NoychoH

Wiem, ze mozna laczyc IP z zarejestrowanym, wiec chyba tak. Ale nie jetem pewien jak: spytaj sie na Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) albo na WP:ANI (a najlepiej i tu, i tu).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well i think in the interests of comity we should have a discussion in some other venue. I propose msn--Filll 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

WP is a good place to do it, & centralize a discussion is convenient, and so I will avail myself of my colleague's invitation, and will look here for a reply.

I see WP as providing a sort of index to knowledge -- not a repository of it, which is beyond any encyclopedia, not a summary of it, which needs experts such as on Citizendium, but an fully anotated hyperlinked index of where information is to be found. The role of the WP is the role of the journalist. We organize and report on as much of the world as possible. We have some unique advantages -- the variety of contributors, the potential for hyperlinks, the insistance on GFDL. We have some disadvantages--the lack of intellectual sophistication of many contributors, the stubbornness of others, the prejudices of everyone.

In order to keep this job finite it is necessary to set limits. i do not agree with those who think --quite literally--that every human being living or dead should have an article, and every school and building and group and recording and book and software. We record what is worth recording given our facilities. Most editors here do not have access to research libraries, and can therefore on many topics not be expected to do more than summarize other encyclopedias or textbooks--they cannot be expected to be able to gather all the published work and organize it. for other topics, especially those arisen in the last 8 or 10 years, they can, & the consequent emphasis on contemporary culture is appropriate.

The standards of documentation depend on the subject, and it is absurd to expect peer-reviewed formal sources for computer programs, and equally absurd to rely on newspapers for science. And both absurd & disruptive to treat them as equally open to criticism by the same standards and the same people.

My professional career has been organizing the formal documentation of science, in polemics and a little research in how to do it, and I know the limits of both scholarship and argument. DGG 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Confucianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Zhi (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) 11:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese family of scripts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idu (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) 11:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ń, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph (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) 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Family saga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norse (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) 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Radon transform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sinogram

X-ray computed tomography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sinogram

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Essence-Function may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"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:

• ''che-yong'') is a key concept in [[Chinese philosophy]] and other Far-Eastern philosophies ([[Japanese philosophy]], [[Korean philosophy]], [[Vietnamese philosophy]].
• use the [[ti-yong]] schema for the analysis and explanation of deep relationships, was [[Wang Bi]] ((226-249) in his commentary to [[Daodejing]], chapter 22, when he discussed the [[metaphysics|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Essence-Function, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zhongyong, Cheng Yi and Hua-yen. 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) 09:01, 27 August 2014 (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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gradualism page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.. The Klingon Way, added links pointing to A Good Day to Die. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This time it was intended, by purpose I have linked to a disambig page. noychoH (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

The article The Klingon Way has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TNT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox; talk 15:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Klingon Way is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Klingon Way until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you noticed, but you changed my comment [1]. Please be more careful next time. This time I will fix it, but if repeated I will come to the conclusion this was in bad faith. BTW, I'm still waiting for a full retraction of your blatant AGF violation. Will you strike it through? Widefox; talk 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

No I haven't noticed, and at your remark elsewhere, it was too late at night (my time zone) for me to be physically able to search for the isssue. That other notice of you, which I answered already "yesterday", was written in a more "cryptic way" than this one, so it dind't encourage to searching either. Only this morning have I seen this notice of yours and have checked what was the issue. I need to apologise.noychoH (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Klingon_Way, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Widefox; talk 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have taken a look again at my presumed "editing of legitimate comments by other users", and I have to admit that this must have happened by accident without my knowledge - anyhow, the "edit" in question makes no sense whatsoever, I can see it was most probably an accidental pasting of the content of my memory buffer, (exactly of the phrase I have had used within my previous edit and subsequently, copied-and-pasted, as a summary description of my previous edit), inadvertently replacing some words typed previously by you. Excuse me. noychoH (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC) corrected noychoH (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me quote some excerpts from the review by Captain Krankor, in oder to show you the level of scholarly work and independent research (beyond simply quoting Marc Okrand) done:

(...) A perennial problem in the study of tlhIngan Hol is the paucity of available source material, so the emergence of any new body of canonical Klingon is always an event of paramount (!) importance. Such a new work has recently become available to us with the publication of Marc Okrand's Star Trek: The Klingon Way - A Warrior's Guide. While the work predominantely concerns itself with Klingon culture and philosophy, it does contain a considerable amount of Hol [i.e. language], some of which covers new ground and offers fresh insight. (...) It bear noting at the outset that aby insights which we glean form The Klingon Way may have to be taken with a small grain of salt. The book is, for the most part, a collection of Klingon proverbs, and. as Dr. Okrand points out explicitly, "As with common sayings in other languages, some Klingon proverbs, particularly those which have taken on ritualistic overtones, exhibit unusual grammatical forms." (TKW p. 65). Fortunately, we have good reasons to feel comfortable drawing conclusions from the constructions we find. The truth is, the vast bulk of the proverbs presented conform tp standard, modern Klingon grammar, and for those few which do appera aberrant, Dr. Okrand draws explicit attention to the aberration.

In fact, somewhat surprisingly, there is very little which is shockingly new. What do we find of importance are certain examples which provide clarification for usage in areas which were previously murky. There is also, it should be noted, some important new vocabulary presented, but I shall leave that to someone else to compile.

Perhaps the most exciting find is tat the work provides the resolution of one of the oldest grammatical issues (...). The issue is the proper usage of the word Hoch - "everyone, all, everything" - in conjunction with other nouns. (...) [p. 2, followed by a lengthy discussion of the usage of the word Hoch in the proverbs, p. 2-3].

One thing which has slowly become clear is that when TKD talks about "sentences," it often really means "clauses." (...) [p. 3, followed by a discussion of examples taken from TKD, p. 3-4]. Well, happily, TKW confirms this instinct. We have a couple of examples of "sentence" conjunctions being used to join mere clauses. (...) [p. 4, followed by a lengthy discussion of "sentence" conjunctions, according to the terminology of TKD, like 'ej and 'ach, in the proverbs, p. 4-5].

The remaining insights are smaller, but nonetheless interesting and valuable. For instance, on page 29 we find:

WuwvI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'.

There are no old warriors.

What is interesting here is the placement of the -be' . In PK [i.e. Power Klingon]], we are given the toast QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj, wich seem to imply that the -be' should go before the -lu' when negating our old friend tu'lu' . Indeed, your friendly grammarian deliberately changed his style becaue of this. Yet, here we find that tu'lu'be' is perfectly acceptavle. (...) [p. 5]

Another morsel is found on page 69, where we are delighted to have an official translation of:

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam.

It is a good day to die.

Since the original TKD, we have known that a -meH verb can take no verb prefix and take an indefinite subject meaning. (...) It is therefore interesting to find out that one is permitted to put in an explicit -lu' suffix if one so chooses, as is done with Heghlu'meH. [p. 5-6]

(...) [omitted: a discussion of comparatives and superlatives].

And so we have found much valuable grammatic fruit in the pages of The Klingon Way. It bears mentioning that there are also several proverbs which are "interesting" for other reasons, but which limited space prevents going into. For instance, one might find, on pages 95 and 104, validation (more or less) of transcriptions long ago presented in this column. And one might find significant grammatic error were one to study pages 119 or 186. (...) [p. 6]

08:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on The Klingon Way. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Klingon_Way. Two editors have told you not to attempt to make out this some bad faith or bad faith/destructive editors. You persist to speculate on other's motivations and repeat unfounded allegations about other editors (including me). You've made clear that you don't mind being blocked for such comments, but this is just because someone doesn't agree with you. Widefox; talk 12:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ta for your ta.

FYI your Veda quote provides hilarious results when run via (wrong) Nepali or Hindi (= detected lang) in GTrans. Voila:

Co-founder With nine niggles

Cum sperm

Tejaswu Designated Things

I'm fascinated

Peace: Peace: Peace.

Or:

Cum Navy Cum nine bucks

There is a cum work.

Tejaswati Navdadmastu.

I have a scholar.

Peace: Peace: Peace:

So: pax vobiscum!

I pozdro z Wrocka. Zezen (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC) Zezen (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello NoychoH! Thank you for your translation of the article "Zadruga (movement)" from Polish-language Wikipedia. It would be great to have the article about Zadrugizm translated as well into "Zadrugism".--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Conversion of scripts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion of scripts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Śāntarakṣita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tattvasaṃgraha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just reverted the addition of the {{Intelligent Design}} template at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It was already present lower in the article. I saw it was also duplicated at Center for Science and Culture and you have added the template (or possibly other edits of the same size) to a number of articles. You might want to check for duplications. Sometimes the template may appear in a relevant section rather than at the top of the article. I'm not familiar with the details of the relevant style guides. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just ran the list as well. It was the one on my Watchlist, plus the other one I checked. Chalk it up as a case where sampling did not reflect the big picture. Thanks. BiologicalMe (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tripiṭaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahayana Canon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Specific Polish letters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Indonesian philosophy. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tudigong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hotei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

i just wanted to alert you of this deletion discussion on wiktionary. Best wishes, —Soap— 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aṣṭādhyāyī, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Triple deity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please kindly read my discussion under User_talk:Javierfv1212#Replacing_Devanagari_with_Brahmi and User_talk:Symphing12#Aṣṭādhyāyī and maybe let's begin anew a talk about consesus on using Indic Scripts, because I think those contained in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_48#Native_languages_in_lead (re:lead)] and Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_64#Multiple_Indicscript_in_infoboxes_are_out_of_control (re:infobox) are dated. noychoH (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "Please kindly read" what's written above your post on DGG's talk page... --Randykitty (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, I am so sorry, I haven't remarked. I have just followed all the talk links to those who participated in talk for that consensus. And because it was via the .m. link, sent to me by JavierFV, and I have read (before I have understood what .n. means, as I have myself never used a mobile to edit the Wikipedia) all the previous talk topics were shown to me as collapsed, and there was a long list of them, not all of them even visible, I just clicked on "Add new topic" without scrolling down to the end of the list. I will remove it immediately.

  Let DGG stay in peace! noychoH (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I also only closed a single RfC almost 12(!) years ago...I have no opinion on the subject, don't edit in the topic area and pain the multiple attempts on my talkpage to have me take action based on other peoples views. This also dances a very fine line of canvassing. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry. I do not know whether you have an opinion or not (I have thought that yes, because you have participated the discussion, but I might be wrong). It was not my intension to canvass you (or anybody). What you desrcribe as "multiple attemptes" - I only corrected twice my errors in my first message. (And in my opinion my message in any of the three versions absolutely does not fulfill the description of canvassing as shown in the definition page). I didn't intend to influence your opinion on the topic being discussed, nor sent you multiple messages, or whatever. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my message, I didn't intend to edit the topic area clearly marked as archive, I wanted to ask your opinions about reopening the RfC (and due to the fact that the the link to that notification page was sent me in an .m. version, I couldn't have opened the discussion in the notification page). Maybe I was lucky in that. Your commenst makes me say: This is the last time in my life that I have gone beyond pure editing of some Wikipedia articles, and try to express some more general point of view. Usually immediately afterward someone appears acccusing me of something which was absolutely not my intention, if one only clearly reads my words and analyses my actions. What for should I suffer accusations and need to explain and excuse myself? noychoH (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

HEREBY I withdraw my proposal about reopening the discussion on the ISC as presented in my message and I apologize to everybody who might have felt harassed or whatever wrong by my message. noychoH (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

RegentsPark (comment) 01:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which page do you mean? noychoH (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you're messaging many editors about an India related topic. The notice is just FYI (something to be aware of) and doesn't mean you've done something wrong. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. In fact, I am a Sanskrit and Indian philosophy scholar first of all, those topics are therefore natural to me. It means I only need to be less "bold" than usual, less "bold" than the Wikipedia guideline says? More cautious? Well, well... The other (positive for me) fact, however, is that I am not interested at all in modern India/Pakistan/other countries of the region, so the issues of "nationalism" shall probably pass by me. But on the other (negative) hand, being interested in religions, makes my edits probably a possible target of some religious fanatics. Well, well... I have studied the information behind the link provided to the contentious topics on India etc. and I find most cases mentioned there (in very vague way, indeed), something I would probably never engage to. Until yesterday I was not aware that the case of script can also be so contentious... Thanks for your advice. noychoH (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Consensus in the article mainland China is that it is treated as a geographical entity, not a political entity (hence, the lower case "mainland China" is used instead of "Mainland China"). When describing something which associates with a geographical entity, "on" is used instead of "in" (i.e. on the island, on the continent, on the mainland, on the peninsula etc.).

Usage of "mainland China" vs "Mainland China" in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=mainland+China&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

More information about the correct preposition for mainland:

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/in-the-mainland-on-the-mainland.2741848/ Vic Park (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems to mee that you fully agree with me, despite your previous move, at least the Wordreference forum linked by you now seems to fully confirm my revert. My capitalisation of the "Mainland" was caused only by the fact that it was quoted from the title of the template. Otherwise I fully agree with you. Thank you. noychoH (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have done a research myself. There are actually two different "mainland/Mainland Chinas". When the word mainland is capitalized (i.e. Mainland China), it is a geopolitical term defined as the territory under direct administration of the Chinese Communist Party government of the People's Republic of China. It includes Hainan Island and other smaller islands directly administered by China, but excludes Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. When the word mainland is not capitalized (i.e. mainland China), it is a geographical term defined as the part of China located on mainland Asia (or Eurasia), excluding all its islands, regardless of their political status.

In summary, "Mainland China" is a political region, therefore we should use "something/someone is in Mainland China". On the other hand, "mainland China" is a physical region, therefore we should use "something/someone is on mainland China".

The context in that template clearly refers to the geopolitical term, not the geographical term. Hence, you are absolutely correct in using the word "in" and capitalized the word "Mainland". Thank you for picking out the mistake. Vic Park (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are most kindly welcome!

What more, the geopolitical term directly reflects the common usage of the Chinese term Zhōngguó Dàlù 中國大陸 in Taiwan ("Taiwan" understood as the short form for the country "Republic of China", not as the island; hence the traditional characters used), whereas the geographical term reflects the common usage of the same term Zhōngguó dàlù 中国大陆 in the Peoples Republic of China (hence the simplified characters used). noychoH (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply