User talk:Ottawakungfu

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on the chinese martial art wiki --Blckavnger 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have added Chinese text besides some of the headings for Chinese martial arts. However, this is an English article and hence it does not "make sense" to add the heading 历史 to history or 武术名师 to Notable practitioners. I suggest that it might be best to remove them since EN wikipedia serves an international audience. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Anyway, do keep up the good work on Chinese martial arts. -- mh 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per suggestion, I have removed Chinese equivalents from the headings and included them when neccessary in the main text. I am in favor of providing the Chinese equivalent in the main text when possible to reduce translation errors.-- Ottawakungfu 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take a look the first paragraph of karate.--Ksyrie 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- all martial arts are related .. the focus for Chinese martial arts should be Chinese not Japanese martial arts 

I didn't mean to not focus on chinese martial arts.while in fact there are relations between sumo and karate.so i place them in see also--Ksyrie 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please check with guidelines on the use of the section "See also" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also

if you want to discuss sumo and karate then discuss it within the text and not as an internal link. Alternatively, you can add the terms as examples of related martial arts, etc. just having a link of to the words sumo and karate will not help the reader understand the context of your discussion. Ottawakungfu

I know little about Sumo and Karate,just when i browse the two article,I found there are some links between the sumo,karate and some chinese martial arts.So I add them to see alos,hoping someone more professional to add somethings to them.--Ksyrie 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a small submission here on wiki, which includes a number of references to both Chinese and Japanese martial arts. My background is solely in karate, and I am having trouble finding the correct Chinese words for some things. Is there a general term in Chinese martial arts for school or training hall, equivalent to the Japanese "dojo"? I had understood that the Chinese term for teacher (as the Japanese use "sensei") is "sifu". Is this correct, and is there a term for master, as opposed to teacher, as in the Japanese term "shihan"? Please forgive my ignorance and thank you for your assistance. --SkepticalGal 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term for chinese training hall is Kwoon (館) and you used it in the context of a Wushu Kwoon (武館). In the chinese system, sifu (師父) is the general term use for teacher and is equivalent to sensei. I don't think there is a popular term for master - except the term - famous martial artist (武术名师). March 16,2007 Ottawakungfu

Just wanted to thank you for your willingness to step in to the current situation. Koon had been blocked (on monday) for disruptive editing for trying to push his opinions and WP:OR (see the talk pages at Wing Chun and Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, as well as his talk page).--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Chun/Weng Chun argument should be based on external cited literature not hearsay. The edits to the list of Chinese Martial Arts should stand until I have more information. The general literature do not differentiate between Wing Chun and Weng Chun even though the Chinese words are different. The style of Wing Chun represents a large collection of Southern Martial arts that is not restricted to the Futshan branch popularized by Yip Man and his students. The english translation of "eternal spring" with the associated origin stories has been associated with this style. Additional note, Koon might consider listing the Weng Chun style under Fukkien White Crane rather then Wing Chun if he thinks the techniques, application principles and training methods are radically different from the Futshan styles. January 02,2008 Ottawakungfu

I agree 100%. I've tried to give him lots of leeway because I understand english is his second language (at least I gather that by his writing). He seems to want to push that only material through Leung Jan is actual wing chun, and has only used a specific set of characters. Likewise that everything else is called "Yong Chun" and is a completely different art. I've tried to explain to him how and why that's not the case, as well as provide references to the contrary (including people in the wing chun family that have used both sets of characters), as you can see by the discussions on those talk pages. He basically ignores any information to the contrary, or tries to present hearsay to discount it so everything fits in his view. He also seems to have a problem a) discerning between the general term (Yong Chun simply being the mandarin pronunciation of both sets of characters), b) the fact that both sets are pronounced the same (weng is just an english phonetic creation to differentiate between the two character sets when writing in english), c) that its also refers to an actual village as well, d) and that "Weng Chun" can also be just a generic grouping that several specific arts identify with (Andreas' Jee Shim Weng Chun is a collection of several different "weng chun" arts for example). As far as listing under Fukkien white crane, the problem is he hasn't been specific what art he's been talking about yet. He's just been basically categorizing that (Yong chun, weng chun, etc.) is another art without really defining what he means by that. I'm the one that actually gave him the Jee Shim Weng Chun and White Crane Yong Chun options. He also has a big problem with providing external references, either trying to reference to the Chinese wikipedia, blogs, or generic school sites in Chinese that aren't much different than the plethora of ones in english and that certainly don't contain any info backing up what he's pushing for (i.e. that Wing Chun is not a large collection of Southern martial arts, and only refers to one specific lineage). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know he started up again at Wing Tsun with more WP:OR, self references, and broken content. I've filed a complaint for disruptive editing again if you want to weigh in at all:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dissruptive_Editing_by_user_Koonleg50.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29__2nd_complaint

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following suggestion for Koonleg on the notice board. If he can:

1) Provide a objective reference or source with more information about his style other then the organization's website.

2) Refrain from editing the Wing Tsun pages because it is not his style anyways.

3) Note we are all here to help each other :)

--Ottawakungfu (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on Marty Goldberg's talk page. My research indicates that Koonleg50 is describing a legitimate style that is related to Fujian White Crane. I have proposed how we can incorporate this information into the list of Chinese Martial Arts.

--Ottawakungfu (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the exact opposite out of it. He states on Talk:Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu that he's been a Wing Tsun practitioner for 40 years. That is in fact why he kept focusing a great deal on rewriting the Wing Tsun page (and even used the fact that WT is copyrighted in one of his edits), and why his edits were driven largely from Leung Ting's viewpoint in "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun". Ting presents his own skew on historical research, all bent on pushing everything that's not directly through Yip Man as distantly related but not the same. At this point, we still don't know what actual art he was pushing to differentiate, because as stated he was running all those previously discussed issues together. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not follow Koonleg's actions or arguments in too much detail. The general article on Wing Chun is fine as it is. From previous experience, any discussion on Wing Chun (the generally recognized style) is highly political and not being a Wing Chun practitioner I will reserve my comments. I did get some new information on a style (Shaolin Wing Chun - a Fujian White Crane related style) that I was not familiar with and I will try to help to incorporate the information into Wikipedia. Regardless, good work by Marty Goldberg in maintaining the spirit of Wikipedia. More Kudos for Marty Goldberg .. I was in a rush - yeah, the reference should be to the Fujian White Crane style not to Lama White Crane :) --Ottawakungfu 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say good job with the rewrite of the into. Great that you worked in all the connections, references, and current link to the Wing Chun family. Have you read any of Hendrik Santo's research/material linking the Wing Chun family to White Crane Weng Chun? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese martial arts history can be extremely controversial even without the translation issues. The principles of Wikipedia with emphasis on neutral point of view and community consensus rather than original research is the best way to provide the public with a introduction to any particular topic. In this case, there are many people actively researching the history of Wing Chung - until they come to a reasonable conclusion, my contribution to this subject will represent information from all sides. I have not follow Santo's research, I am basing my information on the Chinese source materials (they mainten the stronger White Crane connection), the ideas of Benny Meng who runs the Ving Tsun Museum (he accepts Gee Sum Weng Chun as a form of Wing Chun) and Andreas Hoffman who is the main promoter of Chi Sum Ving Tsun system in the West (he accepts his style as a form of Wing Chun even though his peers in Hong Kong does not discuss this views).

My view on this subject is as follows: to most of the English speaking world, the subject of Wing Chun is about Yip man and his system. This system was made famous by Bruce Lee. The essences of this system is in three forms, wooden dummy sets and weapons. So this is what the main article should be about. However, there is now a consensus within the martial arts community to point to the bigger set of practitioner of a Wing Chun Style - a style that is practiced and promoted by Yip man's peers. Who those peers are and whether they are "Wing Chun" remain controversial.

My preference when talking about style and branches is to focus on the similarity in training methods, applications and core principles rather then origin histories. So if you want to compare Wing Chun and Weng Chun White Crane look and see if they have use similiar techniques like chi sau (sticky hands) or Bil jee (poking fingers), etc.

On a very high level, Chinese martial arts practitioners learn and intermix with each other all the time so it would not suprise me that each style will have familiar elements. I am seeing this type of argument repeating in Hung Gar and many other styles. What is more interesting is to find why a particular style emphasis one point rather than other. --Ottawakungfu 14:02, 63 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input and opinion over at the "No Longer Affiliated Students" thread on the talk page. An anonymous IP wants to remove all "no longer affiliated" branch people from a particular branch listing. He's also contesting the current structure of the family tree and wants to allow more and more depth. My viewpoint on the depth is I agree with the current standard set up in the opening paragraphs on the article page. It represents an abridged family three, to a depth of 3. Any more and it would start turning in to a gigantic list, and violate list policies regarding WP:NOT#DIR. Likewise, my opinion is that while a person may not be affiliated with the current political organization of that branch/linneage/school, that does not strike them from the family tree. I've seen to many times in other locations (and attempts to repeat it here) where people are stricken from a family tree in a political move to discredit them as if they were never part of that tree. If we were talking about every day students, I could certainly agree, since they come and go. But this tree listing is composed of actual sifu's. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ottawakungfu. I am the anonymous IP that Marty Goldberg is referring to. Please understand that I mean no disrespect to those that have edited before me. I really appreciate all of the time that Marty has put into Branches of Wing Chun. Please also understand that I have put considerable thought into the points that I have made and that they weren't just written in passing. Your thoughts on both PRUNING LINEAGE and NOT AFFILIATED STUDENTS" would be greatly appeciated. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been as specific as I possibly can. The page needs more sources, period. There is no way to dance around the issue. Take the "controversy" section for instance. It claims many things and not one of those statements are cited. It does not matter if you have 50 or even 200 citations on the page, everything that needs to be cited is not. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen your list of questions either in text or on the talk page. All I am seeing is the general tag. In general, I am suggesting contributors use the tag - Fact/date in the text to give others the opportunity to address your concerns. Otherwise, we will never get anywhere. I have provided examples in the article -- Ottawakungfu 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he thought people would forget him or something. But koonleg50 is at it again over at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu, this time posting another personal attack on Andreas Hoffman and including references to his own blog and a discussion forum again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

koonleg50 is at it again, this time over at Branches_of_Wing_Chun, and using his regular account plus multiple anonymous ip's. I'll give it about another day before I file an admin action request (this'll be the 4th complaint I believe). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yuan_Kay-shan, some guy not familiar with Chinese martial arts history is insisting on getting the Yuen Kay San article deleted. He'll probably move on to a lot of the others from there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested the article should not be deleted because Yuen Kay San is notable but not well known in the West. --Ottawakungfu 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in at Sum Nung's AFD as well, the same group is trying to get that one deleted as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested the article should not be deleted because Sum Nung is notable but not well known in the West. --Ottawakungfu 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I significantly expanded Yuan Kay-shan then and added a number of references. Feel free to add anything else to it that you can find or expand it with. Going to do the same to Shum Lung as well sometime this weekend. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Marty. I am busy editing the Southern Praying Mantis page will start work on Bak Mei and then Southern Crane .. that should keep me busy for awhile :) Have fun with the Wing Chun history, there is still a lot information to filter through --Ottawakungfu 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ottawakungfu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jin Lian Pai has been removed. It was removed by Juliancolton with the following edit summary '(contested PROD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Juliancolton before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please explain why you removed an external link in the Qigong article on 23:19, 6 October 2010 which documented the use of Qigong as a therapy used with cancer treatment.

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links should either be included as an in text citation or under an "External Link Section". Please consider the Wikipedia:External_links policies. Remember, external links should points to peer review articles or authoritative information. Thanks. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input, an anon IP is starting an edit war over JKD being included in the list. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JKD should be considered a Chinese Martial Art since the founder Bruce Lee is Chinese and developed his art based on his training in Wing Chun. If you consider any biography or external reference on JKD or Bruce Lee, you will find that JKD is considered to be a Chinese Martial art (see for example, Bruce Lee's own notes : The tao of gung fu: a study in the way of Chinese martial art, 1977). The argument that Bruce Lee was granted American citizenship, the art was founded in the US (Seattle, Washington) and most of the practitioners are in the US points to the a very narrow definition of what constitute a Martial Art. As the summary try to point out, there is a strong cultural and philosophical component to what constitute a "Chinese" martial arts. JKD has those components and so should be considered to be a branch of Chinese martial arts. I also think the majority of the JKD practitioner will agree if they want to pay homage to its founder. ottawakungfu (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start a convo on the talk page if you could. I asked the IP to provide a reliable source and he's having problems - even arguing that the word "Do" isn't Japanese when Chinese would of course be Tao. A person's nationality doesn't have much to do with that though, it's the country of origin of the art and it's relation to other arts. Whether we're talking about Jun Fan Trapping (the core of Bruce's personal art still taught in JKD today), or even the later "JKD" you're talking about an amalgam of source material with a core element that is "mostly chinese". I would hardly call that a "chinese art", and JKD Concepts hardly promotes the image or connection of a traditional chinese art. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe this? Now he's starting an edit war on the discussion page over his continuing to try and discuss his opinion on the translation after the original edit dispute has been resolved. I explained it's a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#FORUM since it has nothing to do with improving the article at this point. He won't listen and just keeps trying to revert it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the compromise. It is always difficult to explain that to people that arguments must be back by the appropriate external reference and to the point. Independent research without the necessary peer review should not be used. Keep up the good work. ottawakungfu (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Ottawakungfu) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Your username suggests that your account is run by a group of people, the Ottawa Traditional Chinese Martial Arts Association. Wikipedia accounts are not allowed to represent a company, and they are also not allowed to be operated by more than one person.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My views represents one person and does not violate the policies of Wikipedia. I am a long time contributor and so far not one has objected. Thanks for pointing it out. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as only one person uses this account, I think it's okay. You've shown yourself to be a good editor and the username isn't blatantly a violation of policy. It would be nice if you changed your username (it's simple, I've done it myself), but I certainly won't block you if you'd rather not. Danger (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up the confusion. ottawakungfu (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on the Qigong article rewrite. The neutrality, tone, and factual acuracy are improved. The references, while mostly reliable, still need more cleaning up. In terms of the last changes you made, I have reverted them (to restore the meaning and correct the grammar) with slight rewording. We can discuss this further if you like. Note the correct grammar: "research is", not "research are". Vitalforce (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. You are doing a great job as well. Grammar is not my strong point. I am focusing on structure and content. The paragraph needs tweaking beause the two sentences "This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, research has not been designed to distinguish the ..." describes two unrelated concepts so the use of a connecting adverb does not seem correct. Please reword by eliminating the use of the connecting adverb "However". ottawakungfu (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending a connection between the concepts, though not sufficiently clear. Please see if the new wording is clear. Vitalforce (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC):[reply]

This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects. In addition to exercise, beneficial effects may result from other facets of qigong practice such as meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, duration of practice, depth of practice, and difference in forms.

My latest version was undone by Charlesdrakew (User talk:Charlesdrakew), whose main contributions have been reverting changes in miscellaneous articles (Charlesdrakew contributions). I reverted it back and invited him to discuss this further. Here are my current thoughts: 1) a qualification is needed that the review and the studies it is based on do not establish a causal relation between exercise and beneficial effects (they are generally careful not to confuse correlation with causality), - hence "However, studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects."; 2) other facets of qigong are mentioned that may also contribute to benefits - hence "In addition to exercise, beneficial effects may result from other facets of qigong practice such as meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, duration of practice, depth of practice, and difference in forms.". The point is to be accurate and verifiable, with a well-written flow. Ideally somebody would take on the task of adding to this section by summarizing findings of the best qigong research publications (the review did a reasonable first cut through 2007). Perhaps the following is better wording:

This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise. However, studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects. Research has not been conducted to demonstrate whether beneficial effects may also result from other facets of qigong practice such as meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, duration of practice, depth of practice, and difference in forms.

Now Ian.thomson User talk:Ian.thomson Special:Contributions/Ian.thomson has reverted the changes. Let's refine the text and encourage discussion. What do you think? Vitalforce (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalforce, I recommend citing reliable sources. Your revision did not have that, and unsourced claims are not accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source: Jahnke, R.; Larkey, L.; Rogers, C.; Etnier, J; Lin, F. (2010). "A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi". American Journal of Health Promotion 24 (6): e1-e25. Vitalforce (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the use of the connecting adverb "However ...". The conclusion for "Jahnke et al." is fine, qigong has some benefits BUT those same benefits could also be attributed to physical exercise. Using the connecting adverb "Howerver", the sentences that follows assumes that more insight into the benefits of qigong practice could then be further identified through additional experiments using specific Qigong parameters (length, form, etc). This is not the case - the positive effects of qigong must first be established as being MORE than just a physical exercise. I tried to adjust the language to reflect this. I think both Ian.thomson and Charlesdrakew are thinking along this line. The current text offers an interpretation that is not supported by "Jahnke et al." ottawakungfu (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnke et al. do not specifically conclude "This suggests that qigong may be effective primarily as gentle physical exercise." (a conclusion provided by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), though it appears to be reasonable. It would be more accurate to offer a qualifier like "however" and "studies generally have not been designed to distinguish the cause of beneficial effects". Here is more possible rewording (also see above):

Research did not evaluate the importance of exercise versus other facets of qigong practice such as meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, depth of practice, and difference in forms.

Research has not been conducted to evaluate different facets of qigong practice such as exercise, meditation, breathing, balance, quality of instruction, depth of practice, and difference in forms.

I leave it to you to correct the grammar and be sure the meaning is clear and verifiable. Vitalforce (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance could you please see how you feel the Qigong article is progressing? I have tried to provide solid structure, clean neutral text, and reputable references. Vitalforce (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the re-write. You have made it more concise and to the point. I do not have any issues so far, keep up the good work ottawakungfu (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say hi and make sure you know who I am - formerly Vitalforce renamed to TheProfessor. I have not put effort into the Qigong article for some time, but would like to encourage improvements, and invite new editors to take an interest. I would hope that those with experience will be encouraging and help mentor without being disparaging or discouraging. Thanks for your continued interest and efforts to insure excellence. TheProfessor (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chen Zhonghua may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• would be the ‘International Standard Bearer’ responsible for all activities outside of China. <ref>{{cite web | url= http://practicalmethod.com/2007/03/chen-zhonghua-elected-chen-style-taijiquan-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hong Junsheng may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ) <ref>{{cite book|title=華人月刋|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=EhUyAQAAIAAJ|year=2005|publisher=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottawakungfu. You recently reverted an edit I made on Hong Junsheng of adding ruby characters to a line quote of hanzi. If you refer to WP:MOS-ZH#Ruby characters, you'll see that using ruby characters in such cases is the convention in Chinese-related content. I would thus kindly request you restore the edit. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of the specifications. Have not seen it applied any where. Ruby renders horribly in my browser. Disrupts the flow of the Chinese characters. I will revert if you insist but I don't think it adds any value since the pinyin information is added in a separate line as per my edit. ottawakungfu (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... may I ask which browser that is? According to the MOS page, it's meant to render relatively normally in the major browsers. I use the latest Opera & it shows as it aught to. I don't necessarily insist on it, but I acted in the interest of creating consistency according the the MOS. From my viewpoint I'd say it's worth having it, however, if you feel it's too... unbearable (if you will), then I do think that you should probably get rid of the pinyin altogether. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok add the notation back . I am using Firefox without any extensions so pinyin appears as brackets. ottawakungfu (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ottawakungfu. 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.

Hello, Ottawakungfu. 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]

Hello, Ottawakungfu. 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]

Hello, Ottawakungfu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]