User talk:Mandel/Achive 2

Please check discussion on chinese characters. --Yau 10:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check the discussion on Chinese character. Seems that you even haven't read any discussion before clicking a buttom to revert to previous version. --Yau 10:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the latest discussion update. The existing page seems to be a victim of hongkong english or singaporean english and do you know where we can get the help from native speakers? I've also added the page to my watch list to avoid vandelism. --Yau 12:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Garnett

Greetings. On 26 May 2005 you introduced this into the article on Constance Garnett: [as a translator] "she occasionally excised certain text liberally, as in her translations of Dostoevsky"

I have not been able to substantiate this; where did you get this information and should it remain as it is? Detritus 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel兄

建業倭亂 24.17.141.99 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest films ever

Mandel, those were some pretty sweeping changes in greates films ever. Could you discuss them before you knock out so many? --Happylobster 14:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Ziyi

I am more than happy with the idea of explaining the meaning of the Chinese characters in people's names. In this specific case it seems a little odd to me to explain the personal name and not the surname. It is relevant to the person concerned, it is of interest, it is true. On what grounds would you exclude it? Lao Wai 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to the ZZY talk page as the best place for this discussion. I have moved your comments there - if you object I'll remove them. Lao Wai 12:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overusing pinyin

I think you got the wrong person. I don't know where you get the idea that I was overusing pinyin. In what article? I never used pinyin in Wikipedia. Please explain. Thank you.--Ryz05 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Re : Chinese characters

Quote the specific convention page itself to inform the editor that the MoS actually exists. He's only started editing again around a week ago, so it'd help a lot to assume good faith and do some bit of explaining, rather than to escalate things. I've left a note on his talkpage regarding the removal of talk page messages. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see something in common now. Both of you have good intentions for the article. Reverting an editor's edits completely gives the feeling no different from a slap on his/her face, hence something that we should avoid. Yau indicates a welcome to improve on his contributions rather than a total revert, so that's something to begin with from here. Unfortunately, I'm trying to clear a house-keeping backlog in the meantime, so I've referring this case to Miborovsky to see if he can help sort things out for both of you. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I've left a note on that on his talkpage. Sure, he has a lot of familiarising to do, but don't be too hard on him, yeah? :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rest assured that the article will be in good hands, even if by neither of us, it will still be on the hands of many other editors on Wikipedia. After all, that's the concept of a Wiki. The article is definitely not a stub, so there would be more than just two editors working on it. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down, cool down. You've mentioned already, he's not a rogue editor and bent to turn your articles (such as Jinyong) upside-down. If you do want to revert, take the disagreements to the talkpage and discuss, rather than potentially starting an edit war. - Mailer Diablo 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous entry

please be informed that every anonymous entry from singtel has been removed from my talkpage. If you know any singtel users who are still interested in to discuss the page in dispute, please let them know about it. Thanks. --Yau 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Sun

Hi Mandel,

I saw that you marked Stefanie_Sun as needing cleanup. I have tried to fix the article, mainly reorganising it, and making it less POV. Please let me know if you had any specific concerns I have not addressed. jamiemcc 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Standard Mandarin

I've started a thread to try to build proper consensus about whether to move Standard Mandarin to a more intuitive and perhaps neutral title or not. I've left this message at your talkpage because you've participated in previous discussions about a possible title change. Please feel free to contribute with your thoughts and arguments at Talk:Standard Mandarin#The move.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camus' The Fall

Mandel, it's recently come to my attention that Camus' novel, The Fall, has but a few sentences written about it. I also noticed your name on the WP Novels assessment page (arguing to keep The Fall rated at top importance). I'm trying to expand the article to do it it justice; if you could help out any I would be most appreciative! --Todeswalzer | Talk 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya

I noticed that you and another user had been bouncing back and forth a little on including the qualifier 'some' on belief that Maitreya will be reborn on earth, attain enlightenment, etc. I reverted it to stating 'some' as we don't have any clear statistics or citations regarding the specific beliefs of Buddhists world-wide regarding Maitreya. In the absence of real data, I think it's more appropriate to allow for a little wiggle room. Belief in Maitreya or his particular characteristics are not a 'litmus test' for who is or isn't Buddhist, seeing as how Buddhism in general has never been a religion oriented around creeds and proclamations of belief. I'd also steer clear of edit summaries regarding who should and shouldn't edit articles- it can come across as hostile and is likely attract needless argument. --Clay Collier 07:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, there are individuals in the West who follow variants of Buddhism that are shorn of any supernatural or prophetic elements- they do not hold literal belief in rebirth or the prophecy of Maitreya, but observe the ethical practices, meditation, possibly even some of the ritual elements. It's quite unusual compared with how Buddhism has traditionally been practiced, but as Buddhism is not a 'credal' religion (Buddhism has typically been more about what you do than what you believe) and there is no single authority who can say that these individuals are not Buddhists, it is accurate and in the guidelines of NPOV to say that they are Buddhists who do not hold belief in the future incarnation of Maitreya. Stephen Batchelor, for instance, is a very high-profile writer in the West who advocates a secular or agnostic approach to Buddhism. --Clay Collier 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay is correct that belief in Maitreya is not universal among Buddhists, hence why I added "some". For the record, I am Buddhist. While I have nothing against Christians in general, I thought it was very low of you to assume my religious beliefs based on a one word addition as well as for you to say that Christians should not edit such articles. Please do not be mislead by assumptions and prejudices. They are illusions. AliaGemma 01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. No hard feelings :) AliaGemma 08:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]