User talk:PalaceGuard008/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Huju

Can you help expand Huju? Badagnani 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request a merge per policy - it is not between you and me

It is not to be argued out on ANI. Just put the merge templates on as stated above. --Mattisse 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When you respond without a title on my talk page I do not always find it because I get a lot of postings -

Please use new banner when you post on my page. Sometimes I have two or three messages at once so I do not always find messages that have been stuck in out of sequence. Please follow the rules. I can't even easily find your messages now as I have to hunt through all the talk page entries. --Mattisse 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologize for repeated postings

Wikipedia was screwed up and that was accidental. I didn't realize it was posting as I kept getting error message.

Please post under a new section on my talk page. Otherwise, the chances are I will not see it. When I get the message flash, I often don't realize that there is more than one message. So please use a new section on my talk page. That is not an unusual request. In fact, talk page etiquette suggest doing that. --Mattisse 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Advice on correct template to use

What I'd do:

1. Write on talk page of both articles describing the situation; make sure that other editors agree that they are practically the same.
2. Just redirect Zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) by overwriting the old text by a #REDIRECT.

enochlau (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, see WP:MERGE. There's no way around it apart from hashing out some kind of a concensus. Is it just one editor? Are other editors satisfied as to its equivalence? enochlau (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read over the talk pages, and probably the best way forward is to get a third opinion or approach other editors directly who might have some knowledge or interest in the topic. It doesn't look like either of you will budge, so I think getting some outside opinions will bring some fresh perspective into the debate. (I don't have the time to review the evidence - I'm married to My Thesis.) enochlau (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Received third opinion on Merge of zaojing and Caisson (Asia architecture)

I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply:

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regards, --Mattisse 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually

After reading the Caisson article (which I really didn't before, I only went on Mattise's word that it focuses solely on the Forbidden City) it is plain and obvious as day to see they are the same exact thing, only using either English terminology or the exact Chinese terminology. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Why don't you guys draw straws or play rock paper scissors or something, because there are articles on East Asian topics that have English originated titles or exact renditions of East Asian terms.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge caisson (Asian architecture) into coffer

My view is that until you straighten out the terminology in Caisson (Asian architecture) any suggested merge with zaojing should be put on hold. The term "caisson" is not commonly used in architecture in the way you use it. There are no architectural articles on Wikipedia that use the word as an architectural word. The Oxford English Dictionary is not an architectural glossary. Glossaries on architecture do not list the term. If you want to use dictionaries, then The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged Edition lists five definitions. As number 6 (and least preferred): Also, cassoon [sic], Arch, coffer (def. 4). I have suggested that the Caisson (Asian architecture) be merged with coffer which is the correct architectural term in English. Other than the least preferred definition in a general dictionary, I cannot find a reliable architectural source supporting your use of the term. (And I do not count superficial online Chinese travel sources if not supported by more reliable sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Architecture is a profession with specific terminology

A general dictionary is not a technical dictionary. If I look up common technical terms in my profession in OED or any other general dictionary, it will not give a correct definition. In fact, this is the source of much strife in my field on Wikipedia, as lay persons stick material into the articles, based on common usage, and disregard the professional definitions. This way misinformation is perpetuated. Fortunately, there was a recent Arbcom decision that in professional fields where scholarly sources exist, correct sourcing WP:V and WP:RS must be followed, as it is dangerous for Wikipedia to put forth inaccurate information. Granted, architecture is not, for the most part, a life threatening issue, but the general standards and guidelines should still be followed in all articles. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources

Look up "multiple" in your dictionary. Not good enough to have one nontechnical source. The English did rule the world once upon a time, but I believe that is no longer the case and other cultures get to have their own identity today, even on Wikipedia. Would you use a general Chinese dictionary as the main source for an article on an English topic? Cheers. --Mattisse 14:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure

That's actually a great idea, I'll actually do that, and revert the History section to just before my additions, to maintain the coherence of the article, until the new History section is complete.Jame§ugrono_{Contributions} 08:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanbeiji

Thanks--so you're sure the wine that's always used for sanbeiji is mijiu and not any kind of red-colored huangjiu like Shaoxing wine? If mijiu, is it the drinking kind or the cooking kind (which has salt in it)? Badagnani 23:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to reflect your knowledge. Badagnani 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Flag Policy

Hi PalaceGuard! I still need to make an official greeting lol. I can also tell why you have such a name haha. I've read your forbidden palace, its very good and im glad it did reach the GA status. I think Chinese/Asian culture deserves a fairer cut into the earths spere of influence anyway. All the same, I just hope our argument about flags will end peacefully, and I'm sorry if I have offended you in anyway. But I must say here, my argument will go down soon anyway. It seems no one around other than me seem to support flags. Once ben and ench or a few people dig into the argument on your side, I'll prolly end it. oh well, I tried. Dengero 23:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You can have the zaojing redirect - just remove the copied text & references that you put in the Caisson article as they are incorrect anyway

I just do not want the material and text copied from the article, zaojing as it is part of another article. You cannot copy text and references from another article. But you can use the #REDIRECT. Just remove the copied text and references as they are incorrectly used in the Caisson article. Cheers, --Mattisse 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has a policy that you cannot copy information from one article to another without CONSENSUS. That is the point of the MERGE. Cheers, --Mattisse 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look under WP:V, WP:RS etc. you will see that you cannot cite sources that you have not consulted directly. That means you must access the source before you reference it. Cheers, Mattisse 14:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be under WP:CITE. You cannot just take a list of references and pretend that you consulted them personally. Cheers, --Mattisse 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More on OR in Caisson (Asian architecture)

Accusing me of OR does not excuse you. You are pretending if you cite sources in an article and you have not consulted them. Besides WP:CITE, WP:NOR (since you have not consulted the sources) and WP:POV are applicable.

Also you might be interested that User:Cyborg Ninja has been stalking me and making personal attacks. Cyborg Ninja has since been warned for stalking and personal attacks regarding me, including these posting on the talk page of Caisson (Asian architecture):

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Referring to another post on my talk page: As I have explained to you before, when I said "my sources" I mean sources I own and can consult. The sources that I own and can therefore verify by looking are quoted incorrectly in your article. You have used the copied sources incorrectly when you copied from one article to another. In one instance I could not find the source cited in the book so I must have been mistaken. In another instance, the lady whoever's tomb, neither a caisson nor a zaojing is mentioned. These books are very difficult for me to read and understand, and I do at times make mistakes. Cheers, --Mattisse 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat from my talk page since this discussion is going on there

(copied from my talk page)

To repeat from my posting on your talk page, I don't care about the #REDIRECT on zaojing. I care that you copied text and the references from the article and put it in yours. If you look under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. you will see that you cannot cite sources that you have not consulted directly. That means you must access the source before you reference it. As someone else suggested, it can also be consider WP:NOR, WP:POV if you include information that you have not researched yourself.

Referring to another post on my talk page: As I have explained to you before, when I said "my sources" I mean sources I own and can consult. The sources that I own and can therefore verify by looking are quoted incorrectly in your article. You have used the copied sources incorrectly when you copied from one article to another. In one instance I could not find the source cited in the book so I must have been mistaken. In another instance, the lady whoever's tomb, neither a caisson nor a zaojing is mentioned. These books are very difficult for me to read and understand, and I do at times make mistakes. Cheers. --Mattisse 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked at the Village Pump (policy) and the answer is that you cannot use the sources copied from another Wikipedia article - providing diff of answer

• [4] Here is the diff with the answer. Please follow policy and remove the sources. Cheers. --Mattisse 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here is another diff[5]

And here is the comment copied from the Technical Pump (policy):

See more specifically the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it. GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers. --Mattisse 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Heavenly Purity

Hello! back in August at this edit, amongst the material you added were the words "subsequent emperors lived instead at the smaller Hall of Mental Cultivation to the west" and a citation to it named <ref name="CCTV2"/>. Since the reference name doesn't exist earlier in the article, it has caused "Cite error 8; No text given" to appear in the references. I am guessing that "CCTV2" refers to a China Central TV documentary (or website), but do you remember to what it was you were intending to reference? Thanks, and regards, — BillC ^talk 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! I did wonder if that was where it had come from, but I was unable to find it with a quick look, and in any case the best person to produce the reference was yourself. Have a good day! :) — BillC ^talk 00:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I may have looked at it a bit unfavourably at the time. But i took your statement that: This article had been stable for a long time before Loopla came along and disturbed its arrangement. as the offending comment, at the time i viewed it as though you were calling the editor in question disruptive. It was probably incorrect, but i think that commenting on other editors should be discouraged at all times. I am entitled to use the word fuck as i please, in its context, it violated no policy of wikipedia, although some may consider it inappropriate, i dont. Happy editing. Twenty Years 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have been stable for a long period of time, but that is the point of wikipedia anyone can edit, although i agree with Loopla's revision, and disagree with yours I am willing to just let this all go, and move on with my life, because what happens on one small school article concerns me precious little. Feel free to join WikiProject Education in Australia if you feel strongly about schools. Twenty Years 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in becoming part of the WP Schools Assessment team, where you can actively assess school articles. You start off as a beginner assessor, where you have to post all of your assessments to the assessment change log, after about 2 weeks they will promote you to Experienced, and you only have to put an article that got a B-class or higher, or mid-importance and up. Probably worth joining. Twenty Years 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Thanks for asking. Wikipedia has a pretty well-defined set of options for content disputes, at WP:DR. In this case, you might start with posting a request at the Architecture WikiProject to see if you can get one or more other editors there to get involved. After that, you have a whole range of choices. If I were you, I'd just ask Mattisse if he'd be willing to do any of the options, and take whatever he wants. If he won't pick one, then you can rule out the mediation cabal, but the others are still available.

And maybe if you try editor assistance, someone there will have a better idea than Blueboar and me for what to do next, though I'm skeptical (but would be delighted to be wrong). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given a comment that Mattisse has made on his talk page about not trusting mediation, I doubt he will agree. However, my advice is that you do make the offer, as it will show your good faith in attempting to resolve things, and that could be important at later stages of dispute resolution should they get there. I note that Mattisse has not been formally notified (on his talk page) of the mediation that Cyborg Ninja has already requested. You might take notifying Mattisse of the request as a first step (also note that the Mediation Cabal will not accept the request if he does not signal his agreement.)

At this point, I think I will do more damage than good by remaining involved in the article. Mattisse at least offered an appology for his insinuation that we were engaged in sockpuppetry. I am willing to let it go at that. Good luck with your future editing. Blueboar 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse (again)

He is taking his temporary block very poorly... he keeps digging the hole deaper, and escallating the situation. I strongly suggest that you not respond to any comments he may make either here or on his talk page. I have notified ANI... let them handle it. Blueboar 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

and again

Re your kind note on my talkpage. I'm afraid that I am not posting on Mattisse's talkpage for much the same reason as you - I don't wish to stir up further ill feeling. I suggest you ask User:Lar, an admin who has recently helped Mattisse, if he is willing to broach the subject with her. LessHeard vanU 12:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ToC

Whilst I hear your concerns, im looking to the future: these articles are going to have more content, and as such, doing it now will save doing it in future. Then you have the other issue of "who really wants to see 5 sections on the different alumni from XY" the answer is only a few people. Thanks. Twenty Years 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. Ill re-consider on some occasions. Twenty Years 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture). For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Lijiu

What the heck is "lijiu"? I've never heard of this. It sounds delicious and I've made liqueur out of plums at home before, but never heard that such a thing was commercially produced in China or Taiwan. Badagnani 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We've had some discussion about these Chinese fruit wines here, in case you're interested. Badagnani 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Meijiu

Since the meijiu is red, Chinese must prefer that the fruits used be ripe rather than green. Unless it's colored artificially... I have a bottle of yangmei jiu (杨梅酒--labeled as "arbutus juice" though it's made with baijiu!) and the liquid is red in color. Badagnani 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like 红梅酒 IS made with green ume, and colored with food coloring (I think it might be red yeast rice, or artificial colors, or both). See http://blog.tianya.cn/blogger/view_blog.asp?BlogName=plum_wine. Badagnani 06:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Huangjiu

I don't agree that describing that it's produced on the mainland and in Taiwan is politically loaded at all. If you want to rephrase it, that's fine, but I think it's fine "as is." When I purchase huangjiu, I purchase it specifically because it is produced in one of these places or other, so the distinction does matter. Badagnani 08:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand now--thanks for the additional explanation. I hadn't given the term "nations" a second thought. Badagnani 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny...but pathetic

Why are some people so focused and determined in their efforts to show everyone else in the world the brevity of their stupidity? Seriously. That is one of the dumbest things to argue "well, since I think it should be Central Kingdom, the term 'Middle Kingdom' should be struck from the article altogether, because up is down, black is white, and my head is where my *** should be." Lol.

Good luck mate. Hopefully this guy will realize the pointlessness of all this before he gets banned for related or unrelated reasons.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: In the news

Hey, as you may remember, I'll be in Hong Kong for 7 days from this Thursday - and I would like to find someone to act as replacement editor for the "In the news" section in the WP:POST. Do you want to fill in for one issue (November 19)? It's not hard - just Google news search for "Wikipedia" and summarise the more promising ones. You can just use the current edition's section as a template. How does that sound? :) enochlau (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okies, this is how you do the In the News (good to at least spread the word in case I drop dead one day :P):

• Look at Google news and quickly scan for interesting articles - I personally have a slight bias towards say, the WSJ over say, the Azerbaijan Daily Prophet
• Check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions if people have referred stuff (in the period 12 November to 19 November)
• Write it up in a subpage: see my last one, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-11-12/In the news for a template. Typically, just a few articles will get the paragraph treatment; the rest can just get a sentence or two
• Link to your subpage on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom on the line that says In the News
• It's due 5pm Monday UTC, but in reality, the absolute deadline is about afternoon of Tuesday Sydney time - but slightly earlier is better of course :)

Thanks again, and I hope you enjoy it - the Signpost is widely read! Don't worry about stuffing up - the editor Ral315 will be sure to guide you if need be. enochlau (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read it - good work and thanks again! enochlau (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

FYI - I've started a sockpuppetry case against Peter zhou (talk · contribs) here, if you'd care to add any input. Thanks  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another one

Saw your post at RFCU. See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/PalaceGuard008#User:Sumple. Please comment there. This SSP was filed by a brand new account, making it highly suspicious, he also failed to notify you. Also see my comments at the RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It's too bad it's so easy to game the system like that. Anyway, thanks for taking care of the JackyAustine sock, Rlevse.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting annoying, and I'm not even really involved. I've asked whatever admin looks at that SSP to close it as a clearly bad faith attempt to harass you, Palace. Hopefully it'll be as obvious to them as it is to us. Sorry you're the one he's taken a liking to.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Caisson edited again

Just thought I'd let you know. It seems some references were deleted. - Cyborg Ninja 09:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In the news

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you, but I just wanted to call your attention to Wikipedia's positive mention in Vogue Knitting, which I posted to the Signpost Suggestion page. It was a pretty minor mention, and I'm not sure what the Signpost's standards are for that, but VK is a pretty important magazine in the knitting world, so it might merit some notice. Also, VK published two images from Wikipedia without attribution. Anyway, it's just for your consideration, and thanks for contributing to the Signpost! :) Willow (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey you live in Sydney? I live there as well.--PCPP (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, I keep getting the feeling that you might be Sumple. Am I right? Bathrobe 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I will answer on his behalf as he is currently on a working holiday. Please read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PalaceGuard008 if you have not done so already. enochlau (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly mind if Palaceguard is Sumple. (I never used the word "sockpuppet"). Sumple was a good and fair editor, and so is Palaceguard.

Bathrobe 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

China

PalaceGuard, I find Kirlston's behaviour more and more unacceptable. He appears to be sitting in an armchair somewhere in Europe or South America (who knows where) and deciding what belongs to which country and what doesn't, based on rather patchy knowledge and very broad judgements. I made the mistake of insulting him about his lack of knowledge, which far from deterring him, only aroused his sense of indignation and goaded him to greater efforts. The upshot is that he now wants to incorporate Japan in the article on "China". Given that any suggestions that I make only cause him to come up with more outlandish ideas abut "Chinese civilisation" I can't see any choice but to withdraw from editing the article. Bathrobe (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PalaceGuard, thanks for your comments, despite your being busy with "real life". Yes, Kirlston may be referring to Okinawa, as you say, but I would normally associate southern Japan with Kyushu, Nansei Shotō, etc. As usual, Kirlston is writing about something he has only a vague understanding of.

Talking to these guys is like pissing into the wind. The more you write the further they seem to go off on their tangent. I was shocked at how he tried to sum the whole of China up as a choice between Zhonghua minzu and China proper. It's one particular perspective (a perspective I partly agree with), but the way he presented it was so laugably silly and skewed as to be ridiculous. I tried to inject some perspective by looking at the Qing legacy, and all I got was "yeah, that's the point of view of the Han Chinese; what about the other points of view?" (I never thought I would find myself trying to defend the Chinese point of view!)

Anyway, I've gone beyond the point of no return; I can't go back in without losing face. I think it's probably better for me not to deal with these well-meaning people who think that whatever nonsense they cook up should be respected as "constructive contributions".

Again, thanks for the encouraging words. I hope that you can rein these guys in. It's a pity that Mainland Chinese can't access Wikipedia because if they could, the sh*t would really hit the fan!

Bathrobe (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Article move discussion at Renminbi

After another article move war, with the article subsequently move protected, there is an article move discussion at Talk:Renminbi (again). Please comment if you have any opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article you might like to read

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/10/1194329562764.html -- being an aussie and all. Have you seen that series on NYT about environmental degradation in China? It's groundbreaking. There are 5 or 6 of them now, excellent features on different aspects of the amazing, unfolding story. This is also good from National Review's Jay Nordlinger: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWFhMTM4NTY1OTIzZTEzYTg1MzJhODg4MGIyOTcxYWE=&w=MA==. Saludos!--Asdfg12345 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me.

how dare you denounce my campaign for easier access to wikipedia pages as an anti-PR crusade. you're the only one who wants the name and keeps moving it back there to try and boost the ailing profile of your former school. Libstooge 01 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)