I freely admit that I don’t understand the classification system, so can only go by what else is rated “C-Class” and “Mid-Importance”. There seems to be a lot of one-off events (East Asian Games Opening Ceremony – does that even warrant an article?), which doesn’t fit with this article. Li Desheng was one of China’s 20-30 most important post-1949 generals. Would you please explain how you arrived at this ranking? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I don't believe that there is a completely objective way to rate the biographies of historical Chinese politicians and generals. I also don't believe that the ranking system is universally interpreted the same way by the various editors of WP:CHINA. I am sure that my interpretations will contradict those of some other editors, but also I believe that my interpretations are logical, defensible, and clear.

This is my interpretation of how to rank the importance of various twentieth-century Chinese politicians and generals, according to WP:CHINA's scale of importance:

1. Top: People who are so important and well-known that they are basically household names. Their contributions to the course of Chinese history was so great that the narrative of Chinese history texts will closely follow their activities. (i.e. Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong, and Sun Yat-sen).
2. High: People who are slightly less well-known, but who are still extremely important due to their contributions to Chinese history (either positive or negative), and are so important and well-known that anyone with a basic understanding of modern Chinese history will at least be somewhat familiar with them. They came very close to exercising the highest levels of power. They are so important that general history books on China will go into great detail to describe their activities, which changed the course of Chinese history in some major way (i.e. Zhou Enlai, Peng Dehuai, and Lin Biao).
3. Mid: People who may have been important and famous, but who are not well known to the public. Although they may have been important, their contributions were often under the authority of others, and/or obscure. They may have achieved a degree of power and success, but usually this level of power was not at the highest levels, was only in a very specialized area, was clearly overshadowed by more powerful and successful figures, and/or was only for a limited period of time before they fell into relative obscurity. Because these figures will be given only a cursory description in general Chinese history texts, editors will need to access specialized and/or academic resources in order to research them in detail. Most biographies will fall into this category by default. (i.e. Yan Xishan, Song Jiaoren, and Jiang Qing).
4. Low: People who are generally unknown to any but the most specialized historians. They may have made contributions to Chinese history, but only under others. Many ended their careers in failure and/or obscurity after coming into conflict with more important characters, and/or are generally mentioned only in passing as part of these other figures' biographies. General Chinese history texts will not mention them in any more than name; or, if more than that, in no more than a single paragraph. All but the most resourceful editors will have difficulty researching any but the most cursory details about their life. (i.e. Sun Chu, Wang Jingguo, and Li Dazhao)

This is my interpretation of WP:CHINA's quality scale. I interpret it in terms mostly of quality and quantity of information.

1. A: No twentieth-century biographies exist that are rated by WP:CHINA as A-ranked. I would expect that such an article would completely cover all aspects of the person's life from a variety of perspectives, and would include a very standardized, academic, thorough system of referencing. (i.e. = none, at present).
2. GA: I am pretty new to Wikipedia, and have never promoted an article to GA status on my own. (I think that I need to submit it to a ratings committee or something?) I expect that a GA-ranked article would cover all important aspects of a person in detail, with no noticeable gaps in time, and support it's information with inline citations. I have a long-term goal of promoting the articles on Zhou Enlai and Yan Xishan to GA-ranked status, but some gaps still remain in my research. (i.e. currently only Caleb V. Haynes and Jane Zhang).
3. B: The article is well-organized and researched, but still requires further research to fill in gaps in the person's life. It should be well-organized and written, and should not contain any unsourced information that could be challenged by other editors with a "citation needed" tag. (i.e. Zhou Enlai and Wen Jiabao).
4. C: The article gives a reasonably well-researched overview of a person's life and career, but many of the details will be cursory, challenged, and/or unsourced. A C-ranked biography mentions that person's involvement in major battles, power struggles, or events in that person's life, but will not go into great (reliable) detail. The system of referencing for a C-ranked article may be distinctly un-academic. Most articles which are clearly the result of reliable research but do not go into great detail, or which are detailed but greatly unsourced, should be placed into this category by default. (i.e. Yan Xishan, Wang Jingwei, and Chen Duxiu).
5. Start: The article has a modest body of information, but is extremely cursory, disorganized, and/or unsourced. (i.e. Sanzo Nosaka and Xu Xiangqian.)
6. Stub: The article contains almost no information at all. It may only consist of a short definition or paragraph of information. (Sun Chu and Wang Jingguo).

According to this criteria, I believe that Li Desheng's biography should be considered "mid importance": he was important in the sense that he won several successful battles in the late Chinese Civil War and was recognized by the PRC for his efforts. He was one of the more senior generals in the Korean War, and was a powerful general (although not the most powerful) until the end of the Cultural Revolution. I believe that his biography should not be considered "High" because his successes in the Civil War were overshadowed by Lin and Peng (the only two of the Ten Great Marshals whose articles I believe should be considered "High" importance). In the Korean War, he served under the overall command of Peng, and was therefore less important. After he was politically demoted at the end of the Cultural Revolution, he never quite regained the same level of prestige (even after being rehabilitated). Like the other Great Marshals (besides Peng and Lin), most students of Chinese history will not be familiar with him unless their studies have focused specifically on the late Civil War or the Korean War.

I believe that Li Desheng's biography should be considered "C" class. It is too well-organized and well-cited to be considered "start"-class, but is far too cursory to be considered "B". Editors desiring to raise the article to "B" status could do more research on: Li's background and education; a description of his activities and battles during the Civil and Korean Wars; what his specific efforts to reorganize the PLA were; the circumstances under which he was eventually demoted; his life during and after the Cultural Revolution; and, his relationship with the other major Chinese personalities who influenced China during his career, including Mao, Lin, Peng, Zhou, Deng, and (his possible mentor) Chen. At present, the article's treatment of all of these areas is extremely cursory.

Please let me know if you disagree in any way with the way that I am interpreting WP:CHINA's ratings scale, if you disagree with my interpretations of Li Desheng, and/or if you disagree with the way that I am placing Li within this ratings scale. I appreciate your request to explain my own interpretations, and I hope that I have made my thoughts on the subject of your inquiry clear.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Work Together

Hello there, Ferox Seneca. I noticed you're currently seeking adoption on Wikipedia. I've been around for a while, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes. (To learn more about me, visit my userpage.) If you'd like to have me as a mentor, just to leave me a message, and we'll take it from there. Welcome to Wikipedia! – Scartol · Talk 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail! Scartol • Tok 21:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call.. Scartol • Tok 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got stuff! Scartol • Tok 02:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got things! Scartol • Tok 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got items! Scartol • Tok 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff! Scartol • Tok 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Congrats! Scartol • Tok 11:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to express my appreciation for your recent contributions to & references for the Long March article. The material that you added really expanded the detail in many of the sections, and makes it a great read. Regards, Ryanjo (talk)

I appreciate your appreciation. Most of the feedback that I usually get is negative: people disagreeing with my interpretation of sources, or the quality of sources that I use. I'm glad that you appreciate my work.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As ye ask, so shall ye receive.. Scartol • Tok 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one.. Scartol • Tok 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but kinda related. Scartol • Tok 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox, I have reviewed your nomination of Sanzo Nosaka and there are some issues. Could you please see them at the nomination page and reply there? Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, you posted your nomination incorrectly. That stuff is supposed to be saved on its own page, not at T:TDYK, like the instructions say. Crisco already fixed that for you and moved the nomination to its own page; in the future, please make sure to follow the instructions when posting new nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The things you learn, eh?Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada now exists. Feel free to join. I know one of the board members is from Edmonton. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you double-check the references in Chinese about the death of Bruno Wu? I've read the various sources equivalent to the one you posted on the article and this really seems like a case of mistaken identity. For one thing, they all refer to a man who is 39 years old, whereas the Bruno Wu in the WP article is 45. None of the articles refer to his wife which seems more than a little strange given her starpower. The articles describe him as the COO of BesTV but I have yet to see any link between BesTV and Wu's Sun Television Cybernetworks. Note also that the job of COO is actually below Bruno Wu's normal paygrade. And finally the Birmingham FC still list him as the board's vice-chairman (and therefore number 3 in the club's hierarchy) which would be almost inexplicably outrageous since he supposedly died 5 months ago. Pichpich (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. There are a number of Chinese-language sites which have discussed this topic over the last month or so, and have concluded that it is indeed a case of mistaken identity. The Chinese wiki article on Wu has already been corrected.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra info. Pichpich (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm free this Sunday. If you can email me, that would be cool so I can give you my phone number and my regular email/skype and we can set something up.Curb Chain (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also checkchecked with my mom and I'm allowed to use her camera. She came back to Edmonton this week.Curb Chain (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm contacting all the editors who have commented on whether we should un-capitalize "dynasty" in wiki titles. I have just proposed a new and simple way to make a final decision on this issue. Could you go to this new section to say whether you support my proposal? Thank you! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading your recent edits to Li Peng, and wanted to commend you for the great work that you did. I wanted to ask which sources you use to access scholarly articles on topics as specialized as recent Chinese politics. There are a few good books out there, Spence's The Search for Modern China being one of the best in its class, but there are also a large number of academic and informative journal articles. Do you have LexisNexis access or any other account that gets you into academic databases? Colipon+(Talk) 03:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you appreciate Li's new article. There are alot of Wikipedia articles right now on very important modern Chinese politicians which really need some focused attention. And yet, our article on the Caonima is basically perfect...

When I am looking for academic articles on China, the best source that I have found is JSTOR, and I do make use of actual print sources now and then. I can get access to most academic databases from my university. Since I started regularly editing Wikipedia last year, I have been surprised by the amount of good sources that are readily available just by doing a detailed search of Google. I have found alot of good sources accidentally, just by using Google to attempt to source data that I have suspected was plagiarized.

I've been surprised that so many editors seem to consider Spence to be (apparently) a completely unreliable source. The text is abit weak in the sense that it is clearly intended to be a general history, and it often presents information broadly, according to the most common interpretation. More detailed examinations of topics covered in that book can generally be found elsewhere, but I don't think that Spence's conclusions are generally spurious. Because of other editors' serious dislike of that book, I try not to rely on it too much these days, unless it covers something that I can't find in other reliable sources for.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would review this article for GAN, as I really like it, but what I am unsure about is the formatting of the references. Many of them don't have page numbers, and there are a whole lot listed under "References" that aren't referenced in the article. (I'm not clear about those rules about citations.) Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed in the article are formatted according to MLA style. The facts cited in the article are listed by author (or source title, if anonymous) in the "Footnotes" section, and the books written by the authors cited in the "Footnotes" section are listed in full MLA format in the "References" section.

I don't believe that there are any articles listed in the "References" section that are not cited in the article. If you believe that there are articles listed in "References" that are not cited in the article, please let me know which sources those are, and I will identify the sections of the article that are explicitly attributed to those sources.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just very confusing. Isn't there a way that the citation can link to the proper place in the Refereces? What about:

• Pace, Eric. "Sanzo Nosaka, 101, Communist in Japan Ejected by the Party". The New York Times. November 15, 1993. Retrieved August 14, 2011.
• "Spy Against Japan: Letters Shed New Light on Nosaka's Espionage Acts". The Japan Times Online. October 22, 2000. Retrieved August 16, 2011. - is this a reliable source, in any case?
• Whitney, Maj. Gen. Courtney. "Lifting Up a Beaten People" LIFE Magazine. Chicago: TIME. August 22, 1955. Retrieved August 16, 2011.
• Universalium. "Nosaka, Sanso". Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. 2010. Retrieved August 14, 2011.

Also: "Nosaka Sanzo". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2011. Retrieved August 14, 2011 is considered a tertiary source, rather than secondary as required.

I don't want to give you a hard time, as I found the article very interesting. So if you can clear up my confusion, I'd appreciate it. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address these concerns on a point-by-point basis.

- In order to find which sections are attributed to the article written by Pace, you need to lookup the author's name, "Pace", in the "Footnotes" section. Nosaka's article currently cites "Pace" at four different locations, found at footnote #4.

- I just realized I made a mistake listing the Japan Times article, (I listed it according to the article's name, not the name of the publication), but this has since been fixed. Because the article's author is not given on the newspaper's webpage, the article is effectively anonymous, and you need to find the name of the paper (The Japan Times Online) in the Footnotes section in order to find what areas of the article are sourced from the Japan Times article. This article is currently cited twice, at footnote #6.

- To find the article written by Whitney, you need to look up "Whitney" in the Footnotes section. This article currently cites pp.105-106 of Whitney's article in two different places, at footnote #16.

- I admit that one of the weaknesses of Nosaka's article is that it relies heavily on other tertiary sources, and I understand that citing tertiary sources is sub-academic. Universalium is also a tertiary source, and you can find the many times that Universalium is cited in the article by looking up "Universalium" in the Footnotes section: it is currently listed at footnote #2. I don't believe that the article's reliance on tertiary sources might disqualify it from Good Article status because the tertiary sources cited are still reliable. The article would be less informative if I did not incorporate information from those two sources into the article.

If this attempt to explain the footnoting system used in Nosaka's article does not address your concerns, please let me know.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify further, the footnotes are listed in the order that they appear in the article, and are listed by the author's name (or, if anonymous, the name of the publication), plus the page number (if applicable). The full MLA citations for the articles cited are given in the "References" section in alphabetical order. Some articles on Wikipedia don't split "Footnotes" from "References", but I prefer to do this in order to avoid having to give full MLA citations every time that a different page number is cited from the same book.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I've decided to review the article (see below) but I'll be having an experienced reviewer supervising me with these things that I'm not sure about. As I said, I find the article extremely interesting. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Sanzo Nosaka that you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. This is the first article that I have submitted for GA status, so I'm curious to see how the process goes.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a few more things and may add a few more. The lede looks much better! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Great job, and thanks for being so cooperative. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox. I saw that you did some substantial work over at Lin Biao! Very nicely done. I've been doing some substantial work myself - mostly starting new articles, as you have seen over at June 9 Deng Speech, I would rather cry in a BMW, and April 26 Editorial. If you have time and want to take a look at any of these, feel free. I was also thinking of embarking some sort of project involving the Lin Biao incident, which is arguably one of the most important events in PRC history that still does not have a standalone article. I believe we can use the outline already drawn up over at Project 571 Outline as a skeleton, and merely move that page to "Lin Biao incident", then fill in the gaps. The other project that I would like to embark on is an article about the Third Plenum of the Eleventh National Congress (十一届三中全会). Let me know what you are up to! Colipon+(Talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm rewriting the biography of Peng Dehuai: a very important general whose article was/is very cursory and almost completely unsourced. I'm just going to summarize a short, standard biography of Peng, and then supplement it with some academic articles. After I'm done, I want to do some work on that article you started, "I would rather cry in a BMW". I'll look at those other articles of yours. The Third Plenum of the Eleventh National Congress is a very important historical event, and I'm sure that I could find reliable sources on it. If you are referring to the session where Deng rose to power, Wikipedia already has an article, but it is translated as the "Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee". There is alot of room for growth on that article. Is this the article that you are looking for?

There has been enough scholarship on the Lin Biao incident that I could always do more research, but the section in Lin's biography has gotten big enough that I figured I covered most significant perspectives, and I basically just stopped where I was. I found that the most logical way to organize that section was: examining the official Chinese narrative of events (it needs its own section because it is different than any other perspective and standard enough that all other perspectives must be compared to it); examining the Western/non-Chinese perception of the Chinese perspective (mostly criticism and skepticism); subsequent (non-official) scholarship on the incident; and, the Chinese reaction and after-effects of the incident. My thoughts on how to create a separate article would be mostly to move most of the current "Lin Biao incident" section from "Lin Biao" to the new article, and leave a shorter summary in its place.

I rewrote most of the Project 571 article last month, and I organized it mostly in two sections: on the details/contents of the plot; and, the history of its creation and how it was supposedly attempted. Most of the events described in the article's "history" section of "Project 571" are based solely on the official Chinese version, and are discussed in more detail in the current "Lin Biao incident" section of "Lin Biao".Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, the approach that you are talking about at Lin Biao may be a good way to do this - although personally I see no problem with leaving the content where it is, if you regard it to be 'too much effort'. Also, much thanks for linking me to the Third Plenum article. It would save me a lot of work. I will link that article to the existing articles on the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping, etc., to make sure it gets some airtime. Colipon+(Talk) 14:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking about Peng Dehuai, I found out that the English edition may contain at least four mistakes:

1. The article states that Mao Zedong dedicated a poem to Peng after the Battle of Shachiatien, but according to [1] and [2], Mao dedicated it to Peng in October 1935.
2. The article states that Peng shouted "You have this and that problem... You should go to the front and see with your own eyes what food and clothing the soldiers have! Not to speak of the casualties! For what are they giving their lives? We have no aircraft. We have only a few guns. Transports are not protected. More and more soldiers are dying of starvation. Can't you overcome some of your difficulties?" The atmosphere became so tense that Zhou was forced to adjourn the conference. Zhou subsequently called a series of meetings, where it was agreed that the PVA would be divided into three groups, to be dispatched to Korea in shifts; to accelerate the training of Chinese pilots; to provide more anti-aircraft guns to the front lines; to purchase more military equipment and ammunition from the Soviet Union; to provide the army with more food and clothing; and, to transfer the responsibility of logistics to the central government" to some government representatives on February 24, 1952. However, according to [3] he shouted so on February 23, 1951, which is during the Fourth Phase Offensive (zh:第四次戰役 (抗美援朝)).
3. The article states "Lin implemented these reforms in order to please Mao, but privately was concerned that they would weaken the PLA (which they did).". However, Lin Biao did practice measures which highly modernized the PLA, such as emphasizing navy and air force, focusing on developing special forces and developing nuclear weapons (see zh:林彪), so the statement which states that Lin's measures weaken the PLA may be wrong.
4. The article states that "Peng worked energetically until March 1966, when the beginning of the Cultural Revolution had him recalled to Chengdu and the first Red Guards began patrolling the streets, violently attacking their perceived enemies.". However Cultural Revolution occurred on May 16, 1966 (see zh:文化大革命).

I found out that except mistake 3, all mistakes are "referenced" with Jurgen Domes, which may be Wikipedians' mistake for not clearfully reading his book and thus mis-restating the facts presented in it, or may be it is the book's fault. If so, then the book is unreliable and should never be referenced. Also the article neglects many useful and reliable Chinese sources, such as books listed in [4] , 彭德懷與朝鮮戰爭 and 秘書日記裡的彭老總. I understand that WP:V does not highly encourage using non-English sources. However, we must acknowledge that many non English-speaking Wikipedians here have some proficiency at English, and many English-speaking Wikipedians here have some proficiency at one or more non-English languages, so they can verify some non-English sources, so I think that to make this article a good article you'd better utilize these books, as you have certain proficiency at Chinese.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing Peng's article, and I appreciate your interest and suggestions. I won't have tome to address them until the end of this month, so please give me a few weeks to review my sources and the sources that you have provided. Let me briefly address your suggestions:

1. There is some disagreement in the English sources that I have found about when Mao dedicated his poem to Peng, but I decided to take Domes' position because I believed that it was more reliable than the other sources I had available. I will review the source that you have provided and probably change it when I have more time. You are probably correct about the date, but I want to find another scholarly source in English to confirm this.
2. This is sourced from Barnouin and Yu, which I consider reliable. I'll review my source and the source that you have provided when I have more time. If the date is wrong, it might have been my error in entering it. If not, I will seek a third source for clarification.
3. The section of the article that says that Lin's reforms weakened the PLA is not meant to be a general summary of the overall effects of Lin's other reforms (including China's nuclear program or anything related to special forces), but only the effects of reversing Peng's reforms (things like abolishing ranks and making soldiers work as farmers and industrial labourers). The content of the section is my attempt to paraphrase its source. If you want, I can quote the source below, and you can tell me if you believe that the content of the article reflects the content of the source.
4. I'll review my source when I have more time. It looks like I may have made a mistake in interpreting the source.

Thanks again for your review of the article. I probably won't have time to review the sources and revise the article until the end of this month, so please have patience until then.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! By the way, I found out that Chinese edition of Peng Dehuai is much shorter than English edition, as Chinese edition does not mention Peng's conflict with Mao during 1954-1959, Peng's military reform during the defence minister period, and his guard's warning about Red Guards, and English edition contains them (though maybe somewhat imprecise and incomplete). Also it does not fully utilize many reliable books about Peng, such as 彭德懷全傳. I'll post this issue on its talk page and let Chinese Wikipedians thoroughly discuss these issues.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back to the version of the article that existed last December, you will find that the English article was also very brief until recently. I am interested in reading 彭德懷全傳; but, as a primary source, information from that book could only be included carefully, as per WP:PRIMARY.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 彭德懷全傳 is a good book, but it is not just a primary source, since the book not only records interviews but also organizes many files, autobiographies and memoirs. 彭德懷自述 is a primary source.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more time now than I have had over the last few months, and I want to address the issues that you brought up. I will update this list as I turn up more research.

1. I got in touch with a Chinese history professor that I had for the last year of my undergrad (he's working as a law professor at Shantou University right now). He confirmed for me that Mao wrote this poem in 1935, following the last major battle that the Red Army had with the KMT during the Long March. I will rewrite the article to reflect this information, and use the citations that you have provided.
2. I looked this up in your source and in Barnouin and Yu, and it's true that the two sources disagree. I believe that Zhou Enlai: A Political Life is reliable and scholarly, so I don't want to change the article until I can find a (more academic) third source to confirm the date of this conversation. I will consult that old professor of mine to ask if he knows anything about his event. I've consulted another Wikipedia editor who has done alot of research on the Chinese side in the Korean War, and he is also not sure which date is correct. You can view (or take part in) the discussion at Peng Dehuai's talkpage.
3. I think that this issue has been addressed. Please let me know if you think that the prose that discusses this issue needs to be altered.
4. I need to find Domes' biography again and look this event up before I change the article. I'll update this list when I do. I consulted my source (Domes), and changed the month to August: I was interpreting the source wrong before. I don't think that the CR had been formally declared by this time, but Mao and his supporters were already mobilizing Red Guards and sending them throughout China. Please let me know if you believe that the article's prose is at all misleading.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just undo your work, I'm going to ask you to reverse your change in Yang Shangkun's importance from Middle to High. I'm not sure what your criteria might be, but he was easily among the top couple of dozen Chinese leaders of the last 30 years, critical to the survival of the reform movement and the only survivor of the 28 Bolsheviks. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK: I don't have any problem with changing that. I'm sure that you are more familiar with Yang than myself.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I didn't mean to bust your balls over the Zhou Enlai thing. I think your edits on Chinese-subject articles are quite helpful, and it was because I was so intrigued by the 'memorial' section that I looked up the Spence book in the first place. I do think, however, that if you are counting the number of words that are different between your writing and a source, then this is a close paraphrase and needs to be cited appropriately.69.205.120.39 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern for potential plagiarism, and it's good to know that it's nothing personal, but I think that a lot more words would have to be in the exact same order in order for a cited paragraph to be "close paraphrasing". I'm going to request some clarification on what constitutes Wikipedia's policy on "close paraphrasing", and the exactly how close paraphrasing differs from normal paraphrasing. The only example that I can find is here: in this example, the entire paragraph is exactly the same as its source, except for one sentence, and this isn't the same as the issue that we are dealing with.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've created a new article on History of Sino-Korean relations, please take a look if you're interested.--PCPP (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to fail it for GA, as no improvements have been made since nomination in February. Don't give up! Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time since last February to fix up that (or any) article. I would have done the same thing as you, under the circumstances, but I appreciate your letting me know about your decision on my talk page. When I have more time this summer, I'll look at the article again, fix it up as much as I can, and re-submit the article if I believe then that its issues can be acceptably resolved.Ferox Seneca (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know I am getting back to you late but things have been busy in my life. However, I should be quite free during the summer at the end of May so if you would like to suggest I focus my attention certain places let me know! My interests in Chinese Hisotry are as follows: History of Chinese Philosophy, Oral history, Classical history (Zhou-Qing, but I am most knowledgeable on the Song, Tang, Ming and Qing), the development of Chinese literature, and Chinese Political history. More modern-wise, I am interested in Chinese politics and the development of Chinese film (especially adaptions of literary works, and Wuxia films). I hope this helps!--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peng Dehuai you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Peng Dehuai for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your edit here[5] to Protest of Wukan included a statistic from the Chinese Academy of Sciences asserting that 50 million people were forcibly evicted in 2011, and that the rate was accelerating by ~3 million annually. This caught my eye because it doesn't square with statistics I've seen elsewhere. For instance, this report[6] by CFR's Elizabeth Economy notes that about 4 million rural citizens are victims of land grabs annually. Other statistics I've seen support an estimate of 40 million over the span of a decade, from the mid-90s to mid-00s. Would it be possible to find additional corroboration for the claim that 50 million were evicted in 2011 alone? Homunculus (duihua) 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the article that I got this statistic from, and I believe that I must have interpreted it wrong. The article states that "50 million farmers had their land seized last year [2011], and the number is increasing at a rate of three million farmers per year." When I compare it with your statistics it must mean that, by 2011, there was a total of 50 million displaced farmers across China (from all preceding years), and that an average of 3 million farmers were displaced per year.

I think that this information is more logical and much closer to your data, and I will amend the article to reflect this. If you think that the numbers from this source are still imprecise, please let me know. I would be open to changing these numbers if you have a source that you think is more accurate.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial contribution was an earnest reflection of the source; I actually think the reporter may be to blame. But yes, I think it's clear that the intended meaning was that, as of 2011, 50 million had been evicted, with 3 million more per year. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 05:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very busy. I found links and filled out reference templates for creating articles for four people relating to Republican China, three Xinhai revolutionaries and one warlord. They are at my userpage User:Lemazha. Click edit on my userpage to see the referenecs because they are hidden in the ref template and you can't see them if you just look at the page. If you can kindly create the articles and use my references and/or translate from the corresponding articles at Chinese wikipedia it would be appreciated. I am too busy to create any articles from scratch, even if you write a skeleton or a stub article first and fill in an infobox and categories I can finish it later.Lemazha (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly are very busy. I just completed creating those articles, and the links are on your userpage. Let me know how your work progresses. I'll try and help you if I can. I want to continue this discussion on your own talk page.Ferox Seneca (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Byron Christopher at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Byron Christopher at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the [Edit] links are out of order. Worse, the very first [Edit] brings up a section that is not displayed at all, Byron_Christopher#Biography. Oh wait, now it does. But now the misplaced [Edit] is on the header Byron_Christopher#Career. Oh wait, now it does work. Hmmm, maybe this edit fixed everything? Dnag wikignomes! 70.112.178.121 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very ambitious request for you. While in you're Shanghai, could you try to get an image of the 政法委 office? I'm looking to build out the corresponding article at some point. It's immensely interesting in terms of its role in the legal system, yet so little is written about it. Along the same lines, if you plan on stopping by any petitioning offices, it would be awesome to get photos of petitioners. This may be asking too much; poking around the zheng fa wei and local appeals offices is a pretty good way to get your camera confiscated, but if you're up for it, awesome. Happy travels, Homunculus (duihua) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was once detained by PLA soldiers in Guangzhou for (almost) taking a picture of a government building, so I am a little bit nervous about doing that. I can go down there and see if it would be appropriate for me to take a picture, but I won't be able to do it if there is an obvious security presence. Can you provide me with an address of this building (preferably in both languages)?

I was actually just talking with a professor here about the role of extra-legal government petitioning and its effect on the rule of law in China, so I agree that this is interesting. I was going to look at a photo request from Colipon that I responded to on his talkpage, but I think that access to his account must be blocked here. Do you know the link for the list of Shanghai image requests?Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. Yea, if the PLA gives you a hard time, the zhengfa wei will definitely give you a hard time. So unless you're looking to collect another good story about unnerving encounters in China, don't worry about that one. I pulled the list of requests from Colipon's talk page—is this what you were referring to?

Shanghai Tower's latest construction picture, Shanghai Wheelock Square, One Lujiazui, Cloud Nine (Shanghai), International Ocean Shipping Building, Oasis Skyway Garden Hotel, The Regent Shanghai.

By the way, what do you mean when you refer to extra-legal petitioning, specifically? As to locating local petitioning offices, it's my understanding that they generally don't publish them (can't make it too easy), but I've heard that taxi drivers are good at pointing the way. Cheers, Homunculus (duihua) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling that stuff for me. Sometimes the internet here doesn't even let me post the things that I want, which I find a little frustrating.

We discussed extra-legal petitioning in the context of a thesis paper that was being written by a Masters'-degree student who my professor-friend was advising. He discussed how, in China, if a person is dissatisfied with a court judgement, they have the ability to petition the government directly (at practically any level) to overturn the verdict, and the government is basically free to do so if they choose. It was his opinion that this system weakened the rule of law in China, but that it was unlikely to change because of cultural reasons. He explained that this system existed because, before the 20th century, all judges also governed the areas in which they judged, so that people in China today have difficulty understanding the idea of an independent judiciary and naturally expect that they should be able to petition the government in this way. I haven't done much research on this, so it is difficult for me to interpret, other than to confirm that the basic facts of it are true. This might not be the exact sort of "petitioning" that you are asking about, but I think it is still interesting.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, any news on the Great Northern Building on the Bund?--Bothnia (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having some technical difficulties. It's coming.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go check what nytimes reported, only quoted some watchful students of politics, In fact, some watchful students of politics in Beijing said the eulogies for Mr. Zhao tended to exaggerate his achievements. He opposed some proposals for opening the economy, like starting a stock market, that were embraced only after he lost power, these people said. according this report, you can get the conclusion Contrary to popular opinion, Zhao opposed the idea of expanding China's economy by allowing private individuals to purchase stock.?

Then I quoted Financial Times sources in the article, why you do bad things destroy it again? what's wrong with ur mind? --113.111.201.58 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Wrong information and quote out of context to suit one's purposes : Contrary to popular opinion, Zhao opposed the idea of expanding China's economy by allowing private individuals to purchase stock. The idea of opening China to the stock market remained taboo throughout Zhao's time in government, but was gradually implemented later, in the 1990s.[reply]

I need change the above wrong information into the following information, sources from Hongkong open magazine and Financial Times China version

Zhao boldly introduced the stock market in China and vigorously promoted futures trading there. ^[1] in 1984, under the support of Zhao ziyang, Beijiang,Shanghai and Guangzhou became experimental cities of joint-stock system,some companies issued stock only within own company workers. in November, 1985，the first share-issuing enterprise was established in Shanghai, and issued 10,000 shares of 50 RMB par value stock publicly, attracted many investors' interest. Zhao ziyang hosted a financial meeting on 2nd,August,1986, he demanded that the joint stock system should be carried out nationwide in the following year.^[2]

The truth is, the main problem I have with working with you is that you keep harassing me by leaving insulting messages on my talkpage 1 2 and in your article edits. Your edits contradict every other source that I have read about Zhao, including his autobiography, but I would be open to reviewing your sources and finding a consensus with you, if your unnecessarily confrontational and insulting style of communication didn't make you so difficult to work with. If you want, I could ask some other editors to mediate or review your information. Please read and follow Wikipedia's policy on harassment that I just posted above, and we can both review the available sources together.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I corrected your infobox. I don't know what you did but you had him die at age 192! Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting that!Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Incidentally, when I put "reverting vandalism" as an edit summary I did not know yet that it was an innocent mistake of yours. I thought some IPer had stuck that in for kicks, like it too often happens. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 11:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox Seneca. I remembered that you're a big Yan Xishan buff, and I need your help to solve a mystery of why Chahar province had a non-Chinese name. This paragraph is the closest that I've gotten (from Google Book snippets, which is why I cannot follow the footnote 50).

On June 20, Zhili was officially redesignated Hebei, and Beijing, no longer the "northern capital," was renamed Beiping ("northern peace"), and merged into Hebei province. Yan Xishang's general Shang Zhen was appointed as the new governor of Hebei. To add insult to injury, Yan Xishan added that the name "Chahar" would have to be changed. The names of Suiyuan ('Rule the Distant') and Rehe ('Warm River') were acceptable, "but 'Chahar' is a Mongolian name and has no meaning." He offered a choice of names drawn from past Chinese dynasties that might be applied to the area.⁵⁰

(from Atwood, Christopher Pratt. Young Mongols and Vigilantes in Inner Mongolia's Interregnum Decades, 1911-1931. Vol. 2. Brill Academic Pub, 2002. p. 815)

Do you know what names Yan proposed to replace "Chahar", and what sort of reception his proposals got? I think it would be interesting to have them on the Chahar province article, as well on Yan's own. Shrigley (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the books or articles that I have read on Yan have discussed his proposed renaming of Chahar. I think it would be difficult to find any good secondary sources on the subject. My only advice on how to find such a source would be to look for it in the bibliography of your source, Atwood and Pratt. I would be interested to know what you find.

The event that your source describes must have happened between 1928, when Yan took control of Hebei and Shandong and allied himself with Chiang, and 1929, when Yan allied with other warlords and statesmen in an attempt to form an alternative central government with himself as president. If this is the correct period, his defeat to Chiang in 1930 would have ended his ability to influence the renaming of provinces.

According to Wikipedia's article on Chahar, the province was named after the Chahar Mongols, who historically lived in the region.

I hope that these answers are helpful.Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your favorite tool, Revision history statistics, Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) got the tool running again on WP:LABS. Thought it would be courteous to let you know. Cheers. 64.40.54.201 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks!Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon your article Sun Weishi, what a tragic figure. Thanks for the nice work! Zanhe (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I came across her while doing research on Zhou Enlai, and was surprised that she did not have her own article. How did you find out about her?Ferox Seneca (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was researching on Shangguan Yunzhu, who was also persecuted to death by Jiang Qing. -Zanhe (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lo Fu-chu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People First Party (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) 11:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RFC here. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Glad it sorted out, thanks for checking in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.50 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox Seneca -- I left a note for you on the Talk Page at Edgar Snow to apologize for making edits without giving an adequate explanation. Cheers and thanks for your work on that page. ch (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was just that sourced information was being deleted without sourcing contradictory information. If better, contradictory information is sourced in the article, then everything is fine. Your own edits are excellent. My own research on Snow has just started, so I have not read anything more recent, yet.Ferox Seneca (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferox, could you shed some light on what articles on the English + Chinese Wikipedias are accessible on the mainland currently? It seems like the Chinese Wikipedia is still growing rapidly so I was wondering whether contributors in mainland China are part of this growth. It also seems like apart from some sensitive political subjects, Wikipedia is not blocked in China. It would also help me judge the political bias on the articles depending on whether they are accessible or not. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know what information is blocked for a specific page, let me know, and I will find out for you. I always use a VPN these days, so the government's censorship doesn't generally effect me. I haven't checked it in years, but I know that your userpage was blocked here at one time.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I remember finding a lot of Wikipedia blocked when I was here in 2011, and a lot last year, but actually I haven't been able to find almost anything blocked this year. I hadn't noticed until my VPN stopped working last month, but it looks like the encyclopedia is now free to read.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry for not replying earlier. I have recently discovered that this website is tracking Wikipedia pages specifically so I now have another source for this information. It seems to me like most English language articles on sensitive topics such as "Zhou Yongkang" is not blocked. Colipon+(Talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ferox Seneca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I live in China, where it is inconvenient or impossible to view/edit some content without a VPN. Please allow me to edit while using a VPN.Ferox Seneca (talk)

Accept reason:

I've granted you IP block exemption, which should enable you to edit normally. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Zhu Rongji page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2015 (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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi. please see the discussion here. just want to get a bit more consensus before changing name. Happy monsoon day 21:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hu Yaobang.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferox Seneca. 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)[reply]

Hello, Ferox Seneca. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khun Sa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Triangle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ferox Seneca. 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)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Chiitan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Yu Yu Myint Than.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

The cited sources are insufficient for meeting the general notability guideline. Looking online, there is some more coverage in English, and there may also be coverage in other languages. Please provide additional citations to reliable, independent sources to better establish the subject's notability.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which specific criteria the article violates? The article is sourced to four sources, three of which I believe are independent, secondary, and reliable. I think that's enough to establish notability.Ferox Seneca (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely articles on her in Burmese, but I don't read Burmese at all.Ferox Seneca (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chiitan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 0-year-old genderless fairy baby otter once threatened to "visit your house" with a baseball bat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chiitan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chiitan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aung San, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bago. 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) 06:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sanzo Nosaka 1946.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 28 June 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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haris Haroon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Haroon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Maduant (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haris Haroon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haris Haroon (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Maduant (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xarb, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xarb until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just wanted to say - you did good work on China-related topics! The Peng Dehuai article is very good. TheUzbek (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]