User talk:Nlu/archive47

TOR block of 84.16.234.153

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 84.16.234.153, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khitans : articles to reorganize ?

Talk:Liao_Dynasty#Unclear:_write_in_Khitan_people_or_in_Liao_Dynasty_.3F

Can you provide your opinion on this issue ?, thanks ;] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.122.97.15 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally did it, see : Talk:History_of_the_Khitans#Unclear:_write_in_Khitan_people_or_in_Liao_Dynasty_.3F
I also come to request your knowledge to copyedit and expand the section History_of_the_Khitans#Relations_with_China
Regard, Yug (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may try to tackle this once (if?) I get through with Tang Dynasty, but right now I don't see myself being able to do that anytime soon. I think I have the sources to do it, but right now it does take major investment of time for me to get familiarized with the subject. I appreciate your asking me, though, and I appreciate your being bold in taking the initiative on this. --Nlu (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nexxt 1

I think this user should be unblocked, and I wanted to get your opinion on the subject since it was your indef in the first place. His block was largely the result of attempts to delete the article Brahmanical See, which was subsequently revealed to be a hoax, as he had said. He could have conducted himself better during the dispute, but under the circumstances I think his frustration is pretty understandable (particularly since he was a new editor who might not have entirely understood policies and guidelines). In that light, would you be willing to unblock? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose unblocking, but the user does need to conduct himself/herself better if he/she were to stay an active editor. I'll unblock, but please help watch him/her carefully, particularly since I'm very busy this week with a possible trial. --Nlu (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks. I'll be sure to monitor the situation. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tong-kien-kang-mou ?

I'm right now in this buiding..., the picture is right : outside is night.

Hello Nlu,
I got in the NTNU library a book :

Histoire generale de La Chine traduite du Tong-kien-kang-mou	General history of China, translate from the Tong-kien-kang-mou
1778, [translation] by Mailla (French jesuite)

Can you say me how I can figure out what is the common name of this book ? I suspect it to be your Zizhi Tongjian (according to this webpage which say "Tong-kien-kang-mou was write by Se-ma Kouang after a request by Ing-tsong (1064-1067)")

So, I suspect :

Tong-kien-kang-mou = Zizhi Tongjian

Se-ma Kouang af = Sima Guang

Ing-tsong = Song Yingzong

Can you find out if the Zizhi Tongjian was -one time- called by a name such as "Tong-kien-kang-mou" ?? Yug 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)I'm currently fighting against a pro-tibet who claim that "Tibet was the main threat for China from 620 to 820".

"Tong-kien-kang-mou" = ?: I have never heard of it referred to as the Tong-kien-kang-mou (although "Tong-kien" would sound like a Minnan rendition of the Mandarin "Tongjian"). I am more suspecting whether it is some kind of commentary on the Zizhi Tongjian, although Tongjian Jishi Benmo (通鑑紀事本末) -- a "thread" rearrangement of the Zizhi Tongjian rather than chronological -- which was my initial guess, after some thought, doesn't really sound close enough in Minnan either. --Nlu (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site refers to the "Tong-kien-kang-mou" as an "abridgment." If that is the case, my guess is that its title would be rendered Tongjian Gangyao (通鑑綱要) in Mandarin. I seem to recall in my memory that there is such a work and is basically an outline of the Zizhi Tongjian, although a Web search right now yields nothing. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide you more information (analyse seems following the timeline, but when stopping ?, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.203.61.15 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main threat ?

Oh, on your subscript -- I actually think I agree with him/her that Tufan was the main threat for China from 620 to 820. There was really no other state/power that consistently frustrated Tang and fought Tang at least to a standstill. Eastern Tujue, Western Tujue, and Goguryeo all eventually crumbled under Tang power, but Tufan not only didn't, but took Tang territory, albeit not major amounts. It'd call it the main threat. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering that :

in the VIe : Eastern Tujue, Western Tujue were constantly view as an important threat since -if I understand well- the Tang disnasty managed to keep them divided ;
Koreans seems to Chinese officials more interesting than Tibet (mountains -___-) -> wars in Korea, weeding in Tibet ;
in the VIIIe : The Khitans seems to me the biggest threat (near Henan, Hebei), while Tibet was strong but far away of this Chinese heart -> that's why it was so much soldier in the north line (which helped An Lushan's rebellion)
The biggest threat was clearly from China and Chang'an themselves : powerful generals, clans' dispute. －> An Lushan -> put China K.O, Chang'an change several time of hand.
in ~760-763, all Tibetans, Ouighours, Nan-chaos, Khitans, jumped on China and expanded widely their area of control. Tibet were just more successful (763 -> opposition between 2 major chinese generals -> Tibetans take Chang'an 16 days)

I would say that even considering foreign power, Tibet was the more constant threat, but really not the biggest, neither the most fear, on all this 200 years.

It's currently my position: many powers were successively the "main threat", Tibet was the main foreign threat about 50 years (?). If you sincerely think that Tibet was the main foreign threat on [60-70%] of this 200 years or if they were more fear that Khitans, say it [if possible explaining where I was wrong], and I will listen and [if I can] check my sources.

(PS: I stopped my reading in 763. So I don't know what happened on the 763-822 period).

Yug 210.203.61.15 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I do see it as the "main threat" (at least when you're talking about an overall period as you appear to indicate that that person was doing) Tufan was in fact the main threat is that in a given year or decade another power might draw Tang attention more, none really ever threatened Tang existence or domination the way that Tufan did.

Eastern Tujue did make constant incursions during Emperor Gaozu's reign and early in Emperor Taizong's reign, but was crushed and never really posed a threat again until Wu Zetian's reign.
Western Tujue, even at its prime, never really threatened Tang.
Goguryeo was basically a border annoyance. (I'm sure that our Korean friends will beg to differ, but that's how I see it.) It never even invaded Tang territory in any significant manner.
Xueyantuo was a vassal for most of its existence.
Khitan and Xi were also vassals for the most part. They rebelled and caused Tang and Zhou problems at times, but other than the Li Jinzong/Sun Wanrong episode, never really posed a threat.

Meanwhile, Tufan was, at times, able to seize substantial Tang territory, enter Chang'an on one occasion, and force Tang to be more or less facing it on equal terms rather than as hegemon, as none of the other states above was able to do, even at their prime, except for Eastern Tujue. (And Eastern Tujue did it only for a short duration.)

I'd still call Tufan the main threat during that period, but I see your point. --Nlu (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noticed. (snif...)

I also noticed the 624-626 Easter Turks walk to the doors of Chang'an.

I understand that you means [in my words ->] that Tufan were the only ones who were stable (200 years), who made one highly dangerous campaign (763, after 630), and accordingly, Tufan can be say to be the more serious foreign power of that time. Space keeped them away, so they were not asking many troops, but theirs double jeu and their patience to attack exactly in the worse moment made them the more serious threat. Ok. (snif... :( )

210.203.61.15 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Lisa Jane Persky and Annabella Sciorra)

i'm very offended by your rude messages saying i "vandalized" lisa jane persky's and annabella sciorra page. I was simply adding FACTUAL information You're the vandal who keeps erasing my facts about them and replacing them with bulls-t. From what i understand, ANYBODY can add info on this site, so don't give me crap about adding stuff to people's pages when thousands of others do the same thing. If you want Wikipedia to have a good reputation maybe you should do some actual research and get some facts right for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.84.65 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Please see WP:V, WP:EW, and WP:CIV. Failing to follow those guidelines will get you blocked. That anyone can edit the articles doesn't give you license to edit in any manner you want. --Nlu (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East-Hem and Asia maps, 400 AD

Sure enough Nlu, I double checked one of my source maps, the huhai.net map of China,304-420 AD. The China borders are off just a little. I'll add it to the list and fix it next time I update that map. Thank you again, Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, the maps you linked showed actually another problem. I understand that it's difficult to do a "period" map given that these boundaries are in a state of flux, but that final map showed Southern Yan and Xia coexisting, without Later Qin -- which is wrong, because Southern Yan fell before Later Qin did. --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you for letting me know. I'll definitely look further into it when making the corrections. If you see any other errors on the map, please let me know. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nlu, I looked up some of the borders for China in this timeperiod. Just uploaded the corrected version. Please look it over and let me know if it's correct. (Image:East-Hem_400ad.jpg). Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Jianzhi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for blocking 71.121.39.189 (Contribs, talk), I was getting sick of reverting every edit they made. Damn vandals. Astral (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Justices_3dca.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Justices_3dca.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm not sure what "compromise" you are talking about (care to elaborate?), but do you think the current title "History of Manchuria (Northeast China) and Russian Far East" is appropriate? This has been the de-facto title for the template page for months, before the unilateral change by Cydevil38 on 04:11, 28 January 2008. Since no one brought this up for such a long time, I just changed back to this title after being directed to the template on some article about the Northeast I was browsing at.

I tried to contact him on his userpage asking why he would opposes any mention of Northeast China, which is favored by us who are natives of that region of China. I tried to insert the template as part of "China history navigation boxes" category, but apparently it was removed because he doesn't believe it is Chinese. I am sort of frustrated by this. If possible, I would like to have a discussion to find a solution that would be acceptable to all, but it seems like as if he does not want to talk.

I was wondering if you can change it back to the former, long-standing "History of Manchuria (Northeast China) and Russian Far East" and halt the edits for a while so we can at least discuss and find a better solution. Regards. Laoganma (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look over it again. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re : Conspiracy_Theories

I did not add any more nonsense to this article than is already present . It is one huge "opinion" trying to ridicule anybody who doesn't believe in the Theory of Chaos where politics are concerned . This article needs to be vandalized since you wont let people delete all the Soviet psycho-crap .. 83.233.182.143 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[1] NHRHS 2010 NHRHS2010 03:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qianling Mausoleum

Ew! I absolutely can't stand what you've done! Revert it back, right this instant, mister!

XD. Lol. Just kidding.

Thanks for that, I tried to find their articles by their posthumous royal titles, but came up with nothing (I also didn't know their given names), so assumed that they had no wikipedia articles. You have proven me wrong! Thanks for contributing, and designating it for DYK.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, about the Chinese language source following the Zizhi Tongjian; the second footnote is just a gigantic link. Can you convert that into the properly cited format; if you are confused about what I am talking about, refer to footnote #5 of the article, where I cited China.org.cn. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, the article's off to a good start.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one more thing: do you know the Chinese characters for "Qianling"?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will add. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that; I think you'll like the new painting of court ladies I just added.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Justices 3dca.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Justices 3dca.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. нмŵוτн τ 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus for alternative names in BLP?

It seems Jet Li's box also lists his name in Korean but there's nothing in his biography indicating that he is of Korean heritage. However, he does make movies that are dubbed in Korean and assumes a Korean name when he conducts interviews, in the same way that he assumes a Vietnamese name when he conducts interviews with Vietnamese press. Thus, I assumed that the standard for inclusion was where his movies are popularly released as opposed to his actual ethnic heritage. 216.80.64.153 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret WP:ID (a section of WP:MOS), which says, "Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself[,]" to mean that if the person self-identifies with the name, it should be included, and if he/she doesn't, it shouldn't. I'll remove the Korean, as I don't think it is any more appropriate than the Vietnamese. --Nlu (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black P Stones East Edit

what is your problem what are you some online bully who picks on others edits and ruins them just because you can delete and block accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.248.13 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you do something like this[2], it calls the reliability of your edits into question. --Nlu (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hurley

New article and has some very good content, but I don't think the wording is in line with WP:NPOV. What do you think? Chengwes (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very, very POV to me. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trivial question

Hi Nlu,

Can you tell me the Chinese characters for Tea seed oil? Are they simply the characters for "tea". "seed" and "oil"? I'm asking for health reasons. :-)

Thanks Ling.nut (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've never used it, I don't know for sure, but it looks like it's 茶子油. --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qianling Mausoleum

On 15 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Qianling Mausoleum, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]