User talk:Yohan (China)

Dabbler

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dabbler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dabbler. Marasmusine (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unreferenced templates

The date syntax is: {{unreferenced|any other arguments|date=May 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17 16 May 2008 (GMT).

Why?

Could you tell me the reason why you reverted edits by Yohan (China) (talk) to last version before you do it?
I got the reason from Chinese Wikipedia and then translate it to English. So I think the information reliable.
Before you convince me, I'll always be rollbacking it. So you'd better convince me first.

——Yohan (China) (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC) See this photo:[reply]

西沙群岛上的中国古迹

Qouted by Chinese Wikipedia. ——Yohan (China) (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've indicated in the edit summary. The lack of a source and the apparent OR is the first thing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Paracel Islands

Then, Can this video prove?

I don't understand Chinese, but it's Xinhua anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If still not reliable source, why?

Well Xinhua is not a reliable source because it is govt-owned and is not allowed to do anything except tow the PRC line, which in this case is soveriengty over the PAracel islands. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "an object doesn't mean they inhabited as opposed to passed by" and "OR"? Is "OR" "or"? Do you mean that Chinese can make a house on it but never go/pass by there?

No I meant WP:OR as in "original research".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't get the relations between "doesn't mean they inhabited as opposed to passed by" and "There's a US flag on the moon". Could you please explain more to me?

I was meaning that the presence of bodies, objects in a certain place does not necesarrily prove that there was long term habitation there, eg, they could have made a brief stop there and disposed of dead sailors or whatever, much like how the US flag is on the moon but there is no long-term habitation of the moon by the US. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I mean, it's too short so that I can't get the meaning. If you didn't reply, I'll redo the (Undid revision 214085459 by Blnguyen (talk)))

Thanks.

——Yohan (China) (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again Addition, HAHA ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, I know that Xinhua Net is govt-owned and is not allowed to do anything except tow the PRC line, and of course you don't understand Chinese. But I mean that:

About the first two questions:
- "Can this VIDEO prove?" and "See this photo", you needn't to read some thing, just see the picture, and a exact relic over there is more powerful than a hundred treatises.
- There is some limit in Xinhua Net, but the restriction affect things can't be in Xinhua Net not thing can be here. i.e. We can't say something doesn't exist because it's not on Xinhua Net but we can say something exist(or at least possible exist) because it's on Xinhua Net.
  - Still now, it's only possible exist. But we can say the thing almost exactly exist if no one can find any hole(leak/rip) in it. So you you can't find any hole(leak/rip) in it, it'll be almost exactly exist.
About the last two questions:
- I got it. That bodies are undemanding is due to my word "since", and it is often used in present perfect.
- So I'll change the word to "once stayed in Paracel Islands in Tang and Song".

- And I what I want to say is the follows:
  - Time of Discovrery
    - Chinese:Tang Dynasty(circa 600~800) and Sung Dynasty(circa 1000~1200)
    - Vietnamese:1460 or before.
  - Time of Claim Owned
——Yohan (China) (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the raw film doesn't prove anything by itself, because a film is a primary source. It is up to the reporter or archaeologist statement to say something. Has this been published in a history journal anywhere? We would need an archaeologist to have done a dating job on the relic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive moves

It's important that you stop moving Zhang Zhung without discussion. Where does Zha-ng Zh-u-ng come from, anyway?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 19:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy:

ཞ zha
ང ng
་ (space)
ཞ zh
ུ u
ང ng
- ཞང་ཞུང་=Zha-ng zh-u-ng

--Yohan (China) (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that you don't know how to read Wylie. ཞང་ཞུང་ is written zhang-zhung in Wylie. The ་ can be written as either a space or as a hyphen. The hyphen does not appear otherwise.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometer's Sketchpad

How come you removed Geometer's_Sketchpad_circumcircle.png from the Geometer's Sketchpad page? It shows more of the page than the other screenshot.--Max Talk (+) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's GSP4 screenshot, and will be conflicted with "latest_release_version" tag. I do also agree to move it out of {{Infobox Software}}, but there's already one outside {{Infobox Software}}. --Yohan (China) (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2010 (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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]