2325:
presenting fallacies, fabricating an obfuscation of unproven allegations and unsubstantiated claims, spreading malicious slander, making personal attacks, or foisting nebulous categorizations onto other editors with whom you happen to disagree with? It is certainly not a wondrous enigma that you've been blocked for your juvenile antics and comical gambits, which in my opinion should not only warrant criticism, but should also be subject to mockery. But I voluntarily choose not to engage in that kind of indecorous conduct as it may have a deleterious effect on my editing reputation, as I strive to maintain a humble and poised demeanor on this platform. Your poorly rationalized responses are replete with nothing but derogatory remarks, pejoratives, nebulous categorizations, fallacies, and erroneous allegations. Instead of taking me head on by rationally presenting a compelling counter-argument, you have the gall (considering the obvious weaknesses in your faltering argument, which is obviously collapsing on its own weight) to insinuate moral, but also racial superiority by suggesting that the
Burmese are purportedly more "superior" to the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical attractiveness? When the fact is, the subject of contention is about socioeconomic differences, not about how the Burmese are purportedly "better" than the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical appeal. The ineffective diversion tactics that you have cooked up, whether intended to distract me from the current subject of contention at hand or provoke a response isn't going to work on me as they will ultimately backfire and prove to have fatally damaging, deleterious, and detrimental effects that will not just consequentially harm your editorial reputation based on the unfounded accusations that you continually impute against me, of which are unwarranted and unsustainable in the long run. Moreover, your response would be far more credible if you were able to produce and supply the corresponding evidence (regardless of how politically incorrect it is) at will to substantiate such outrageously scandalous and spurious claims. Because last time I checked, it was the indigenous Burmans who have been expressing the bickering grievances regarding the alleged economic exploitation of Burma by the Chinese, often resorting to weak justifications to deflect attention in an attempt to conceal their own socioeconomic failures and shortcomings.
2371:
physical appearance of Han
Chinese in comparison to Burmans, such as the labeling of the former as "ugly Chinaman" or holding to the concept of "Ways That Are Dark," based on skin complexion are completely inaccurate and unfounded. It is erroneous (considering the significant quantity of erroneous information and fallacies emanating from an incompetent editor of your caliber) to suggest especially if you are debating whether Burmans are aesthetically superior or inherently more physically attractive than their Han Chinese counterparts based solely on their darker skin complexion, as Han Chinese, whether if they're Northern or Southern, typically have lighter skin tones than Burmans. Furthermore, it is worth noting that lighter skin is typically perceived to be more desirable in East Asian culture, so a preference for lighter skin is prevalent as lighter skin is generally considered more attractive than darker skin, though it is essential to acknowledge that perceptions of beauty are inherently subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and varies from person to person. Given the average physical differences of the taller stature and lighter skin tone among the Han Chinese compared to their Burman counterparts, I have never observed any notable media coverage in showcasing in how Burmans are at the forefront of reshaping global beauty ideals. Since it is rare to find any iota of significant recognition in the global press that can validate your spurious claims with regards to how Burmans are allegedly the pioneering trendsetters in redefining the benchmarks that shape global beauty standards. Because of this, I can also confidently state that the physical stature of Burmans is as unimpressive as their commercial business capabilities, as they certainly are not renowned for being particularly astute in commercial business matters. Despite this, it is rather a bold statement coming from a two-bit editor of your caliber, given your pugilistic and combative retorts, to insinuate moral and racial superiority. Irrespective of whether the ongoing discussion is related to my own editorial merits the contrast in physical attractiveness between the Han Chinese and the Burman counterparts, or being astute in commercial business matters. Your aimless meanderings and emotionally-charged outbursts, ultimately amount to nothing but a source of embarrassment from an objective standpoint and certainly by all reasonable
2389:
diverge from the current conversation and does not directly contribute to the main deliberations that are being made by you. In addition, while I do not wish in refrain from digressing from the current debate and get sidetracked by tangentially extraneous discussions, it may be prudent to save the debate on the physical attractiveness of Han
Chinese versus Burmese individuals should be addressed on another occasion and in a separate conversation, as diverting into a discussion on subjective beauty standards only becomes a distraction from the main issue. You would be wise enough to stay focused on the main argument at hand and refrain from digressing into irrelevant discussions about physical attractiveness, as your feeble attempts in either provoking a reaction and to distract me with your "ugly Chinaman" insult from the core argument at hand only reflects the lack of substantive argumentation that you have on your part to support your flawed positions. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions and certainly it is within your Knowledge rights to hold your own opinions, hastily resorting towards making derogatory remarks such as labelling an entire ethnic community of people as "ugly Chinaman" is not only redundant and unproductive, but also serves to detract from any valid points you may have been trying to make in the first place, if there were any and does not contribute to a constructive discussion and only serves to provoke unnecessary conflict. Such superficially irrelevant and off-hand remarks only serve as an attempt to either distract or provoke me from the core argument by instigating a reaction reflects poorly on the strength of your argument and only serves to weaken it, not to strengthen an unsubstantiated argument, despite the fact that your argument itself lacks substance from the outset. Your derogatory comments, such as the flippant "ugly Chinaman" remark, do not contribute to a meaningful discussion and instead serve as a distraction from the actual debate that both of us are supposed to have. Although it is important to recognize and respect differing opinions, it appears to me that you only resort to hurling derogatory remarks by only make such off-hand comments like the aforementioned "ugly Chinaman" in an attempt to either distract or provoke and solicit a reaction from me, instead of producing a substantial argumentation which you do not possess in the first place.
2560:
progress is beyond baseless. Therefore, it seems that your only chance in formulating a riveting argument at this point is only limited to merely resorting to invectives and pejoratives, which to me appears to be nothing more than another feeble and pitiful effort to salvage whatever credibility remains in terms of attempting to validate a purported argument on your part. If the discussion revolves around highlighting the accomplishments of a particular ethnic group, then I proudly consider myself the enthusiastic editor who takes pride in chronicling the economic successes, contributions, and the valuable inputs made by the Han
Chinese towards the economic development and progress of Burma. It is unsurprising to encounter such a phenomena from a disgruntled editor such as the likes of yourself, whose comments are consumed by bitterness and grievance, whose emotional insecurity is evident in their resentment towards the economic achievements of another ethnic group, one to which you do not belong and would wish to belong to; as it is evident that you harbor a desire to be associated with their accomplishments, since your dissatisfaction and envy regarding the economic contributions of the Han Chinese in Burma are quite palpable. So once again, please do not falsely allege that I am propagating Han chauvinism in my edits as a means to explicate your inability to come up with a rational counter-argument in relation to my edits. Moreover, it also seems that you are grappling with feelings of inadequacy, but does really persisting in dwelling on feelings of insecurity and resentment ultimately benefit you in the long run? Why don't you take responsibility for your own editorial actions and not place absurd insinuations on others if you are unable to progress, as you should not pin the blame on me for your lack of progress by falsely accusing me of insinuating
2460:
to formulate a logical argument appears to be limited to merely resorting to unsubstantiated accusations, insults, and vituperative attacks, especially one's that absurdly suggest that my edits somehow imply "Han supremacy" or misapprehensively regard "every major
Burmese historical figure as "Chinese" despite the fact that all my edits are thoroughly substantiated by reputable and authoritative academically sources. Your incessant rambling adduces nothing helpful to improve the article nor does hold any weight, rationality, reason, or substantive, especially given the fact that now since you are a blocked Knowledge user with no credibility and zero legitimacy to to merit such postulated (or from my vantage point, baseless and implausible) edits to be enforced within the contemporary context of the article. You utter out puerile responses resembling those no different from that of a drawling petulant juvenile in a schoolyard since you don't even have a riveting argument to begin with. And now that you are out of options when it comes to making a compelling counter-argument, the only strategy that you have left cooked-up now in your debate arsenal instead of rationally presenting a case is by resorting towards hurling insults, spouting personal attacks, and making unfounded accusations of me of being a "
2352:
warrant detailed documentation in an encyclopedia, as highlighting their commercial undertakings that are undoubtedly deserving of detailed documentation in an encyclopedic manner. Moreover, you seem to take issue with the facts and statistics provided in the trade and industry section, as the material content within it seems to stir up some deep-seated grievances or insecurities or trigger insecurities that you may harbor. Seeing your past behavioral patterns of needing to either slander, pose nebulous categorizations, or present fallacies (given the inept two-bit editor that you are without presenting any compelling counter-arguments on your own volition) on this platform suggests an intrinsic desire on your part to alleviate your feelings of insecurity and resentment, particularly when reading about the economic successes of another ethnic group that are being gloriously documented on
Knowledge. The content within this section seems to offend you personally, as it contains facts and statistics that you find
2129:," a term which by the way I vociferously deny nor harbor any nefarious motives of. Moreover, where are the respective sources that would postulate your unfounded accusations, whether they pertain to the merits of my edits, the evidence that I substantiate my edits with, or with regards to Chua's background? If my revisions are deemed by people such as the likes of yourself as substandard in terms of quality, I would greatly appreciate in observing your alleged superior writing ability in revamping the revisions I have proposed, as well as enhancing the entirety of the article, considering your supposed claims of your literary prowess may be exaggerated to make me second guess myself. However, based on your emotionally charged and lacking in substance responses, I have yet to witness any evidence of such literary prowess. As far as
2339:
while prolonging this contentiously fruitless debate any further beyond this point to avoid any additional embarrassment, especially considering now that you aren't just a blocked editor. But a blocked editor who has failed to present any credible argument to put forward when it comes to making a case as to why my edits should remain off-limits with regards or considered invalid in the "Trade and industry section." For starters, the trade and industry section is considered encyclopedic simply on the basis of the abundance of corresponding evidence that I use to substantiate my edits with, much of which comes from comprehensively reputable academic sources and is supported by strong scholarly-backed literature (including
2320:
your spurious claims as it is your only method of persuasion at this point when it comes to defending your unfounded assertions in an effort to demonstrate that you supposedly possess a sound argument to boot. Your puerile responses which are far from graceful, not only exemplify and reveal a deep-seated inferiority complex on your part, but also undermine the very essence of
Knowledge editing professionalism and represent a complete disregard for the qualities expected from a dignified editor of your subpar caliber should possess. It is rather hypocritical of you to demand adherence and call for
2163:
of suppressing what should be common sense, no how bitter and uncomfortable the facts and truth may be and regardless of the economic circumstances and realities that people such as the likes of you don't have the courage to face, let alone accept and swallow. As it should not be considered “Han chauvinist” or “racist” when there are there are glaringly obvious differences in socioeconomic performance that are objectively provable, backed by reliable and robust scholarly literature, and academically sourced by respected and authoritative scholars such as
1954:" that you falsely assert, purport, and insinuate. Furthermore it is sad that you confuse economic clout (grounded in robust, rigorous, and reliable academic research) with unrelated racial supremacist theories from the past (that you wish to impute and insinuate that facts that you disagree with) and that you are apparently not interested in getting into the topic. It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of
849:: The current title doesn't reflect the intent and content of the article. To me, it connotes foreignness; I take it to be about "Chinese citizens in Burma". Many Burmese Chinese have been in Burma/Myanmar for generations, and many of whom consider themselves fully Burmese, no holds barred. I suspect they'd find the current title which reduces them to just one aspect of their heritage quite insulting. As for Chinese-Burmese or Burmese Chinese, it's a question of style. I agree with "User cab" here that we need not adhere to American convention.
305:
400:
379:
295:
274:
1332:"Burmese Chinese" is ambiguous and could refer to "Chinese people in Burma" or "Burmese people in China" or those with mixed-blood. I don't think "Chinese people in Burma" could refer to "Chinese nationals in Burma" unless you take the term "Chinese(adj)" exclusively for PRC. Also, "Chinese (as a noun)" may mean "citizen of China." For the term like "Chinese Americans" is acceptable because it has both historical and popular usage. To me, both
2357:
prior comments indicate a strong undercurrent of harboring deep-seated resentment and insecurities. And given how your previous behavior on this talk page clearly indicates a consistent panoply of clues which strongly suggests that you don't only harbor deep-seated feelings of resentment and insecurity, but also possibly having a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to subtly convey them in a more nonchalant manner.
85:
2172:
how you're a blocked editor and your empty words amount to nothing of value other than a distant afterthought. Furthermore, I find very little credence in your poorly rationalized and emotionally-charged rebuttal since it is one that is not built on credence, evidence, rationality, and reason. What in my previous edits even remotely postulates a semblance of implication or evidence of the false accusation of me being a “
521:
64:
410:
33:
2145:”, which is patently false. Your sole hope of formulating a logical (let alone excogitate a winning) argument seems to be only devolving into insults (including one erroneously accusing me of being a "CCP Troll"), slander, derogatory language, unfounded allegations, and personal attacks which, in my opinion, is frankly comical, pitiful, and puerile.
819:
country doesn't use one of these "Fooian Barian" conventions, or if both countries have sent large groups of migrants to each other thus making the use of "Fooian Barian" conventions needlessly confusing. But neither of these seem to be the case here, and the proposed title can be found in many scholarly works about
Chinese migration, e.g.
155:
2180:.” I urge you not to create a straw man, fabricate extraneous arguments, or misrepresent my words; as it appears that insecure individuals like yourself with your emotionally-charged pejoratives find it difficult to acknowledge the facts I have presented, no matter how pleasant, inconvenient, or harsh they may be for you to accept.
2075:
cronies, all except two are not
Chinese: Serge Pun and Lo Hsing Han. Serge Pun's company is based on FDI, not a local investment. Lo Hsing Han became rich due to the heroin trade. Chinese own no telecoms. Most Chinese are "middle-class," not too poor, not too rich. But that's a far cry from "domination." 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
1148:). We have examples of all of the following patterns, and there's been objections to every single one. (Full disclosure: I'm not an unbiased informant here, I'm personally opposed to standardisation on the American-style model of "Ethnicity, then nationality" and have been going around arguing against it).:
2125:
speech and information, you would have the prudence and wisdom to acknowledge without reservation and concede by gracelessly admitting that you lack a logical basis to support your baseless assertions and allegations, even if it leads you in resorting towards derogatorily denigrating me as a so-called "
2464:." All your utterly asinine antics and risible gambits to provoke me through your petulant rambling and protracted meandering isn't going to make me change my mind nor prompt me to reconsider any of the changes that I previously made regarding the editorial matters that you have repeatedly questioned.
3015:
itself or split into the creation of a new article. But this should be a separate conversation aside from the current one that we're having because the bottom line within this current discussion is about upholding the facts and statistical abstractions within the article's trade and industry section.
2704:
The section still relies heavily on a few sources and is still incredibly long and needs to be condensed/moved to an separate dedicated article. Specifically, there are a few paragraphs that are just lists of businesses Sino-Burmese run/own. Furthermore, the section is very vague between
Chinese (the
2338:
I also don't wish to cast aspersions or impute any nefarious motives on your part, but your poorly argued and pitiful response unquestionably beyond doubt are entirely devoid of rudimentary logic and rationality. It would be advisable for you to acquiesce by discontinuing your petty bickering with me
1850:
policy? Is it possible to fix it somehow. I think it's fine to say that the ethnic Chinese have a disproportionate economic clout relative to their population, and that it has caused resentment among the indigenous peoples, but the section goes on towards blaming the ethnic Chinese for the poverty in
2296:
Your addition has been removed by so many users before. Stop adding the same thing. Tell me how that section is encyclopediaic. I can add 1GB about how Burmese are more collectivist, selfless, and superior to the Chinese (Ways That Are Dark, Ungly Chinaman, etc. etc.). But that won't be suitable for
2124:
on this platform in order to cater and placate your personal insecurities nor should such content be altered in order to appease and accommodate your emotionally fragile sensitivities. Furthermore, if you were an editor that was genuinely committed toward upholding the vital principles of freedom of
2074:
Amy Chua's books that claim the Chinese own everything and "dominate" the Burmese economy are factually incorrect. Her book does nothing more than illustrate her lack of exposure to the country. There are thousands of citations on the fact that much of the Burmese economy is under the control of the
1226:
some people complain that this is too unwieldy, and also it doesn't sufficiently distinguish between Chinese citizens of Korean descent, and Korean citizens living in China. Others assert (usually just based on their own opinion) that "Ethnic Abc" is clearly distinguished from plain old "Abc" (as in
2925:
and inconvenient, and which are backed by authoritative scholarly academic sources) are presented in a forthright, innocuous, neutral, and an unprovocative manner. If Knowledge is truly committed in proclaiming itself to be a free, open and transparent encyclopedic platform, it should not bend over
2559:
through my edits is unjust since you are nothing more than a blocked Knowledge user with no credibility or legitimacy to support your edits in the current context of the article. The unfounded assertion that I am insinuating Han chauvinism in my editing endeavors as a justification for your lack of
2459:
at this point given the fact that you're already a blocked editor either with a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to exact on. Furthermore, your emotionally-feeble replies and empty claims amount to nothing of anything of value here in this discussion. At this juncture, your inability
2429:
I didn't remove anything. The addition was not consensus-based. The problem is with the one who added it. Anyone who actually read that section would understand that it's not encyclopedic and relies on general sources written by non-specialists. Basically, the whole section is about how the Chinese
2370:
In case you haven't wondered and have not thought about it, I have had ample exposure and interactions with individuals from Southeast Asia, including Burmans. And based on my personal life experiences, I can confidently affirm that the unsubstantiated assertions coming from you with regards to the
2162:
If the content in this article, and even more so on Knowledge as an online platform as whole is grounded in the facts and reality rather than conjecture and ignorance, we will undoubtedly see a marked improvement in its aggregate quality. It’s about time we had more honesty in this article, instead
1869:
populations. In addition, many Chinese have a known reputation for greed which is a sin in Burmese culture. Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. Instead, this article makes it look like there is some sort of inherent superiority within the Chinese which led to their so-called "success."
1064:
Chinese people in Burma to me refers to the Chinese nationals in Burma, not to the Burmese people of Chinese descent, which the article is about. I urge everyone to read the article. Many Burmese Chinese have lived in Burma for generations. Except for the recent immigrants, most Burmese Chinese are
3010:
weight that is needed per the sources on the topic pertaining to this article and the trade and industry section as supplied by such editors as needed within the Knowledge guidelines, even if it merits the removal of any previous additions that I have made. As such, for the purposes of maintaining
2430:
are great, how they are superior, how they dominate everything, and how they just decimate the Burmese. Nobody would find that to be suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, some paragraphs have 3000 words or 5000 words. It needs a major rewrite if it ever were suitable for a standalone section.
2266:
in which you restored an old version, complete with spelling mistakes and formatting errors which had since been corrected. The only "old" versions of the article I am restoring are the ones before your unjustified removals of content. If you have a good reason(s) as to why that particular section
2171:
and who have conducted extensive research into this matter. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a "Han chauvinist" when my only goal here on Knowledge is to educate and inform. All your hurled name-calling, ranting, spurious assertions, and pejoratives isn't going to change reality, seeing
2115:
Freedom of speech is not reserved for one side of a particular spectrum of opinions nor should it be exclusively applied as a different standard for any particular individual such as the bitter likes of yourself. Knowledge operates as an open and transparent platform that is not designed to either
1892:
so that is chinese fault? that's just blaming the hardworking for being successful. furthermore this isn't even true, there are many Burmese business in my country, many of the more entrepreneur Burmese just choose to leave their country. that statment feel more like prejudice against the Burmese.
961:
book. Of course, "Burmese Chinese" gets more hits, but they are mostly about international relations, (or lists like "Burmese, Chinese, Khmer, Vietnamese"). The examples given above are mostly not relevant. Two of them refer to people living in Hong Kong and another is about people in the U.S. Two
2434:
Don't wanna do the work? Then, don't force such an ugly section on an otherwise good article. Also, you repeat lies after lies that Ne Win was Chinese (he wasn't). Claiming every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese", you probably aren't here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to spout
2319:
Yes, the edits that I made previously were indeed reversed; however, the editors responsible for the removal failed to provide a valid justification for doing so. But then again, your only recourse is indicated in your overreliance on derogatory language, personal attacks, and insults to support
3005:
are to be adhered to and certainly far outweighs the grievances, insecurities, and vendettas that one individual disgruntled editor (even though he's a blocked one now) may have against me. Furthermore, I have yet to see the evidence to the contrary supplied by other editors on this article that
2356:
and discomforting in terms of addressing your own grievances and insecurities, as it contradicts your own personal beliefs and feelings by not aligning with your own perspectives in which perhaps may even potentially exacerbate them. This is obviously reflective in your previous remarks, as your
2000:
They are NOT economically dominant. YOU think YOU are dominant. That's racist and Han Nazist. Most of the Burmese economy is under the control of the Junta's cronies. Your citations are ALL LIES! The source does not support what you are saying, except for Amy Chua, who has NEVER been to Burma to
1868:
To me, it's the opposite. It's rather anti-Burmese and has a disturbing tone of racial superiority. The truth is yes, many Chinese tend to favor one another for business and form a sort of bamboo cartel. This led to a rapid resource acquisition using foreign capital and the displacement of local
868:
The proposed title does not distinguish between Bermese nationals of Chinese origin/ethnicity and Chinese nationals of Burmese origin/ethnicity. The country does not use English as an official language, and we should not use British v American English to decide the title when something with more
2674:
Your inability to formulate a logical argument at this point seems limited to simply resorting to insults and personal attacks. What additional derogatory remarks do you possess in your repertoire that you wish to direct towards me? It is evident that you are nothing more than a disgruntled and
2388:
Yet despite your weak counter-argument, the issue of whether Han Chinese or Burmans are more physically attractive ought to be addressed separately from the main subject of contention at hand rather than delving into superficial discussions about physical attractiveness. As it is unnecessary to
818:
made on grounds of "consistency with other articles", which is a weak reason at best; some of these articles are at "Chinese Fooian", others at "Fooian Chinese", and others at even different titles. There is a precedent for purely descriptive titles like "Chinese people in Foo", but only if the
2564:
in relation to my edits. It is beyond erroneous to suggest that my edits hint at Han chauvinism as an explanation for your difficulties in moving forward, whether in terms of economic competition or in formulating a compelling and coherent counterargument regarding your stance on the editorial
2351:
that I rely on to validate my revisions. Second of all, the section is pertinent as it not only pertains to the Burmese Chinese community, but due to the article's extensive focus on the Burmese Chinese community, particularly in relation to their business activities that are quite notable and
2324:
that you yourself fail to meet, since you lack any credibility in addressing your own flawed and unfounded arguments, which have no substance and fail to uphold any rational basis. What other vacuous responses do you have prepared in your debate arsenal, aside from incessantly spewing insults,
2996:
also doesn't state that my previous edits are disqualified and somehow merit removal for the sake of generality or appeasing and accommodating the grievances and insecurities of one editor. The well-being of the Knowledge community and commitment to the truth, no matter how disagreeable and
788:
Also, citizenship is not really a good dividing line for deciding what name to use. Within any given community, especially one with more than a million people right next door to their ancestral country, some people may choose to take local citizenship, while others retain their ancestral
2488:
The whole section cheery-picks and exaggerates sources that are themselves not based on specialists on Burma. No researchers specializing in Burmese history would argue "the Chinese dominate Burmese economy." Even in Mandalay, many researchers have pointed out that Chinese influence is
2001:
begin with (her sources contain major errors about the country). Also, HAVE SOME SHAME! Don't claim to everyone with a name that sounds Chinese as Chinese. Amy Chua, for example, claims any famous person that includes "Yu", "Han", or any Chinese character is Chinese. Quite shameless.
1211:
Same problem as above, plus the possible accusation of racism because you're using the "mainstream" name instead of the ethnic group's name in their own ethnic language (Jaeil). Especially when the mainstream name doesn't make any distinction between foreigners and citizens. (E.g.
2920:
If the article (or specifically, the trade and industry section) need be does requires splitting, then so be it as I'm insouciant at this point with regards to such matters on the state of this article right now. As long as the facts and statistical abstractions (no matter how
2088:
It's also so poorly written that I am not sure it's English or some alien language. A paragraph with 3000 words? Not to mention COPYVIO? Oh my god. Unassimilated Chinese today have virtually no political power. If anything, association with them is political suicide.
2220:
The "trade and industry" is a eulogy about "how great our race is" or "how superior we are to the Burmans" style BS. Many sentences copy the source without attributions. I think it might be appropriate for Chinese Knowledge, but definitely not WP:MOS and not WP:DUE.
2025:
Nobody "can't handle it." Even the "rich" Chinese get rich via the heroin trade and other illegal or semi-legal businesses. Money is not worshipped in Burmese culture. Just stop spouting you are superior or other nonsense. Shameless and garbage of humanity.
2236:
There are many arguments why Trade and Industry don't meet quality standards, CPOVIO, and other criteria for inclusion. If it were a new article, it would surely be rejected. User:Yue is refusing to discuss or address the concerns and waging an edit war.
2271:
and "everyone's a pro-China editor but me!" Afterwards, remove that particular section instead of restoring an older version of the article because, again, you also restore all the typos and remove content which have nothing to do with your grievances.
828:
2701:, NPOV and duplciate/contradictory information. Unfortunately, I can't access many of the sources used to verify and remove much of the remaining information. Right now, I believe that it's a matter of content and want to open it up for comment here.
962:
use "Burmese Chinese" as an adjective. In order of adjectives, origin is last, whereas in the proposed name "Burmese" is an adjective modifying "Chinese." These are American sources, so how likely is it that they are using a British word order?
2599:. He's restoring the "Trade and Industry" sections in all articles about "Chinese in X"; the sections are basically a racist rant against whichever country the Chinese reside in. The "Trade and Industry" section here is an exact replica of
438:
on Knowledge aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please
2133:
is concerned, she boasts an impressive educational background, a sterling resume, and is well-respected lawyer and scholar within the American legal community in addition to boasting a catalogue of well-written books such as the likes of
2140:
that was received favorably in the American academic community. All my previous edits dating back to 2020 are academically sourced and scholarly backed and were certainly not edited out of prejudice or what my detractors characterize as
826:
824:
822:
820:
3011:
and upholding generality given the state of this article right now, I agree wholeheartedly with you that most of the current material content, whether if its pertaining to Mandalay's economy should be moved to a subsection within the
654:
which I have initiated. We want to avoid having the same debate about "ethnic group name first or country name first" on every single talk page relating to ethnic groups living outside their ancestral countries. Thank you in advance.
999:
2930:, prioritizing, or protecting certain forms of speech while excluding and shutting out the speech that other editors may find disagreeable or unpalatable in order to appease and accommodate their emotionally fragile sensitivities.
1200:
spelling "Goryeo-saram"). Also, how members of the ethnic group living outside their country of origin prefer to call themselves may be different from what their co-ethnics back in the mother country call them (in this case,
1257:. I presume that they didn't consent to this, and it appears strange because the comment is dated 2006. While quoting old comments might be OK, I'm not sure that this is an approach that should be followed on talk pages.
2176:?” In my previous revisions dating back more than four years, there is nothing that even remotely implies or indicates even the slightest suggestion or implication that support your unfounded accusation of me being a “
2493:. The whole section is irredeemable. Super-long paragraphs that repeat essentially the same thing. Seem to me the author was motivated by showcasing "How great we are!" instead of delivering content to the readers.
1184:
Some people complain this is inaccurate and try to standardize as above. Others also complain that this form overemphasizes the foreignness of the ethnic group in question (the ethnicity as a noun, modified by the
2508:
It's a curriculum vitae on "achievements of our race" and not a section delivering content. Nobody needs to know who owned which rice mill in colonial Burma. Knowledge is not indiscriminate collection of factoids
2120:, agreeable, politically correct speech, or speech that nobody such as the likes of yourself, want to hear. Even if you come across speech that you may find disagreeable or unpleasant, it should not be subject to
1069:
to Chinese people in America? The move was made, presumably in good faith, by some neophyte editor without any discussion. Restoring it is now a problem. What irony. Knowledge has to do something about this.
1195:
Some people complain this usage is not clear to English speakers. It also may lead to conflicts over transcription (e.g. the above spelling, based off of an old romanization, could be updated to use the
752:
If "Chinese Thai" and "Chinese Malaysian" are your models, then it should be "Chinese Burmese", at least if we are talking about Burmese citizens. If they are Chinese citizens, it's "Chinese in Burma."
3107:
1023:: Neither "Burmese Chinese" nor "Chinese Burmese" is intuitive, but both intimate an Overseas Chinese community, while "Chinese people in Burma" seems to refer to Chinese nationals in Burma.
1851:
other ethnic groups, which I think can come across as rather bigoted. After all, it is very similar rhetoric that Hitler against the Jews, and we all know what happened as a result of that.
1254:
891:
I'm not particularly interested in what the British versus American English conventions are so much as what reliable sources call this group, and, as demonstrated above, that seems to be
617:
2262:
If "there are many arguments", then make them. If "there are copyright violations", then provide evidence. Do not project claims of restoring to an old version of the article — this was
779:). Not every country in the world uses the American-style ordering of ethnicity first, citizenship second. In the rest of the former British Empire the opposite ordering is more common.
1231:). Also this usage does start to look excessively long if you try to think about how to title a page describing the reverse migration of said ethnic group to their country of origin.
238:
211:
201:
2955:
doesn't state that every line from every book must be on Knowledge. We give due weight as prevalent in general sources on the topic. This article does not follow due weight.
186:
2555:
Again, another insubstantial response masquerading as a false accusation coming from you of incorrectly attributing your inability to progress to my alleged promotion of
2636:
216:
206:
651:
1237:
Any suggestions? Can other readers here help us to write clearer guidelines regarding this to avoid having to repeat the same debate on every single ethnicity page?
3087:
2603:
with the same sources (Yos Santasombat, Amy Chua, etc., not a single specialist from the said country is included) and with the same unreadable massive paragraphs.
125:
815:
3102:
1788:
1784:
1770:
1560:
1556:
1542:
1450:
1446:
1432:
544:
435:
351:
135:
251:
1932:
Chinese are NOT "economically dominant." They are rich, sure, due to the KMT opium trade. But most of Burma's economic sector is controlled by Burmese cronies.
2206:
It's settled that Ne Win is not a Chinese for so long. User:Yue has been trying to revert to an old version and removed my edits about KMT invasion of Burma.
1682:
3097:
3092:
3082:
2375:
with which you hypocritically try to foist onto this platform. There's simply no sense in engaging in any rational conversation with you beyond this point.
196:
1974:
guidelines, especially when its well-sourced material backed by relevant and reliable academic scholarship based on your fallacious claims of so-called
981:
562:
3016:
As long as this request of mine is fulfilled and live up to, this article will continue to thrive and progress, regardless of its present condition.
3122:
2675:
blocked user without any credibility or legitimacy at this moment to justify and substantiate your edits within the context of the current article?
558:
474:
464:
247:
101:
100:, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2657:
which starts with, "Chinese dominate all sectors of Laos!" The section has been removed and readded by socks of Backendgamging again and again.
1950:
The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and not related to ″
361:
1088:
and did that move because of the reasons discussed below. Restoring is not a problem. Perhaps, this discussion will bring a better title. See
3127:
3117:
1089:
440:
1648:
1293:
If there is a common usage term along the lines of "Chinese American", that should be used. Otherwise, it should be "Ethnic XXX in YYY".
3112:
1894:
159:
92:
69:
3047:
2968:
2903:
2876:
2821:
2715:
1726:
1638:
1398:
1528:
1766:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1538:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
954:
917:
870:
552:
1666:
2533:
which restored a very old 2019 version with trade and industry section. The trade and industry section was added by indef-blocked
650:
If you are going to propose that this page be moved to "Chinese Burmese" or something (a move which I would oppose), please join
327:
789:
citizenship. Quite often this is merely done for reasons of business or travel convenience and has nothing to do with identity.
2617:
Basically, he read three books, and every single sentence from those books has been rewritten into massive Knowledge sections.
1959:
1847:
1716:
1133:
1197:
775:(also the names which are used to refer to them in most reliable sources and the names which the people themselves use, e.g.
2863:
weight in the Mandalay article, given the context of everything else there, hence the suggestion for the brand new article.
2705:
government) business/trade/industry and Chinese (ethnically) business/trade/industry. The two are linked but not identical.
1162:. Some people go around trying to standardise all other usages to match this one, even when these are minority usages (e.g.
1706:
1683:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161229122056/http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
3069:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2537:. The trade and industry section was added to similar articles about "Chinese in x" and had also been removed everywhere.
1271:
Yes, consent, see "What should this page be called?" above. I just noticed that based on the comments, no one was reading
776:
605:
426:
384:
2765:
2413:. You are disguising your removal of content with reverts. You can instead retore your ugly trade and industry section.
1831:
1603:
1493:
1141:
570:
533:
44:
1367:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
682:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
2455:
And inept two-bit editors such as the likes of yourself have no business in being the moral authority of establishing
1672:
835:
794:
318:
279:
1846:
I was looking at "Trade and Industry Section", and the tone comes across as rather anti-Chinese, hence violating the
958:
2750:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
1917:
CCP trolls are adding Han Chauvinist content to the article, often copying verbatim from books like Bamboo Network.
601:
540:
1686:
326:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3034:
for the split, since whether to move most of the content should be moved is the primary topic of this discussion
1622:
1512:
1382:
704:
696:
2848:
1787:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1559:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1449:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
2922:
2353:
2117:
2050:
By the way, YOU reverted to an edition in 2020. So many editors have edited this page. That cannot be allowed.
1262:
1007:
989:
935:
900:
1275:
comments. It was reproduced since cab's original link no longer worked and an archive search was required. --
1065:
culturally Burmese (language, religion, etc.) and many have some Burmese blood too. What's next? Do we rename
869:
clarity is availabe that avoids using some dialect of English that is opaque to the other variety of English.
32:
1898:
2761:
2490:
1874:
1822:
1630:
1594:
1520:
1484:
1390:
1221:
1137:
1107:
1045:
715:
3043:
3021:
2964:
2935:
2899:
2872:
2817:
2711:
2680:
2574:
2469:
2394:
2185:
1983:
1756:
1626:
1272:
1238:
1145:
831:
790:
656:
587:
173:
2754:
2927:
2121:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1884:
1806:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1794:
1736:
1578:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1566:
1468:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1456:
921:
874:
50:
1629:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1519:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1389:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1649:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101006031921/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
1312:
this particular proposal due to the proposed title's ambiguity. Am open to other options, though. —
2136:
1423:
1075:
854:
700:
692:
2569:
in my edits as the cause for your difficulties in moving forward are unwarranted and without merit.
916:
are those sources published in the US? The ones demonstrated above, are mostly published in the US.
724:— No precedence for naming articles "Chinese people in..." for articles about overseas Chinese (see
3002:
2836:
2662:
2644:
2622:
2608:
2542:
2518:
2498:
2456:
2440:
2418:
2372:
2321:
2302:
2242:
2226:
2211:
2094:
2055:
2031:
2006:
1937:
1922:
1727:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223003/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
1639:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120314155426/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
1399:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100920043536/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2
1345:
1313:
1258:
1097:
1003:
985:
931:
896:
1746:
1529:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130825223730/http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf
2852:
2698:
2697:
I've gone through the section to try and remove much of the more obvious cleanup issues based on
2632:
2596:
2534:
1870:
1856:
1694:
1660:
1298:
967:
758:
1791:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1667:
http://realfoodchicago.com/index.php/tours/tours-vn/item/213-mandalay?tmpl=component&print=1
1563:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1453:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1807:
1642:
1579:
1469:
1402:
3035:
3017:
2990:
2956:
2931:
2917:
2891:
2887:
2864:
2809:
2707:
2676:
2570:
2465:
2390:
2181:
1979:
1652:
1167:
1163:
1085:
1028:
772:
729:
399:
378:
294:
273:
2859:'s section Economy. Even as it is right now, the large paragraph on Mandalay would itself be
1700:
3012:
2801:
2746:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
1717:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110818183335/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
1280:
1157:
1119:
1111:
1053:
1040:
Both "Burmese Chinese" and "Chinese Burmese" are ambiguous. Chinese in Burma might suggest
738:
17:
1814:
1730:
1586:
1476:
3007:
2860:
2840:
2654:
2348:
2168:
1532:
1206:
1179:
1071:
892:
850:
811:
594:
227:
1707:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111004082631/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
2998:
2993:
2952:
2658:
2640:
2618:
2604:
2592:
2566:
2561:
2556:
2538:
2514:
2510:
2494:
2461:
2436:
2414:
2298:
2257:
2238:
2222:
2207:
2177:
2173:
2142:
2126:
2090:
2051:
2027:
2002:
1975:
1955:
1951:
1933:
1918:
1773:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1545:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1435:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1341:
1171:
1093:
581:
520:
415:
3051:
3025:
2972:
2939:
2907:
2880:
2825:
2769:
2739:
2720:
2684:
2666:
2648:
2626:
2612:
2578:
2546:
2522:
2502:
2473:
2444:
2422:
2398:
2306:
2285:
2246:
2230:
2215:
2189:
2098:
2059:
2035:
2010:
1987:
1941:
1926:
1902:
1878:
1860:
1836:
1813:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1608:
1585:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1498:
1475:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1349:
1322:
1302:
1284:
1266:
1241:
1174:). There's also conflict over whether usages of this form should be hyphenated or not.
1123:
1101:
1079:
1057:
1032:
1011:
993:
971:
939:
925:
904:
878:
858:
839:
798:
762:
743:
708:
659:
3076:
2844:
2735:
2281:
2268:
1852:
1294:
1228:
963:
754:
1720:
1673:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120215122240/http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
1358:
1024:
768:
725:
673:
310:
97:
84:
63:
1978:. Facts are facts. Blow me if you can't accept, handle, and withstand the truth.
1114:. This is an old problem, and we need to decrease ambiguity, not increase it. --
2760:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —
2565:
changes that I have previously undertaken, as your accusations me of hinting at
2432:
The choice is yours. Want to add it? Make it encyclopedic and meet WP standards.
2344:
1780:
1710:
1687:
http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
1552:
1442:
1276:
1190:
1115:
1049:
733:
2855:. The entire section on Mandalay should have its important portions copied to
2600:
1779:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1551:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1441:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
405:
300:
1002:
is even better because it avoids potential confusion with Chinese citizens.
193:
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
1966:. It's obvious that your recent removals constitute a blatant violation of
1676:
620:
and make sure each article on the English Knowledge has one in Burmese also
187:
Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
2856:
2805:
2728:
2409:
The content has not been accepted by the community. In addition, you are
2340:
2274:
2164:
2130:
96:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
1760:
980:
Yes, perhaps "Chinese in Burma" is better. That seems to have plenty of
2843:
weight to economics in a article about an ethnic group stemming from a
1757:
https://archive.is/20041029031455/http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp
1132:
Currently there's a lot of conflict over this point (see, for example,
431:
154:
2267:
should be removed, then provide them here instead of falling back to
1737:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060507103249/http://newidea.nandaw.net/
434:
related articles on Knowledge. The WikiProject is also a part of the
2635:
is a massive sockpuppeter with dozens of accounts in his name. See:
1205:
Non-English names in the language of the country of residence (like
3006:
somehow refutes my previous additions. In that case, then give the
323:
930:
Perhaps, but I don't see why that makes them any less reliable.
221:
1747:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060423014826/http://mocsa.org.tw/
1213:
547:
on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
26:
2847:
issue. Most of it should probably go to a new article called
1740:
1643:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
1408:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1403:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2
1189:
Non-English names in the language of the ethnic group (like
1653:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
1701:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=381&page=1
1633:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1523:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1393:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1340:
encompass all Chinese in Burma regardless of nationality.
2835:
The section on Trade and Industry meets both criteria of
732:, etc.). Title is unnecessarily wordy and not concise. --
1731:
http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
672:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
2530:
2435:
racist, "How we are superior to everyone" in articles.
2263:
1883:
What a load nonsense, it's obvious both of you exhibit
1750:
1533:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf
1516:
1386:
1250:
720:
509:
504:
499:
494:
2531:
mass reversal of edits by a probable sock of user Yue
1357:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
3108:
Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
2789:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
2116:
prioritize nor protect convenient speech, pleasant,
322:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
239:
Knowledge:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests
212:
Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment
202:
Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action
1783:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1555:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1445:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2411:REMOVING legitimate history about the KMT invasion
2637:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Backendgaming
1721:http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
1048:deliberately refers to people not nationality. --
217:Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention
207:Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes
2484:None of the trade and industry is remotely true
1769:This message was posted before February 2018.
1541:This message was posted before February 2018.
1431:This message was posted before February 2018.
2792:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
1711:http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
957:hits on Google books. It's also the title of
183:of articles within the scope of this project.
8:
1253:the above comment by CaliforniaAliBaba from
1220:Ethnic (Group name) in (Country name) (like
30:
1621:I have just modified 10 external links on
1511:I have just modified one external link on
1381:I have just modified one external link on
767:Actually, the articles in question are at
528:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
482:
373:
268:
197:Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
143:
58:
1887:sentiments while unequivocally violating
1677:http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
2997:inconvenient it is should be upheld if
2591:It appears that User:SimeonManier is a
2202:User:Yue is restoring to an old version
600:offices, ministries and politicians of
539:offices, ministries and politicians of
375:
270:
60:
3088:High-importance Ethnic groups articles
2839:. It is extremely long and also gives
3103:Mid-importance China-related articles
2796:The result of this discussion was to
1761:http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp
1420:to let others know (documentation at
1090:Knowledge:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
652:this discussion on naming conventions
443:. All interested editors are welcome.
147:WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
7:
2783:The following discussion is closed.
687:The result of the move request was:
316:This article is within the scope of
90:This article is within the scope of
576:add photos of incumbent politicians
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Ethnic groups
49:It is of interest to the following
3098:Start-Class China-related articles
3093:WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
3083:Start-Class Ethnic groups articles
2655:Laotian_Chinese#Trade_and_industry
1178:Nationality, then ethnicity (like
1156:Ethnicity, then nationality (like
814:is where the article was until an
113:Template:WikiProject Ethnic groups
25:
1625:. Please take a moment to review
1515:. Please take a moment to review
1385:. Please take a moment to review
816:an undiscussed move two weeks ago
436:Counteracting systemic bias group
3065:The discussion above is closed.
2851:with important aspects going to
646:What should this page be called?
519:
408:
398:
377:
303:
293:
272:
153:
83:
62:
31:
3123:Mid-importance Myanmar articles
2264:your first edit to this article
1134:Talk:Ethnic Mongolians in China
616:If you know Burmese, go on the
469:This article has been rated as
356:This article has been rated as
130:This article has been rated as
2926:backwards by either altering,
1879:08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
1861:05:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1216:, which just means "Chinese").
1166:) or not clearly established (
1:
3030:Alright, I'll mark this as a
2826:19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
2601:Hoa_people#Trade_and_industry
1903:23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
1837:21:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
1499:14:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
1303:14:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1285:16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
1267:18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1242:04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1124:16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1080:00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1058:23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1033:03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
1012:18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
994:13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
972:03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
940:03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
926:02:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
905:01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
879:00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
859:14:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
840:12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
799:12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
777:Malaysian Chinese Association
763:11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
744:06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
699:) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
660:10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
449:Knowledge:WikiProject Myanmar
330:and see a list of open tasks.
104:and see a list of open tasks.
3128:WikiProject Myanmar articles
3118:Start-Class Myanmar articles
2770:05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
1142:Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China
452:Template:WikiProject Myanmar
18:Talk:Chinese people in Burma
2740:07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
2721:16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
2529:The edit is question is by
430:, a project to improve all
336:Knowledge:WikiProject China
3144:
3113:WikiProject China articles
2849:Bamboo networks in Myanmar
2693:Trade and Industry Cleanup
1913:COPYVIO and Han Chauvinism
1800:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1741:http://newidea.nandaw.net/
1618:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1609:08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
1572:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1508:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1462:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1378:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1350:06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1102:06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1042:Chinese nationals in Burma
709:11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
475:project's importance scale
362:project's importance scale
339:Template:WikiProject China
136:project's importance scale
3052:18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
3026:18:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2973:03:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2940:02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2908:12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
2881:12:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
2685:21:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2667:05:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2649:05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2627:05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2613:04:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
2579:21:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2547:22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2523:22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2503:22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2474:20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2445:22:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2423:21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2399:02:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2307:21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2286:19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
2247:10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
2231:10:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
2216:10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
2190:20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
2099:23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2060:22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2036:22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
2011:22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
1623:Chinese people in Myanmar
1513:Chinese people in Myanmar
1383:Chinese people in Myanmar
1323:04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1249:Bejnar, you seem to have
1000:"Ethnic Chinese in Burma"
481:
468:
422:Chinese people in Myanmar
393:
355:
288:
160:WikiProject Ethnic groups
142:
129:
93:WikiProject Ethnic groups
78:
57:
3067:Please do not modify it.
2786:Please do not modify it.
2631:It should be noted that
1988:22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
1942:23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
1927:23:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
1842:The Tone of This Article
1364:Please do not modify it.
953:"Chinese in Burma" gets
679:Please do not modify it.
1960:WP:I just don't like it
1614:External links modified
1504:External links modified
1374:External links modified
1338:Ethnic Chinese in Burma
1334:Chinese people in Burma
1222:Ethnic Koreans in China
1138:Talk:Chinese Indonesian
1108:Ethnic Koreans in China
1046:Chinese people in Burma
716:Chinese people in Burma
424:is within the scope of
2726:Thanks for your help.
1958:and a good example of
1146:Talk:Chinese Malaysian
588:Category:Myanmar stubs
342:China-related articles
116:Ethnic groups articles
39:This article is rated
1781:regular verification
1751:http://mocsa.org.tw/
1553:regular verification
1443:regular verification
1198:Revised Romanization
689:no consensus to move
2653:Another replica is
1771:After February 2018
1543:After February 2018
1433:After February 2018
1412:parameter below to
810:The proposed title
427:WikiProject Myanmar
252:discuss these tasks
158:Here are some open
2853:Economy of Myanmar
2762:Community Tech bot
2633:User:Backendgaming
2597:User:Backendgaming
2535:User:Backendgaming
2491:highly exaggerated
2269:"I don't like it!"
1825:InternetArchiveBot
1776:InternetArchiveBot
1597:InternetArchiveBot
1548:InternetArchiveBot
1487:InternetArchiveBot
1438:InternetArchiveBot
545:requested articles
235:Start an article:
45:content assessment
2991:User:EmeraldRange
2918:User:EmeraldRange
2297:an encyclopedia.
1801:
1573:
1463:
1168:Chinese Mongolian
1164:Chinese Malaysian
1067:Chinese Americans
773:Malaysian Chinese
742:
730:Chinese Malaysian
643:
642:
639:
638:
635:
634:
631:
630:
627:
626:
618:Myanmar Knowledge
372:
371:
368:
367:
319:WikiProject China
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
16:(Redirected from
3135:
3039:
3013:Economy of Burma
2960:
2895:
2868:
2813:
2802:Economy of Burma
2788:
2733:
2719:
2279:
2261:
1889:
1888:
1835:
1826:
1799:
1798:
1777:
1698:
1664:
1607:
1598:
1571:
1570:
1549:
1497:
1488:
1461:
1460:
1439:
1427:
1366:
1320:
1319:
1158:Chinese American
1112:Koreans in China
736:
723:
681:
534:Article requests
523:
516:
515:
483:
457:
456:
455:Myanmar articles
453:
450:
447:
441:join the project
418:
413:
412:
411:
402:
395:
394:
389:
381:
374:
344:
343:
340:
337:
334:
313:
308:
307:
306:
297:
290:
289:
284:
276:
269:
181:on the talk page
178:
172:
157:
144:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
3143:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3037:
2958:
2893:
2866:
2833:
2811:
2784:
2777:
2748:
2738:
2729:
2706:
2695:
2589:
2486:
2349:Leo Suryadinata
2284:
2275:
2255:
2204:
2169:Leo Suryadinata
1915:
1844:
1829:
1824:
1792:
1785:have permission
1775:
1692:
1658:
1631:this simple FaQ
1616:
1601:
1596:
1564:
1557:have permission
1547:
1521:this simple FaQ
1506:
1491:
1486:
1454:
1447:have permission
1437:
1421:
1391:this simple FaQ
1376:
1371:
1362:
1315:
1314:
1207:Zainichi Korean
1180:British Chinese
893:Burmese Chinese
812:Burmese Chinese
721:Burmese Chinese
719:
701:Graeme Bartlett
693:Graeme Bartlett
677:
667:
648:
623:
602:current cabinet
563:High-importance
541:current cabinet
514:
454:
451:
448:
445:
444:
414:
409:
407:
387:
341:
338:
335:
332:
331:
309:
304:
302:
282:
228:Peruvian people
176:
170:
132:High-importance
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
73:High‑importance
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3141:
3139:
3131:
3130:
3125:
3120:
3115:
3110:
3105:
3100:
3095:
3090:
3085:
3075:
3074:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2911:
2910:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2779:
2778:
2776:
2775:Split proposed
2773:
2758:
2757:
2755:Gen San Yu.jpg
2747:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2727:
2694:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2588:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2567:Han chauvinism
2562:Han chauvinism
2557:Han chauvinism
2550:
2549:
2526:
2525:
2485:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2462:Han chauvinist
2448:
2447:
2426:
2425:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2273:
2250:
2249:
2203:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2143:Han chauvinism
2127:Han chauvinist
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1976:Han chauvinism
1972:WP:NOTCENSORED
1968:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1964:WP:NOTCENSORED
1952:Han chauvinism
1945:
1944:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1890:
1885:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1843:
1840:
1819:
1818:
1811:
1764:
1763:
1755:Added archive
1753:
1745:Added archive
1743:
1735:Added archive
1733:
1725:Added archive
1723:
1715:Added archive
1713:
1705:Added archive
1703:
1689:
1681:Added archive
1679:
1671:Added archive
1669:
1655:
1647:Added archive
1645:
1637:Added archive
1615:
1612:
1591:
1590:
1583:
1536:
1535:
1527:Added archive
1505:
1502:
1481:
1480:
1473:
1406:
1405:
1397:Added archive
1375:
1372:
1370:
1369:
1359:requested move
1353:
1352:
1326:
1325:
1306:
1305:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1259:Cordless Larry
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1217:
1202:
1186:
1175:
1172:Korean Chinese
1150:
1149:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1104:
1061:
1060:
1035:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1004:Cordless Larry
986:Cordless Larry
975:
974:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
932:Cordless Larry
908:
907:
897:Cordless Larry
882:
881:
862:
861:
843:
842:
804:
803:
802:
801:
783:
782:
781:
780:
714:
712:
685:
684:
674:requested move
668:
666:
665:Requested move
663:
647:
644:
641:
640:
637:
636:
633:
632:
629:
628:
625:
624:
622:
621:
608:
590:
577:
566:
559:Top-importance
548:
527:
525:
524:
513:
512:
507:
502:
497:
491:
488:
487:
479:
478:
471:Mid-importance
467:
461:
460:
458:
420:
419:
416:Myanmar portal
403:
391:
390:
388:Mid‑importance
382:
370:
369:
366:
365:
358:Mid-importance
354:
348:
347:
345:
328:the discussion
315:
314:
298:
286:
285:
283:Mid‑importance
277:
265:
264:
261:
260:
257:
256:
248:edit this list
244:
243:
242:
241:
233:
232:
231:
224:
219:
214:
209:
204:
199:
191:
190:
189:
184:
149:
148:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
102:the discussion
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3140:
3129:
3126:
3124:
3121:
3119:
3116:
3114:
3111:
3109:
3106:
3104:
3101:
3099:
3096:
3094:
3091:
3089:
3086:
3084:
3081:
3080:
3078:
3068:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3040:
3033:
3029:
3028:
3027:
3023:
3019:
3014:
3009:
3004:
3000:
2995:
2992:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2984:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2974:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2961:
2954:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2941:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2924:
2919:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2896:
2889:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2878:
2874:
2870:
2869:
2862:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2838:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2814:
2807:
2803:
2799:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2790:
2787:
2781:
2780:
2774:
2772:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2756:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2734:
2732:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2702:
2700:
2692:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2651:
2650:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2629:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2615:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2586:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2563:
2558:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2483:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2458:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2428:
2427:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2374:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2355:
2354:objectionable
2350:
2346:
2342:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2323:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2287:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2270:
2265:
2259:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2201:
2191:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2178:Han Chauvnist
2175:
2174:Han Chauvnist
2170:
2166:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2144:
2139:
2138:
2137:World on Fire
2132:
2128:
2123:
2119:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2012:
2008:
2004:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1912:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:101.127.8.197
1891:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1871:Lillyanna2020
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1849:
1841:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1816:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1796:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1702:
1696:
1690:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1668:
1662:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1613:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1503:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1458:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1373:
1368:
1365:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1230:
1229:Ethnic German
1225:
1223:
1218:
1215:
1210:
1208:
1203:
1201:"Goryeo-in").
1199:
1194:
1192:
1187:
1185:nationality).
1183:
1181:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:was moved to
1109:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:scholarly use
979:
978:
977:
976:
973:
969:
965:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
911:
910:
909:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
888:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
867:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
829:
827:
825:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
805:
800:
796:
792:
787:
786:
785:
784:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
740:
735:
731:
727:
722:
717:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
683:
680:
675:
670:
669:
664:
662:
661:
658:
653:
645:
619:
615:
613:
609:
607:
606:2015 election
603:
599:
597:
596:
591:
589:
586:
584:
583:
578:
575:
573:
572:
567:
564:
560:
557:
555:
554:
549:
546:
542:
538:
536:
535:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
517:
511:
508:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
492:
490:
489:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
466:
463:
462:
459:
442:
437:
433:
429:
428:
423:
417:
406:
404:
401:
397:
396:
392:
386:
383:
380:
376:
363:
359:
353:
350:
349:
346:
329:
325:
321:
320:
312:
301:
299:
296:
292:
291:
287:
281:
278:
275:
271:
255:
253:
249:
246:Feel free to
240:
237:
236:
234:
230:
229:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
195:
194:
192:
188:
185:
182:
175:
174:Ethnic groups
168:
167:
165:
164:
163:
161:
156:
151:
150:
146:
145:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
107:Ethnic groups
103:
99:
98:ethnic groups
95:
94:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
70:Ethnic groups
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
3066:
3038:EmeraldRange
3036:
3031:
3018:SimeonManier
3003:WP:STANDARDS
2959:EmeraldRange
2957:
2932:SimeonManier
2923:disagreeable
2894:EmeraldRange
2892:
2888:SimeonManier
2867:EmeraldRange
2865:
2837:WP:WHENSPLIT
2834:
2812:EmeraldRange
2810:
2808:as relevant
2797:
2791:
2785:
2782:
2759:
2749:
2730:
2708:EmeraldRange
2703:
2696:
2677:SimeonManier
2652:
2630:
2616:
2590:
2587:WP:DUCK sock
2571:SimeonManier
2487:
2466:SimeonManier
2457:WP:STANDARDS
2431:
2410:
2391:SimeonManier
2373:WP:STANDARDS
2322:WP:STANDARDS
2276:
2219:
2205:
2182:SimeonManier
2135:
1980:SimeonManier
1916:
1845:
1823:
1820:
1795:source check
1774:
1768:
1765:
1620:
1617:
1595:
1592:
1567:source check
1546:
1540:
1537:
1510:
1507:
1485:
1482:
1457:source check
1436:
1430:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1407:
1380:
1377:
1363:
1356:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1316:
1309:
1255:another page
1236:
1219:
1204:
1188:
1177:
1155:
1066:
1041:
1037:
1020:
950:
913:
886:
885:
865:
846:
807:
769:Thai Chinese
749:
726:Chinese Thai
713:
688:
686:
678:
671:
649:
611:
610:
593:
592:
580:
579:
569:
568:
551:
550:
532:
531:
470:
425:
421:
357:
317:
311:China portal
245:
226:
180:
166:Meta-tasks:
152:
131:
91:
51:WikiProjects
2699:WP:CITEKILL
2345:Wang Gungwu
1424:Sourcecheck
1191:Koryo-saram
1084:I tried to
918:65.95.14.96
871:65.95.14.96
486:To-do list:
41:Start-class
3077:Categories
2122:censorship
1832:Report bug
1604:Report bug
1494:Report bug
1072:Hybernator
851:Hybernator
169:Place the
2928:censoring
2659:JordanKSM
2641:JordanKSM
2619:JordanKSM
2605:JordanKSM
2539:JordanKSM
2515:JordanKSM
2495:JordanKSM
2437:JordanKSM
2415:JordanKSM
2299:JordanKSM
2258:JordanKSM
2239:JordanKSM
2223:JordanKSM
2208:JordanKSM
2091:JordanKSM
2052:JordanKSM
2028:JordanKSM
2003:JordanKSM
1934:JordanKSM
1919:JordanKSM
1815:this tool
1808:this tool
1695:dead link
1661:dead link
1587:this tool
1580:this tool
1477:this tool
1470:this tool
1342:Soewinhan
1317:AjaxSmack
1094:Soewinhan
998:Or maybe
179:template
3048:contribs
3008:WP:UNDUE
2969:contribs
2904:contribs
2890:pinging
2877:contribs
2861:WP:UNDUE
2857:Mandalay
2841:WP:UNDUE
2822:contribs
2806:Mandalay
2716:contribs
2595:sock of
2341:Amy Chua
2165:Amy Chua
2131:Amy Chua
2118:likeable
1853:The dog2
1821:Cheers.—
1593:Cheers.—
1483:Cheers.—
1295:Kauffner
1106:In 2007
964:Kauffner
755:Kauffner
565:articles
3032:Support
2999:WP:NPOV
2994:WP:NPOV
2953:WP:NPOV
2593:WP:DUCK
2511:WP:PLOT
1956:WP:NPOV
1699:tag to
1665:tag to
1627:my edit
1517:my edit
1410:checked
1387:my edit
1086:Be bold
1025:Quigley
1021:Support
951:Comment
914:Comment
887:Support
847:Support
808:Support
500:history
473:on the
446:Myanmar
432:Myanmar
385:Myanmar
360:on the
162:tasks:
134:on the
2845:WP:POV
2347:, and
1691:Added
1657:Added
1418:failed
1330:Oppose
1310:Oppose
1277:Bejnar
1251:pasted
1116:Bejnar
1050:Bejnar
1038:Oppose
866:Oppose
750:Oppose
734:Hintha
604:after
595:Update
553:Expand
47:scale.
2798:split
1273:cab's
955:1,570
612:Other
582:Stubs
571:Photo
510:purge
505:watch
333:China
324:China
280:China
3044:talk
3022:talk
3001:and
2965:talk
2936:talk
2900:talk
2873:talk
2818:talk
2804:and
2766:talk
2712:talk
2681:talk
2663:talk
2645:talk
2623:talk
2609:talk
2575:talk
2543:talk
2519:talk
2499:talk
2470:talk
2441:talk
2419:talk
2395:talk
2303:talk
2243:talk
2227:talk
2212:talk
2186:talk
2167:and
2095:talk
2056:talk
2032:talk
2007:talk
1984:talk
1970:and
1962:and
1938:talk
1923:talk
1899:talk
1875:talk
1857:talk
1848:NPOV
1414:true
1346:talk
1336:and
1299:talk
1281:talk
1263:talk
1120:talk
1098:talk
1076:talk
1054:talk
1044:but
1029:talk
1008:talk
990:talk
968:talk
959:this
936:talk
922:talk
901:talk
875:talk
855:talk
836:call
795:call
771:and
759:talk
705:talk
697:talk
561:and
495:edit
222:Iyer
126:High
2800:to
2731:Yue
2513:).
2277:Yue
1789:RfC
1759:to
1749:to
1739:to
1729:to
1719:to
1709:to
1685:to
1675:to
1651:to
1641:to
1561:RfC
1531:to
1451:RfC
1428:).
1416:or
1401:to
1361:.
1239:cab
1214:Hoa
832:cab
830:.
791:cab
691:.
657:cab
465:Mid
352:Mid
250:or
3079::
3050:)
3024:)
2971:)
2938:)
2906:)
2879:)
2824:)
2768:)
2736:🌙
2683:)
2665:)
2647:)
2639:.
2625:)
2611:)
2577:)
2545:)
2521:)
2501:)
2472:)
2443:)
2421:)
2397:)
2343:,
2305:)
2282:🌙
2245:)
2229:)
2214:)
2188:)
2097:)
2058:)
2034:)
2009:)
1986:)
1940:)
1925:)
1901:)
1877:)
1859:)
1802:.
1797:}}
1793:{{
1697:}}
1693:{{
1663:}}
1659:{{
1574:.
1569:}}
1565:{{
1464:.
1459:}}
1455:{{
1426:}}
1422:{{
1348:)
1301:)
1283:)
1265:)
1224:):
1209:):
1193:):
1182:):
1170:,
1160:):
1144:,
1140:,
1136:,
1122:)
1100:)
1092:.
1078:)
1056:)
1031:)
1010:)
992:)
984:.
970:)
938:)
924:)
903:)
895:.
877:)
857:)
838:)
797:)
761:)
728:,
718:→
707:)
676:.
543:,
254:.
177:}}
171:{{
3046:/
3042:(
3020:(
2989:@
2967:/
2963:(
2934:(
2916:@
2902:/
2898:(
2886:@
2875:/
2871:(
2820:/
2816:(
2764:(
2718:)
2714:/
2710:(
2679:(
2661:(
2643:(
2621:(
2607:(
2573:(
2541:(
2517:(
2509:(
2497:(
2468:(
2439:(
2417:(
2393:(
2301:(
2260::
2256:@
2241:(
2225:(
2210:(
2184:(
2141:“
2093:(
2054:(
2030:(
2005:(
1982:(
1936:(
1921:(
1897:(
1873:(
1855:(
1834:)
1830:(
1817:.
1810:.
1606:)
1602:(
1589:.
1582:.
1496:)
1492:(
1479:.
1472:.
1344:(
1297:(
1279:(
1261:(
1118:(
1096:(
1074:(
1052:(
1027:(
1006:(
988:(
966:(
934:(
920:(
899:(
889:.
873:(
853:(
834:(
793:(
757:(
741:)
739:t
737:(
703:(
695:(
614::
598::
585::
574::
556::
537::
477:.
364:.
138:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
