User talk:Balthazarduju/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Criticisms section removed from United States National Academy of Sciences

User:Kborer may be objecting to the removal of the Criticisms section from United States National Academy of Sciences, and is requesting comment on Talk:United States National Academy of Sciences#Criticisms. Could you address some of his concerns by adding a comment? / edgarde 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hey, thanks for your work on Forbidden City. It's good to see the article getting some good faith edits for once, instead of just vandalism (and it gets a lot of vandalism...). --Sumple (Talk) 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on Beijing opera

Hi, I am unclear about why the sentences that you recently changed in Beijing opera were POV. Based on your edit summary, it seems like you feel that there it is POV to differentiate Beijing opera on the mainland and Beijing opera on Taiwan, but I am not sure if that is really what you mean. Certainly, Beijing opera began in Beijing, but it has since reached Taiwan in a relatively unchanged state. However, the politics surrounding the form in the two places are different, which is why I differentiate them. The same form has different names, and has had different names over time, but all of those names are translated into English as "Beijing opera" (or "Peking opera", but I feel like that is a bit archaic now) Forgive me if I am just misunderstanding your intent. I have provisionally re-added one sentence that you removed from the lead, but if you clarify your edits and we discuss it, I would not be opposed to letting your changes stand, provided that the rationale is solid.--Danaman5 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the reasoning behind your edits now. I attempted to provide a source for everything that I wrote, and references 9-18 do convey political goals behind the control of Beijing opera. It's all sourced in the article itself, but I hadn't gotten around to sourcing the lead yet (if at all; it is unclear to me whether or not the lead needs to be sourced if the same material is sourced in the article). I'm fine with leaving out the sentence from the lead, but we will probably get nailed later if the lead doesn't summarize the article.--Danaman5 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Eva Green, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't do any major changes to the Eva Green article when I edited it. Are you mistaken my edits with something else? -Balthazarduju 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian cinema

HI you may be pleased to know I have set up an organization page for Itlaian cinema but note this is just a page for organizing Italian cinema not a wikiproject - it is a single page for a dto do list of Italian cinema. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Cinema of Italy and add your name as you are working in this area. If you know of any missing major films, articles that require particular expansion missing nmajor actors etc place them on the page. THanks - I also intend to do the same for France ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You should make more use of these, especially if removing material. Otherwise your changes are likely to be reverted. Johnbod 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod about edit summaries, without them it's sometimes guesswork what the ed. has in mind and hard to distinguish a principled removal from a wanton one. But with respect to the article on movable type, I personally think your version of the paragraph is best for the introductory section--we can't reasonably get all the nuances in a single paragraph. Trying to do so is what tends to produce back and forth changes in wording. For the intro--of articles in general--shorter is better, at least as I see it. . DGG 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

When you see something you doubt is true, try to add a tag like this, (that is add {{fact}} after the dubious part) rather than just deleting it. -Oreo Priest 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I find it fairly irritating that you continually re-add the citation to the introduction. I am going to delete it again, and I will re-add it if you find for me an academic source with a citation in the abstract or introduction. Failing that can you please stop this? -Oreo Priest 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not standard practise to add any citations to an introduction or abstract. It draws on later statements, which are supported in the body of the text. A simple search for citations in any academic abstract or introduction will show that this is simply not done. -Oreo Priest 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But both statements used different sources though. In this case, I'm talking about the reference from Encarta. Do you want to add this reference to the body of the text?--Balthazarduju 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the latter, being the work of a historian, seems to me to be a better source for an encyclopedia (rather than another encyclopedia). You can change them if you really want (after verifying that they say the same thing), but I think a better solution would be to change the other citation to proper form, if I haven't done it already by the time you read this. -Oreo Priest 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just did it. It seems (fittingly) much more professional now, now that the proper citation template was used, rather than just copying the link as a reference. -Oreo Priest 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

History of silk

I think for practical purposes, in addition to including User:Zapvet, we should move this to the discussion page of the article. It's probably on your watchlist, so it shouldn't be too hard to follow. -Oreo Priest 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you could chip in and help us translate it, it's a pretty long article. Ultimately, though, it's up to you. -Oreo Priest 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Toba

The Toba wasn't really pure Xianbei people, centuries of mixturing had made them an unique tribes, their relations including the rest of the Xianbei between the later Mongol are somewhat obscure. It been deemed that a handful of their clans were related to Xiongnu and Gaoche as well. Eiorgiomugini 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please do not revert good-faith edits without discussion, as you did on Forbidden City. Please discuss your reasons for reverting changes on the talk page. I have listed the reasons for the changes on the talk page; please respond there. --Ideogram 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also extremely rude to revert an entire edit without taking the time to separate edits you disagree with from edits that you agree with. --Ideogram 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries again

Please be sure to use edit summaries for your edits. --Ideogram 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:TheravadaBuddhism's "& Regions" addition

Hi Balthazardugu -

I was wondering if you could help me understand why you added the phrase "& Regions" to the listing of countries on the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template. Is there any country in the list (Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand) that is not a country but is a region instead? Frankly, my main concerns are space, communicative pithiness and stylistic consistency -- the addition lengthens the table significantly (especially given the font size), does not appear to me to add any meaning (although this could just be a matter of my own ignorance!), and expands a category title when the trend (e.g., for Template:MahayanaBuddhism, Template:Buddhism and even Template:JapaneseBuddhism) has been to reduce the length of category headers, keep the category headers to only one line and keep them shorter than what the template's width would be otherwise.

Relatedly, I see you made a similar change to Template:MahayanaBuddhism but I can more readily understand that change given perhaps Tibet's questionable status as a country. (In addition, I primarily created Template:MahayanaBuddhism as a gift to User:TonyMPNS and other Mahayana-practicing WP editors, so I leave it to him as to whether or not your addition is in any way dissonant.)

Thank you for your time, thought and cooperative spirit. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju -

Since there are no Theravada "regions" that are not also countries (unless we specify "Southeast Asia" instead of the individual countries as is done in the current template) and for the above stated reasons, I'm going to change the category header back to "Countries" alone. If in the future a "region" is added, lets consider changing it to "Region" (similar to the way it is on Template:Buddhism) or something more generic such as "Places" or "Homelands" or "Lands." Okay?

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While your contributions indicate that you've been active elsewhere, you haven't responded to my last note, so I went ahead and undid your change to the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template -- at least for now. I hope you take no personal offense at my action and could understand (while perhaps disagreeing with) my reasoning.

FWIW, I can appreciate what I understand to be your reasons for the change: The Template:MahayanaBuddhism category header was insufficient, so you changed that to "Countries & Regions," and then perhaps for symmetry, you also changed the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template (although the latter template seems to have been changed first?). I think the symmetry you seek and the concerns I raised can be addressed by using one of the other words choices I mentioned, such as "Lands" or just "Regions." Perhaps this should be discussed further on one or both of the template's talk pages? I'd be sincerely happy to discuss it there (or on our talk pages) if you want to pursue this further.

I wish you much happiness and peace, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes you made are fine and reasonable.--Balthazarduju 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju

Yeah, I agree, the Freer Gallery and M Sackler Gallery have some amazing antiques and precious artworks. If I am allowed to take pictures in the museum itself of all this artwork, then I can use those photos for wiki. Otherwise, no, and they might all be deleted.--PericlesofAthens 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Qing Dynasty

Because the preceding entity of the Qing Dynasty is the Late Jin Dynasty, and the preceding entity of the Late Jin Dynasty is the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, the Ming Dynasty and the Shun Dynasty should not be the p1 and p2 of the Qing Dynasty unless you combine the Late Jin and Qing. There is no other former country that add all the entities it ended to be the preceding entities. You can refer to the templates of the other former countries.--24.18.102.154 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Ming Dynasty

I did not changed it, I just added it. Please don't reconvert me if you understand what I am doing. --24.18.102.154 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you think that Late Jin Dynasty should not be included into Qing Dynasty's template, then Qing Dynasty's preceding entities Shun Dynasty and Ming Dynasty do you agree?--24.18.102.154 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Tang Dynasty

Please talk on the talk page before you revert to avoid the revert war, ok? --24.18.102.154 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think using the most conventional way of labeling these dynasties would be the most helpful to readers.--Balthazarduju 06:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Han Chinese

The entire history section was actually written by me. The reason it had only focused on ancient history wasn't because it was intended only to be limited to the ancient era, but because I procrastinated on updating and have only been expanding it piecemeal. I plan to eventually include the medieval eras, the medieval population boom brought through the spread of agriculture in the south and the introduction of new rice varieties, the second great migration, the dramatic population growth brought on by prosperity, new technology, and New World crops during the Ming and Qing eras, and the outwards migrations of millions of Overseas Chinese in the last two centuries. --Yuje 06:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

I made that change because I believe that wording is grammatically incorrect. I was thinking "greatest" is superlative, of which there can be only one. Maybe I'm mistaken! Anyway it's a weak sentence, I guess what Wiki refers to as Peacock language. More importantly, I'm sold on Au hasard Balthazar, and I will urgently seek it out.DBaba 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Wall of China external link

You removed the following external link from this article. Since you didn't mention, in your edit summary, that you were doing so, I'm going to assume that this was simply a mistake, and am putting the link back in. If in fact you object to it, please explain on the talk/discussion page of the article.

• Paul Mooney, "Great Wall of China Overrun, Damaged, Disneyfied", National Geographic News, May 15, 2007

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju

I've noticed that you've made many edits to Chinese history related articles. As of today I have accomplished the goal of raising the article Technology of the Song Dynasty to Good Article status. Hypothetically speaking, if you were me, what would you do to this article that would satisfy your content that it could pass for Featured Article status? Any suggestions would be appreciated.--PericlesofAthens 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Thanks for your help on Forbidden City, which has been recently WP:GA'ed. I'm hoping to eventually get it to FA, so any time you can spare on that article is greatly appreciated! Thanks again, PalaceGuard008 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Balthazarduju: 19% for major edits and 67% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One of your edits

I've made an issue of one of your edits, without actually mentioning you by name.

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_is_becoming_a_problem_in_itself

As of the present moment there are no responses, and I have no idea if there will be. This is just for your reference as I feel you should know I've raised this matter.

Bathrobe 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty

No one has responded yet on the Peer Review for the Tang Dynasty article. I've been wanting some feedback on how to improve the article, but alas, a tumbleweed rolls by, and silence. Lol. I was wondering, since you've done some editing to the article yourself, if you would provide any helpful commentary. I am at least shooting for GA status.--PericlesofAthens 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No comment? Huh.--PericlesofAthens 04:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope the article reach the GA status too. I'm no expert but so far I think the contributions and the outlook and the quality of the article is good.--Balthazarduju 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju, don't take it too serious on what happened. As for reference, I will tired to get it soon, but right now I will have to log off and get to do my work. Regards. Eiorgiomugini 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My IP Address is blocked?

Yesterday when I got home, I logged onto Wikipedia and clicked edit on a page, then I noticed that it directed me to a page that says this user is blocked and I have been blocked from editing. It seems like that my IP address is blocked because the address apparently it is "207.69.139.159 "? Which clearly isn't mine. And then I checked the talk page on that address [1], none of these comments should be directed at my contribution. What is going on?

I don't know if this is the right tag to use or place, but I'll place this unblock template as of right now. I hope this problem will resolve soon.--Balthazarduju 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Your IP address is not blocked directly. If you wish to edit, simply log in and you should be fine. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty again

I just updated the article's talk page with the section "FA status, perhaps?" and I'd like you to comment (since you have put a lot of effort into the article as well). I know that you're just a French donkey, Balthazar, but I want you to pull all the potential of your donkey brain cells together into a meaningful response, and an honest opinion of where the article stands.

Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job. The contents in the article are very informative and interesting.--Balthazarduju 00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

I've added my comments on the Karlgren quote on the talk page. I think this article will never be anything more than a list of mostly so-called arguments used to push a pov. That's why I removed from it from where it was originally and put it under its own article. User:benjwong is either unwilling or incapable of making logically consistant and reasoned arguments, eg the literacy, Four Olds discussions on the talk page, in the article itself: the use of the Old Fours as argument that SC are "destruction of trad Chinese culture" even when he admits that the Old fours did not include hanzi simplification. Also see "Government intimidation" and "Late recognition of flawed process", both added by him or her, they are both simply non-arguments. I think the only thing that can be done is to make sure any logically inconsistant and flawed arguments are pointed out. LDHan 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia talk:China-related topics notice board. You could try posting a message there. I'm afraid I can't help you re admins. If you have any thoughts on the Literacy discussion, I would appreciate it if you could add a comment, thanks! LDHan 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City, Palace Museum

I know what you are saying - I resisted splitting the article off, as Chinese Wikipedia does, for a long time.

The reason I've split it off is because Forbidden City is too long. I thought the museum collection information can make an article on its own. In addition, splitting it off as a new article allows more information to be added about the museum and its collections.

The conceptual issue troubles me, too. What do you think about moving it to Collections of the Palace Museum, and redirecting Palace Museum to Forbidden City, so that it is more like a daughter-article of Forbidden City/Palace Museum? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That needs a lot of work as well.--Balthazarduju 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Zhonghua minzu consensus?

You are invited to join this discussion? Seektruthfromfacts 20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Xi'an article

Sure thing. I've already done so much for the Chang'an article, I might as well tend to this article as well. Thanks for pointing this out.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Balthazarduju 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the problem too a few months ago, that person keep adding whatever info he can find about Xi'an. I have just done a major clean up with the article, but I didn't really look at the written parts that much. I'll work on it more when i have time. In the mean time can you please just keep an eye on it? Thanks~ LG-犬夜叉~ 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited a bit and completely fixed the beginning section, but there is so much more to fix! The guy has added a mountain of info for us to sift through. I'll work on copy-editing it in the following weeks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Society of the Song Dynasty

I thought I'd let you know that I put this up for featured article just yesterday. All seven of the Song Dynasty articles are also now part of a wikipedia featured topic. Happy sailing.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Great news! The work you have puted into these articles is really admirable.--Balthazarduju 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've recently made massive edits to both Song Dynasty and its sub-article on Society; they both look much better now. I like the substitution you made with the bronze mirror instead of the silver plate. Did you know that I was the one who took that picture of the bronze mirror? It was at the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington D.C.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

History of silk

I've nominated history of silk for GA status, and it's almost there. I'd appreciate it if you could help with the suggestions made by the reviewer at Talk:History of silk. Let's do it! -Oreo Priest 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cap Use

Your use of caps. under item photos is mistaken. Take a look at how museums do it. --Iwanafish 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Map versions

Hello I think its a good idea to include those maps. I have constructed Western Jin Dynasty map and the Liu Song and Northern Wei map at 440 CE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pojanji (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of the updates to "List of countries by GDP (PPP)"

Hi, I see you reverted the updates I made to the World Bank figures in List of countries by GDP (PPP). You gave the following edit summaries: "Plus, the new data should directly reflect the reference sheet, the most recent version of course." "The new "World Bank" data entry needs to be properly sourced. The revis data in the chart does not match what is in the reference (2005). We should be able to use the most recent statistics as well." I don't know what you mean by "the reference sheet". The changes were sourced, just as well as the version you reverted to, and they do match the figures in the cited document. The new figures, while they relate to the year 2005 instead of 2006, have been produced more recently than the version you reverted to. More importantly, as discussed on the list's talk page, they are more robust for some large and important countries. So I will revert back to the more up-to-date version. Please discuss any concerns you might have on the list's talk page before making major unilateral edits. -- Avenue (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments is in the talk page.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

Hey buddy. If you're interested, you should have a look at the article for the Ming Dynasty; like the Tang and Song dynasty articles, I am going to eventually nominate this for featured article status. I'm about halfway done with what I want to put in the article, so don't judge it for being too short or not fully comprehensive as of yet. Tell me if there's anything you feel should be included, or make your own contributions with scholarly sources! I could use a little help, considering the scope and brevity of the topic.

Take care,

Eric--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've changed the lead section reference to population back several times now. It's not worth getting into an edit war over, but I spelled out the reasons for leaving it as 160 to 200 million in the FAC discussion. I quite understand your point that there are different estimates; but:

1. the statement in the lead section is followed by 2 footnotes, referring to the higher & lower estimates
2. (more importantly) it's inappropriate, & too long-winded, to give details about scholarly disagreement & debate in the lead section.

Anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of population studies can go to the Population section, where these issues are dealt with at length!

A possible compromise might be to replace the 2 footnotes with a single one saying something like Estimates vary from 160 million (Scholar#1 1990) to 200 million (Scholar#2 1995). All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I rather like this idea of yours Ndsg; that type of citation is used in the article for the Battle of Red Cliffs. Should we try it out?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Song Dynasty and Luzon Empire

To be honest, I had never even heard of this until about a month or two ago. It's bad enough that it's lacking a citation; I'll go investigate this and scoure scholarly sources on JSTOR. It just seems to far-fetched or "too good to be true" as the phrase goes.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on Luzon: "It was said to have been established by the remnants of the Song Empire who fled with Zhang Shijie after their defeat from the Mongols at the Battle of Yamen in 1279 CE.". The citation for this statement in the article is a Chinese online source at this site (宋史). Besides this, I will look elsewhere.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On JSTOR, I did a search for "Song" and "Dynasty" and "Luzon", and so far I've looked through the first article An Archaeological Expedition to Indo-China and The Philippines: Preliminary Report (1941) by Olov Janse, but it does not say anything about the Lesser Song Empire. I'm still searching.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but I'm also interested in this apparent misinformation. The online source cited is the History of Song, one of the Twenty-Four Histories. But according to the History of Song, Zhang Shijie died of a shipwreck a few days after the Battle of Yamen. So the quoted statement cannot be true. It appears User:Ushiwaka added the statement to various articles including Zhang Shijie, Luzon Empire, Luzon, Battle of Yamen‎ and Emperor Bing of Song. Is is vandalism? Josuechan (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should be polite at first. So I'm going to leave a message on his talkpage to ask him to cite some reliable sources. It's certainly not "official" history... sounds more like gossip to me. Josuechan (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Beijing

Hmm; there's already an article called Tourist attractions of Beijing, but it is actually just a list of links; hardly what I would call a solid, explanatory article. Perhaps it is this separate tourist article, and not the main one on Beijing, that needs the attention?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do like how the editors organized the cityscape section of the Paris article; the St. Petersburg article is nicely done as well. Sure, let's collaborate some efforts here. First, look to commons for good Beijing pictures. Second, we should fiddle around with list items in the sandbox until an appropriate and full list and description of tourist and other sites is ready to be added to the Beijing article. Sound good?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's start this tomorrow, I am logging off for now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this; I've been working on Qianling Mausoleum lately. Did you still want some help in putting this together for the Beijing article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing on Beijing in particular, but I'll look around online. Oh, and thanks about the Mausoleum article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert or not?

Hi! I want to hear your judgment to select whose revision of Religion in China; Angelo or Saimdusan:

[2]

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tang statue

Well, the impetus for adding the Zhou Wenju painting was that it was close enough to the Tang Dynasty era while it also was relevant to the topic of food since the ladies playing instruments outside were also feasting and drinking. But the statue is fine there, I suppose.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Story of the Stone (disambiguation)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article The Story of the Stone (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Han Chinese

An editor has nominated Han Chinese, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Chinese and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My message to Beijing 2008!

[3]

Here is my gift for you. Please support Tibet and Tibetan people. Please share this image to your friends. Good luck!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

Due to the dispute, the article has been locked. Further information is here, I have offered to mediate the content dispute. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Beijing

Hey Balthazarduju/Archive 1! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir Balthazarduju, you have been cordially invited...

...by User:PericlesofAthens to attend a prestigious debunking ceremony at Talk:Ming Dynasty! Congratulations.

After reading the passages I have provided from Wylie's source, please come to the talk page and state in a designated slot your thoughts and opinions on the Mingshi, LaGrandefr's argument, and his dubious map. Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Shang and Zhou dynasties

I noticed that you removed Template:Infobox Former Country from Shang Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty. You explained in your edit summary that Shang Dynasty was not a state. I think that the two dynasties were apparently states in Chinese history. Please see featured articles Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty. Of course Shang and Zhou did not directly control a very large area. Such states like Qin and Qi may be (possibly) described as independent from Zhou. But, however small they were, Shang and Zhou were still states in history. Furthermore, although the template is titled as Infobox ...County, its content does not directly indicate that the subject is a state. If we look at the template at the current version of Shang Dynasty, it only includes the information about the subject's name, capital, government, etc. It's OK to also serve as an infobox for a dynsty. I re-added the county templates. If you still disagree, we may discuss at Talk:Shang Dynasty or Talk:Zhou Dynasty. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

not sure if

"reactions, foreign and domestic aid" is the best idea when we focus on aids in the section. with your proposed title, the summary needs to be expanded. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

"China's earthquake"

I found one of your changes at the article on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake interesting. The article originally pointed out that the earthquake was felt in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hanoi. Later this became a list of countries including Thailand and Pakistan.

You changed this to "The earthquake was felt as far away as Beijing (1,500 km away) and Shanghai (1,700 km away), where office buildings swayed with the tremor.[4] The earthquake was also felt in nearby countries." This certainly neatens the sentence up by removing the string of references to foreign places affected. On the other hand, it tends to make the earthquake into a purely Chinese affair.

Since earthquakes don't respect national boundaries, it seems to me that the fact that it was felt in Beijing or Shanghai is no more relevant than the fact that it was felt in Hanoi, Thailand, or other places. In fact, the place that bore the brunt of the quake was Sichuan, not any of these other places.

This is just a minor point, but given the strange whirl of politics around this geologic event (including accusations by at least one overseas Chinese editor that foreign countries are discriminating against China in the giving of aid), I just wondered whether it was wise to relegate foreign countries to an after-note.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding phenoemon analysis

I agree that some related topics, e.g. chinese astrology, may find their places in an natural disaster article, given enough notability, and a serious edit. After all, there are people in this world who believe them and even make a living out of it. But I don't want to leave this in the discussion page so that Benjwong would feel that he is encouraged, :-). (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

watch your edits

You made an edit to the Sichuan EQ article that removed some important info. You were apparently trying to remove a redundant cite (which was incorrect anyway, since the first appearance of the info in the text should be cited, not the info box), and ended up also removing important magnitude info. Please be more careful next time. 68.73.94.131 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested

I visited New York City recently and took a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. If you visit this link here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_art_in_the_Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art

...it has all the pictures I have thus far uploaded to commons from my one day trip there. There are so far 82 pictures of artworks in this category spanning from the Shang to Qing dynasties. If you're interested in using any of them, feel free to browse through the pics and put them in articles where they are needed. I trust your judgment on that. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism. Unfortunately I really don't have much time to devote to editing WP or getting involved with heated discussions here. It'll probably be at least a few more months before I can come back to editing WP regularly. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Recurring IP spamming and vandalism

The IP spammers and vandals are back. They have already abused Talk:Nanyue, not long after its semi-protection status expired. They also took the opportunity to abuse Talk:Han Chinese as well as my user talk page. There is also a new user account with a rather abusive and terrifying name whose user page you can access here. Needless to say, this user account needs to be watched very closely.

Thank you for your efforts at combating the litany of spamming and vandalism that has been occurring recently. I am afraid though that your efforts at Talk:Nanyue may not last though not only becuase the troublemaker will likely return but also becuase HkCaGu seems to be keeping a very close watch on the talk page for any signs of 'censorship' (and chastising editors who are caught 'censoring'). Yes, you read it correctly; I would not be surprised if you received a warning notice for your efforts just like when I tried to delete some earlier spamming and vandalism.

As an aside, Talk:Guangdong and Talk:Cantonese people had also been subjected to severe spamming and vandalism earlier and needs to be watched for any further cases of abuse. To make things worse, there is still a highly inappropriate comment at Talk: Guangdong that says in part 'No place for Vietnamese ultra-nationalists to do mental...' but HkCaGu will not let me censor it. David873 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Imminent threat of severe abuse

User:Nefbmn has just appearred and has been placing defamatory comments about ethnic Vietnamese in their user page and its talk page. This user is the successor to a user acount with a highly inappropriate name (the latter accout has been indefinitely blocked for username policy violations) If you can help with stopping this user in their tracks, your assistance would be appreciated. David873 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Zhao Hu

"Hu" seems to have been an alternate given name for Zhao Mo. See zh:赵眜. It states that there was confusion between the two names. Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony

Just want to say thanks for correcting the misrepresented sources on its reception. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of sources were extremely impressed with ceremony and only a few were not as enthusiastic and thus proper weight should be given this context. Well done. 70.24.143.65 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

As you've been contributing quality edits to Wikipedia for a quite some time, you're long overdue for a barnstar. Keep up the good work! lk (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User Arilang1234 asking for help

Thanks for your editing.I am new at wiki, and need all the help I can get.Please help me in the future.Arilang1234 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

request lock on Jin Dynasty (1115–1234)

From the last poll regarding the origin of the Jin Dynasty rulers are not koreans have been put to rest. However, nationalist koreans have once again added the section that Jin Dynasty rulers are from Korea. And this have been ongoing for some time now which will end up as an edit war sooner or later.

Reading from your contributions i trust that you are a resonsible and capable member of wikipedia. I would be greatful if prtection can be initiated on the Jin Dynasty page.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

hanfu/qipao

The section you remove is very important for the world and for the chinese. there are huge surge of hanfu topics and rememgence in drama and tevevision in china. please do not remove unless you know or live in china for a long time or even go to chinese web forums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennlin (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't

Listen I am a current citizen of the united states?

second i don't think every country should ave the same structure okay? take a look at japan korea and others. they include somethings that doesn't belong there consider by people like you. why can't i put traditional hanfu under the culture section huh? i will stay by my position. That section only exaplains the reemergence not going in detail of how it look and it's significance.

s.Korea even have things about Kpop online games and drama in the main section Japan wrote about jpop and geisha.......SHOULD THEY BE ALL REMOVE ???

Should public health and sport and recreation sections be in the main section too if there is a huge sub section of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennlin (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty

Hey old friend. How's it going. I recently created History of the Han Dynasty; I was wondering if you would have a look and offer advice on how to improve it. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits on Han Chinese subgroups

I understand why you would want to add Northern Chinese peoples to the "Han Chinese subgroups" article. However, they're unsourced red links. Please, if you want to add these peoples to the page, find relevant sources and make pages for them first. Thankyou. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I recently wrote an article about the controversy surrounding Zhang Ziyi and her reception in China. While I now recognize the duplication of information contained in the Memoirs of a Geisha entry, I feel that the removal of the other information constitutes an incomplete understanding of her reputation as an actress and the cultural perception and pressures of an ethnically Chinese international actress. The blog citation was to a page that had collated and translated several forum entries from the original Chinese which my Mandarin abilities were not up to. If you believe referencing the forums themselves would be better, I would be happy to, although the content has since been removed. Please let me be clear, I do not wish to antagonize your edit, just to start a conversation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maribus (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello - Thank you for your reply. However, much of what you said seems to be contradicted by what is contained in many 'biography' pages of living persons, Zhang Ziyi included. There is an entire paragraph that details her relationship with her new boyfriend, which seems to be quite as 'tabloid' as my post. My point was to demonstrate that there was a severity of response that most living actors or actresses are not subjected to, and that although her body of professional work is important, that is not the dominant part of her page, nor should it be. Do you truly believe that the entire post should be deleted and no mention should be made to this rather embarrassing moment in her career simply because she is still alive? The event was important in her reputation as an actress in China, so however limited the discussion is, I believe it should be included. Do you disagree? --Maribus (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image from Great Wall of China

The child of a trinket-seller playing on the wall at Simatai

Hi there,

I recently added a picture to the Great Wall of China article to illustrate the claim made that "[parts of the wall] might serve as a village playground" and that "Intact or repaired portions of the Wall near developed tourist areas are often frequented by sellers of tourist kitsch," and you removed it on the basis that the image was irrelevant to the section. I was hoping you might be able to better articulate your reasoning, because as I have demonstrated, I was illustrating points made within that paragraph. If you believe that the prose material is irrelevant, perhaps it ought to be moved to a different section of the article. You also mentioned personality rights for the image; I tagged the image with the proper template when I uploaded it, so that issue ought to be mitigated. Notyourbroom (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China

Hi there.

I did not actually merge it with my sandbox, in fact I was unaware of that. The user who merged it for me is Arilang1234, please contact him for that. Thank you for reverting his mistake. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2