, for sensible deletion, for your clever "user page", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! I really appreciate your kind words. You're such a sweet person, spreading wikilove all around userspace! I'm honoured you brought some to me. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I spread doubt here. I just don't believe that any adult person will be changed by a block. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I am amongst those who believe GW's block of TRM was too eager, as well as excessive in duration, in removal of talk page access, and especially in fully protecting the talk page. Others – particularly Ritchie – have already made all the points I would on UT:GW, so I've stayed out of it apart from the thread at AN. I'm not familiar enough with TRM's history to say whether any of his past blocks singly or in aggregate have changed his behaviour much, but I think a 24– or 48-hour "slap in the face"-style block would have been more effective at reducing any disruption surrounding him. Now the block is a whole thing, and whilst ideally some sort of voluntary reversal will come of this fracas, it's all gone a bit above my pay grade now. I'm sure we'll get to rehash the conversation when next GW stands for arbcom reëlection. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
A year ago, you were recipient no. 1735 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - And she didn't stand again, at least not for the last election. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for remembering me, Gerda! A conflux of Life issues kept me wholly away from the project for a considerable period just after the earlier posts in this thread, and I've been out of service range for whole months this year, but I have been poking around recently doing some light gnoming as I find it. I don't foresee being able to participate extensively in the encyclopaedia in the near future, but I hope to be of some small use here and there. Glad to see you again and thank you. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, the prize from the cabal of the outcasts is for life :) - all we do is volontary! Best wishes for Life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For your RfA comments. I hope we get to work together in the future! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snuge purveyor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Snuge purveyor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Folly_Mox/Archive_1&oldid=1244671869"