User Talk:Benlisquare

Hyperdimension Neptunia characters

Recent discussion on Talk:Hyperdimension_Neptunia#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Hyperdimension_Neptunia_characters that you might be interested. Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Are these the correct Chinese characters?

In File:HappyAllRestaurantHoustonTX.JPG did I type in the correct Chinese characters for the restaurant?

BTW I think I got the correct characters for File:MetropoleCenterHoustonTX.jpg but I would like to double-check...

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: They're all correct. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up on Han Taiwanese

Hi Benlisquare, sorry to bother you as I know you are probably busy, but I want to follow up on our Han Taiwanese discussion. The creator of the Han Taiwanese article Lysimachi has added a lot of citation tags to the Han Chinese article, such as this [1] and many more (the user has added a lot more citation needed tags). While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements, some of the sentences Lysimachi added tags to are fairly obvious knowledge and now paragraphs after paragraphs are flooded with tags. I'm not sure if Lysimachi is trying to do this to show that Han Chinese/term doesn't exist, or other reasons, but the over flooding of tags is a bit strange. What do you think?--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably find some time to get back onto Wikipedia and catch up on the time that I've missed eventually. For the time being though, I genuinely have zero time. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really know the definition of dialect?

Do you really know the definition of dialect?

I'm in the UK now. Most british classmates agree with me, they say Welsh is another language, dialect is the same language that you can communicate with each other, but the accent or pronunciation of some words may be a little different. That's why I always tell others we should call Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese different Chinese languages, not dialects.

Can you communicate with someone if you speak Mandarin but he/she speaks Cantonese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwu889 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonwu889: This is not about me, this is about community consensus. If you want to make changes, you need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS through talk page dialogue, rather than edit warring. Varieties of Chinese can be called different things ("language", "dialect", "variety", etc.) depending on your personal point of view, and based on the most recent community consensus established at WP:WikiProject China last year (in 2015), varieties of Chinese are to be referred to as dialects; if you disagree with this, start another community discussion on this issue. Per Wikipedia policy, do not engage in edit warring even if you believe that you are correct and everyone else is wrong; Wikipedia is built upon consensus and verifiability, and not "the truth". The problem with your edits is that, although you believe that your edits are "truthful", no academic scholar within the fields of linguistics ever refers to Mandarin as "Beijing accent", they use the word dialect or variety. Your edits refer to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese", which makes no sense from a language glossary standpoint; some scholars call Cantonese a language, some scholars call Cantonese a dialect, but never a "part". Your edits introduce words that are not used in academia, which constitutes WP:Original research. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, your Welsh example is rather poor, since English is a Germanic language (Anglo-Saxons migrated from northern Germany and invaded the British isles, they were not indigenous like the Celts), and Welsh is a Celtic language, that's like comparing Russian (East Slavic) and French (Romance). You would have been better off comparing the Croatian language with the Serbian language. In regards to Chinese, the status of "dialect" and "language" is a complex one because not even scholars can agree upon what Chinese varieties are. The disagreement is documented in greater detail within the Chinese language article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

they [academic scholars within the fields of linguistics] use the word dialect or variety. That's interesting and as far as I'm aware, unheard of. Do you know if this has been discussed on Wikipedia before? It may be worth bringing to discussion. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Σ: Per Varieties of Chinese and Chinese language#Nomenclature, academics based in mainland China generally refer to language varieties of Chinese (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wuu, Hakka, Hokkien) as dialects. There are many reasons for this, the largest probably being politics-related (since the late 1920s, the Kuomintang government of the Republic of China (1912–49) pushed a somewhat nationalistic mindset that the varieties were merely dialects of the one language, in an effort to promote a sense of national unity); currently in mainland China, arguments often repeated by Chinese linguists include a cross-intelligible writing system (which has more to do with diglossia and linguistic prestige than actual linguistic closeness, in my opinion), parallel etymologies for words and the identical manner in which various expressions are used.

Many linguistics experts in the west, such as Victor H. Mair, refer to Chinese varieties as "Chinese languages" instead, on the basis that there is as much difference between spoken Mandarin and spoken Cantonese than French and Spanish. Conversely, however, those such as Jerry Norman argue that it makes no sense to refer to Mandarin, Cantonese and Hokkien as languages based on the mutual unintelligibility argument because they themselves are language groups with local geographic variants that may not be mutually intelligible with one another (e.g. Hong Kong Cantonese is not mutually intelligible with Cantonese varieties from a wide number of rural Guangdong villages further north). John DeFrancis similarly argues that Chinese varieties cannot be "dialects" due to lack of mutual intelligibility, but cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated.

Note that in the 1930s there was a similar case in Japan, where the Japanese government officially considered Korean and Palauan (see South Pacific Mandate) as dialects of Japanese due to political reasons, and even today the Japanese government considers Ryukyuan languages dialects of Japanese, even though they are not mutually intelligible with Japanese and western linguists consider them a separate language group.

Ultimately, I feel as though the disagreement has more to do with national identity rather than a scientific rationalisation of the aspects of language. Nevertheless, Wikipedia refers to them as Varieties of Chinese, mainland Chinese scholars call them "dialects", and many scholars outside of China call them "Chinese languages". A language is a dialect with an army and navy probably applies here as well. Previous discussions on Wikipedia relating to the issue of Chinese languages and dialects include this, this, this, this; there could be more discussions that I've missed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm vaguely aware of the political efforts by the Chinese government, indeed to promote national unity. And I'm also aware that western linguists often call them languages, and not dialects.

Chinese varieties [...] cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated. And langues d'Oc or Picard can, why?

And I didn't know about Japan and Ryukyu; that's very interesting, thanks. And I've glanced at those past discussions.

Concerning the article in question, I don't think fully reverting Jasonwu889's replacements is completely warranted, eg in usage of varieties other than Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is officially discouraged by the government [...] As a result, younger populations are increasingly losing knowledge of their local dialects. (bold indicating the change). And I think leaving the use of "Cantonese dialect" as it is throughout the article may misleadingly suggest that Yue and Mandarin are closely related. Thoughts? →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Σ: This discussion primarily arose due to edits that he made which consisted of terms that he essentially made up:

• This edit is problematic in that it uses the WP:OR "Beijing language" (there is no such thing), and referred to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese" (refer to my comments above, there is no such thing as a "part" in linguistics)
• This edit is problematic in that it uses the term "Beijing accent", which again, is not used within any academic publications focused on the Chinese languages.

In regards to this article, Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese, and so the revert was made on the basis of uniformity, being consistent and systematic between different articles sharing a similar topic, and years-long consensus where the status quo was to use one set of terminology over another (and to explain the differences and disagreements to the reader). Of course, consensus can change, however we would need a formal discussion over the issue to address that before we can move forward. This is why I asked the user to start a discussion thread on the talk page so that editors could come up with an eventual agreement. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't notice those edits. I found out about this whole thing from reading this article due to unrelated circumstances, and seeing the page history.

Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese In the WP:CHINESE discussions you linked to, I didn't see that they ever ended in an agreement on whether to title them as dialects or languages or what, or how to refer to them in articles. They mostly fizzled out after making the moves to remove "(linguistics)" from the titles. And WP:CHINESE itself currently says Which name for each particular variety is best, often depends on the article and its context, for titling. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Language says The question of whether the primary lects of Chinese are languages or dialects is disputed. In mainspace, (non-exhaustively sampled) Dialect#Greater China reads: Cantonese is still the most commonly used language [...] (emphasis mine), and Talk:Dialect doesn't seem to have much discussion about it though.

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles, there are discussions about whether "Chinese" means Mandarin. But there's minimal discussion (also in the archives) about languages/dialects etc.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a lack of agreement on how to write about Chinese varieties, hence why I would prefer there to be discussion taking place so that we can eventually finalise an ultimate decision on the issue, rather than have different editors at different times make back-and-forth changes all over the place. What we have right now is the current status quo remainingly largely unchallenged for quite a long time, however there are sporadic changes in various articles made by editors who change the terminology to what they personally believe should be used (language/dialect/topolect/regionlect/etc.), and since it's impossible for people to watch over every single article, this is why we are getting more and more inconsistencies between different articles. Rather than having the current situation continue, we really need a formal discussion to be initiated for the purpose of finding an outcome, however until then I'm not sure about letting more editors make back-and-forth changes for terms like the most recent ones mentioned above. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's the status quo then it's hard to come up with cases that actually do challenge it, as vaguely nonexistent as it is. I agree that we should seek a final solution to this question. Do you think an RfC on how to refer to the languages in articles would be reasonable? If so, we might want to compile the necessary evidence and context to prepare for one. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a RfC is definitely the way to go. There are various places to advertise it, including WP:WikiProject Linguistics and WP:WikiProject China, to gain the attention of editors familiar with the topic. As for context, we can simply list out the pros and cons for each of the terms that are used by different people, unless you had a more detailed summary in mind. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly more knowledgable about the political side, so I'm sure you've already got something in mind. What aspects of linguistics (and its intersection with politics) do you think the summary should focus on, that are most consistent with NPOV and COMMONNNAME for this? →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Check your email. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Σ: My apologies, I've been extremely busy for the past few weeks, and have not have any chance at all to touch base on anything Wikipedia-wise. I have read your email, and think that there isn't a clear-cut solution, but ultimately we would have to make a practical balance between what's verifiable and what's neutral. The situation ultimately is that we are required to place more WP:DUE emphasis on verifiable claims, but it might be the case that this will increase the perception that WP is "taking sides" within the debate as ultimately there is a limited volume of English-language publications which takes the government's side of things.

Accessibility to Chinese print publications is quite difficult as there aren't many internet resources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and freely provide the content free of charge (I don't even think Chinese journals use the DOI system). There probably are a few Chinese online websites that discuss the issue of Chinese dialects/languages, but many fall within the realm of non-RS due to being of questionable quality (poor editorial control, resembles more of something from the blogosphere, etc). --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

Babel
... you were recipient no. 898 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

... and four --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

... and five ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

About the artical:Chinese Wikipedia (关于Chinese Wikipedia这个条目)

I can not speak English very well, so please allow me to talk with you in Chinese.Thanks.
en-2This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English.	zh該用戶的母語是中文。 该用户的母语是中文。
由于在下英文不好，所以请允许我用中文跟您交流，谢谢。

我之前看到Chinese Wikipedia这个条目(article)的第二段“The Chinese Wikipedia is the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia after Hudong Baike (互动百科), Baidu Baike (百度百科) and Soso Baike (搜搜百科).”有一个来源请求(Citation needed)的标记，所以就进行了修改。然后刚刚发现了阁下对我的编辑进行了回退(undo)，所以想问一下您的回退原因是？

我对那一段的编辑原因是：我不认为中文维基百科是“第四大的网络中文百科全书（the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia）”。

首先，我认为这个排序没有意义，而且这个排序也缺乏来源，至少我目前找不到有对中文网络百科全书的排序。如果要我排列的话，我认为中文维基百科至少应该有“第二大(the second largest)”，甚至是“最大(the largest)”。因为我认为这个排序的依据是多方面的，不能单纯从使用人数来排列，还应该综合使用范围。百度百科、搜搜百科、互动百科的主要使用者是来自中华人民共和国大陆地区。而中文维基百科的主要使用者除了来自中华人民共和国大陆地区，还来自香港、澳门和台湾地区，还有一部分来自Malaysia(马来西亚)以及Singapore(新加坡)。所以中文维基百科的使用者很广，比搜搜百科、百度百科和互动百科广。

其次，在中文版本中，也没有提及排名第四这个问题。

所以，我就对那句话进行了修改。如果阁下认为在下的修改不妥，也欢迎阁下提出其他的修改建议。谢谢！

以上です。 --Dqwyy (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dqwyy: 回話有點晚，很抱歉。關於回退，你說的有點道理。當時我的看法是，本來條目用的比較方法是看誰的總條目數量最大，把這個改成分地區的比較完全把意思也改變了。我們知道中文維基百科有多少條目，也知道它沒有百度百科和其他百科那麼多；這樣的話，寫成“第四最大的中文百科”不是最自然的比較嗎？來源請求是因為我們沒有來源說它是“第四最大的中文百科”；條目數量數據我們確實在網上可以找到的。

分地區有個問題：大部分英文讀者不會特別明白為什麼我們分地區。別忘記，大部分西方人不太了解兩岸情況，也不怎麼了解馬新半島的語言情況——我們知道這些，因為我們關心這些東西。對於西方讀者的要求，他們的數量比較最容易了解的就是所有中文百科的排名，最簡單寫出來誰大誰小，不分地區。這樣是最自然的比較方法，大部分英文百科讀者不關心這些地區政治，這些互聯網百科都是"Chinese"的，不是嗎？

因為大陸人口最大，這些大陸百科他們編輯者多是肯定的，然後照樣編輯者多就條目寫得多。中文維基百科沒有那麼多，因為大陸以外的地區人口沒那麼多，然後也有中共的防火牆限制大陸編輯者寫條目。如果我們在這個條目中分開大陸的百科和其他地區的百科，這樣看起來好像我們故意的想強調中文維基百科的重要性。 --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:嗯，謝謝閣下的回復，我覺得閣下說的也有道理。只是希望閣下有空的話可以幫忙補充一下來源。 --Dqwyy (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans

Hi, can you take a look at these new articles Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Mongolian Traditional Script

Hi Benlisquare.

I see there has been absolutely no movement towards a Wikipedia for Mongolian Traditional Script. This is despite the fact that:

• The script now appears to be widely supported on both computers and mobile devices.

• A company in China has set up its own "Wikipedia" for Mongolian Traditional Script that is plagiarising the Mongolian Wikipedia for content.

[[2]]

103.229.121.33 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Crimea River listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crimea River. Since you had some involvement with the Crimea River redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow Ruby in PRC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Rainbow Ruby earned something in China.... Also read zh:维基百科讨论:Guestbook for non-Chinese speakers#Rainbow Ruby in PRC.

Glad I found someone fluent in both Chinese and English, and may know the Mainland China very well. (I can recognise some Chinese characters, but I'm not fully fluent in Mandarin at all.)

Anyway, here's the tasks I think you can do on the matter.

1. Add the things about Rainbow Ruby using the given sources.
   1. Especially, care must be taken when writing a passage about the show being named one of the 弘扬社会主义核心价值观动漫 for 2016, so the casual readers cannot misunderstand anything about it. You can give sufficient explanation about 弘扬社会主义核心价值观动漫扶持计划, including its history.
2. Create two articles at the English Wikipedia as a translation of 社会主义核心价值体系 and 社会主义核心价值观 at the Chinese-language Wikipedia to give some context.

Additionally, you may expand both Rainbow Ruby article at the English Wikipedia and 彩虹宝宝 article at the Chinese-language Wikipedia a bit. 58.123.222.52 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll begin with less or not-so controversial ones, like the show receiving entertainment awards. --58.123.222.52 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 in the section: India's involvement line 5 of the paragraph I want to edit 'establishing the refugee camps alongside the border alongside the border.:23–24[64]' by removing one of the 'alongside the border'. I see no way to accomplish this although it looks like an obvious mistake to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashhenka (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	你用戶頁的牛屄沒寫成訛字「牛逼」不錯！我喜歡！ 七个点 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Film censorship in China

Hello! You've listed yourself as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Chinese cinema task force. There is currently a discussion that may be of interest to you at Film censorship in China about changes to the table on the article, what information should be listed in the table, and general criteria for a film's inclusion. Please see Talk:Film censorship in China#Changes. If it is also of interest, there is also a discussion at the same article about adding scholarly literature and further historical information to the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with a translation: File:Map-Qing Dynasty 1820.jpg

Map-Qing Dynasty 1820.jpg

Hello Benlisquare, I have seen that you are quite active and apparently a native Chinese speaker/reader.

I have vectorized the the above mentioned map and would also like to add the Chinese inscriptions in the lower left corner, lower right corner, upper right corner and around Lake Baikal. I do not need translations of the map inscription (i.e., names of provinces, Cities etc.) – they have already been done.

Would it be possible for you to help me and proved me with the Chinese text (preferably in traditional letters but I can additionally provide a map with simplified letters).

Even if this map is not undisputed, it would be much easier to change it in vector format than in the current raster image format.

Thank you --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 13:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chiang family

Hello, Benlisquare. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chiang family, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Chiang family to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

Edaham (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Benlisquare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.→Σσς. (Sigma) 23:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yang Kyoungjong

The identity of the man in the photo, commonly cited as Yang Kyoungjong, is disputed. See:

• WikiCommons talk page
• Talk:Yang_Kyoungjong#Sources,_hoax_concerns

Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for vandalism

Hello, Benlisquare.

Are you active? Sorry for editing the Blood alcohol content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmaie Ajam (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Template:EASTASIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:EASTASIA. Since you had some involvement with the Template:EASTASIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ao oni.png

Thanks for uploading File:Ao oni.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings! After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000. The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section. On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner: Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places) Diversity winner Gender-gap fillers For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive.

It seems I’m being accused of being your sockpuppet because we agreed with one another on the Wuhan coronavirus requested move a couple times. You might want to say something on your behalf. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Test posts

This is a test post by myself, Benlisquare. 202.142.60.92 (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I hereby verify that the above statement is correct. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is yet another test post by myself, Benlisquare. 1.129.106.85 (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I hereby verify that the above statement is correct. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Barnstar of Taiwan

		The Taiwan Barnstar
		Thanks for expressing your ideas so well. Though I disagreed with you I find it hard to not praise your arguments. Thanks for all your time at Talk:Taiwan! I wish you all the best, and stay safe and away from COVID-19!!! [users appreciating his work please sign beneath me!] Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Benlisquare by Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) on 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Ayashii World" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ayashii World. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 24#Ayashii World until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Responded at the RfD entry. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

General Secretary vs President

Hello! You're quite knowledgeable about Chinese politics, so maybe you can answer a quick question for me. Which title is preferred when referring to the head of the Chinese government? President? Or General Secretary? I've seen articles use both, but I'm not certain which is to be used while keeping an article within WP:NPOV. I've looked around, but I can't seem to find a concrete answer to this. Thanks in advance for your help! Aguy777 (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aguy777: I'm not User:Benlisquare, simply waiting for a reply from them so have his page temporarily on my watch list, but I've also written about China once or twice. In my articles, I prefer to use and link the term paramount leader, as in, paramount leader Jiang Zemin. I feel it's much more neutral than either President or General Secretary, and furthermore it's much more accurate, see the article for why. If it's too long, core leader is just fine too, and is a redirect. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 09:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just had a look at your userpage out of curiosity. I never thought I'd see the day that Hotwheels would show up on my Wikipedia talk page, of all places. How have you been these years? The last time I've paid close attention to your situation was when that Vice News video came out. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am doing all right. I would prefer that name not be used, per “Hotwheels” — a postmortem (which also includes statements in re: Watkins, 8chan I no obviously longer agree with). HW has never been a name I used online for myself; e.g. on Freenode my nick is copypaste, that's why I thought the title was clever in 2016. (Some WP:RS's have gotten this wrong, and I don't care enough to go make another WP:ER. I have no idea how I'd even prove this anyway.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I'll respect your wishes; I wasn't aware you found the name displeasurable, it was the name that I generally saw used when describing you in the communities I previously took part in, and assumed you were still tagging along with it. I'm still a little starstruck to be honest, seeing your userpage was very unexpected. Changing the subject, I'm glad to have found out today that you have an interest in writing systems as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all. Yes, I edited here anonymously for quite a while. Ironically my first interaction with the community was very positive, I was one of the pieces of evidence that got Ryulong blocked during the whole GamerGate WP:ARBCOM fiasco. See e.g. User_talk:Loganmac#Thanks. In re: writing systems, I do indeed. I planned to rewrite the baybayin article, but I've just never had time. Instead I wrote an accepted Unicode proposal[3]...but if I ever make it back to the Philippines, and to the Ateneo de Manila University library, it's very possible I'll get around to that. I think most of us have a few pages we really want to either write or rewrite, but don't have time for. Until recently 2channel was one of mine; currently it's a WP:GA candidate. I hope it's accepted, so I can get it on WP:DYK, but one thing at a time. 😛 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I just read through your Baybayin proposal, nice work on the acceptance. Years ago I've always intended to write Wikipedia articles about non-standard Japanese kana and regional variant kanji, but never ended up finding the time for it. These days, my presence on Wikipedia is much more passive compared to before. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aguy777: If you want to be accurate and precise, paramount leader would be the best option, since the head of state is generally represented by an overlap of three different titles (head of the military, head of the party, president of the PRC). A lot of news websites like BBC might use "president" since it's easier to digest for general audiences, but I feel Wikipedia can afford to be more precise than that. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: Thanks for the prompt response! Based on your explanation, I assume it's acceptable (or, at least, not wrong) to use a term like General Secretary, but preferred to use paramount leader? I must admit, I haven't seen that title used on many articles. Aguy777 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't be wrong. General Secretary is still one of the many titles held by the head of state. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)