User talk:Ktsquare/Archive I

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, great job disambiguating Jin Dynasty -- I had no idea there were two of them. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for asking about my field trip -- I had a great time! Yosemite is... well, words fail. You should be happy to find out that the number of times a page has been accessed is already at the bottom of each page here in wikipedia (right above the search bar). For example just before I hit edit, I saw that this talk page has been accessed 14 times since it was created and the main page has been accessed 313,347 times (yikes! That's just since February). BTW, 50 is a rather small number to have on the most popular page listing: It might be a good idea to suggest a similar format for the popular pages as we now have for RecentChanges -- "View the most popular 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 | 1000 pages"... You want to suggest this feature on wikipedia feature requests or should I? Power to the wiki! --maveric149

Sorry, I don't know when the bugs will be worked out on the move feature. User:Brion VIBBER is the developer that is most active as a regular contributor (like you and me) to wikipedia. I will ask him about it. I for one won't move Tables of Chinese Sovereigns until you are finished with all the major changes/additions you are working on. Of course, you or anyone else could do a manual move/redirect and then the history of Tables of Chinese Sovereigns would be left totally intact yet hidden behind a redirect. If this is done the person making the move can mention that user:Ktsquare first created this page (under ip 24.100.81.xxx) someplace else and has done much of the work on it. You could also put a link to the history of Tables of Chinese Sovereigns in the talk of the new page. --maveric149

No, there really is no official watchlist for naughty users other than RecentChanges (hit "show last 5000 changes" and then search for the person's IP). What I do is just copy down the visible part of the IP and place that on my user page. Of course, if this person is doing a systemic attack then please add this person's visible IP to VANDALISM IN PROGRESS to elicit the help of others to undo the harm the vandal is doing (if an administrator is around then the vandal will be warned and then blocked if the warning is ignored). As a matter of policy though, defacing a single page is not usually considered to be vandalism -- it is oftentimes just tagging by a person who doesn't have a clue what the project is about and is just experimenting. Most of these people leave after a single "incident" and never come back -- as your example seems to have done. When you see a newly created page like History of Indochina that has nothing but garbage on it, simply delete the garbage and either vote to delete the page or create a short stub to replace the garbage. Of course, always check the history to make sure an article isn't hiding behind in the page's history. --maveric149

Hi! Please see recent Talk:Wu Hu

Well, it wasn't much help really; you're obviously much more knowledgeable about it. :-) Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi

Do you know whether the term Rape of Nanking was in use before the book of that name was published? I sort of recall that it was, but I'm not an expert in history. --Ed Poor

Before that book was published, the term only means rapes of women during the 2 months of atrocities inside the city but the book used the term for referring to the Nanjing Massacre. Such a use is acceptable. In other words, the term means only part of atrocities before the publish and the book generalized to the whole massacre. -- Ktsquare

Not true. Rape has always had the meaning of destruction and murder over a large area. For instance, the Glencoe Massacre is refered to as the rape of Glencoe. I'm fairly certain Rape of Nanking was in use for quite a while too. --rmhermen

I agree that the term Rape of Nanking was in use quite a while but my previous point was on what the term is referring to, not on how long it has lasted. Research on Google and my knowledge gave me contradictory results. I have always believed that the term was a western term for Nanjing Massacre. Some webpages used it only for rape of women during those 2 1/2 months, some refer to the whole incident anmd some don't even bother to use it at all. Since Nanjing Massacre can only refer to the incident, I prefer using that instaed of the Rape of Nanking. Some research papers in US are now using Nanjing Massacre and some invented a new term Nanjing Atrocities, adding more confusion to the confusing enough nomenclature.

an example. search "rape" and "massacre". They refer to the same incident.

II. The Death Toll ? Current Estimates: 1st paragraph: ....The notion here is that if the figure of 300,000 (or any higher end of the estimates for that matter) does not stand, it is no longer the Nanking Atrocities (or the Nanjing Massacre or the Rape of Nanking)....

Ktsquare -- please be aware that the Hull genealogy website is CRAP. It is not accurate and we have had many problems with people using it (and most other genealogical websites) as reference material. No professional European historian I know (and I know lots of them -- and am one myself) would trust it. As a history student, you should really avail yourself of the opportunity to use sources critically. Remember, genealogy isn't history, and most amateur genealogists (certainly not all, but most) usually don't have the language skills or background to be as trustworthy as many other sources available. JHK

Thanx very much for your helpful advice.

Your concern probably arised from your comment on talk:Charles. I personally don't trust the Hull website and those material on Charles are direct reposts of existing wikipedia articles. The link was just an old shortcut which was probably created during my high school years. IMO accuracy of genealogical records depends on 1) how accurate is the source, 2)expertise of the amatuer, 3) how detailed are those records. Just out of curiosity, is "Europaische Stammtafeln" a trustworthy source? I heard of the title before and trust me, I'm not going to copy those materials onto wikipedia. BTW I have already stopped collecting genealogical data since I entered university. Thanx again. --Ktsquare

Which edition? There are several excellent prosopographical works out there in German -- depends on the subject and time period as to how good they are. I honestly would not rely on anything absolutely, unless it clearly demonstrates how it came to the conclusions it does, and what primary sources are used. JHK

IMO The latest edition would be the best by common sense. BTW do you use prosographical material frequently during your years of research? --Ktsquare

I wouldn't agree that latest is always best -- the original wasn't written with genealogists in mind -- I don't know about the Neue Folge. I think it is probably helpful in tracing family trees, but dangerous in the hands of people who don't know what they're looking at. For example, many German genealogical and prosopographical sources will use a "von somewhere" after a name. The historian understands that this is usually not part of a title nor indicates heritable lands -- at least before the late 10th c., because there weren't all that many inheritable titles, outside of royalty, before then. So where I see that (for example only) Welf, a graf in Alemannia, married Gerswintha v. Sachsen in 810, I see that Welf held the title of comes -- which may or may not have been connected to a permanent office, possibly not in Alemannia (that might be where his family was from), who married a woman who was either from Saxony (not the same as today's Saxony) or was of Saxon descent. HJ, on the other hand, would see this as Welf, Count of Alemannia, married a noblewoman named Gerswintha von Sachsen. Believe me, the differences could be vast.

And yes, if you hadn't figured it out by now, I do use a lot of prosopographical stuff in my research. And I do dislike most amateur genealogy, because the aim in most cases seems not to learn for the sake of finding out more about history and the people who contributed to it, but seems more to be a purely egotistical attempt to claim noble blood and sometimes to prove longtime claims to lands that have changed hands many times over the years. Personally, I would rather do something interesting and important myself than say that by no fault of my own, I'm related to some long dead king. But maybe my priorities are mixed up ;-) JHK

Good to know Euroepean history researchers use a lot of prosopographical material. However it seems like not a single book you could totally rely on when conducting researches, from understanding of your words. Shouldn't there be some stuff (prosopographical or not) that are universally accepted as accurate sources regardless of how detail it is? Say what material you would trust when writing your dissertion on Carolingians?

Fabricating connection to noble blood could serve as a logical groud for legally claiming land or property. Even Bruce Lee (for example only) could claim himself of royal blood if one intends to make up connections. LOL. I just ignore them.--Ktsquare

Hi -- I'll answer the above when I have a sec. In the meantime, I would say that, for the House of Savoy, i'd certainly not translate Arcim- or Arcibaldo into English. Not that the translation is wrong, but that it sounds funny. I can't even say why, except that it's probably just a usage/comfort thing, and that Archibald sounds Scottish. JHK

Thanks for the images of, for example, Ellsworth Bunker; but please go read Wikipedia:Image use policy and help us keep the quality of images here high. In particular, it's a bad idea to mix photographic images and text; photos should be in JPEG format, drawings in PNG format. GIF is deprecated. Further, please describe where these images came from on the description page so we can be sure we have the right to use them. --LDC

Okay.

Most of the sources you list offer public domain images, so there's probably no copyright problem, but we should at least mention the web site where you got the images.

In case you hadn't noticed it before, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:How to rename a page; using the "move page" link in the sidebar you can more easily move a page to a new title, keeping the edit history and talk page with it intact. --Brion 02:21 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Reading your comment at Talk:Christopher_Columbus, I thought briefly that JHK had come back, and got all excited. Shame on you. ;-) --KQ

Excuse me, Shame on me? I don't get your joke.

Eh, sorry. I've been up too long and had a few. Don't mind me. I meant no offense. --KQ

That's okay. BTW now I understand what you mean.

Good ides about the WikiProject Battles! I was thinking of that when I adapted the box from WikiProject Elements. Nevertheless the new user User:TeunSpaans deserves a great deal of credit. If you look at his earlier version of Battle of L¡§©ötzen (1632) he had put the basics of this battle in point form at the beginning. All I did was adapt an existing Wikipedia concept of boxes.

When I set up the box I resisted the temptation of copying it elsewhere since this was indeed a primitive first attempt. I even resisted splitting off the 2nd battle of the same name. Do you have any suggestions about the box structure itself? Additional material that should appear there? Colour coding for the box heading (geographical or time period)? Eclecticology 19:02 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding Magnus I genealogy: I do have it, and will also develop this on the Swedish pages aswell on the english. Is there any standard of how tp present genealogy on the english wikipedia? Dan Koehl

Followed your advice and made a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genealogy, now how can I find the proper people to discuss this topic with? Or do I mention the suggestion at the village pump/ meta pages? Dan Koehl 14:36 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

HI, and thanks for your message. I understood from the discussions reg this topic that there was "from above" a reluctant interest to settle genalogical standards on the Wikipedia, which might minimize errors. The interest to correct false genealogy or errors as well. It seems for me to great an effort to convince someone who doesnt want, or need structures that may avoid errors, and I am somehow tired of time vasting "fight againt windmills". So I happily develop this system on the Swedish wikipedia (for Gustav I of Sweden at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Gustav_Vasa as one example) until I get signals from any sort of active constructive interest to develop this on the english wikipedia. But "Politics" on the English wikipedia is not my problem, I was just trying to help. Now, developing a system on the swedish wikipedia, I can check the genealogy up, and eventually correct the one on the english one.

Your words is nevertheless nice to get, and I thank you. Dan Koehl 09:10 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC), a :) visitor in Yosemite in 1964.

Check out my comment on Talk:List of compounds -- Tim

Hopefully, you'll find some more light on mineral classification by composition here Talk:Mineral. user:anthere

There is a message for you at Talk:Stephen V of Hungary --mav

Hi, is Qin Zhao Xiang Wang (秦昭襄王) romanized as "Qin Zhao Shang Wang" on page "Qin Dynasty" because it's the version most popularly known to the West or it's a typo? --Menchi 08:22 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

You said "I used 'Xiang' because it's the pinyin romaization for '襄'". But that wasn't why I asked you. I understood why you used Xiang, but not Shang. Are you saying that Shang (殤) is another posthumous name for Ying Ze? But exact (quoted) searches for 秦昭殤王, Qing Zhao Shang Wang, 秦殤王, and Qing Shang Wang return no results, except the one Wikipage "Qin Dynasty" created by you. Of course, the lack of web page does not necessarily mean the nonexistence of the term. But according to my source, in addition to Zhao Xiang Wang, the only other posthumous name for Ying Ze is Xi Di (西帝). Where does this "Shang" come from? Thx for explaining. --Menchi 21:27 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

傳媒 vs. 媒體

On the page Wikipedia 对话:命名常规, you used the term "傳媒". I've never heard of it, and I can't find it in my Chinese-English dictionaries. I suspect it means "media", but the usual word for "media" I hear is 媒體. What's the difference between the two? --Menchi 07:57 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Just wondering where have you heard of 媒體? Do the Chinese-Canadian media use that term also?

I used to hear the term 媒體 in Taiwan. It's also the root for the word "多媒體" (multimedia). What's the dictionary you use that contains "傳媒"? --Menchi 20:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

"傳媒" is used in Cantonese. Just add the terms to [各地華人詞匯對照 at the zhongwen wiki page]

Zhou Dynasty table division

Why is the table for Zhou Dynasty (690 AD - 705 AD) subdivided into horizontally two parts: First spanning from the beginning of the Dynasty to Zaichu period, second from Tianshou period to the end of the Dynasty? But both parts are ruled by Empress Wu with the same temple name. --Menchi 21:40 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to change it if you prefer.

Ok, I'll change. --Menchi 20:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

海不讓水，以成其大

Does 『海不讓水，以成其大。』 mean "Ocean does not yield to water, so it is immense"? It doesn't really make sense to me. (It's from the Chinese 'pedia Main Page.) Is it considered a Chinese proverb? If so, maybe we should add it to the proverb page list, after we find out its metaphorical meaning. --Menchi 00:39 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

It's discussed on that talk page. One supporter quoted the phrase from an encyclopedia. It looks more like a passable choice than appropiate. Any idea to use another phrase instead?

Maybe we can use a saying that has something to do (more explicitly) with the sharing and exchange knowledge? I can't think of one off the top of my head. --Menchi 20:26 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Rebecca Rodriguez's nickname is La Azteca. I had forgotten that detail.

God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Tattoo me everywhere, baby! Martin

Thanx. User:kt2

Copyrights on music are fairly complicated. (I am not a copyright lawyer, just a film student. Consult a real lawyer for legal advice.) Suffice to say that not only is the recording copyrighted, and the lyrics are copyrighted, but also the sequence of notes is copyrighted. If you hum a copyrighted song in public, technically you're probably liable for paying royalties. :) Certainly a MIDI representation of the tune of an entire copyrighted song would not be acceptable for Wikipedia (unless that copyrighted song is also licensed under the GFDL, which is not very likely...) Brief extracts as samples may be acceptable under fair use, however fair use is a tricky thing and I don't personally recommend it.

Complete MIDI files (or recordings as OGG or similarly compressed audio) of songs that are in the public domain are A-OK. National anthems... Some countries may copyright them, I don't know. I would imagine most are safe, though particular recordings may be under copyright -- this is true also of classic music! -- so it's safest to sequence or record them yourself unless you know the recording or file is in the clear. --Brion 08:38 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Thanx for letting me know but I am just disappointed that I can't upload my favorite songs here. Some are either downloaded from file sharing softwares like KaZaa, especially Leslie Cheung's that I wish to offer as condolences. :-)User:kt2

Why are you inserting hr lines into articles? They are ugly and not at all needed when you have a clearly bordered table. Hr lines are used to separate talk threads and different meanings of a single term. --mav

They aren't ugly IMO. Anyhow check the new Mustafa II and see if you like it.

It looks great! --mav

Manchu/Mongol names

The sovereign tables of the Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty adopt "{surname} {given name}" as Born Names. The Mongols and Manchus did have surnames (or clan names), but I nerver heard Borjigin Temüjin or Aisin Gioro Nurhaci. They are called just Temüjin or Nurhaci. I don't think that they used the Chinese style naming convention.

Both Borjigin and Aisin Gioro were adopted AFTER these dynasties moved into China proper. If I recalled correctly, Gioro was a Manchurian clan name and the prefix Aisin was added to specifiy the decendents of Nurhaci. BTW do you know the original clan names of the two royal families? Drawing relationships between the original and adopted clan names might explain why they would adopted the names. --- kt2

No. They had those clan (obugh) names before they conquered China. Just clan names were not parts of personal names. Borjigin seems a subclan of Kiyan (pl. Kiyad). Chinggis's rival Tayichuud (Tayichighud) clan are his distant relatives. -- Nanshu

BTW, do you know why some Western sources call Hong Taiji "Abahai"? My Mongolian dictionary says that abakhai (авхай Avhay) means daughter of a nobleman/aristocrat. Pretty odd to me. -- Nanshu 03:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I plead my lack of knowledge here. If my reconcilation is correct, Abahai could mean a son or daughter of a nobleman. Affix(es) specify the sex of a gender-less Manchu word. With that said, that weird dictionary entry becomes obvious as Hong Taiji was obviously a son of a nobleman. -- kt2

Uhm. I found Abakhai refer to the second son of Dayan Khan. Anyway, I cannot find Hong Taiji be called Abahai in Manchu or Chinese documents. The mystery isn't solved yet. -- Nanshu 04:55 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

The War at the Great Wall

In Song Zheyuan's biography, you mentioned "The War at the Great Wall", is that 長城之戰 in Chinese? It'd be useful if we add the Chinese term if we know, since there's no article on that war yet. --Menchi 20:48 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

No problemo. I'll take care of that after I finished editing on Yuan Shikai.

ban talk to User talk:Dewlaylomo/ban

Hey, what is "Yoshihito Taisho"? --Nanshu

It's apparently a redirect from Wikipedia:Images with missing articles. Taisho Emperor was never referred to as Yoshihito Taisho. I'll forward this message to Taku for more comments. -- kt2

I agree with you, so please ask Ms. K to refrain from using derogatory language. It certainly does nothing to advance the discussion. Triton

Well I presume every wikipedian (including myself) friendly and politely discusses issues. Petty lapses on any side of the arguments are excusable. :) User:kt2

I am puzzled as to what you are doing to the Patriarchs of Constantinople. Putting them in as [[name ordinal of Constantinople]] is having them follow royal naming conventions but they aren't royalty. Religious leaders in many cases on wiki use their religious title, including popes and cardinals, eg Pope Paul III, etc. Is there agreement on this move? If there isn't this should be discussed before a wholescale move. It is important that naming conventions are clear, precise and common. Please explain the reason for your changes. FearÉIREANN 17:34 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The only relevant "guideline" on systematic naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which has no reference to the patriarchs of constantinople, let alone other patriarchs in Near East and Eastern Europe. Given that, article nomenclature on these articles is a mess. Some use [[name ordinal of a place]], some use [[name of Constantinople]], other use [[name]] only (ex.John Chrysostom) I was trying to modify the list of Constantinople Patriarchs to collect as much links to these articles as possible and at the same time modify the articles as [[name ordinal of Constantinople]]. I will post a discussion thread on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).

BTW Anyway to draw more attention to Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(chinese). My posts on talk:China and Wikipedia:Village pump only draw john's, Menchi's and your attention to the page. Any standard would be viewed as a agreement of a small group and would not be respected. But if we procastinate, the mess of chinese convention (especially the pinyin vs wade-giles issue) would worsen. Just take a look at History of China, which has become a colony of direct and wrong transliteration of Chinese words, for instance, Yellow Lord instead of the Yellow Emperor. --kt2

It is correct that the naming conventions on clerical titles is sparce. What little is there was my work. I've found the best route for a change is to outline a suggestion on the naming conventions talk page first. That is not a criticism by the way. I'm glad to hear your suggestions on this area. Naming conventions on royalty was utter mess, far worse than on religious titles. It took a lot of work starting on the talk page for debate to get some semblance of logic and co-ordination.

Re the History of China it is a complete mess. I suggested on the talk page that we revert to an earlier version and begin working from that. What is your view? You know a lot more about the topic than I do. FearÉIREANN 22:03 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I checked with various people about the above page and the consensus was that in its current form the page is littered with too many mistranslations, inaccuracies and poor grammar to be salvageable. I have reverted to the 31st May version which was generally viewed as the last well written, community contributed to version of this page. I hope that suits you. lol FearÉIREANN 02:34 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a sysop on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Please respond there to accept/reject the nomination. --Eloquence 17:10 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 19:17 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanx for info and looking forward to helping wikipedia even more. User:kt2

What do you think of Hui Chinese→Hui? --Menchi 20:39 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--Go ahead with the change kt2 00:24 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We may soon have a new admin/sysop of Chinese ancestry, User:Jiang. His knowledge on contemporary Chinese politics is quite good. Have you come across him before? Could you give a word on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? --Menchi 00:43 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And of course, please don't feel pressured into giving blind opinions. It's just that I thought you may have seen him on your Watchlist and saw his works, liked I did so many times before even knowing who he is. --Menchi 00:49 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Frankly I came across him only several times; still I would support his nomination. kt2 00:56 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I noticed you added some defunct provinces but couldn't find some abbreviations. They can be found at the Taiwanese Guoyu Cidian, which has one-sentence intros to, among other things, most Chinese placenames, historical and modern.

It has "Chinese Communism", but lacks "Communism" for some reason!

--Menchi 05:01 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanx for your help. :) kt2

Hi KT, I noticed the extensive work you're doing in the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and Catholic popes, looks great! One question about John Chrysostom - the first paragraph ends with a statement about him being honored as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox church. He is also considered a Saint in the Catholic church, as well as a "Doctor of the Church". Being new here at Wikipedia, I wasn't sure if I should go ahead and add this information, and whether I need to cite references, such as: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm and http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/DOCTORS.HTM ? Harris7 13:37 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanx for your kind words. Anyway it's okay to add those informations of JC, which, I think, are considered rather trivial. Those references can be listed under External Links. I often either find a public domain source or produce materials that would be copyrighted under other sources. Verbatim copy-and-paste is an absolute "no" unless the source is not copyrighted or an authorization is granted. Here are some links you may find useful: Wikipedia:Public domain resources -- Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission -- Wikipedia:Public domain image resources kt2 04:24 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kt, re the renaming of the Patriarchs of Constantinople. I think it might be a mistake to direct the patriarch name to common name. Clerical titles are still evolving on wiki (I've been working on ways of sorting out the cardinal problem, which seems to have worked.) As the patriarchs follow on from each other, it would I think make more sense to keep their pages at their patriarchal name (so showing that they form a chain, not merely a collection of unrelated names) and set up a redirect for their commonly known name. We faced the same problem with Mary, Queen of Scots, whose page is redirected to Mary I of Scotland to keep her as part of the 'set' of Scottish monarchs, something that would be more difficult for people to follow if we had her main page at M,Q of S. (well actually in that case it acts as a disambigulation page for references to books, films and the main page about Mary I but could also be a redirect.) One thing I learned when working on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) was that keeping things together in a chain (with redirects for off chain names) worked better than putting the main page at the common name, with chain redirects. And of course the patriarchs were isolated individuals but were directly impacted upon by those in the chain before them. FearÉIREANN 06:14 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) kt2 00:36 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You might be interested in some current activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Battles --mav 21:08, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

replied. I.H.S.V. (talk)

Dear ktsquare, Llwyrch just told me that you might be interested in Roman issues. I would apreciate your opinion on my Ancient Rome Proposal Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am interested in the medieval Hellenic civilization of Byzantine Empire but the important school year may keep me from some significant contributions. Input at times are okay though. :) kt2 22:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

WYK alumni

Yes, I am a WYK alumni. I left WYK in 2001. You know the school? Gakmo, 24 Sept 2003

yeap I do know. A close friend of mine is an alumnus.kt2

How did he describe the school? He liked it or not? I am interested.... :p Gakmo, 25 Sept 2003

His impression was decent. His school years in WYK were certainly enjoyable and funny; I will definitely visit the school if given the chance. But He also mentioned feuds and intrigues among fellow students from lower forms (F. 1-3) and higher forms (F.6 and 7). IMO it's pretty normal as I never get along with some pals in high school. :p

You can sign after your comment with You can sign your name with ~~~~ (or just ~~~ to leave out the date stamp). kt2 09:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I will also provide you with positive evaluation of my alma mater. I really enjoy studying there. Gakmo 13:10, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Zhou Dynasty Colipon 04:40, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

replied. I.H.S.V. (talk)

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your information about the children of emperors? Colipon 04:54, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sources vary. May I know which emperor in particular? kt2 05:27, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You can distinguish trad. & simp. interlanguage links by -ch & -tw suffixes, like zh-tw:中國. --Menchi 05:48, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Great, thanx. kt2 05:54, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

King Wu of Zhou: Father and son ambiguity[edit]

Isn't it ambiguous to say:

Father: second son of King Wen of Zhou

Instead of:

Father: King Wen of Zhou (second son)

Since the former can mean that Wu is the second son of Wen's son. --Menchi 06:06, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

true, reverted. kt2 06:10, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, how to correct entry title? It should be Wah Yan College, Kowloon but not 'Wan Yan College Kowloon'. Gakmo 16:07, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, simply click "Move this page" on the left panel of the page, which should then ask you to type it the new title. The old title will automatically become a redirect. kt2 23:49, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Qin kings[edit]

Could you shed some lights on your choices of including Talk:Qin_Dynasty#Kings in dynasty list? --Menchi 00:42, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

replied there kt² 21:56, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Song of Righteousness[edit]

Are you gonna continue annotating zh:正气歌? If so, we'll move it to wikibooks: as the first Chinese text, if not, we'll move it to Wikisource. --Menchi 05:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have been considering the continuation but severe lack of interest from fellow wikipedians of annotating 正气歌 prompted some second guesses. Since I have started the twelve subtitles of annotations, I would annonate them for the sake of completion. BTW you seem to be pretty informed about current development of Wikipedia, I wonder how you knew all these informations. For instance, where and how did you know about wikibooks and wikisources? kt² 20:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I heard about Wikibooks from Wikipedia:Announcements. I came across wikisources when glancing wikiquotes' main page. It is apparently not linked to WP's main page yet for some reason. --Menchi 01:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

check recnt talk at http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%E6%96%87%E5%A4%A9%E7%A5%A5 kt² 01:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's basically the format of a chapter of Zhongwen textbook of TW senior high schools. It's more suitable at wikibooks:Main Page:中文. I'll move the annotated copy there & leave the wikisource unannotated. --Menchi 01:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Naming conventions of warring states[edit]

Your comments are needed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Disambiguations. --Jiang 07:44, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

replied. I.H.S.V. (talk)

Hi Ktsquare, as you have contributed to Baseball/temp, I'd like to ask for your opinion whether it's time to move the rewritten article to Baseball. Please comment at Talk:Baseball/temp. Thanks, Kosebamse 16:56, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

replied there 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 20:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

dan boone?[edit]

hi. over the summer you added Dan Boone to the list of baseball players, and you added him as a Hall of Famer. But he is not. Did you mean someone else? Or did you mean a different hall of fame? Simply curious. :) Kingturtle 01:01, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't clearly know what I had done at that particular moment but I think I was trying to copy and paste Dan Brouthers from the Phillies article which was then mixed up with the Boone's. Thanx for letting me know. BTW how did u find out I actually make the mistake. Just curious. :) 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 01:47, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tarasius[edit]

Ktsquare,

I've noticed that you've changed the name of an article I was creating from Patriarch Tarasius to Saint Tarasius. I don't particularly care what name it has, except that we should strive for consistancy. Looking at List of Patriarchs of Constantinople, Tarasius is (now) the only Patriarch of Constantinople since 451 who is listed as "Saint" so-and-so. Was he the only one who later became a saint? Or will you be changing others in a similar fasion?

Perhaps a better naming convention to follow would be "so-and-so of Constantinople"? Or, if you've got a better idea I'm all ears.

BTW, I saved some changes I was making over your original redirect, so I wouldn't lose them. They can be merged back into whatever page name it lands on.

-Anthropos 13:16, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

Why did you move only the discussion page on Patriarch Tarasius without moving the page itself? Also, did you intend to drop the first "s" from Tarasius or only to change Patriarch to Saint? Michael Hardy 13:41, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

Michael: This is my fault, not Ktsquare's. He changed the page to a redirect, and moved things appropriately. At that time I was in the process of editing the page, and I decided to save over his redirect as a temporary solution (I suppose I could've merged, leaving the #redirect active, but I didn't think of it in time). At the moment, I'm trying to sort out what Wikipedia standard (if any) applies to naming of Patriarchs. There's a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles).

-Anthropos 13:56, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)

I particluarly care the proper name of Tarasius for a consistent "so-and-so of Constantinople" format, which has still not been implemented. Orthodox nomenclature had not been consistent, such as John Chrysostom (in common name format) and Patriarch Tarasius (in Patriarch so-and-so format). Please also refer to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Patriarchs.

I was told that Tarasius was the only Saint Tarasius in the list of Constantinople Patriarchs, exactly why I moved the page to Saint Tarasius. IMO I would prefer a consensus but "Patriarch Tarasius" yields more results in Google. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 14:08, 30 Dec 2003 (PST)