Lathdrinor
Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, Lathdrinor, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
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!
-- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet you encountered before
editUser_talk:Kwamikagami#Sockpuppet_william_plant. Help me revert this guy's edits, he adding maddive amounts of OR to many articles.Jaabaat (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi
editI've noticed you've been changing recent edits by on Oracle bone script, Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty and other articles. I now see that you're right that some of them were WP:UNDUE, especially Jiang Yuan and Houji. I'm also grateful that you still maintained a sizable portion of my contributions. Concerning other reverts however, i believe you removed relevant sourced info, which i intend to hopefully reupload in a less undue manner. On Jiang Yuan you rephrased my contribution into stating that a hypothetical Jiang and Qiang relationship was recently introduced by Christopher I. Beckwith. This theory was actually proposed by Edwin G. Pulleyblank decades ago. I intent to correct this as well. Happy New Year. Krakkos (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I am happy to see that you are not intent on pushing Beckwith's rather idiosyncratic POV. I was a bit hasty on a few of the reverts, but in general, I do not feel Beckwith's views represent the scholarly consensus, as I have read a variety of works dealing with these subjects in recent times, none of which take Beckwith at face value. The primary thrust of Beckwith's hypothesis is based on a linguistic argument - he believes that Chinese is either a 'minimally maintained Indo-European language' or an Indo-European creole. This view is nigh universally rejected by other Tibeto-Burmanists and linguists at large. I refer you, for example, to the description of Beckwith under Sino-Tibetan, and also to this review in the Journal of Indo-European Studies: http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES3834web/13Reviews%28431-453%29.pdf, in which it is stated - "I can think of no reputable Indo-European linguist or Sinologist who would call Chinese a product of IE [as Beckwith tries to argue]", pg. 432-433. Peruse the material and wealth of cited sources in Sino-Tibetan and it is quite obvious that Beckwith is not just in the minority, but the *tiny* minority here. Consequently, just as I am not keen on mainlining Beckwith's view on Chinese's linguistic family in Sino-Tibetan and Sinitic, I am not keen on mainlining the view he derives from this linguistic idea in other articles. I have made a few additional changes and will inform you of this response. Lathdrinor (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to the review on Beckwith's book by Karlene Jones-Bley and Marti E. Huld. It put's things in perspective. As you write in your response, the mentioned rejection by Indo-Europeanists and Sinoglists is regarding his theory of Old Chinese being of Indo-European origin. Taking that in consideration i suggest this quote belongs in the article Oracle Bones script, where this theory is already mentioned. Krakkos (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- It goes beyond that. The article also criticizes Beckwith's over-use of the chariot burials as evidence. In any case, the bottom line is that even Beckwith himself is not sure whether Indo-Europeans founded the Shang Dynasty. That's why he uses "may even have been responsible" as opposed to "were responsible." Mainlining a mere *speculation* of Beckwith's in the Shang Dynasty article most obviously violates WP:UNDUE. I see only two satisfactory solutions: 1) leave Beckwith's speculation there but qualify it with the fact that it's not generally accepted 2) remove it altogether. I observe that the much respected Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of it at all. I do not believe Wikipedia ought to be so biased in favor of Beckwith as to advertise his conjectures. Lathdrinor (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 1
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. 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) 09:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Shang dynasty's language
editHello Lathdrinor. This concerns the Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty articles, that is why I want to ask you this. Easy772 added a section called "Language" [1] to the Shang dynasty (and Zhou dynasty) articles about that Shang's language was not Chinese but "a highly-creolized lingua franca based on languages of the Southeast Asian type". Easy772's edit was reverted by Kanguole [2], and Kanguole has started a discussion at Talk:Shang dynasty. But Easy772 has added them back. According to Talk:Oracle_bone_script#Language_of_the_Shang's discussion on the language of Shang, the viewpoint added by Easy772 (according to DeLancey) is not a widely accepted one. What do you think of this "Language" section?--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, from the latest discussion on Talk:Shang dynasty, it seems Easy772 wants to go ahead with adding content about the Shang dynasty's Southeast Asian connection (Easy772 said "Before I add the statement, are there any objections?"). But without detailed context in the actual Shang dynasty article, I think it is very odd to just plainly state such material. I also think other participants on that discussion, such as Kanguole, Zanhe, Ogress, Rajmaan, Nishidani, etc. might want to weight in before Easy772 go ahead with adding. There should be a more of consensus.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Lathdrinor, you are one of the most knowledgeable people on Wikipedia on matters related to ancient China, that is why I was wondering if I can ask you something about history of China outside of Wikipedia. I was wondering if you can leave an email address for contact (it can just be any, and not your personal one)?--Balthazarduju (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Balthazarduju, send it to lathdrinor3@gmail.com. Keep in mind I am not that active, however, and may take a while before responding. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Easy772 has opened up a dispute resolution but he did not include everyone involved; you might be interested in commenting as he only included Nishidani, Rajmaan and Kanguole. (I had myself added.) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shang dynasty.23Language discussion Ogress smash! 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Last time I spoke with Easy772, we reached an agreement by which I'd be fine with a statement to the effect of 'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity.' However, in case he deviates from this description, then I do want to be involved. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, he opened a DRN, so you could pop in and literally copypaste that above statement, because based on his conversations and some of the information he's posted under his username off-wiki, I doubt that's what he will agree to. Ogress smash! 00:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Last time I spoke with Easy772, we reached an agreement by which I'd be fine with a statement to the effect of 'the Shang language is widely believed to have been an ancestral form of Sinitic, though there have been occasional proposals for a Southeast Asian affinity.' However, in case he deviates from this description, then I do want to be involved. Lathdrinor (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Lathdrinor, you are one of the most knowledgeable people on Wikipedia on matters related to ancient China, that is why I was wondering if I can ask you something about history of China outside of Wikipedia. I was wondering if you can leave an email address for contact (it can just be any, and not your personal one)?--Balthazarduju (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, from the latest discussion on Talk:Shang dynasty, it seems Easy772 wants to go ahead with adding content about the Shang dynasty's Southeast Asian connection (Easy772 said "Before I add the statement, are there any objections?"). But without detailed context in the actual Shang dynasty article, I think it is very odd to just plainly state such material. I also think other participants on that discussion, such as Kanguole, Zanhe, Ogress, Rajmaan, Nishidani, etc. might want to weight in before Easy772 go ahead with adding. There should be a more of consensus.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Lathdrinor, I just sent an email to you.--Balthazarduju (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Dispute board Shang dynasty
editHi Lathdrinor, it looks like on the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Shang_dynasty.23Language, Easy772 has added his last Craniometrics discussion from the Talk:Shang dynasty to the noticeboard about Shang dynasty language. The section in the Dispute resolution noticeboard is called "Talk:Shang dynasty#Language", but Easy772 just decided to add these physical craniometrics discussion onto the noticeboard. Now there is moderated discussion, can you come to the noticeboard? The noticeboard also needs User:Zanhe and several other involved users to comment on the latest development as well.--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Shinsi has been requested by User:Ogress for being a "a random place-name from Korean mythistory". You have partaken on this subject in the past, and I ask that you partake on the current discussion of its deletion here[3]. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 14
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemaek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tungusic. 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) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Lathdrinor. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, Lathdrinor. 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
edit Hello, Lathdrinor. 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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit| | 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)