User talk:Babelfisch

At the moment, I can't contribute to articles and discussions without violating the Wikipedia policy against open proxies, because the Chinese government has blocked access to Wikipedia, including the SSL-based URLs. If Wikipedia administrators collude with the censorship authorities, I'll be blocked for constantly violating that policy. Sometimes I can't access Wikipedia at all, so I can't always promptly answer questions on this page. —Babelfisch 09:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of Wikipedia have been unblocked by the Chinese government a few weeks ago, but many pages still can't be viewed or edited without a proxy. —Babelfisch 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardblocking open proxies has been downgraded from a valid policy to a proposal. Some administrators continue to hardblock proxies and refuse to convert these blocks into soft blocks, even without any official policy – but there is some hope. —Babelfisch 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardblocking has been re-installed as a policy. I've asked for seven proxies to be softblocked. All requests were rejected out of hand. Users from China are consistently blocked and interest in solving that problem is minimal.

I've been totally blocked, I can't edit any articles or talk pages, nor my own user page. —Babelfisch 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked. Quote of the day:

“I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Wikipedia, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)” (see User Talk: Jimbo Wales, Archive 26)

But who cares? —Babelfisch 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another workaround, but will probably be blocked again as soon as zealous administrators realise that. —Babelfisch (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: IP block exemption granted in May 2008. Briefly revoked in February 2011, but restored after a couple of weeks and lots of explaining.
And now: IP block exemption revoked again by over-zealous administrator. They really don't want Chinese users. --Babelfisch (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exemption restored. Thanks. It only took six weeks of explaining, arguing, petitioning, supplicating. --Babelfisch (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese characters

No need to add Chinese if they can be written on their own articles (which can be accessed thru the Wiki-link). This makes the article easier on the eyes (keep in mind this is the English WP, not Chinese+English WP). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for China-related articles#Insertion of Chinese characters for more explanations (there isn't much more...) --Menchi 13:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Webmaster?

Hello. Aren't you the webmaster of [1]? I'm just a bit curious. --Nanshu 02:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Babelfisch 08:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common phrases in Esperanto

Hello, I removed your Esperanto entry from Common phrases in different languages and merged it with the existing one in Common phrases in constructed languages. -- pne 15:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello

I read it from a book relating to the Tibetan people, one of which tells about their history. -- Mr Tan 16:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific and give a full reference? (or references - "a book ... one of which ...") Babelfisch 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew

Oops. Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Hebrew page. I really do know the difference between voicing and occlusiveness, though. I swear. Take care --Whimemsz 02:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Hebrew page. It was some clipboard problem, not browser's or editor's one. Fixed and will never happen again. I swear. Take care --Shaul 17:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hani & Jino

Babelfisch,

My source for the other spellings for these people is the Paul Noll Chinese Minorities page, specificially the section called Alternate Minority Spellings in China. ---Hottentot

And where did he get that from? "Ahka" is simply a typo, that should be "Akha". And I couldn't find any source that called the Hani "Hakka". The Hakka Han-Chinese speakers of a certain Chinese dialect - Kejia 客家. The Tu are also never called "Du". I don't think that site is very authoritative. Babelfisch 01:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Babelfisch,

Thanks for your hard work on Goguryeo. I know that I've seen your edits on other Korea-related articles as well, although I can't remember which ones -- thanks for those too, wherever they were.

Please continue to keep an eye on the Goguryeo page. There appears to be yet another conflict emerging. I will add the hangul -- unless someone beats me to it -- as soon as I'm on a computer that has Korean keyboard support.

Cheers,

-- Visviva 04:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

addition of native names

Hi do you know of any sources for native names of autonomous entities in China? Abstrakt

There are many and they are easy to find if you can read the languages involved. (If not, you'll be at loss anyway.) The problem is that some minorities don't have well-established written languages.

For place names in Inner Mongolia, there is the very comprehensive Nèi Měnggǔ dìmíng cídiǎn, Hàn-Méng duìzhào 《内蒙古地名词典》汉蒙对照 (Nèi Měnggǔ rénmín chūbǎnshè 内蒙古人民出版社，2000);
for Tibetan place names, there is Yīng, Hàn, Zàng Xīzàng dìmíng duìzhào 《英、汉、藏西藏地名对照》, in: Xīzàng yánjiū 《西藏研究》 1997.4 and 1998.1, and several books and lists produced by agencies such as Xinhua;
for Xinjiang, see Niú Rǔchén 牛汝辰: Xīnjiāng dìmíng gàishuō 《新疆地名概说》 (Zhōngyāng mínzú dàxué chūbǎnshè 中央民族大学出版社 1994） etc.

Some dictionaries for minority languages contain place names. Place names in languages of smaller minorities, such as in Yunnan, are generally rather difficult to find unless you go to those areas. — Babelfisch 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tai L(e|u)

Sorry to take so long to reply, I've just come back to Jinghong from a trip south through Thailand and Laos. I'm a bit confused as to the current state of things article-wise, as I can't see phonetics and am not familiar with the scripts or the finer linguistic properties of the language spoken here.

Firstly, I saw the site you mentioned but it seems to only have one Dai/Tai script here. This is strange, as there are at least 3 as far as I know (I was informed by a monk at the largest temple in XSBN, so I take it that this is fairly informed/good advice) - the 'new' (government-simpified), the 'old' (possibly two of these, one for xsbn and one for dehong prefecture, though the latter is possibly just lanna .. I don't recall) and the 'lanna' ("ancient"), which IIRC was used and/or more influential in Dehong than in XSBN), however from what I can see on Wikipedia right now there is a distinction being made between 'Tai Le' (redirected to 'Tai Nua'), and 'Tai Lu', with the latter being placed here in Xishuangbanna.

It's important when considering this to remember that scripts and languages have different distinctions - all of the scripts are used to write at least both Pali and a local vernacular.

One possible omission is that I can tell you that some Tai people of northern Laos (Luang Namtha Province) speak a language VERY similar to what the Dai people speak here in Xishuangbanna - 90% sure it's the same, as the area is physically adjacent. I won't make this change myself as I'm unsure right now which article is which language, or indeed, which languages are about!

I wish I had access to an English library to figure this out. I'll have to leave it to someone else, but AFAIK the current state of things looks misleading and/or incorrect, re: what languages are about, their geographical coverage, scripts they are written in, from whence they came, etc. Just wanted to make this clear. prat 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just noticed the entry for XSBN new dai script on the link you sent. That source isn't too bad, then. However, this is a distinction between scripts, not between languages.

If you see 'languages recorded' on each Dai script's page, you get cop-out entries like 德宏傣语 (Dehong Dai) - a wholly Chinese concept (is it the same as Shan across the border?) - and 勐定傣语 (Mengding Dai).

It appears that in moving articles around we've ended up with Tai Lü language and Tai Nüa language, which do not map well to either these sources or my experiences. I'm at a loss as to the actual situation, however. prat 00:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an entry showing the new old-Dai government-simplified script (新老傣文对照课本) on that site, which I guess can be contrasted with the actual old Dai script in other entries (勐泐王族世系). These are both listed under the mixed heading "Xishuangbanna Dai / Old Dai (西双版纳新、老傣文)". So you can see there's at least 3 scripts, New XSBN Simplified Dai ('new old Dai'), XSBN Dai, and Dehong Dai. The relationship to the old Lanna script is still unclear to me, however I seem to recall the monk I met told me the Dehong Dai was traditional for monastic use so it very well may be the same (and the bearer of the 'old dai' name). Anyway this tells us nothing about distinctions between languages, which seemingly are the only subject of the current 2-wiki's contents... prat 00:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a dialect continuum between most of these languages or dialects, blurred by some migration: Thai, Lao, Tai Nüa (Dehong Dai) and Tai Lü (Xishuangbanna Dai) in China, Shan in Myanmar, and other Tai languages and dialects in Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam etc. That makes things complicated. Thai nationalists usually suggest that all these languages are just Thai dialects. Chinese sources tend to ignore what's going on across the Chinese border.

I can't tell how far these languages are really apart. One source I found says that Tai Lü and Tai Nüa are not mutually comprehensible. Another says that comparing lists of 1400 words from the basic vocabulary of Tai Lü and Tai Nüa, we can find 75% are identical - which is actually a rather low figure. So far I didn't find any sources for the other languages or dialects of the Dai in China, but Chinese sources mention two other written languages.

Some other points you've mentioned:

Pali. I can't imagine that all the modern alphabets are also used to write Pali. On one hand, they have been simplified so much that they lack distinctions that are not made in the modern spoken languages, but these distinction have to be made in Pali; on the other hand the monasteries probably don't give up their writing traditions just because the Chinese government issues a decree for a new script. Writing systems for everyday use (Tai languages) and for religious purposes (mostly Pali) should be clearly distinguished.

The Dai of China, Lanna script and Tai languages outside China. I have not really looked for sources on Tai languages outside China, nor for liturgic scripts.

Languages and scripts. In China today, the Dai use four modern written languages, namely Tai Lü (Xishuangbanna Dai) and Tai Nüa (Dehong Dai), and two others which are called 傣绷 (Tai Pong) and 傣担/傣端 (Tai Dam or Jinping Dai). (The table in the article on the Dai people is not correct, I'm afraid.) I don't fully understand what alphabets were used for these languages before the 1950s or are still used in monasteries. For Tai Lü, a reformed script called 新傣文 was introduced in 1954. An older form was officially revived ten, twenty years ago. For Tai Nüa, a reformed script was introduced in 1954 as well. The original Tai Nüa script was apparently derived from the Tai Pong alphabet, which in turn was a modified Burmese alphabet, and still today some Tai Nüa fonts resemble Burmese very closely, but not the style that is usually used today. In the 1970s/1980s, new tone letters were introduced for Tai Nüa. I don't know enough yet about Tai Pong and Tai Dam.

The CASS pages actually give fairly detailed and yet very short descriptions not only of these writing systems, but also about where they are used. Small-town bookshops usually are not very well stocked, but I guess you could find material in Jinghong.

What I'm absolutely sure about is that what you called Tai Le is actually Dehong Dai / Tai Nüa. The images of the alphabet you put into that article make that absolutely clear.

Terminology is a serious problem, of course. We probably need more tables and samples, but encoding is yet another problem. Only Tai Lü ("New Tai Lue") and Tai Nüa ("Tai Le") are covered by Unicode so far. I've tried to make things as clear as possible, but of course I'm aware that the result is still far from ideal. — Babelfisch 02:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia censored in China – proxy blocked

The Chinese government seems to have been censoring Wikipedia since October 18th, 2005. (see Online encyclopedia Wikipedia censored by Reporters sans frontières) I haven't been able to edit pages directly since I returned to Beijing on October 16th. The only proxy that I know which isn't blocked by Chinese government censorship has been blocked by the Wikipedia administrator Ral315 because someone has used this IP address (67.15.136.199) to vadalise Wikipedia articles.

At the moment, this discussion page seems to be the only page I'm able to edit, even if I log in, because I have to use this proxy. I hope there will be a solution for this problem soon, or users in China will remain barred from Wikipedia. — Babelfisch 14:22, 25 September 2005 (Beijing time)

Hope you get access again soon. I've posted some discussion on Talk:SIL_International. User:DanielVonFange

How do we input pinyin with tones?

Are there instructions somewhere for inputting the special characters needed for letters with tone marks? It's wonderful that people are so conscientious about this. This is one area where Wikipedia is ahead of the curve. Sigrid 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit articles in Wikipedia, below the three buttons Save page / Show Preview / Show changes, you'll see a box with special characters. When you click on one of them, it will be inserted. In MS Word it's possible to define key combinations for special characters. (I guess you'll need something like that even for Pinyin without tones, because ü is not on an English keyboard.) Recent versions of Word also have a function to add Pinyin to Chinese characters ("ruby"), which I find useful, although it is not very reliable. —Babelfisch 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that should have been obvious. Thanks! I don't use Word, and in WordPerfect at least not all tone mark/letter combinations exist. I use a special font to include tone marks in my word processed documents. Sigrid 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Auca

I've responded to your comments on Talk:Operation Auca. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look at this article? I've resolved to most of your objections (though I'm not sure what other examples of racism there are; in any case I changed the example you mentioned and added sourced description of the Huaorani lifestyle). I also left "hope to present Christianity" and described my reasoning on the talk page. The only one I haven't gotten to yet as far as I can tell is mentioning which mission board each missionary was associated with. By adding more information from non-missionary sources I hope that you see this as less POV and that you would be willing to remove the NPOV dispute tag. If that action is conditional on the inclusion of the missionary board information, this weekend I'll try to write a subsection under "background" that covers the basics of each of the five guys and includes their mission organizations. I'd also appreciate it if you let me know if there's anything else that needs to be improved. Thanks! —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babelfisch, I've recently been working on an "Aftermath" section, and I'd like your opinion on it. It's not as detailed as the account you included in the Rachel Saint article, but I think that's acceptable since the subject of the article is the actual encounter of the five men with the Huaorani. The aftermath is obviously important, but I feel that fewer specific details are necessary. Even so, if you can think of anything that needs to be added, please suggest it. At this point, I planning to add a section called "Preparation" or something similar that discusses the events of the last few months of 1955, and I'm going to expand the "Legacy" section. Anything else you think is necessary? —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Endroit/Chinese_Romanization

Hello. Please check out User:Endroit/Chinese_Romanization, and make additions/corrections where necessary. I am asking Yuje, Ran, Visviva, Nanshu, Babelfisch, Kusunose, and Saintjust to check and modify this Chinese Romanization proposal within the next 5 days.
After that we should move this Chinese Romanization page to a Project Page, and then request formal Mediation/Arbitration. I would like to nominate Yuje or Ran to be the leader for this project. Or I can be leader also. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.--Endroit 09:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

‘phrin las

Say, why do you change Tibetan ‘phrin las from "Chilai" to "Chinlai"? What's your source? On the internet, "Chilai" seems to be more common. Also, you may wish to comment on Talk:Official Tibetan transcription. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chilai" is found in some foreign-language publications from China, but it's wrong. The reason is probably that in Chinese the name is usually written "Chìliè 赤列". The n of the Tibetan name is pronounced and the official transcription should reflect that. —Babelfisch 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool,I appreciate your input on this sort of thing. Still, I wonder what your source is for this info, partly because I might try to get ahold of it myself. It does seem that "chinlai" is less common on the internet: "chinlai dojê" and "chinlai gyaco" turn up no google hits other than your edits to the English and German Wikipedias. However, this is hardly conclusive, because there are quite few hits for "chinlai dojê" and "chinlai gyaco" (exactly one non-Wikipedia for the latter). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pls check edits before reverting

Hi,

It seems you didn't notice in the SIL article that I'd moved the section on funding allegations further down (so that the SIL denial of funding from rockefellers would have a more immediate context), and you reinserted the paragraph where I'd moved it from. The remaining info in that paragraph is either repitition from further above (countries were work was halted), or somewhat questionable (e.g. limited in Peru by the 1980s...?).

Best, --Drmaik 09:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oisêr

Looks like my comments on Talk:Öser last week got lost and didn't appear. Sorry for the delay this caused. I'll try to recompose and post them soon.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xinjiang template

hi there, a user has recently created a template for the administrative divisions of Xinjiang Template:Xinjiang Administrative Divisions, I don't have the time right now to double check the spellings and make sure that they are the official names, and I was wondering could keep an eye on this. Thanks!

Abstrakt 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gin People vs Vietnamese, Hoa vs Chinese

Should Hoa = Han Chinese? Gin people and Vietnamese should be separeated! I you says that Gin people is 100% = Vietnamese, I think Hoa is 100% = Han Chinese !!! Hoa should be redirected to Han Chinese? 202.64.87.162 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case an important criterion is how Gin and Hoa people feel themselves, how they see their identity. I guess most Hoa (华) in Vietnam would refer to themselves as Chinese, but I have no idea about national identity among the Gin in China.

Why do you think that Gin and Vietnamese should be separated?

I'm not sure if I understand you, but the comparison with the Hoa does not support your argument at all, because this is not a question that can be solved like an equation in formal logic. —Babelfisch 08:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seperation between Gin people and Vietnamese is necessary, at least, the Gin people of China generally can speak Cantonese, and they are actually Chinese citizen. For NPOV, there exists Hoa from Chinese, so Gin people is separated from Vietnamese. You can remark that Gin people and Vietnamese are the same ethnic group. Otherwises, Hoa should be redirected to Chinese. 203.218.237.131 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Chinese government Website writes:

The Jing people had their own script which was called Zinan. Created on the basis of the script of the Han people towards the end of the 13th century, it was found in old song books and religious scriptures. Most Jings read and write in the Han script because they have lived with Hans for a long time. They speak the Cantonese dialect.[2]

"Zinan" is, of course, Chữ Nôm. There is a contradition in this paragraph. Why should they write Chữ Nôm if they speak Chinese/Cantonese? If they still speak Vietnamese, why don't they use Quốc ngữ today? And most important: Why does the Chinese government not mention the relationship with the Vietnamese people today?

In the 1980s, a book was published about the "Gin language", a recognition as a separate language, definitely not Cantonese:

Ōuyáng Jiàoyà 欧阳觉亚, Chéng Fāng 程方, Yù Cuìróng 喻翠容: Jīngyǔ jiǎnzhì 京语简志 (Mínzú chūbǎnshè 民族出版社 1984).

The Wikipedia article is about an ethnic group. You say that the Gin and the Vietnamese are the same ethnic group, so what's the point? The fact that these people in China have citizenship and speak Cantonese (as a second language, presumably) is not really relevant for their ethnicity, unless - and that's the main point - the Gin see themselves as a separate people, an "ethnic group" that is separate from the Vietnamese. They probably don't, but that question hasn't been answered yet. —Babelfisch 02:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Hi. Thanks for your edits to the external sources section of the Jung Chang article. Just a note, blogs are not completely prohibited from being used as sources on wikipedia, merely they have to be used carefully. The reason that entry is in there is because it's to source a statement made by an academic about the Mao book. He doesn't have a dedicated website where he can publish the same information - so that's why the site is being used. Thanks, John Smith's 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Rummel does have a dedicated website.[3]

He has a very strange view of history, e.g. he blames the Chinese Communists for the deaths in the War of Resistance Against Japan—that's blaming the victim. Another political scientist who writes about things he doesn't know. (His rather ridiculous book China's Bloody Century is mostly cited by himself and never by China specialists.)

I still think the link to his blog should be removed because its contents is poorly researched, unsourced and has little to do with Zhang Rong. —Babelfisch 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuang

Hi,

I saw that you corrected the part about tone-letters in Zhuang. Do you know any more info about this language? The article used to say that it is assimilated by Mandarin and on the way to extinction; I marked it as unsourced, and then someone removed it, but actually it may be true. If you can add something to subject, it will be most helpful. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list of books I've read to the article on the Zhuang language. Having extensively travelled in Guangxi, I also have the impression that Zhuang is on the way to extinction, but at the moment I can't quote any sources that would conform to Wikipedia policies. —Babelfisch 08:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The list of references is very good. Many talk about the writing system based on Chinese charcters. Therefore the link to [[Zhuang logogram]s is valuable, as it is the only wikipedia article on these. The difference in terminology logogram vs logograph is a little unsightly, if they were changed to match that would read better.

The information put in re tone-letters had two parts to it, firstly that the change in 1986 was from a Cyrillic alphabet to an English or Latin alphabet. For a reference see Cyrillic alphabet, this is definitely correct. The writting system was designed by Russian nad Chinese linguists in the 1950's and so they naturally used a Cyrillic alphabet. Second the change from numbers to letters, exact wording here might be in questionable in the 1957 Cyrillic Zhuang the second to sixth tones are marked by final letters that look like 2,3,4,5 and 6 respectively, the similarity is very close in the 1957 system, these in 1986 were changed to z,j,x,q, and h of which look a little like 2,3,4,5, and 6. z,j,x, and q only represent tones, h can also represent sounds. It is much clearer to talk about the Cyrillic alphabet than about "a Latin alphabet with some special letters". The comment about tone numbers could be left out as the visual data already shows this.

A lot of work has gone into this page, a link to Zhuang logogram and a clear mention of the Cyrillic alphabet would add to it. Added by Johnkn63. Nov 8 10.01 (Chinese time)

PS I have edited this -- however it seems there shouls be a way to post a reply I would be grateful to know how to post replies in the normal way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnkn63 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 8 November 2006.

Hi again

Re the ancient Zhaung dictionary 'contains 4,900 characters and more than 10,000 variants' more accurate would be 'has 4,900 enteries, and contains more than 10,000 different characters in all' (This is the first sentance of the introduction to the dictionary it says 10,700 and 4918.) Using an approximation here is good as neither of these figures is accurate, especially the 10,700 -- there may not even be 10,000 different characters in the dictionary -- unless one adds in the characters included in the example sentances but not in the entries themselves.

Re the article itself it would be good if we could agree on a wording that we are both happy with, it would not be productive for things to be changed back and forth again and again. I am more than happy to drop the comment about the use numbers for tones.

(1) Even a small change from 'Zhuang had been written with logographs ' to 'Zhuang has been written with logographs' would be clearer, the sawndip writing system was never official and continues to be used to this day in much the way it always was and the link is more relevant. Or it could be worded so that links to both exist 'Zhuang has been written with logographs, sometimes called sawndip'.

(2) Describing the 1957 as special letters is not very exact it is a wikipedia policy to be as exact as possible, most of the 'special letters' are Cyrillic letters, and two of the vowels are common ipa symbols.

There is enough to say on the Zhuang language to make several pages, there is not much wikipedia material on Zhuang, a collective effort to improve this is best.

Yours sincerely Johnkn63 10:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "For a reference see Cyrillic alphabet, this is definitely correct. The writting system was designed by Russian nad Chinese linguists in the 1950's and so they naturally used a Cyrillic alphabet."

Sorry, this is not correct. Have a look at the section on writing systems in the article on the Zhuang language: The 1957 Zhuang alphabet consists of 18 Latin letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, r, s, v and y) plus 10 non-Latin letters. Of the non-Latin letters, ƽ is definitely not Cyrillic; it marks the 5th tone and looks like a number 5. The letters з, ч and ƅ look like Cyrillic letters, but don't have their sound values; they mark the 3rd, 4th and 6th tones and also look a bit like numbers 3, 4 and 6. The letter ƨ is not Cyrillic; it marks the 2nd tone and could actually be derived from a number 2. The letter ƌ is not cyrillic either. The letter ƃ looks a bit like the cyrillic Ƃ, but it seems more logic that ƃ was derived from b and ƌ from d. The letters ə and ŋ look like IPA letters; both have also been used in both Latin and Cyrillic orthographies of many languages in the Soviet Union, as well as in the Latin orthographies of some minority languages—in Xinjiang and elsewhere—in China. The letter ɯ looks a bit like the Cyrillic ш, but it doesn't have it's sound value.

Conclusion: It is a Latin alphabet with 10 extra letters; 5 of them are derived from numbers, 3 from Latin letters and 2 from some phonetic alphabet. Five of the extra letters look a bit like Cyrillic letters, but not a single one has the sound value of the Cyrillic letter it looks like. (The result actually reminds me of the African reference alphabet which was created much later, and other attempts to create new written languages.)

I agree that we have to be precise; you should check your sources once more. I really recommend the book by Zhou Minglang. (If you happen to be in Beijing, you can find it in the National Library.)

Maybe this discussion should be continued at the talk page of the article in question. —Babelfisch 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it there. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

Wikipedia does not permit the use of open proxies. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, it's "not permitted". I've read that page months ago. It doesn't help. It doesn't work. I don't know what to do. On another language version of Wikipedia, I was advised to get a proxy server abroad. I have no idea how to do that. It's absolutely ridiculous that all users of China are banned by this collusion of Wikipedia with Chinese censorship. —Babelfisch 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pochonbo Electronic Ensemble

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Pochonbo Electronic Ensemble, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 ^Talk 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Tibetan naming conventions

Is it okay with you if I just remove Kt66's attacks on your character from that page, along with the responses? Let's just forget about this whole thing.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think they should just be removed and forgotten, because they illustrate the position and arguments of Michael Jäckel / "Tenzin Paljor" / "Losang Tashi" / Kt66 / Waschi very well.

"It seems that I'm wrong here" and "please be cautious with my comments" aren't exactly an apology. He could have deleted the attack himself, but he obviously wants it to be read. Only when threatened with a block on the German Wikipedia, he apologised profusely. —Babelfisch 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That's your prerogative.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete the connection to tibet and demographic parts of South Tibet?

I am sure they are well referenced.--Ksyrie 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please re-insert them and quote the sources. —Babelfisch 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the references.--Ksyrie 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to copy edit it today. I should have done it staright away really. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ksyrie, you haven't provided any proper sources on South Tibet so far. —Babelfisch 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go provide the sources if you think they need a source. Or tag the offending paragraph with a "cite source" tag. Don't delete the whole thing. --121.6.184.26 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121.6.184.26, have a look at the discussion about that article. The matter is a bit more complex than you might assume. —Babelfisch 06:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Reverts

Does an edit by an IP address deserve to be deleted under the reason "it is anonymous"? Talk about being from China and you don't even know a famous folk song? Anyway, here is a link, go translate it yourself. Isn't your "job" very easy? Assume an unreferenced edit is a fake and delete it. Can't you go find a source if you are so particular about sources? If everything on Wikipedia needs to have a source, how many articles will there be left? And if you do revert it back with another similar nonsense reason, I shall have to resort to other measures. Please do not assume that a person using an IP address to edit does not know how Wikipedia works and can be bullied easily. Thank you. --121.6.184.26 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me?

Any user should be able to edit articles and remain anonymous, if they wish. It only makes discussions a bit complicated. I only delete unsourced material if I doubt the contents.

It's not me who's "so particular about sources". It's the Wikipedia rules about verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." You're right, there's much room for improvement on Wikipedia and a lot of junk will probably have to be deleted.

And about the song and the Yao people article: Thanks for the link, but must say I'm not a fan of Han-Chinese theme-park versions of minority cultures. That reminds me of what Edward Said writes about orientalism and exoticism. The link doesn't say anything like "The Yao people have a famous folk song entitled ...", and I just saw that another user (Nposs) has deleted that blurb once again. Maybe you should also read the Wikipedia rules about original research.

As you're editing without being logged in, I can't tell if you're an experienced user or totally new to Wikipedia. If you're new here, I want to stress that everyone is welcome and I din't intend to offend you. —Babelfisch 06:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what your problem is but you deleted my section of an article without giving any reason. I want the whole article deleted because you gave no sourcing either. So please explain why you deleted my section on the article or I am going to request that the article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.133.35 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 June 2007

By the way, there's no chance of it being deleted, so it doesn't really make much difference whether you request that or not.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.253.133.35/Mujkiller, I guess you're referring to the article on Jincheng,^[4] not the one on the Yao people. I'm sorry. My computer crashed while I was posting a reply to the talk page. Don't be angry. —Babelfisch 03:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan-Chinese Box

While on the one hand I appreciate the lovely box that has appeard on the Songtsän Gampo page, I do not see why his name is given also in Chinese, and a pinyin transliteration of it. Chinese articles do not give the names of all figures in Tibetan. Nor do articles about English monarchs include their names transliterated into Chinese. To me this practice has a political implication, by somehow claiming the names of Tibetan historical figures as Chinese. I would perfer if the box were reformatted to exclude the essencially irrelavent Chinese information. Tibetologist 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant, as Tibet today is a part of China and a lot of literature on Tibet is published in Chinese. “Traditional” Tibetology in the west tends to ignore that, which is very problematic (see for example Tsering Shakya, The Development of Modern Tibetan Studies. In: Robert Barnett (ed.), Resistance and Reform in Tibet, Bloomington, University of Indiana Press 1994, ISBN 0253311314, pp. 1–14). —Babelfisch 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree that today Tibet is a part of China, and that much of Western tibetology ignores Chinese scholarship to its detriment (as it does Japanese scholarship). But German, French, and Japanese (to a lesser extent Italian) are also important languages in which Tibetology is done. But more importantly I don't see how either the current political status of Tibet, nor which languages Tibetology is done in are relevant.

Srong brtsan sgam po was a Tibetan emperor, he did not have a Chinese name, or a French name, or a Germany name, and it is misleading to present things as if he did. Also, the imperial history of Tibet is no more Chinese history than it is Arab, Turk, Tuyuhun, Nanzhao, Tangut, Zhangzhung or Nepalese history (the other nations Tibet had political relationships with). Should we perhaps also list how his name is recorded in the Arab sources? Tibetologist 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're just being polemic when you suggest that king Songzain Gambos relations with the Tang were the same as with the Arabs. ~~(Should the article on ᐱᑎᐧᑲᐦᐊᓇᐱᐧᐃᔨᓐ not mention that he was also known as “Poundmaker”?)~~ —Babelfisch 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not beng polemic, and I am not even sure what you mean. The spu rgyal Tibetan empire fought wars and intermarried with most of its neighbors. I do not see that the Chinese had any special status in this regard. Have you read Christopher Beckwith's book The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. It discusses the Tibetan empire's relationship with the Turgis, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese at great length. In fact on the contrary I believe that a retrospective attempt to make Old Tibetan history a part of Chinese history rather than general Asian history is politically rather iffy. Tibetologist 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namtso

I noticed that you had moved this page a while ago in accordance, in part, with the Tibetan naming conventions. I think it's inappropriate for you to be moving things because of that page, because no such conventions have ever been accepted. So, I moved it back.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Readding prod tags.

Please see the policy on prod tags. If any user objects' - I clearly objected - then the article may be taken to Articles for Deletion to be discussed. take it to AfD. Please do not continually readd prod tags, as it is edit warring, and looks like vandalism --Lu c id 08:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid policy, useless tag. But thanks for your advice! There are still many things about Wikipedia I don't understand. —Babelfisch 09:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello... and {{Tibetan-Chinese-box}}

HI Babelfisch, nice to meet you. :-) Unfortunately I'm currently studying for prelims. I may be able to help with {{Tibetan-Chinese-box}} in a week or two, but you may be done by then... later! -- Ling.Nut 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! —Babelfisch 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work but do we have to have that huge box? Tashilhunpo looks awkward now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative would be to start the article like this:

Tashilhunpo (officially: Zhaxilhünbo, Tibetan: བཀྲ་ཤིས་ལྷུན་པོ་, Wylie transliteration: bkra shis lhun po, pronunciation in IPA: [ʈʂaɕiɬympɔ], THDL transcription: Trashilhünpo; Chinese: 扎什倫布寺 / 扎什伦布寺, Pinyin: Zhāshílúnbù Sì; also spelled Tashilhünpo and Tashilhümpo), built in 1447, is a historic and culturally important monastery in Shigatse ...

I think the box does a very good job to avoid that.

The problem in that article is not the name box, but the two images below the box – they should be moved. The picture of the monks could actually be removed from the article, as it's unspecific and irrelevant. —Babelfisch 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies

Hardblocking open proxies has been downgraded from a valid policy to a proposal, but many administrators continue to hardblock proxies. I hope the blocks on the proxies below will be converted into softblocks, so legitimate registered users in China and elsewhere can use them to contribute to Wikipedia.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

66.36.230.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Zzuuzz (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Open proxies are used for vandalism and sockpuppeteering. Sorry, I will not be converting these to soft blocks. Best workable solution so far seems to be the XFF header. — Yamla 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

12.158.190.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Wimt (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Please enable XFF and see below message. Kylu.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

64.34.166.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: ST47 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Please enable XFF and see below message. Kylu.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

208.112.67.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: MichaelBillington (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Please enable XFF and see below message. Kylu.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

12.158.190.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Zzuuzz (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Please enable XFF and see below message. Kylu.

My understanding is that there's also a foundation-level policy in place; regardless, I personally am not likely to take action in these cases until these policies are clarified and/or modified and more finalized. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you don't care. Thanks. —Babelfisch 03:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously! There's no other possible conclusion. Please read up on things before throwing around such accusations, thanks. If you'd bothered to check your facts, I've routinely favored finding workable solutions to this problem for quite some time, now. If you want my help, don't be an asshole about it. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (not for "being an asshole", though). Your comment didn't sound very helpful. Where can I read up and check my facts? —Babelfisch 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, I've posted in public mailing lists and admin noticeboards trying to seek resolution on the matter. Many of these discussions have been on IRC; public records of that are harder to come by. In short, I would like to see the policy changed (probably a technical solution, rather), but I plan on following the policy while it's in place. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more recently, this. In any case, apologies for my poor reaction, earlier. That was uncalled for, on my part. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted the unblock-auto tags that were removed without being addressed individually. It should be clear which proxies blocked and why, and if there had been any vandalism.

How can preemptive hardblocking to prevent potential sockpuppeteering and potential vandalism override the second [issue] of the project, especially when there is no policy that says proxies must be hardblocked and can't be just softblocked? There's not even a consensus among administrators on that issue.

Yamla, I'm very glad you've suggested an alternative, I've heard this for the first time. Unfortunately, I don't understand, I'm not as computer literate as most administrators. I've many times asked administrators for alternatives to proxies, but this is actually the first time I hear that there seems to be an alternative. But what is an XFF header and how can I use it to edit articles, what do I have to do? —Babelfisch 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies do not forward X-Forwarded-For headers, otherwise they'd reveal the IP address of the original user and thus defeating the whole point of them. There is talk of a creating a ipblock-exempt list which would allow trusted users to bypass ALL IP blocks including hard ones, but until that's implemented, I along with a whole lot of CAT:RFU patrollers will refuse to softblock any open proxies at this time. The sockpuppetry problem is just too large to reopen the floodgates just yet. -- Netsnipe ► 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So actually isn't a solution that has to do with XFF headers? Yamla?

And there is a group of vigilante administrators who block legitimate users without any policy to justify that? I really don't understand. —Babelfisch 06:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOP was considered policy up until mid-July before it was downgraded to a proposed policy without wide community consensus. Jimbo has voiced concerns that TOR anonymous access should become a reality one day. And please don't call us vigilantes -- you haven't dealt with the vandal bots and the sockpuppeteers that come in through open proxies. I don't like the fact that we're essentially blocking off editors (but not readers) from China and parts of the Middle East via this policy, but there simply is no other feasible solution to stop Wikipedia from being overrun in the short term. If you want the above open proxies unblocked, take it to WP:AN or WP:VP, but please don't create a backlog in CAT:RFU just to make a point. -- Netsnipe ► 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the Administrators' noticeboard before and it was useless. Actually, there's a notice that says that it is not the place for issues like this one: “If you are blocked, please contact the blocking admin via email.” I don't think that the Village pump is the right place for this issue either.

I'm following the steps suggested in the blocking notice I've seen:

I first asked the administrators who blocked me to lift the block. In one case, that was denied. In several other cases, I got no reply, so I took the next step as suggested by the blocking message:

“Unfortunately, each IP address on the Internet does not necessarily map directly to a single person depending upon one's Internet service provider. If your block log (check via my contributions) does not list any current blocks, then your IP address or range has been "hard blocked" due to abuse either by the previous person who was allocated or sharing your IP address. Please copy-paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page. {{unblock-auto|1=$3|2=$2|3=$1}}”

I ask for these blocks to be lifted, and I want this to be transparent. I don't think it should be too hard for the administrators who took time to block me, or for any other administrator, to follow the instructions on the template:

“Replace this template with one of the following as notification. ...”

Or is that really too much to ask for? If you think I'm just “collateral damage”, I guess it is. You're effectively saying: “You're a legitimate user, you've been blocked, there's no solution, but shut up.” I find that hard to accept. This is not just about “making a point”, this is about banning all Wikipedia users from China. I hope you understand that. —Babelfisch 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfisch, I for one would absolutely love to unblock or find another solution so that editors from China are free to edit without these problems but until there is a foundation decree or community support for either ipblock-exempt or another solution, there is nothing we can do. Please, you seem to think that we're declining these autoblock unblock requests because we don't agree with you or don't care but that isn't the case at all. Most of us care very much about this TOR problem, especially for those who have no choice but to use it, such as those trying to edit from China. I think you would do better lobbying the foundation to find a solution such as ipblock-exempt than continually placing all these unblock requests. Sarah 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I’ve tried that: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 10# Softblock for Tor proxies here, here and also at the German Wikipedia. So many of the replies were dismissive, hostile and bureaucratic, I was very surprised about the attitude of those administrators. I thought the user community of a country like China would be regarded as quite important for the project, but I after those discussions, I think I was wrong.

These are some of the basic principles of Wikipedia:

"However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, third paragraph)
"Assume good faith." (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)
"There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit, and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters." (Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, my emphasis.)
"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. [...] ‘You can edit this page right now’ is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." (User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles)

It seems these principles don’t really count for everyone. If you're not English-speaking, if you live in the Third World ... “collateral damage”.

I just want to continue to contribute to articles, discussing this issue with administrators like Centrx or Jayjg seems rather pointless, and I didn’t start to work with Wikipedia to get lost in exchanges of technical jargon with an inward-looking community that acts so bureaucratic. They remind me of librarians who care more for their books than for their readers.

When Yamla wrote “Best workable solution so far seems to be the XFF header,” there seemed to be some hope and for a while I thought that when he wrote “solution”, he actually meant a solution. I was wrong, once again. (Wasn’t I? He hasn’t written since then.) This has happened to me too often here.

I have raised the issue, more than once. I’ll try to continue to contribute. I have other things to do than to lobby technocrats. If the people who effectively run this project think they don’t need users from China, there’s nothing I can do. I wish there were more administrators like you, but at the moment, I’m not very optimistic. —Babelfisch 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really so difficult to officially decline my request to unblock these IPs? And please don't accuse me of abuse. I'd call this vandalism. I'm only asking you to follow the rules. —Babelfisch 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests declined until the proxies have both XFF enabled and verification from our developers that the forwards are acceptable and have been added to our accepted XFF proxy lists. Please leave the unblock requests as-is to assist the developers in this matter. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: When the XFF headers are enabled on your end, please email me so I can forward the requests to our developers. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kylu. How do I enable XFF headers with these proxies? Or if there is a list of XFF proxies that were accepted already, how could I use those? I found the XFF project and the Wikimedia Trusted XFF List, but I don't understand what I can do with those. —Babelfisch 03:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will want to check the documentation for your proxy software to determine how to enable XFF. You've found the trusted XFF list, you can try to use one of the proxies there if they'll let you (many proxies only allow users from their own network). You may also want to try to connect to the Wikimedia Secure Gateway page instead, as that should let you bypass national proxies. Please note that, at least the last time I checked, the Secure Gateway used null encryption, so please don't think that it will do any more than bypass your proxies. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goto proxydetect.com or any other site that can detect proxies or display your HTTP headers. If there's no X-Forwarded-For field that lists your originating IP address, then we can't whitelist that proxy. -- Netsnipe ► 05:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried, but I can't get any of the proxies that were blocked to enable XFF. It doesn't seem to be an option.

The Secure Gateway was blocked by the Chinese government months ago, but I know that many administrators are still not aware of that. And I don't use proxies to protect my anonymity, I use them to bypass the Chinese government's blocking of Wikipedia.

How can I use any of the the proxies on the list? —Babelfisch 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In firefox, Tools > Options > Advanced (top) > Network (tab) > Settings > Manual proxy configuration. Type in the hostname and port of the proxy (typically, try 8080 or 3128).

Microsoft Internet Explorer has its configuration under Tools > Internet Options > Connections (tab) > LAN settings, click the Use Proxy checkbox and fill in the information.

I assume you've tried searching for methods others have used in bypassing your government restrictions? ~Kylu (u|t) 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh*. It seems like some of the people advising you here don't know what they're talking about. XFF is a server-side setting. You cannot turn it on yourself. It has to be done by the ISP running it and most ISPs will NOT let people outside their networks to use their proxies or else they would be operating an open proxy themselves and risk being blacklisted by DNSBLs and us in turn. Open proxies are blocked precisely because it defeats our IP address based blocking system and if we cannot identify the originating IP address of spammers and vandals, we can't hold anyone accountable to their ISPs. -- Netsnipe ► 17:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netsnipe: Until he started asking about how to use proxies, I thought he was requesting as part of the people who were administering the proxies. :D Whoops. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kylu, yes, of course I'm constantly searching for methods used by other people. There are two: webproxies, TOR/Privoxy/Vidalia and tools like Freegate, Garden Networks, Ultrasurf and Dynapass. All of them are basically "open proxies", as far as I understand.

I guess it would be easier if I was an ISP myself, but I am not. So the XFF thing won't help me at all. What else can I do? —Babelfisch 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, Babelfisch, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot you can do until you find a method of bypassing the Chinese government's blocks. Reading our article Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China, it appears the software Psiphon may allow editors to work on Wikipedia from China. Maybe you could look into that? Otherwise, basically, you have the entire Chinese government ready to keep you from editing, and smarter people than me have tried (and failed) to come up with ways to let you despite them. Sorry. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ah, if you don't mind... I've noticed that you've got some redlinks in that last paragraph of yours. If you can find some way to edit, think you'd mind seeing if they'd make good articles? Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You block me, but you ask me to contribute?

You've succeeded: At the moment, the only page I can edit on the English Wikipedia is this one. (Fortunately, administrators at other language versions of Wikipedia are less zealous and routinely convert hardblocks into softblocks.)

To use Psiphon, you need a trusted friend in another country who lets all your Internet traffic pass through his or her computer, which acts as a server, and it only makes sense if that computer is turned on constantly. The "trusted" computer also logs all the surfing history.

I don't think that's such a great idea, even if it's just for Wikipedia, and I don't know anyone who would volunteer to provide a server. Would you? —Babelfisch 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Still totally blocked.

I wrote to several administrators on the Chinese Wikipedia; two replied (Shizhao and Xyb) and both advised to use Tor, which contradicts what many administrators on the English Wikipedia think.

What do you think? —Babelfisch 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that WikiProject Open Proxies is enforcing the "no proxy server" ban on Wikipedia, since the vast majority of the time they're only used for vandalism. The IP you'd mentioned, though, does not seem to be blocked against editing, so it may just be an autoblock of some sort affecting you. Unfortunately, they limit admins' abilities to see autoblocks (it'd require checkuser, which I don't have) to determine what's stopping you. I've been pestering some of our technical people and one of the Board of Directors to give you some sort of ability to edit. I don't quite have anything yet, sorry. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 09:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with a really stupid idea just now, I'm going to toss it around and see who else thinks it dumb. If it work, I'll tell ya. ~Kylu (u|t) 09:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked once again. Was there actually any evidence for sockpuppeteering from this proxy, or am I just “collateral damage” of a preemptive hardblock? —Babelfisch 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Kylu#A_possible_solution_to_the_Great_Firewall_of_China led someone to point me to User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Please_to_do_the_bug_9862.

I'm pestering people to find a way to let our editors edit. I really am sorry for the inconvenience. :( ~Kylu (u|t) 06:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction here is ... underwhelming.

And once again, this issue is moved into an archive before it is solved. (Or is that comment by WJBscribe actually a solution? I don't understand it.)

I'm still totally blocked. It's been six days now. Any news? —Babelfisch 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another proxy after being totally blocked for twelve days, but this is just another temporary solution, because it's just a matter of time when that proxy will also be blocked.

No news about a sustainable solution? —Babelfisch 06:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The workaround worked for a day or two, but now I'm totally blocked again.

No reactions above, so I'm asking for these hardblocks to be converted into softblocks. —Babelfisch 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

12.158.191.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: ST47 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: According to WP:NOP, open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. Please ask the blocking admins per e-mail for any possible softblock conversion of these ranges. Sandstein 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

69.64.84.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Blocking administrator: Shadow1 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: According to WP:NOP, open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. Please ask the blocking admins per e-mail for any possible softblock conversion of these ranges. Sandstein 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're all very quick to block me and to decline my requests. At least you could use the appropriate template. I want this documented properly.

Sandstein, I hope you don't only decline these requests but have a look at the relevant discussions (see links above).

~~I'd also bring to your attention that WP:NOP has been downgraded from a policy to a proposal, and that~~ this ~~proposal~~policy effectively blocks all users from China. Were you aware of that?

You can of course simply ignore me, because I'm from China, and because I'm blocked, and because I can't participate in the relevant discussions myself.

If you are actually one of the few administrators who actually look for a solution of this problem, please accept my apologies. Haven't heard from Yamla, Luna Santin, Netsnipe and Sarah for a while. Kylu at least answered an e-mail, saying that he/she has been pestering IRC and development people, but saw no responses. But why should anyone care? It's just China (and parts of the Arab world). The "Five Pillars" are obviously only for residents of the Western world, not for people who live somewhere else and are perfect "collateral damage". I'm getting a bit cynical. —Babelfisch 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that WP:NOP has been elevated to the status of a policy again. I didn't have a say in that – I'm blocked. I guess that's it. However, the people who wrote that the Chinese government "sporadically attempts" to block Wikipedia obviously don't know what they're talking about, and then they direct users in China to "advice to users using anonymizing proxies to bypass the Great Firewall", which is totally useless. It says:

"Tor proxies can sometimes be softblocked so logged-in account users can edit via a Tor connection. If you find an IP address that has this problem, make the most of it while you can."

WP:TOR also encourages users from China to "give feedback on the talk page" on the HTTPS connections (which haven't been working for months, but "might become accessible again", which is pure speculation). Giving feedback on the talk page is of course impossible for users that are blocked. Well, thanks. —Babelfisch 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to Shadow1 who blocked this IP (69.64.84.92) to ask for a softblock.

And I just found out that I can't edit my own user page, even when I'm logged in. "You will usually still be able to edit your user and talk pages," it says – I'm not. Any ideas why that is the case? —Babelfisch 02:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's due to the hardblock. In case any, I'm currently attempting to help Babelfisch with this problem; hopefully I can find a solution that is agreeable for all. Shadow1 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is blocked, the only thing they can edit is their own user talkpage. The message should be corrected, I'll see if I can find it. The only case where the user talkpage isn't editable is when they've protected it (due to unblock spamming, usually). I've talked to some people about the ipblock-exempt thing, and ... quite frankly, I don't see any good solutions. If you can find a private proxy outside China that you can get access to, I think that'd be your best bet. Ultimately, leaving open proxies unblocked simply gets us users who abuse them. The other solution is to get China to stop censoring internet access... ah, good luck with that though. Perhaps another user (with a unix-based home machine?) could set up a password-protected proxy for you? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a working server set up to do exactly this, but Babelfisch isn't responding to my emails about it. Shadow1 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was travelling and then had technical problems. Many thanks for your efforts! I've seen the WikiProject on closed proxies. I wonder if that will be a solution for all users in China. —Babelfisch 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

Good work - you article is better than mine and I'm glad you're using my district templates I created. I started that article from a book from the 1980s and in the past I noticed some of the transliterations differ to the known names. Yes a merge will be fine to yours if you're certain this is the name - but if there is any info not in yours please intergrate it. Also are you interested in helping add all the towns and villages in Tibet. Now we have a wikimap from the coordinates me can have a Tibetan map drawn up in no time ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be moved to Changzug Monastery though ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (talk • contribs) 09:55, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Can't do anything at the moment, I'm totally blocked again. —Babelfisch 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which book did you use for your Changzhu Temple article? Does all the information come from that source? It would be great if you could give a detailed reference. I'm reluctant to add information to the new Changzhug article unless I can attribute it to proper sources. —Babelfisch 05:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used a passport books guide published 1985 by Shangri-La-Press. Yes I aim to start all the towns and villages in Tibet but don't think falling "grain" is the only source that will be used in the end. It is fine to start with to provide basic physicla characteristics but I will now also use a MSN encarta source . I am also mentioning nearby villages so articles link together and indeed ar enot orphaned. Hopefully things can develop and the correct names can be written in and they can be expanded. I'd also like to know which counties these villages are in so the villages in each county can go in a naviagation box. I'd very much appreciate several of us working togethr on this - I very much admire yours and Nat Krauses ability with the Tibetan and Chinese languages. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your article on “Changzhu” to the talk page of Changzhug.

Fallingrain.com is not a good source, they don't even get the names right. Sorry, but it doesn't make sense this way.

On the proposed template, see here.—Babelfisch 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think much of me do you!!! Please see Deleg and Jaggang. I have sorted the template with the infobox people and think I've done a damn good job of it too. The contours are in the info box settlement now for you to add the Tibetan and Chinese script. See Deleg for how its done cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box looks very good, indeed, but I think it shouldn't say "Tibetan transcription(s)" and "Chinese transcription(s)", when the items below actually include the normal names in those languages. I've looked at the source text to see if you've built a new template and discovered that the box consists of several templates. I'm not good with templates, and I don't know how to technically solve this problem.

And I can't add anything to any article (or template), I'm blocked. Fortunately, administrators on the German Wikipedia are less zealous and routinely convert hardblocks into softblocks, so that registered users can continue to contribute, so I'm continuing to work there, see for example de:Lhari, de:Biru, de:Nyainrong, de:Amdo (Nagqu), de:Xainsa, de:Sog (Kreis), de:Baingoin, de:Baqên, de:Nyima and de:Shuanghu. Unfortunately, I can't even add interwiki links to those in the English Wikipedia. —Babelfisch 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a "reliable" source and indeed know which counties they are all in please let me know ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, here are no reliable sources in English. In Chinese and Tibetan, there are many, both books and websites. —Babelfisch 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yes they do mostly get the names correct and coordinates and locations are correct as verified by the MSN encarta maps also. I am using the List of towns and villages in Tibet list to go by which has too many anglicanized spellings of places. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta isn't a very good source, either. Where did they get their maps from? How can you check if the names are correct? I'm not convinced.

I can't do anything at the moment, because I've been totally blocked again (see above). —Babelfisch 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland china blocked from editing wikipedia. this is terrible and quite honestly grossly contrary to the principles of the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" . I know many people often vandalise for political reasond Surely you have done anything bad personally? This ridiculous if true China has 1/6 of the world population. We need your knowledge and edits for transcriptions as much as possible. I'm going to ask to have you unblocked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. To change the policy to block users from China would need persistent lobbying, which they can't do themselves because they are blocked, so someone else would have to lobby on their behalf, and the interest is absolutely minimal. I've almost completely lost hope. —Babelfisch 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSN encarta maps have all the correct names. It is to be trusted unlike falling rain which I can't use solely ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, I looked at [5] and discovered that some of the names are dodgy on the Encarta map (like “Pa-li-chia-ssu”) and some you don't copy correctly (“Demqog” for Dêmqog བདེ་མཆོག, “Kuba, Tibet” for Küba ཁུལ་པ, etc.), in some cases you've created stubs about places that have articles already (Bangong Co vs Pangong Tso, “Medog” vs Mêdog, Samyai vs Samye, “Lhunze” vs Lhünzê, Samyai vs Samye etc.), and in some cases you've created two stubs for the same place (“Yiong” and “Yiong Nongchang”; there’s only one place, which should be spelled Yi’ong ཡིད་འོང, nongchang just means “farm” in Chinese, and there's also a river called Yi’ong Zangbo ཡིད་འོང་གཙང་པོ), and of course you’ve created many articles with fallingrain.com as the only source, where many of the names are wrong (Xiayanjingxiang for Xia Yanjing / Calhomai ཚྭ་ལྷོ་སྨད, and Wenquan is probably just the Chinese word for “hot spring”, etc.) ... These are the results of your approach, and this is why I don't think it makes sense. —Babelfisch 02:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC):[reply]

Well you're the Chinese guy so correct it. I don't know any Chinese or Tibetan naming. I find it highly confusing and to be honest gives me a headache. Today I got around to correcting as you have mentioned above ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Chinese (but I live in China). —Babelfisch 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look all is wrong here is some multiple names for place swhich need to be asserted as correct -Bangong Co was indeed Pangong Tso. There is nothing wrong with the satellite data about these places and their locations -this is apparently accurate as is the map but it is the naming that needs sorting and you clearly know all about this so please help ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of towns and villages in Tibet. I'v corrected as many names as I can but it'll probably still be wrong. I genuinely believe the google encarta maps and falling rain map and data is accurate based on an exact satellite fix as is the distance between places. The only problem I see is perhaps some inaccuracy in the naming of the places as it is translated and perhaps the populartion figure from falling rain. You forget that there maps were drawn up most likely by Americans using satellite technology -they were not made by Chinese or Tibetan speaking people who are as proficient as you in languages. Now do satellites lie about location etc? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to verify about a dozen of the names that sound particularely strange to me, but I couldn't find any information about them.

Seeing a settlement on a satellite image is one thing, but to identify it is another. Who knows which sources they used to label their maps? To identify place names in Tibet is almost a science in its own right.

Wikipedia isn't a map, it's an encyclopedia. —Babelfisch 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember this isn't Chinese wikipedia see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you referring to Chinese Wikipedia (zh.wikipedia.org) or do you mean that the Manual of Style doesn't apply to these stubs? —Babelfisch 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that some of the transliteration boxes in some articles look huge and affect the shape of the article as there is too many different transliterations given. Whilst a basic Chinese or Tibetan name could and in my view should be put in brackets after the name it often doesn't mean anything to many English people . Many people who use English wikipedia don't speak or understanding Chinese lettering and for them a big box at the beginning with over five different Chinese /Tibetan etc meanings makes it seem out of place and too much. I very appreciate one or two translations in brackets but i really don't think the box is the right answer. In places I've seen it take over three quarters of the page. I preferred it before when it was in brackets.

Wikipedia may not be a map but if this is to be the best reference site on the web basic details and knowledge of these places needs to be covered. Given time there's no reason why the names of these places can't be verified and more (reliable) information to become available on them. The world needs to know that there is more to Tibet than Lhasa or Shigatse. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be pleased to know that the List of towns and villages in Tibet article was updated by a user who like yourself lives in mainland china and had an official Tibet Autonomous Regional printout of the correct names for places. Whilst this may differ between CHinese and Tibetan interpretions I believe most of the names on that page are mostly accurate with the correct diaretics. Yesterday I moved about 200 pages to the correct titles. Now if his source (which I couldn't of course obtain) was reliable being from mainland China himself then this is enough for me to be content with it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources were ever given for that list. What are you talking about? Which user? () But I'm still blocked, there's nothing I can do. —Babelfisch 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China

Hey I'm a little concerned over the level of removal on this page. It worries me simply due to the attention that chinese censorship gets. I've read your discussion on the talk page and agree with you. I don't know if deleting the entire thing was the best solution. Do you know of a reliable site that documents what websites get blocked and unblocked?--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the discussion page for that article. —Babelfisch (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IP block exemption

Perhaps this will end your struggles, and the Chinese Wikipedians will no longer be suppressed with technical limitations such as you've been burdened with.

I have, of course, already granted you this, and thank you for your patience. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry it took a while. Happy editing! :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Babelfisch (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not exempt any more, it seems. And problems editing certain articles. I don't quite understand all this, and the Wikipedia instructions are very confusing. Requested IP block exemption per e-mail. --Babelfisch (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babelfisch, your current IP is not blocked (and has never been), so you shouldn't have any issues. What problems are you seeing? You shouldn't need IP block exemption at the moment.
Kind regards, Amalthea 19:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... I note that you've already been returned to the group of IP block exempted users, so it may be moot, but I'd still be interested in what problems you were having. Cheers, Amalthea 19:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike (00:36, 3 March 2011) has again granted me an IP block exemption. I wonder what s/he was thinking when s/he revoked it on February 18th without even letting me know. S/he wrote: “User no longer under a hardblock; IP block exemption no longer necessary” (see here). What is that supposed to mean? Please explain.

Amalthea, I do not quite understand what you mean when you say that my current IP has never been blocked. If you investigated me with CheckUser, you should have noticed that I sometimes have to use proxies – different proxies with different IPs – to edit. For users in China, it’s never easy to contribute to Wikipedia, and sometimes it is impossible.

I do not fully understand the technical details, and I find the explanations on Wikipedia rather confusing. See for yourself:

It took Wikipedia bureaucrats more than a year to find some kind of solution for users in China. That had been working for me until yesterday, and I hope I won’t be arbitrarily blocked by administrators again. --Babelfisch (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an oversight. I was afraid I’d be blocked again for many months and have endless discussions with administrators who regard users from China as “acceptable collateral damage”. I’m glad this doesn’t seem to be the case at the moment. --Babelfisch (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again.[6] Will this ever stop? --Babelfisch (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang

Hi,

It was a long time ago, but I believe I converted them mechanically. I apologize for all inconveniences and errors caused as a result. -- ran (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Örkesh Dölet

Hi,

Please use the correct Uyghur Latin Script (Uyghur Latin Yéziqi). See: http://www.uyghurdictionary.org/excerpts/An%20Introduction%20to%20LSU.pdf

16:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.42.154 (talk)

The official Latin transcription for Uighur is still yengi yezik̡, not ULY. And please sign your contributions. —Babelfisch (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yengi yezik̡ has been already abolished in the beginning of 1980s. There is no doubt of it. You can find the document in PRC and XUAR Language and Script Committee. Though ULY is not the official script, it is strongly suggested by Xinjiang government and Xinjiang University as a Latin script for Uyghur language. --(User:33.35) 10:27, 2 Jan 2009 (UTC) —Preceding incorrectly signed comment added by IP 193.25.42.154 (Hochschule Anhalt (FH), Zentrum fuer Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie, Germany; contributions | talk)

Read your own sources. Even Duval writes that Yengi yezik̡ “kept the status of authorized option” and UKY/ULY is only an “ancillary writing system” (p. 3). This is what the original resolution says: “在全面使用老文字以后，新文字仍可作为一种拼音符号予以保留” (新疆维吾尔自治区人民代表大会常务委员会关于全面使用维吾尔、哈萨克老文字的决议, 13 September 1982). In another article: “1982年又不得不恢复使用老维文，新维文作为拼音符号予以保留，并在必要场合使用。” (陈章太：论语言规划的基本原则, 28 April 2005; my emphases). If you read neither Chinese nor Uighur, this is also noted in Reinhard F. Hahn: Spoken Uyghur, University of Washington Press 1991, p. 98.

ULY/UKY, on the other hand, has no official status whatsoever. If the government of China or the government of Xinjiang has passed any laws, regulations or resolutions to the contrary, I'd be absolutely thrilled to read them.

And once again: Please sign your contributions using four tildes. —Babelfisch (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions

A few months ago, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks — Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed!

Hi! thanks for pointing out that the articles on Kirti Monastery and the one I did recently on Kirti Gompa referred to the same place. Therefore they should be merged. I am quite willling to do the job but ... please help if you can! I have proposed to merge the article Kirti Monastery with Kirti Gompa as they represent unnecessary duplication. As part of this process I am supposed to put tags at the top of all the involved pages - see information on Wikipedia:Merging. However, I have tried everything I can think of and can't get them to work properly. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much, John Hill (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look and saw the tags are working. --Babelfisch (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I have just done the merger today - I had a few difficulties but it seems to be working all right now. I hope I have done it all properly. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --Babelfisch (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xiaoerjin verification

If Benlisquare does not have the proper software to type the Hanzi, I request you do so, see here, regarding the xiaoerjing- User_talk:Benlisquare#I_Need_Hanzi ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Babelfisch. You have new messages at Talk:Pinyin#Pinyin for transcribing minority languages.
Message added 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan place names

While mapping missing towns in Tibet on OpenStreetMap (OSM) I stumbled upon a list of towns including Tibetan place names in Damxung County; I found you having added the names (thank you! ;) Are there any sources in internet for Tibetan place names? The only source I've found is a list with bo/zh places on tibetan.qh.gov.cn. Some monasteries I could identify on tbrc.org... The current state of name:bo tagged place names on OSM can be checked on this site [7]--katpatuka (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any other useful websites. I mostly use these:

国家测绘局地名研究所: 西藏地名 / བོད་ལྗོངས་ས་མིང། Beijing: 中国藏学出版社, 1995; ISBN 7-80057-284-6.
陈观胜, 安才旦 (eds.): རྒྱ་དབྱིན་བོད་གསུམ་ཤན་སྦྱར་གྱི་བོད་སྐད་ཀྱི་མི་མིང་དང་དང་ས་མིང་གཏེར། / 常见藏语人名地名词典. Beijing: 外文出版社, 2004; ISBN 7-119-03497-9.

Neither is error-free. --Babelfisch (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means nothing online - only hardcover ;) ok, thanks --katpatuka (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

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

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

Request reason:

Partially living in China. Need Tor for access and anonymity.

Accept reason:

As before, added "check with user before removing, not always in China" to IBPE log, hopefully it won't happen again Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ronhjones! And maybe you'd like to contribute to this debate: Wikipedia talk: IP block exemption.

The administrator who blocked me is unrepentant, so this is actually quite likely to happen again unless the rules are changed. --Babelfisch (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, and I have contributed. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harriet Cornelia Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mitchellville. 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) 11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Babelfisch. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Babelfisch. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Babelfisch. 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]

Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias

Is the Copy-paste offense at Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias fully resolved from 2013?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE expiring - March 2019

Hello Babelfisch, I'm working on some routine cleanup and see you have not made use of the ip block exemption flag on your account for over a year. This will be removed in about a week, unless you reply below that you still have a need for this flag. This will have no impact on your ability to read Wikipedia. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. As your account has been inactive for a year and there was no reply above, this flag has been removed. This will have no impact on general editing, however if you are trying to edit from certain blocked IP addresses you may need to move to another address or request a new exemption. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Khotan

Hello, Babelfisch

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mccapra and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Khotan, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mccapra}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: WTF (pardon my French). Welcome? OK, thanks. I think I’ve been here six years before you, but never mind, and nice to meet you, too. More to the point: Hotan is not a person, neither living nor dead. What were you talking about? --Babelfisch (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi. The article you originally created appears to have been hijacked at some point and in 2020 it was an unsourced stub about an Iranian YouTuber. Ultimately it was redirected to a location in China rather than deleted. All the best Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]