Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:11, 28 September 2006

Greetings comrade! I hope you like this place and get very addicted. --Jiang 08:23, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

UCD is awsome, tis the best campus anyware. except sometimes it has a stench of cow but other than that its cool. --Kataline8

Moooooo! --Jiang

Comrade, please copy the redirect text into the summary field so it's clear that you are making a redirect. Cheers, Jiang

Hey there..I'm just a random person, but I saw you go to Davis. I'd like to let you know that we're starting up a DavisWiki, and you can find more information at ] if you're interested. We'd love to have some more people on board during our little testing period! - Random Person

"penkyamp" could be a general noun

• Keep: Fellow Wikipedians, please pause and think for a second: do you know the exact origin and meaning of "penkyamp" in the Cantonese language? Proper nouns(let's have no doubt that "Penkyamp" is indeed a proper name for the orthography), have varying degrees of SPECIFICITY. The fact that the name "penkyamp" does not automatically lead us to the origin of such system doesn't mean that such system wasn't in use under different names. Let's see: "penkyamp" as a GENERAL NOUN is inspired by Mandarin "pinyin", which is itself both a proper name for a system and a general noun designating "phonetic script". As a result, "penkyamp" as a general noun has been in use among the Cantonese referring to any phonetic script since at least the birth of the Mandarin Pinyin. And "Penkyamp" as a proper noun for a specific system might not be in place well after this system was in use for many years, only until it was introduced to us as such. What if on-line records before 2003 has been mostly erased?

Besides, the article started under the entry Cantonese Romanization instead of Penkyamp. Maybe back then "Penkyamp" wasn't finalized as its only proper name. It could be "Lomazi" or "Zeuyamp". At least it's nothing as specific as "Jyutpin" (a name that is hightly stylized and specified as a "PINyin"--note: not a Cantonese pronunciation--- of the "Jyut"(Guangdong)-- nothing can get as specific as this, which will garantee to trace back to its origin as an officially sponsored scheme). But "penkyamp" is not as specific as this. It means "phonetic script", is spelled as is pronounced in Cantonese, and is in circulation among the Cantonese thanks to the already existing Mandarin "Pinyin". I urge you to think twice about our obsession with the specificity of the proper name of the entry: what you call "Penkyamp" is actually of secondary relevance. The question is, what kind of usage, or systems were in existence before this name was finalized, on Misplaced Pages?

Cantonese romanization

Did you look up the Yale of each char from that Amazon.com dictionary? I use Jyutping from Lin Yutang's -Menchi (Talk)â 07:59, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Image

at Image:China imperialism cartoon.jpg --Jiang

Yale Romanization

What you wrote about Yale Romanization#Cantonese Chinese is long and encyclopedic enough to be its own article. I recommend you slice it into Cantonese Yale Romanization or another article with similar title. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:01, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But the Yale Romanization article itself isn't as long. If we siphon off the different types of Yale, will it be a perpetual stub? --Jiang 13:03, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Replying here since Jiang already replied) Seems like writing a longer article for Mandarin Yale and making Yale Romanization a disambiguation would be a good solution. Or maybe it just seems that way because I'm so sleep deprived. :-P You can move it if you like, I'll talk to you about this again after I wake up. --Xiaopo's Talk 13:17, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yale Romanization, from my understanding, can only be a disambiguation. As the 4 Yales are not one system at all, therefore probably completely unrelated linguistically. --Menchi (Talk)â 13:46, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hihihihi

Hi, Jiang. Stop trolling my talk page. :-P --Xiaopo's Talk

Manchu names

Hello. I let you know that "manju" is the Manchu name for the Manchus and that "Hong Taiji" is the Manchu spelling for the Manchu emperor called "Huang Taiji" in Chinese. --Nanshu 02:26, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hihihi

Die, heathen swine. --taion 05:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LDS and Protestantism

Mormonism is traditionally considered to be a branch off from Protestantism - its development happened after the PR, and in the environment created by Protestantism (and American colonialism). So, in Christianity, there are generally considered to be 3 main branches - HRC, EO, and P, of which M remains an anomaly within P. Of course this is not a subjective classification - the LDS may say something quite different. -SV(talk) 20:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK- I understand. Im not disagreeing with your statement that Mormonism doesnt quite fit into the Protestant category, but does it not fit in the same way that the UU church doesnt fit? If you say there are four categories -HRC, EO, P, and Other, then yes Mormonism, categorically could fit into the other category. If you have three categories (which tends to make a bit more sense, when talking long term history) this would include mormonism, and perhaps UUniversalism, though I, having a POV on that might argue for a whole new category for UU, but someone can argue that it belongs under Protestantism. Are you a Mormon? It may have bearing as to how you see this, and in terms of your view as POV. Sincerely,-SV(talk) 07:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Media Wiki Cults

Hello Xiaopo,

I adapted the Media wiki cults I hope you find it okay now and that you reconsider and change your comments on Vote for deletion of media wiki

It is a complicated but important subject and I think the Media Wiki cults helps people to understand it. Andries 20:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emperor Norton

Emperor Norton was not an emperor, a monarch, or an official of the United States. As such, his article belongs under the name he was known by: Emperor Norton or Joshua Norton or Joshua A. Norton, not a name that Misplaced Pages conventions would dictate if he had actually been a monarch of some kind! - Nunh-huh 00:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The naming convention is that people's articles belong under the name they were most known by. For this dude, that's "Emperor Norton". "As he was emperor" is simply wrong: he wasn't. If you want it moved somewhere else, by all means argue your case on his talk page and gain a concensus for moving it there. - Nunh-huh 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sanskrit transliteration

The Sanskrit message you posted has been transliterated on VP. If you have any questions, leave me a msg on my talk page. Salasks 06:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi Xiaopo,

I've rephrased the options a bit (hope you don't mind ;) ) and added my vote. -- ] 16:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

VfD on Cantonese Romanization systems

Please give your comments on the following two votes for deletion:

• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Gwohngdongwaa pengyam
• Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Penkyamp

You are invited because I have found you on Penkyamp's talk page and I believe that you can make a fair judgement. -- Felix Wan 19:43, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Claims of the Orthodox

Concerning your recent edit of the Eastern Orthodox. The statement was made that:

Its claims of originality are easily verifiable and are generally not disputed by any other major Christian group including the Roman Catholics.

You have said that the Roman Catholics do dispute it. This is incorrect. I quote directly from the decrees of the Vatican Council II concerning the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

1. The Catholic Church reveres these Eastern Churches, which are "living witnesses to the tradition which has been handed down from the apostles through the Fathers..."

3. ...Similarly, the Council recognizes the validity of Holy Orders conferred in the Eastern Churches...The Eastern patriarchs ranks as cardinal bishops.

Phiddipus 18:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanx

This is just to acknowledge your message on my talk page. It's always gratifying to know that someone's reading my site and that it's shaping and moving world opinion :)

Bathrobe 15:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You rock

Just though I'd note that. Every now and then I find an old comment of yours that really makes me smile... +sj + 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

California Hindu textbook Controversy

Given a choice between HAF and FOSA, HAF is more reliable because the US government recognizes HAF as a taxed non-partisan org whereas FOSA is known to have terrorist connections (See FOSA article on wikipedia and refs to the "Allah will destroy the terrorist state of India" incident) and so fails reliability per the extrmist clause of WP:Reliable Sources. Thank you.Hkelkar 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which sentence are you talking about exactly?Hkelkar 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy&diff=78179518&oldid=78178450 Then both FOSA and HAF/HEF's claims are presented.You can't delete a sourced statement.Hkelkar 03:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, my personal opinion is irrelevant on wikipedia (bear in mind that the original edit wasn't mine either). It is about reliability. HAF/HEF are recognized by the US government as a tax-exempt, non-profit and non-partisan organization under 501(c)(3) of the IRS tax code. (Tax I.D. 68-055-1525). The IRS does not make partisan orgs tax-deductible wrt donations. However, no such recognition exists for FOSA, which has Pakistani members who are affiliated with terrorism. Thus, HAf is reliable and FOSA is not. FOSA thus, must be cited with qualification and HAF does not have to be.Hkelkar 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)