User talk:Chinyin

Welcome!

Hello, Chinyin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize articles. We can discuss it.--Lauren68 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My recent change in Yuan Dynasty has anything to do with nationalism or vandalism? You must be kidding. Also does it really have anything to do with tributaries v.s. real conquest? --Chinyin (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Full name / Issue

I noticed you've been changing the "full name" field to say "issue" on a number of pages for the Yuan emperors, and I must admit I'm confused by this. "Issue", in the dynastic sense, refers to children of a particular person (their issue), while the field seems to actually be the full name. Is this a mistake, or am I missing something? siafu (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Already replied earlier in your talk page. --Chinyin (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese based

I admit that the Chinese and Persian culture influenced surrounding nations deeply. But please dont forget this site as neutral sometimes. E.g. Tolui was a never of Emperor of Mongolia (he is still not regarded as Khaan among Mongolists today), it is the Toluid propaganda to give him those titles in order to secure their claim. He hever had Chinese, Persian or even Mongolian titles (maybe except Khan or Noyan in very rare cases). Remember that he was awarded the Yuan title long after his death (not within 15 years at least). Please respect others' edits as we respect your correct edits. I know you lack of knowledge about Mongolian history. That's why you make some mistakes. But I really admit that you have a great knowledge on modern Chinese history--Lauren68 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your comments. However, I have to also point out some (assuming inadvertent or you are making fun or so) obvious impoliteness or "mistakes" in your comments. First of all, your comment implies I may have notable or even systematic biases, which I don't really agree (at least already tried to avoid, as most other Wikipedians). Second, you are claiming I have knowledge on modern Chinese history but no knowledge on Mongolian history, which certainly can be seen as a personal insult (obviously I would not take it this time, but still please try to read the Principles of Wikipedia etiquette on WP:EQ). Also, don't try to divide between cultures so sharply. For example, not to brag but I do have some degree of knowledge on the history of Yuan Dynasty (although I admit probably less than yours), which belong to both (medieval) Chinese and Mongolian history (similar for some other periods). It's too bad to state as if the other really lacks of necessary knowledge to properly edit these articles, although I think you are kind of kidding. Nevertheless, it may cause problems or misunderstandings to leave comments as such even if we know the other may be kidding or playing on wording etc.

Regarding the content itself, true, I agree that the title Khaan or Great Khan was probably never used by pre-Mongke Mongol rulers (similarly, Chinese temple names etc are also posthumous for these rulers). However, it's usually not good to over-focus on certain primary history info while ignoring or downplaying established academic conventions. For example, Genghis Khan is generally considered the first Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, even though he did not seem to ever use such title by himself. Of course we should focus more on established conventions (but maybe stating the extra info as notes or so), instead of over-basing on primary or our own knowledge. Also, strictly speaking, Emperor of Mongolia does not seem to be a proper title for such rulers (incl. Yuan rulers), but in some cases we don't need to be too picky on wording or insisting on precision, as long as it won't cause major confusions or misleading etc. Last but not least, it's of no doubt that during editing (and discussions too) everyone should try to respect each another, but we also have to focus on issues as stated above (e.g. established conventions) as well as trying to avoid personal tendency (towards certain view or culture etc). Thanks! --Chinyin (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My friend, Qa'an was used by them. Again this is wrong. It just simply means Emperor or King in Altaic languages (e.g. They called the Jin Emperors Golden Qa'an). It is claimed that Qan and Qa'an were identical at the begining until the Khoeke Turks used the title Qa'an. However, I agree with you on that Ogedei/Guyuk was the first one who used the title of Great Khan (Yekhe Qa'an) of the Yekhe Mongol Ulus. If you want, I can send you some reference on this title. I am very glad that you understand and tolerant towards my view. We both try to improve articles on this great encyclopedia.--Lauren68 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the point that Qa'an was used by some early rulers. I think you are probably right regarding the title, as I did have considered the same thing. It was only recently I noted someone (Eaglewanli) adding a reference on several pages in Chinese Wikipedia claiming that the title Qa'an was not used by Mongol rulers until 1254/1257 ([e.g. here (Gün Temür Khan) ]), although I never fully agreed (he at the same time also tried to extend Mongol Empire into 1402 (e.g. claiming Gün Temür was the 20th Great Khan of the Mongol Empire), which I don't really agree but haven't interfered, partly due to the different academic convention or environmnent in English and Chinese language world). Nevertheless, it was not as if I did not understand or tolerant towards others' views. If I have a dispute on certain content with another editor, what I expect is that he/she is willing to discuss the problem, or at least follow the wiki guideline to solve such problem. As long as he/she has tried to follow the Wiki guideline, I will show my respect and do the same. Otherwise I have to do something to make it work properly (I know the method I tried in the past was wrong, but that was very special case, as the other continued to insist his views but refusal to talk). Wikipedia usually work this way according to its guideline. Of course we should try to improve the quality on WP articles. Nevertheless, I have to say that "period of small kings" should not be mentioned in the lead of the Northern Yuan article as it is rarely seen in English-language world, not to mention that it's generally probably not a good behavior to change orders of some stuff (unless there is indeed a better location to be placed), or intentionally find some way to perform such order change. Also the Tolui article still has to be cleaned up (after all, it's generally not a good idea to "educate" other editors by changing article contents themselves, but such knowledge may be shown during discussions; what is actually written in the article should be already subject to quality [in case there is a dispute, editors may wait until a talk to solve the problem is already made, see e.g. WP:BRD])--Chinyin (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I'd like to mention is that it is generally not a good idea to (intentionally) edit or change articles based on the behalf of other people, and even when others' behalf may be considered "bad", such actions are bad too, and will certainly not helpful for either people nor Wikipedia as a whole. Everyone can of course try to fix content for quality etc (and talk when necessary), but they should not knowingly do actions (edit articles etc) with such "bad" behaviors, or obviously on the behalf of other people, nor should they intentionally find some way to add (or change into) possibly more nationalistic (or otherwise more radical) stuff. --Chinyin (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Koxinga, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Moro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Manchu conquest of China, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Manchu invasion of Korea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mongol invasion of China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Asud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oirat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dayan Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hami (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Qing Dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Estate, Literati, Migration, Mobility and Resettlement

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hi,

The main reason I am not as much on wp as I used to is time constraints. I have to work a lot and in my free time have I now have other priorities. I occasionally drop in and correct stuff that seems obviously mistaken, or maybe add some simple stuff which I believe really belongs into an article. I am not trying to spread messages.

I admit that having unproductive discussions, or even the feeling that certain members are doing more harm than good, may have also played some role in my declining interest in wp (this mainly refers to stuff like "is Elbegdorj the greatest Mongolian leader since Chinggis?" or "Was the Byelorussian SSR an independent country?", not to any recent events). But then I am probably not entirely innocent in this regard either.

Wish you a nice day too, and don't spend it all in front of the computer.

Yaan (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But please do not decrease your interest in WP, as you are a quite respectful Wikipedian, really. --Chinyin (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)