User talk:PalaceGuard008/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Just thought I'd point out...

That Fort Street High has had its importance changed from Mid to High, following a discussion I raised at WP:SCH/A.

And also, I was wondering if you might like to start some work on the history section over the Christmas break. I understand that you might want to spend some time with your family - that's okay with me, I'll still be here. I won't be able to contribute much until Wednesday, when I can borrow them books from the library over the holidays. If you can't start now, just let me know when you can, or even just take a look at my subpage where it is now. Add whatever you can, anything is appreciated, as long as the info is salient and encyclopaedic. _Jame§^ugrono 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday Wonders link, for a limited time

This is the show in the US. I don't know if we were talking about the same thing; you can't possibly think ill of this. It's truly so beautiful: http://www.ntdtv.com/xtr/b5/TV_window.htm. You'll be able to read the Chinese and figure out what other times it's playing. I'm watching now on Sydney time, there are some times listed. You should definitely check it out, and enjoy.--Asdfg12345 14:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hey, just popping by to see how you're doing. Sorry I haven't been around much, though I guess things are going more smoothly at this site than they used to. Thank God. I've been pretty busy with a recent, local murder case so I haven't kept up with things. Anyway, Happy New Year and hope to see you around again. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello PalaceGuard

Just a friendly explanation of the vis-à-vis remark you commented on. As you pointed out correctly, they are opposites within the spectrum of liberal-democracies and that is what I was pointing out with that word. One of the more common definitions of that term is found here, i.e. "opposite to another" or "opposed to". I hope this explains it. What do you think? I would be interested in having your feed back. Good luck with your studies and I hope you have a great 2008, Bianca Neri (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. English is essentially similar in both places, but I do see what you are explaining to me. In this context, I think the term more prone to be understood clearly is "rather than" as opposed to "vis-a-vis".

So, PalaceGuard, how have your studies been going? Sincerely, Bianca Neri (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sydney Law School

Can this be construed as vandalism? Protection shouldn't be used in a content dispute, and especially so since I go to this esteemed institution... enochlau (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

00:54, 25 January 2008 PalaceGuard008 (Talk | contribs) (30,018 bytes) (rv non-npov edits by IP

Hi. What does (rv non-npov edits) mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2008

Hey, for the part about emotive language, is there a list that i can refer to? If not, is it subjective? If it is subjective to you, can you help me by pointing out which ones are emotive so i can correct them?

Secondly the "original research" part was not an original research, it was a conclusion made using the facts mentioned in the early sections of the topic in order to complete the arguement. Since that entry didn't make sense without a conclusion that draws all the facts together.

Finally, i don't think grammatical and spelling errors means you can revert the whole entry, if that is the case the majority of the entries on Wiki needs to be reverted. I think the conventional procedures to treat this problem is to correct the spelling errors?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 January 2008

K, i'll fix the stuff you mentioned, and i recall that users are allowed an oppotunity to edit their entries to fit the standards before their entries are axed, so I don't think it would be too rough to give me just that. Unless you would rather continue to delete everything you disagree with without giving people a chance to explain or correct themselves?

Hi, I fixed all the problems you noted, but as for "original research," i removed several, and i don't think the ones that remain are any more "original" than majority of the simplified chinese entries that start with "neutral" observors.

Also, in Taiwan, simplified and traditional coexist. Kids learn the traditional in school, but then when they get older (past 6th grade), they are then allowed to be lazy and use simplified chinese in their non-scholarly writings. In fact, the modern chinese used by youngsters are so simplified that many older generation have problem reading. Prime example are "orz" and "mei mei." If you look at the creation of these modern simplifications, however, they make sense. That is the natural evolution of languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

in other argument pages i've seen, they rarely do much citing. As long as there's no total bs that has zero reasoning behind the entry, people usually accept it. If there are confusion they ask for clarification and people usually add it (or maybe the bad ones got deleted and i just never saw one).

Sydney Law School

Dear Palace Guard,

Its really a pity that your arrogance (typical of an LLB student with no understanding of the legal profession) prevents you from allowing a view other than your own to be incorporated in an article on this site.

Kindest regards,

An officer of the Supreme Court of NSW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldlaw (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You and I both know that this is not a question of sources and actual facts. Everyone agrees about all this. What it turns on is the definition of "law school" which is debatable. I accept that your view on the matter is reasonable, but what Im saying is that is not the only reasonable view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldlaw (talk • contribs) 13:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You just described the LPAB as an education institution. If thats not the definition of "school" I dont know what is. Its not necessary to have an actual document that states "The LPAB was the first law school" in explicit terms. Its very existence was brought about by the fact that there were no universities in Australia at that time (that much is, I suggest, not controversial). So it is agreed by all that the LPAB (or rather SAB/BAB) was around because at that time there was no way to study law in Aust. Ie it must have been first. It was the first education institution to conduct a programme in law. Therefore it was the first law school Ok - thats my opinion, but the factual basis underlying that opinion is clear from government records showing the reasons for the creation of the LPAB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldlaw (talk • contribs) 13:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you really want a documentary source: Page 8, Course Information Handbook, Summer 2006-07 Session, The Legal Profession Admission Board. It says "From 1848, before Australian Universities offered law degrees the [LPAB]set examinations for the admission to the profession... The tradition has been...allowing people to study law and ... become legal practitioners.".

By setting examinations and proving a reading list the LPAB amounted to a law school, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldlaw (talk • contribs) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding the function of the LPAB - the main function (especially in the 1800s) was education rather than admission. Despite the name, the Supreme Court was the primary agency for admission, whereas the admission boards were named because they provided programs designed to lead to admission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldlaw (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tibet map legend utterly and completely indecipherable

...as the subject line says... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, your talk page is a redirect, so I'll reply here. The map is descipherable with a little thought, and your version is rather inaccurate. I'd prefer correctness to accessible info that is incorrect. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's just a mess of meaningless colored splotches, on my monitor at least. The reason I say that is because the splotches do not align with the text in any meaningful or coherent manner. Change it to something simpler, please. If the descriptions in my version do not match up witht the correct colors, then alter that... If you want me to, I can get on my own computer and make a screen shot of the way the map looks to me. I dunno if it looks the same on your monitor, but on mine it is incomprehensible. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly logical and comprehensible on mine. Can you show me a screenshot to illustrate why it is incomprehensible to you? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Is it supposed to be suggesting that:

1. "Historic Tibet as claimed by Tibetan exile groups" encompasses the red, kinda-light-brownish, and yellow areas..
2. "Tibetan areas designated by the PRC" ecompasses the kinda-light-brownish, yellow, green and light blue areas...
3. "Tibet Autonomous Region (actual control)" is both yellow and green but no others... etc.?

• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the idea. I guess there are three options for treating something like this (1) use the current (novel) scheme, (2) use a scheme where each description is followed by a number of colour blocks to indicate the areas encompassed in that definition, and (3) to create detailed legends for each colour, along the lines of "Historial Tibet as claimed by Tibetan exile groups, in addition to Tibetan areas designated by the PRC". I guess the original contributor chose the first one as the easiest route. All three schemes would be confusing in some way. I don't mind if you would like to have a go at creating the legends for scheme (3) - but I appreciate it could be difficult to arrive at the right wording. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I guess another option is to use a combination of colouring, hashing, and shading. How well that works in practice here, I don't know.

(undent). It's one of those foreground/background type things.. you know, have you seen the image that if you squint at it one way, it looks like a pretty young woman, but if you look at it another way it looks like an old hag? To me, the map legend looked like vertical colored bars (see how the colors line up vertically?) that were unconnected to the descriptions. At the very least, there should be a thin black line as a border delineating each separate row, and at least a word or two of explanatory text. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, that last idea is great. If you just break the vertical bars into distinct segments (but keep them aligned to avoid colour confusion), that should help with clearing the confusion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

...well... I guess I really shouldn't spend a lot of time working on the template. I'm suppoed to be busy in real life. Do you know anyone else who can modify it? You could look at Template:Three Kingdoms or Template:Taiwan aborigines sidebar for ideas. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I made it somewhat better, or so i think. Alter to taste. Gotta run. Bye! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I might play around with the blocks a little when I have time - at the moment I am, like you, supposed to be busy in real life. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An article you're sure to like

I just stumbled across this the other day, I remembered your mention of Chinese Buddhism. This paints a picture of despair, but also of hope, since the original spirit is still there: Which Temple Follows The Way?--Asdfg12345 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah here is another one: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aReCfFSqFSwI&refer=au, and I think this is the heart of it: "Shaolin has also licensed its name to a Taiwanese online gaming company and to a souvenir-retailing chain called Buddha, which will target Olympic tourists, the newspaper said." !!!, to me I reckon when you start mixing religion with money, it's like, what are you doing?!, because religious things should not meddle with worldly affairs, and they should just concentrate on their respective metaphysical transcendence projects. I kind of agree with your view of the function of religious buildings now, I think this is a really telling aspect of our times. I imagine that time was when the use of religious places was not a question, because of the place of religion in the zeitgeist, and maybe also because there was no tourist industry! I imagine that at some point people would not have even thought of religious buildings as anything but holy places reserved for reverence and solemnity, and so this question of their correct usage would not have existed. Know what I mean? Anyway, tick-tock, we are where we are and it's not going to turn around any time soon. I respect those monks who walk around on foot and do it like the old days.--Asdfg12345 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A character question

If I said 雕 is the simplified version of 彫, would you agree with me? I cannot tell whether people in mainland actually use 雕. In fact talking to people from HK they use 雕. I am trying to figure out which one people use. In fact the Japanese unicode keep 彫, which disturbingly would make Japanese characters more Chinese. I don't know if I am making any sense. What do you think? Benjwong (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RMB

Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, then Renminbi yuan is fine. I did google "renminbi yuan", and found a moderate number of hits (60 thousand?), but nothing compared to the number of hits for renminbi on its own.

The numismatics people who are coming to the RMB page have a way of distorting usage until you don't know what's normal usage and what is their rather artificial "standardised" usage. I found myself getting quite confused.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Caisson

It's still going on? Wow. enochlau (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the translation

I think it has really added a new depth to the over all narrative of Zhou Tong's fictional life. I actually rewrote part of the "old age" section so that it would read like one solid story. I explain any deviation from Yue Fei's Qing Dynasty biography in the footnotes. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard origin

Just curious, is your wikipedia username some translation of 宮武? --Lgriot (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Stroke Order

Thanks; where do the strokes start?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Simplest Sinolexic Character

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what about considering all other chinese derived scripts (for example, Zhuang)?68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the NPOV tag

It clearly states: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Qilin

It might help if you knew where this attention was coming from; there is talk

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)

of merging

• Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)

to

• Qilin

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, again. Did you see this? Any there you don't see as trivia? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Panchens

Sorry to take a little while getting back to you about the Panchen Lama articles. Also, sorry to see you got blocked for a while, too. I don't think that our conversation previously really reached a consensus. It was more that I took a break to do a little research, and the research was interesting but I didn't really reach a conclusive opinion, and so I never came back to the table. That being the case, the lack of a consensus certainly doesn't prohibit you from making edits to the articles based on your own opinions. I'll take a look at the edits in question and see if I have an opinion. Cheers, —Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

Clearly the term "Tiananmen Square Massacre" does not refer to the protests. Fix instead of blindly reverting, please. cab (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty empresses

I notice you have previously participated in discussions about the article titles for Qing empresses. I am interested in getting opinion on the correct location of the articles on Qing empresses which are almost all currently located at hideous violations of pinyin rules. I don't have opinions on the format or even the names themselves so I would like to get some consensus before proposing moves. (But please, no hyphens and no CamelCase.) The articles in question are every CamelCase or hyphenated name plus Empress Xiao Xian and Abahai at Category:Qing Dynasty empresses and Category:Qing Dynasty empress dowagers. If you are interested please discuss it here. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

China, the country

I'm not sure I want to get involved in this again. My personal opinion is that every country should have a separate article for its political entity or entities as opposed to the non-political elements of it. I think it's silly that the article titled India is about the Republic of India, and the article on Egypt is about the Arab Republic of Egypt. However, as far as I know, no one shares this view. As for whether China is a country, I suppose it depends on what one means by "country". I think I'll sit this one out. Cheers, Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm glad to see it's getting a bit of publicity; a while back, the article Shen Kuo, which I poured an enormous amount of work into, appeared on the front page as well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hey I replied on my page. What do you think? Benjwong (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

revert in talk page

I reverted the edit of Littlebutterfly in the talk page of Tibet because the user had previously changed the talk page and unfairly changed the apparent meaning of my own (and others) comments (precisely the same rationale you reverted mine) Rubico (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rubico is in the right here, at least on the section heading edit. Benjwong was talking about getting an editor to review the dispute between me and Littlebutterfly, not the anon user. Alexwoods (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

no problem! i neglected to put a summary in the edit history about the revert, my fault too  ;-) Rubico (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I removed the contents regarding "Xinhua News Agency published what it claimed to be an account of the process by which the Dalai Lama allegedly orchestrated the riots" from the 2008 Tibetan unrest article. Because the link you cited seems to be a dead link. Also, if this information is only published by People's Daily, if you can find major Western sources also mention this, it would be slightly more suitable for the article. If this is included to this article other users might want to include those Epoch Times and phayul articles alleged government orchestrating the riots.--Sevilledade (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sory to jump in, but if the people's daily really is the central organ of the CCP and we find a non-dead link to the story, then it definitely can be notable, no matter how believable or non-believable the claims are. Of course it needs to be properly attributed, but this seems to have been done in this case (though it would be interesting what the PD's [supposed] sources were). Falun gong has no stake in the conflict, so what their central organ writes is not by itself relevant. I admit I am a bit ignorant on phayul's links to the cta, though. But at least they seem to have denied the report (or maybe a similar one), so this might make the original report all the more relevant. Yaan (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zhuge Liang

What is the connection? (I am all for slimming the article right down). Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Different from vs. different to

"Different from" is correct in all parts of the English speaking world. "Different to" is not. The word "differ" comes from the Latin differe, which means "to set apart." One would "set something apart from" rather than "set something apart to." The prepositions in Latin are ab for "from" and ad for "to."

Nos cum scapha tempestas dextrovorsum differt ab illis itaque nos ventisque fluctibusque iactatae exemplis plurimis miserae perpetuam noctem.

"The storm separated us from them with the boat in a direction to the right. And so, tossed about by winds and waves, in a multitude of ways, we, wretched creatures, during the livelong night." Plautus, Rudens 2, 3, 39-40

The Latin grammar root is the reason behind the uncommon "to" usage. If you were to send a contract overseas, it would be more prudent to use "different from" because it is always correct. Legis Nuntius (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! English is a Germanic language! unterschiedlich von! Danke! I completely agree with your assertion considering spellings, although it is a different topic from grammar. Each respective region believes the other's spelling to be incorrect. For that reason, I believe it is completely approriate for an article written about a subject relevant to a particular region to use that region's spelling conventions. There is a difference, however: "different from" is always correct, even in your region. Wouldn't it make sense to use an adposition convention that is universally accepted on a global encyclopedia? Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

I've offered informal mediation between you and User:Helixweb and asked him for some clarification on the cited reverts. Maybe if you both take a cool down break this won't have to escalate.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start, I suggest you take a at least a half hour off to try and let this cool down on its own. No sense editing while you're ire is raised. I haven't heard back from Helix yet, but I hope this all gets sorted out soon.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Helix replied via edit summary that he is willing to avoid taking action over your edits for a while and seems to be keeping true to his word. You can removed anything you want from your own talk page with any penalty, the 3rr rules does not apply to your own talk page. As for the revert, it's a style question. It's a correct use of italic type but either way could be applied to this situation. I would discuss the matter on the article's talk page and if there are no objections after a reasonable amount of time I would say it's okay to put it back in, but now might not be the best time to reintroduce is without some effort at discussion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry your wiki spirits are low and I hope that this just turns out to be a temporary state of affairs for you. It's never good to lose an editor. Maybe it's just a cycle and things will pick back up for you. Anyone can get discouraged when they feel like their voice isn't being heard and I wish I had some better advice for how to deal with it, but if you feel some time off will do you good I say go for it. Maybe you'll be ready to help out again after you're recharged and the project would be more than happy to have you back.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Tibet

I saw you on discussion regarding Chinese restoration in Tibet, well international law and objective history are clear on the issue, but the mass media hysteria dominate the view it seems. You have no idea how hysteric and borderline racists comments against China are here . I saw claims that 'every year milions of Tibetans are murdered' believe it or not. One mainstream politicians condemned EU publication calling for cease of violance on both sides "because the Tibetans don't use violence against Chinese". Sigh...--Molobo (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)