Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArglebargleIV (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 26 February 2007 (→Comment: deleted comment by Highshines sockpuppet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Usertalk-sprotect2

What's the tag for?

Niohe, since you are here dealing with my case, why are you putting up a tag saying you are taking a break? Isn't this also a kind of "covering up"? Highshines 06:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem, Niohe? Aren't you the one who proposed the kind of page moves I have just made? I don't know what problem you have got, but I'm sure it's a serious problem.Highshines 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not shout on my user page. I have no problem with page moves, but I would have appreciated you input on Talk:Xiao Xian Chun before you took any unilateral action. Why do I even need to explain this to you? Last time you "unified names" you earned yourself a block, is this what you are aiming for?--Niohe 14:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're the one who had done it, then those comments are for you. Highshines 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archives

/Archive 1: July 2006 – September 2006 /Archive 2: October 2006 – January 2007

Re: Page move

Done. Khoikhoi 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Highshines blocked indefinitely

Highshines is now blocked indefinitely. Please let me know if any abusive sockpuppets show up.--Jiang 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuan

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as Chinese classics is indeed considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources). Khoikhoi 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no "new" ideas written in the section. They are all based on the text (in the page numbered). Please explain on how it's not "descriptive claim", but "interpretation claim" ? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are patching together two thousand year old primary sources to create the history of the Yuan surname, you are engaged in creating history and in interpreting sources.--Niohe 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Please stop claiming that we are not participating in the discussion when in fact we are. Also, if you agree that your claims of the history of Yuan (surname) is "fictive", I would be more than happy to retract my claim of "ignorance". Thank you.

By the way, I re-inserted the tag to the "origins" section, as the dispute is located there. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the history of the surname Yuan was fictive, we're trying to figure that out. All I said was that we should be careful not to use "primary sources to construct the history of a fictive lineage going back two thousand years." If you can give me a scholarly source - not just a website - that corroborates these claims, I would be more than happy to leave the article as it is. But until then, I have the right to dispute claims that I find dubious without getting uncivil remarks directed at me. You know better.--Niohe 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, it was Khoikhoi who resinserted the tag to the origins section, see here.--Niohe 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Laowai, and pigs (no association)

Hey, your ref is good. I just hadn't heard of that usage before.

On a completely separate note, could you take a look at the edit war I'm engaging in on Pig (zodiac) if you have time? It's mainly about these "traditional associations" which make no sense to me. This was the version before I started on it. Basically, I'm very sceptical about a lot of those associations (topaz? Lebanon? Angola?) and I'm wondering if anyone else had every heard of them. --Sumple (Talk) 00:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

ROFL, Taiwan, Sheep. Lol. I wonder who came up with that one. --Sumple (Talk) 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

Left you a public apology at TfD over the {{Chinese name}} template AGF argument. I basically shot you in the gut while trying to make a "wiki-political" point-at-large, and that was, eh, a bit of a mistake. The incident has caused me to re-think the point I was trying to make and go in a completely different direction, FYI. Anyway, after thinking a lot about it, and reversing our roles in pretendspace, I would have taken offense too. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

You're welcome. I was just about to leave you a message. Seemed like a waste indeed to delete that article. The right one is indeed deleted now. Garion96 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re: surnames

Hey, I've been following the surnames debates with some interest. It seems that there's a big misunderstanding/discrepancy in experience in relation to Chinese texts. I haven't made up my mind yet on which way I lean, so I'll refrain for now from participating for now.

But I think the other side (relative to you) are influenced by the Chinese tradition of using random quotes from the classics (no interpretation or secondary sources needed).

Just an observation. --Sumple (Talk) 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Deleted namecalling by User:Jingiya (hope you don't mind, Niohe) -- ArglebargleIV 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the Highshines sockpuppet is back. -- ArglebargleIV 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)