![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
wikipedia is NOT a sopabox, see WB:SOAP, it applies to USER PAGES TOO. your user page was clearly advocating propaganda. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
its not the FLAG thats the problem, its the ONE WORLD ONE DREAM FREE TIBET thats the problem,... and you might want to read the rules yourself......no soapoxing anywhere on here ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
WB:SOAP read it.... ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I believe there were discussion over these matters before, anyway I had added new materials on the talks page over your responses that you had raised before. Thank you Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, although I agreed some of the question you raised, but I don't think the templates should be treated over the articles, plus there are in fact too much of it. Thanks! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Why haven't you quoted Sarton's article yet? Do you not even have access to it?! Please, prove me wrong, and show me that you actually read his article.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, who are you calling a nerd, I hope that's not me. Lol. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Below, this is so turth for me, I meant I have a life which keep me busy. And I rarely edit other articles. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma said on Talk: List of Chinese inventions:
Btw Sarton's is a book from 1970. I gave you the pages, look it up, if you are interested in the truth
I am going to my university library to rent out a book by the late George Sarton (1884–1956). I just read a really sweet memorial journal article dedicated to him on JSTOR...written in 1957. It commemorated him as a true scholar, so apparently the guy wasn't a hack. His book I will be renting out is called Ancient science and modern civilization, and was published posthumously in 1959. Hopefully he deals with the gimbals. Are we satisfied now, Gun Powder Ma?--
Pericles of Athens
Talk 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be rational when discussing [1], I already told you not to make discussion over personal than content. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't, this is both personal attack and Ad hominem attack. Not to mention, you 're refering me earlier to as a nerd who have no life [2] Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
His edit summary actually said see talk page for earlier specimen, but I do not found any new argument at that time over the talk page, so I thought it was a vandalism. This is clearly personal attack, not matter what you do, don't make any attack on others. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this was never a content dispute, his removal came to me as vadalism, despite what he said over the edit summary, I only realised it was a mistake when he provide this explains over the talk later. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, could you mind don't makes any questions over my edits, I cited Needham and Li Shou-hua is a dated research already. Thanks Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well said, of course I am not his labour, so mind you. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What impression anyway, is all according to you! Thus your fault for having such impression. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
But speaking of which impression, in fact what you give on others was a distorted man, probably aged around 40s, who likes to pick on articles you hate and removes the entires. It is not just me who have such impression, some anon had said that too previously. So it is not the other's and mine fault that you give that impression. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You could lies as long you like, but you can't cheat on other's human instinct! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, actually Li Shua-hua is indeed dated, take a look at the source, it was published in 1954. Anpersonalaccount ( talk)
Gun Powder Ma says
In the meanwhile can explain why would like a short defintion rather than a correct definition
Hello Gun Powder Ma, I think this is rather long for the bullet, do you have any other suggestions? Or shall we just stick to the "rudder" still? Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Gun Powder Ma, I changed the the quotes as I found out another source of Li Shu-hua, I guess we rest on here with this. Thanks! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, in case you're not aware of it, I just quoted the page from Needham you asked for. Take a look at it! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Kingdome is the only record holder on the list that no longer exists.
The title of each category is not the largest ever built... it is specifically domes "...that have held the title of the largest dome..." (in a place, by type, etc.). Does the Kingdome still hold the title of the largest concrete dome? It held the title of the largest dome built in its category, but as it does not exist, it cannot hold any title at this moment.
Is the tallest building in New York City still the WTC? Not according to Wikipedia... it isn't even on the List of tallest buildings in the world... because it(tragically) doesn't exist. Do you think Wikipedia should change that list?
If someone comes to the site and asks...where is the world's largest concrete dome... the article says... at present... it is the Kingdome... unless you check the notes.
By putting the word "demolished" in the place of "present", the Kingdome can still hold the record by being last in line, since Scope's claim on the chart will have terminated in 1976. Ruedetocqueville ( talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Roman De architectura of Vitruvius, and I was hoping that you know a thing or two about its content, given that you have an interest in all things Greco-Roman. This is in regards to an entry I want to add to List of Chinese inventions, but I am unsure if there was a precedent.
In the early 12th century Song Dynasty architectural treatise Yingzao Fashi, there is a graded system of architectural timber components in standard dimensions called caifen (材份制). Each of its eight grades were assigned to a different-sized timber hall in progressive order from smallest to largest. This is not simply a system of measurement, but a graded system of components meant to fit in structures of different sizes. In other words, it was a module system, which the free dictionary defines as thus:
Architecture The dimensions of a structural component, such as the base of a column, used as a unit of measurement or standard for determining the proportions of the rest of the construction.
Did such a system exist in Vitruvius' book? Or even any of the Indian Vastu Shastra? If not, I believe the Chinese were the first to establish such a system; correct me if I am wrong.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This user wants you to
join WikiProject Alternate History. |
Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You really don't like giving any credit to the Chinese and Muslims do you? I can understand the former as that fire is liberally stoked by a spate of Chinese Nationalism (but I don’t want to pay lip service to idiots). However the latter is harder to argue against 'cos you can't deny their contributions despite the fact, as it has already been said (much to the disgrace of Robert Kilroy Silk [bastard nevertheless]) that they haven't done much in the past 500 years, but neither too have the Greeks though for at least twice as long. I think though that they had a civil war at some point in the past century. You ought to learn to accept that western society and modern society as it has now been established de facto internationally is the germination of seeds planted many a year ago in India, Persia, Middle East, Egypt and of course Greece and Rome. Indeed if one were to draw a real historical line between East and West I would go far as to put it at the border between India and China (Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan nations respectively) if not that at least Persia or the Middle East. Aarandir ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article needs further tagging.
You may want to know that I requested a peer-review on it here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1.
Cesar Tort 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd certainly be interested. I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, but I'll do them. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! I've sent you an email, but I'd like to ask you here what you think of the article structure. Wandalstouring raises some legitimate points in his objections, but I'd like the opinion of others before engaging in so drastic changes. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. LOL. The evidences are QUOTED in the text right now without your personal commentary NOR mine. Your reverts are in violation of WP:NOT#OR so take your original research elsewhere and leave the article as it is. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Do you have a source to support the Hadrian's Wall claim made by another contributor? 62.56.99.2 ( talk) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You've shadowed my edits to continue your disruptive editing. Please stop. If you continue to shadow my edits I will have to file an incidents' report. Thanks. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
SOME people THINK the turtleship had iron armor. That isn't good enough for you?
And I'm done here. You and melonbarmonster and all the people who is still yelling all over can keep whacking each other like you've done since the beginning of the big bang. This place is such nonsense now, I don't know why I stuck my head in here just to see whats been happening so far. Whats the point of fighting over this? Theres nothing at stake here and nothing in the real world will change regardless of whatever stuff we scribble in this place. And whatever you people write here isn't going to persuade anyone who reads these articles. If someone thinks the turtleship had iron then thats that and if someone thinks the turtleship had nothing then thats that. Nobody should care whether kimchee is made with nappa or chinese or american cabbage. Its still korean food and thats that.
I have chemistry homework and other things to do. so GOODBYE and do whatever you want with the turtle ship article only to have it reverted by melonbarmonster and vice versa.
Good friend100 ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gun Powder Ma, I'm currently translating your Maliakos Gulf Tsunami article ( no sorrows about the autographic faults in the lemma, please), but I actually don't know about the correct German Lemma. If you do: tell me (in de.wikipedia or here)! Greetings,-- Fecchi ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very interested by and with this article, being both familiar with the area and the science behind the technology. I was wondering if you were aware on an existing English translation of the main ref. If not, I'll have to hit up one of my local German-speaking friends to develop one. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What other oddities has he produced. I must say that articles like that on that topic are all too common, YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world. Nommed YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, saw your entry on my talk page just now. Do not know about any other articles such as these two, but I have seen that user now for over a year copying and pasting badly researched and consistently one-sided material in all kinds of articles. He has over 40,000 edits, so you know...I think his consistent misquotation and overinterpretation of sources has brought POV to a new level in Wikipedia, because people tend to believe in assertions more if thez are backed up by a footnote. They are less prone to assume that the information is taken out of context or subtly modified to suit fix preconceptions. Thats why it has been so hard to come this new method. It needs hundreds of footnotes to be checked and most third party observers do not have the time, nor the interest to completely rewrite articles which were written wrongly from the scratch. A case in point is Talk:Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. The net result is that, while many believe the article to be POV and have tried to improve it, many dubious assertions are still there and spread their message.
PS: Just checked again Timeline of historic inventions. It is hard to find a single uncontested invention there. Too many lists just lack information to the contrary. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun Power Ma, I'm really confused what you are doing on the Ritten page. hehe The article is Province of Bolzano-Bozen, we don't switch it from Bolzano-Bozen to Bozen-Bolzano on certain pages. Also, English usage for Bolzano, is, well, Bolzano. We don't call Milan, Milano on Italian-focused pages, nor do we switch Munich, to Munchen on German-focused pages. Thanks, Icsunonove ( talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You say, " can't believe that you do a dozen edits on a short article about a simple bridge just to get your political point across. I was really not invloved in your petty naming guerrilla war, but some others and you repeatedly invading the article have got me a bit pissed now. So now we really have to talk the naming conventions through, I guess. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"
How dare you. You come on my talk page and spout these amazingly stupid accusations. My "political point across"? You have issues dude, what political point am I trying to get across about a BRIDGE? I'm trying to summarize citations as clearly and in a neutral fashion as possible. You on the other hand seem to have some political theory made up and are here enthusiastically playing Wiki-soldier. Grow the heck up. And my "petty naming guerilla war"? Are you smoking something? Please show me my naming war. I've been at the forefront of making sure that all names are included and respected in this province. How about you?? If I make an incorrect edit, you can point it out politely and at least try to be civilized. Invading the article?!?! I didn't know that this article was your kingdom! You have got some major issues Gun Powder Ma, and I don't need your regards. You should evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page, and then check yourself. You obviously are a bit too much into "military history" with all your tired ways to accuse someone. holy beejeesuz! Icsunonove ( talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a sense of déjà vu... Don't you remember this and this?-- Suppar luca 13:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have expected more of an explanation after you reverted 70% of the changes I made. To make it short:
For now I reverted only the section title "Demographics of South Tyrol" to "Demographic history". I know that when an article is about South Tyrol it's hard to assume good faith, but honestly, South Tyrol is not Bosnia or Rwanda.-- Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso ( talk) 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The upshot is: We both agree that the article lefts wanting. That is a good basis. But you did the reverts, so it would be nice if you explain your reasons first. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Except that I did. In the edit summary.
Also I don't think that answering questions with questions is a good basis for discussions, but I will answer first, because otherwise it would never end.
Fine. I still don't quite understand that merely stating that something is "useless" or "more relevant" without giving further reasons, constitutes an explanation, but anyway. Actually, I intended the box and the table to be the first elements for improving and enlarging the article. It was just so, that I had these pertinent sources, so I began with them.
My edits are mostly reverting chinese nationalists. I really don't think we'll have a problem. Akkies ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop editing Korean topics without expert knowledge. --Korsentry 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
![]() | The Category:Alto Adige has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. |
I've got an idea for you Gun Powder Ma. Instead of keeping up your constant personal attacks against your so-called "usual suspects", how about you try and tone it down and start discussing things in a civilized manner. First of all, I don't like how you trivialize Alto Adige as a fascist invention -- it is not. The fascists abused this term, that is for certain, but you have no right to permanently blacken it and unilaterally discard it. Second, that is highly offensive that you go to a discussion about a category-keep/delete and use it as a soap box to make accusations towards others. I find an invite on my talk page to contribute to this discussion, and the first thing I find is accusations towards me, and discussions of how we biased the naming and you are going to fix everything. Then anyone wonders why people get tired of contributing on Wikipedia? You think that is good wiki etiquette to come here and treat people you don't even know like that? You have no comprehension of how lopsided the pages and page locations were at one point, and how there was constant (and I mean constant) fighting on here for over two years. It was finally a group of us, including me and Supparluca -- and many others -- who helped hammer out this compromise. The arguing has all but gone down to zero. So, while you may think you've entered this arena and have these brilliant ideas to re-write everything and make things as they should... you completely disrespect what we went through. Lastly, trivial items that you guys are fighting over on the pages like the website locations, etc. Man, get over it, either one is fine. We had used a certain format to be consistent with all Italian provincial pages, you don't have to dream up that there is some grand conspiracy. I'm curious if realize also that Standard Italian (Tuscan) is simply the Chinese Mandarin of Italy. Each and every province and valley have their local languages, and German happens to be one of those in Bolzano. Anyway..... so, let me suggest this: start over, shake hands with everyone, stop with the usual suspects b.s. and accusations, and lets pick a page to discuss things here like educated people. Is that fair enough? Icsunonove ( talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't really help. I have no particular views about turtle ships and no access to any evidence about them. Nor do I really have time to get involved with the disagreement. Can I suggest you mention the issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships; that will hopefully attract some uninvolved editors to the article. The Land ( talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gunpowder Ma. I just read your comment about the Muslim science/debate page. It's a disaster really. Wikipedia can't become a propaganda site. Listing a history of invention/scientists should be pretty easy, just go by well-sourced, region, and time period. Its only when people make wild claims and try to tie it to religion that it becomes a problem (in my opinion brought on by massive personal insecurities, but...) At best there was a unified Muslim state to 750, after that it fractured. Most of this science was based on Greek, Persian, and Roman work, some of it was done by Jews, some by Zoroasterians, most by Persians. Slugging through that article will be a mess but its got to be done. Has a consensus been reached on it? Gunslinger1812 ( talk) 05:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, a newly created article which IMO sounds like synthesis - and trouble: I used to follow the debates on various history forums and they almost always ended along the line 'my dad is stronger than yours'. What do you think, is this article and topic WP conform or not? Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
History of the Han Dynasty; I included some info about the empires of Rome, Parthia, and Kushan in this article that you might be interested in. Also, I have a neat picture in User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economy of the Han Dynasty that you might like, a classic example of Roman gilded silverware (comparable to Roman pieces found in Han Chinese tomb sites, as illustrated by Harper, 2002).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Lao Baixing is created, I think most of the English word Chinese in all of these history articles such as Qing, Ming and Song, Ming can be replaced with Qing Lao Baixing, Ming Lao Baixing, and Song Lao Baixing. What you think? Arilang talk 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not push your own POV. Just because you do not like the article does not mean you should not put a link to it in the Roman Empire article; the point of the see also section is so the reader can access information about the Roman Empire. Just because an article has been nominated for deletion means nothing; the fact it survived means that the community believed it was an article that should stay on wikipedia. Also, please do not edit the article when you do not have correct information; your edits are completely absurd(Persian empire larger than both), as Han Empire includes basically all of modern day China except a few remote regions in Tibet and Dongbei, while Roman Empire covered all the Mediterrenean. I welcome constructive change to teh article, but Do not edit with your own POV. As to OR allegations, there are at least four sources comparing the two empires in the article, and in the sections where there are not such sources, the info is listed seperately, so there is no OR. I know its difficult to put your anti-chinese POV under control, but you must do so if you want to become a contributie editor. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, < http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf> (Accessed December 27, 2008)
Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [1] (accessed December 26, 2008)
Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900
Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0199214646 (Google books preview)
Chapter 7 summary of W.W. Norton & Company, Worlds apart, Worlds together, A History of the world, second edition. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp
There are 5 sources, thank you very much. and as to size of both empires, it would depend on your view. Like, Han did not have commandries over Mongolia. But did they control it after expulsion of Huns? that answer could very easily be yes. Also, would you count central asia in Han empire?(Ban Chao had bases on caspian sea). It all depends on which historians you quote. In my case, the one I quoted merely stated that both empires were quite large. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you point me to the relevant guidelines? What does the first user who put the reference have to do with this?-- Suppar luca 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
In sum, the URLs in the municipalities should follow the naming conventions applied in the rest of the article. Which means in Ritten, there is little place for a provincia URl. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the request for this move without comment while moving the passer river request from one section to another. Can you please restore the request or explain your actions if this was done intentionally? Thanks. Kjaer ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I would already have done it myself but am not an admin, let me know if there's any trouble, it should be a rather uncontroversial revert to the original name. Thanks.Kjaer ( talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you just created a new "etymology" section in the Province of Trento page. The reference you used is self-published, in a foreign language, and partial (you don't need to know German to understand "Totengräber"). If you can fix this, I would suggest moving this piece to Trentino-Südtirol or Trento, as Trentino is not used officially for the province itself.-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC with a proper set of links for comparison, and left a statement of my own. you might want to make a statement as well. -- Ludwigs2 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the right wording of naming conventions is extremely important for sensitive topics. NCs should be edited with care, and reflect consensus. This being said, if you could formulate your arguments in a more calm way, this would certainly speed up the process. Your posts on the talk page show a certain anger, which, while maybe understandable, does not benefit the discussion. WP can be happy that Kotniski reacts in a calm manner; there are several of your words which not every editor would have had the patience to ignore. Cheers Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently created a dab for South Tyrol, and in the process you made "South Tyrol" a redirect to the dab. In the case this wasn't just an oversight: we can't have that, South Tyrol is a very popular redirect, receiving about one seventh the total hits of "Province of Bolzano-Bozen". It needs to stay the way it is. I also removed the third section of the disambiguation page: no one is going to type "South Tyrol" looking specifically for the history of Tyrol.-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me someone hacked your account. Or something the like. I mean first you remove categories I added minutes earlier and you call them "reverts", then you alter you own messages rendering mine senseless, and last you use misleading edit summaries when you revert, such as in South Tyrol. You didn't behave like this yesterday. What's making you change your attitude this much?!-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
From where was the text plagiarized? Opensensestep ( talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have put a new page up here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gordium/Temp
Opensensestep (
talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A small hint. The original author told me that he would have no objection against the plagiarism if somebody made a request. It is not the first time that www.livius.org waspractically copied & pasted in WP. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you help to write more about the introduction of the lateen sail in Byzantine navy. It's a major technological change enabling better cruising and the article doesn't currently quite cover that. Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For very good contributions in elevating the Byzantine navy article to Featured status, for providing tons of material on it and related issues, and for pure enthusiasm. With the best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
Looking forward to continued collaboration. :) Constantine ✍ 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Lookup IP Address: 218.20.25.39
General Information
Hostname: 39.25.20.218.broad.gz.gd.dynamic.163data.com.cn
ISP: ChinaNet Guangdong Province Network
Organization: ChinaNet Guangdong Province Network
Proxy: None detected
Type: Cable/DSL
Blacklist:
Geo-Location Information
Country: China
State/Region: 30
City: Guangzhou
Latitude: 23.1167
Longitude: 113.25
Area Code:
In regards to the tribute thing, it's not a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of what sources say. In this case, the source I used, Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Han to Three Kingdoms (2007), does not explicitly say "tribute" but rather "gifts" that the Romans presented (he speculates they are merchants, not diplomats). I will use the term "gifts" instead, just to be safe on this matter. Sound better?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the passage in full from Crespigny's work:
Page 600: QUOTE: "Most spectacularly, it is recorded that a mission from Daqin 大秦, identified as the empire of Rome, came to Luoyang from the south in 166. The envoys claimed that they had been sent by their king Andun 安敦, presumably the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [reg. 161–180], and the gifts they brought, including ivory, rhinoceros horn and tortoise shell, had evidently been gathered on their journey. There was and still is some suspicion that these men were enterprising traders rather than accredited officials, but their visit provided valuable prestige to the emperor at a time of political difficulty. [It may be only chance, but the date of this visit coincided with the outbreak of the Antonine plague which ravaged the Roman empire from the middle 160s: the question of epidemics is discussed in the entry for Liu Hong, Emperor Ling.]"
-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
To beef up the crediblity, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:
Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.
...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.
The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.
Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)
I am taking a look into some of the sources you relied on and then I come back to the nomination page. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently commented on the FAC page after I removed the mentioning of Japan and Rome from the lead (an issue which seems like your biggest concern since it comprises two of your three points), and I recently added this, QUOTE: As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:
The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu. [1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE. [1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region. [1]
I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Limyra Bridge has been promoted to GA. Please see the comments about improving the article. Spevw ( talk) 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Helm (mountain), is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have responded and provided further evidence for my claims, as well as reworded some sentences in regards to your suggestions (some of which were good, some of which, however, I find unhelpful to say the least).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Gun Powder Ma, in addition to all your other points of concern which I've now addressed in the article (i.e. sparse evidence of arch bridges, no vaults and domes above ground, the absence of watermills for grinding, the "firsts" in China or world, and Thorp's input on archaeological scarcity of architectural remains), I am proud to say much of the "Mechanical and hydraulic engineering" sub-section has been reworded and given a true narrative form, as you desired to see. Here is the newly-reworded part:
Literary evidence of Han-era mechanical engineering rests largely on the choice observations of sometimes disinterested Confucian scholars, since professional artisan-engineers (jiang 匠) did not leave behind detailed writings of their work.[377] Han scholars who had little or no expertise in mechanical engineering sometimes provided insufficient information on the various technologies they described.[378] Nevertheless, some Han literary sources provide crucial information. For example, in 15 BCE the philosopher Yang Xiong described the invention of the belt drive for a quilling machine, which was of great importance to early textile manufacturing.[379] The inventions of the artisan Ding Huan (丁緩) are mentioned in the Book of Later Han. Around 180 CE, Ding created a manually-operated rotary fan used for air conditioning within palace buildings.[380] Ding also used gimbals as pivotal supports for one of his incense burners and invented the world's first known zoetrope lamp.[381][382]
The discovery of Han artwork through modern archaeology has brought to light inventions which were otherwise absent in Han literary sources. As observed in Han miniature tomb models but not in literary sources, the crank handle was used to operate the fans of winnowing machines that separated grain from chaff.[383][384] The odometer cart, invented during Han, measured journey lengths, using mechanical figures banging drums and gongs to indicate each distance traveled.[385] This invention is depicted in Han artwork by the 2nd century CE, yet detailed written descriptions are not offered until the 3rd century CE.[386] Modern archaeologists have also unearthed actual specimens of devices used during Han. For example, Han-era sliding metal calipers used by craftsmen for making minute measurements were found to have inscriptions of the exact day and year they were manufactured, yet this tool does not appear in Han literatary sources.[387][388]
Isn't she pretty! (lol) I'm glad you nudged me a bit to rewrite this section, because it sounds much better now. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 09:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Sella towers (in lower case) just looks really peculiar as the name of mountains / a mountain, which as a proper name would take a capital letter on the second element. But I am not sure that in any case in English it would be "Sella towers/Towers", which sounds like a block of flats. Have you some sources for the name in English? HeartofaDog ( talk) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind your removals. The late date of the Spanish pic possibly was misleading. I searched for one that illustrated the theory. Do you mind backing up the various remaining sentences with references that you consider appropriate? Are you having an anti-anti-Western-World-propaganda blitz, or what? Amandajm ( talk) 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be edging towards 3RR in edit warring in that section into the Sonia Sotomayor. Please stop and discuss on the talk page and gain a consensus before attempting to put it back into the lead. Brothejr ( talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun. Long time, no see. At least since that FAC page for Government of the Han Dynasty, which is now a featured article, btw.
Every once in a while I choose to focus on non-Chinese history articles. My featured articles on Augustus and Giovanni Villani come to mind. Recently I've set my sights on Ancient Egyptian literature, which is still quite a small article for such an important topic.
I've started compiling notes from several scholarly sources on the subject. I know that you are mostly interested in Greco-Roman subjects, but I was wondering if you knew of any good (as well as easily-accessible) sources on Egyptian literature (perhaps a journal article online that you are familiar with). Regards.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you may have noted, I am linking only those artillery pieces to the list which are listed there (plus those lists which include this artillery). Please elaborate why do you feel that this is "unencyclopedic". Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! I think it was you who opposed in summer the creation of this article of mine on the grounds that it compares apples with oranges. I believe you are right. Grouping together all these different kinds of cannon is close to WP:Synthesis.
I propose to split the list into three smaller ones (on the same page). The criteria would be the kind of of projectiles used:
What do you think? Do these subdivisions make sense? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that, in hindsight, large naval guns were a waste of money.. better results were obtained by torpedoes and mines and finally by airpower. Britain achieved its great naval success largely with smaller guns, before WWI. On land, monster guns were so slow in movement that I believe they hindered rather than aided military campaigns. In the Boer War Britain discovered its "siege train" was too slow in movement to be usable. In WWI Germany did use a few Big Berthas and 30.5 cm Austrian howitzers to destroy the Belgian forts but the delay in bringing them up arguably contributed to losing the Battle of the Marne. The huge resources invested in the Gustavs could not really be justified by Germany in WWII in return for Sevastapol, which would have been eventually captured by infantry with mortars anyway. Germany under Hitler failed to grasp that strategic bombers had long ago replaced monster guns... the "Adolf guns" were able to fire across the Channel and strike England but were strategically irrelevant. In contrast, a proper German strategic heavy bomber force would have won the Battle Of Britain. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
There is a lot more to be done please dont stop. J8079s ( talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC) |
I reverted some of the good work you did on this page; some redaction of content seemed highly subjective and counter purpose- every bit as much as its presence! Of course, we still have your edit's history; my concern was that with such a single, heavy edit, an onerous burden is placed on subsequent editors to revise, adjust, contribute. You might consider editing sections individually. I would care to discuss the mater in detail, as time allows. Mavigogun ( talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That washstand in Philo of Byzantium's article is pretty cool! I've never read Lewis's article, but since it was published in 2000, I'm surprised you haven't gotten a hold of it already. Good work. I've already made note of it in List of Chinese inventions.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, by the Western Han, the separate "schools" of Gan De and Shi Shen already existed, but we don't know much about the two men (if they existed at all), let alone have contemporary records about them. The Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian mentions both men and their different astronomical "schools", along with that of Wu Xian (astronomer). What Cullen doesn't mention in this passage here (much to my surprise) is the catalogue of stars found in Sima Qian's very own Records of the Grand Historian (in the chapter Tianguan shu), which is obviously a work of the late 2nd century BC (see page 21-22 of Sun, Xiaochun and Jacob Kistemaker. (1997). The Chinese Sky During the Han: Constellating Stars and Society. Leiden, New York, Köln: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004107371.). When Cullen says 2nd century AD, he is most certainly speaking of Zhang Heng's later (and much larger) star catalogue.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun Powder Ma. Thanks for your message. Just thoughts really, but what I am trying to say is that language should not determine policy and justify a certain cultural outlook or bias. It is true for any language, but even more so with English, which is used more as an international language than a country-specific language nowadays, and is in effect a sort of "Esperanto", to your point, for contributors from around the world. Best regards Phg ( talk) 11:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman ( talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating work on 15th century cannons! Do you plan to consolidate these under a larger article? I will try to incorporate them in the template Template:Artillery of the Middle Ages. Regarding Taccola, I do not have much time to expand the article at this point. Cheers. Phg ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
After our discussion at AfD, it seemed the one thing we did agree on was that the article could be merged, so I've done that, it's now at Abbas Ibn Firnas#Armen Firman -- Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of Firman from the Early Flying Machines article: it is not in our purview to establish fact- only to furnish material supported by reference. To point: our judgment of likelihood is not a factor for inclusion- this includes the area of folk tales and legend. The role of the editor is not that of arbiter of truth. Any argument for deletion of the Firman event would, in kind, hold for the material merger discussed here; as with the Flying Machine article, "I think it was probably not true" is not the metric to be used; if there are conflicting sources, cite both. Mavigogun ( talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to s:la:Vicifons:Scriptorium#Taccola. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are two Han architecture ruins I've added to the Han Dynasty article recently. A while back you wanted me to show you the remnants of Han architecture; here are two types. The first is a stone pillar-gate in Sichuan located at the tomb of Gao Yi, who lived during the Eastern Han period. If you look at the rest of the images uploaded by User:Zeus1234 for the latter structure, you can see the detail of the relief-carvings of human figures, animals, and wooden building components such as dougong brackets and roof tiles. This pillar-gate image looks much better than the early-20th-century black-and-white image I was using for an Eastern Han pillar gate at the Wu Family Shrine in Shandong province. The second is a ruin of a rammed earth Han watchtower in Gansu province (plenty of those still around, some in better condition than this if you snoop around online). Enjoy.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your changes to the article are not only completely without merit (as well as explanation to larger a degree, as you seem to remove highly relevant and sourced information for no good reason), they are also in violation of WP:CAT as you have little grasp of the relevant heirachy needed in an article like Cataphract. My information which you removed twice predates your additions regarding "Early Armored Riders" and sets up the chronological basis of the article. Moreover, you fail to properly cite your new additions and write in an entirely encyclopaedic sytle, in total contrast to the rest of the article.
Please, let's stop the childish revert war and try to actually improve this burgeoning but very, very important article into something much better. I'd be happy to work with you to gradually, piece-by-piece reintroduce your information as long as we discuss it prior.
Thankyou Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to better integrate your section on Assyrian & Central Asian Cataphracts within the article by adding some more background information and rewording a lot of it to conform with a more readable & easily-understandable style. Please refer back to me and tell me what you think on the talk page; I have also outlined a list of problems I see with the inclusion of your information here: [5]
Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
According to a new archaeological discovery in Rome, Nero apparently had a water-powered revolving restaurant! Read here. If you can find out any more about this, please share an article! Regards.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 11:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there's a note basically addressed to you right now on the 1421 talk page. Please have a look, I think we'll agree on a solution rather easily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
17th & 18th century, so what? Congratulations BTW for at least checking out one of the cites - which was it, Ayres or Lindsay?
Kitchen cranes use leverage, sometimes screws, to lift things. SO WTF is you problem with them appearing in the crane article? Your obsession with them need for pulleys is just plain, simple wrong.
Secondly, why should the fact they are surviving from the 17th century matter at all (there's some indication they're earlier too, but not by a huge amount)? That's still post-Roman, pre-most other sorts of crane. What difference does it make?
Finally your claim to have deleted text because of a claimed image problem is just wriggling because you know you've no answer to the real question. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop lying and wheedling. You've deleted a whole section four times now, all of them wrong.
Kitchen cranes (I can't believe I'm writing this) are simple machines used to gain a mechanical advantage when lifting things. Some smaller ones are merely jibs and fixed positioners, not lifters, most of the larger ones lifted by levers. Their non-use of pulleys (quite probably because of proximity to fire) is irrelevant.
I can't claim to understand your agenda. Your past history suggests that you simply do crazy edits. Congratulations, you've won. Welcome to Wikipedia, it's yours. Enjoy. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Gamer112 reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Both warned), which ended with warnings to both parties. Let me know if you have any questions on how to use the WP:Dispute resolution policy. Since there are only two disputants, you might consider requesting a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have co-ordinates for this dam? Josh Parris 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Great expansion. Thanks. Could you provide the full reference for Wilson? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in the Treadwheel crane article which was created yesterday. The list of historical harbour cranes which you created also covers the subject, but not all treadwheel cranes were used in harbours - Guildford is alongside a canal. Mjroots ( talk) 07:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hallo! Nach (zu) langer Zeit hab ich mich endlich damit befasst, Deinen Artikel zur Brücke von Limyra ins Griechische zu übersetzen! Hier kannst Du es finden. Ich habe einige Probleme mit den Fachwörtern, die sehr oft stark von den entsprechenden deutschen und englischen Wörtern abweichen, aber es wird schon. Ich hoffe, den Artikel bis Ende dieser Woche vollkommen übersetzt zu haben! Machs gut! Constantine ✍ 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, the Copernicus page has the invisible text which says "no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". It has this invisible text for a reason - the long and sordid history of the edit wars on that article over whether Copernicus was Polish or German or something else. The point of that invisible text is to prevent the recurrence of these pointless edit wars. This injunction applies to indirect "hints" at Copernicus' supposed nationality as well as to outright assertions of it. Now, I know that the German version of the name can be referenced, just like the Polish one can, but it's best if BOTH are kept out of the lead. Otherwise, pretty soon editors are going to start competing on # of sources for each, adding additional versions, including info from other encyclopedias as to nationality etc. That way lies madness and it's not worth. It's best to just state "Nicolaus Copernicus" and leave it at that. A similar thing applies to the assertion that "Copernicus spoke German as native tongue and everyday language" - yes you can find a couple (German) sources which claim that. You can also find sources which claim that Copernicus spoke Polish (quick example of such a English lang source [6] - Polish lang sources would be even easier to find). And this is also something that's been debated and fought over a hundred times already (that's not hyperbole) so why refight it again? Really, these kinds of edits are just going to provoke people and stoke the ambers. It's much better to treat the matter carefully, leave the matter as it is now - ambiguously phrased that Copernicus was sort of German sort of Polish. As far as the images go, a few of them can probably be removed, but it should be discussed on talk first.
Thanks. radek ( talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As a aside, I am happy to be read many times in the article that Thorn was Poland then (via Prussia), but to balance that I believe it is worth noting at least once that the city was actually inhabited predominantly by cultural Germans. Generally, I would prefer not to waste much time on the article, but the tons of retrospective Polish memorabilia (coins, bill, statues), which, being invariably of modern date, actually have no bearing whatsoever on the question of Copernicus's 'nationality', are too a gross attempt to appropiate NC for the Polish point of view to be ignored. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Sure, include a link to the Walhalla temple or any other Copernicus monument you know of.
2. I didn't see the Polish name till I got around to editing - note I took out BOTH.
3. I gave a source above and there's more. The reason why it's not in the article is because it was removed, along with similar assertions about "German being his native tongue". The honest truth is we don't know what his "native tongue" was or what he spoke at home or whatever, though various sources speculate variously. The point is that including EITHER will just encourage pointless fightin' on the article.
Some of the images can probably be removed, but it's probably something that should be brought up on talk page first. Actually, pretty much ANYTHING to do with the man's ethnicity should be brought up on talk first. You also restored Goethicus' word "anachronistically" which is a straight up POV pushing since it's not in the sources and is just that guy's opinion (he tries to sneak it in about once a month or so. Much like the banned Polish user Serafin occasionally tries to insert "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer!" into the lede every once in awhile (though he's been quiet lately)). radek ( talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Airplaneman
talk 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made some edits to this page to rduce the undue prominence of the Roman shield design section- there would need to be some much better WP:RS covering the Roman material to justofy its previous length in an article about the Taoist symbol (rather than a design). I see from the Discussion page that you have previously reverted such changes but I think the article lacked balance. Martinlc ( talk) 14:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll check there and may take photos, thanks. OnurMor e 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking you to cool it and to drop 'delete' comments. You must have seen that Teeninvestor is using your edits in a way you probably would prefer them not to be used. I'm going to warn him about his language. Let's let Nev1 and others work on the articles without a sideshow, ok? No offense meant, just trying to cool this down. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article based on your comments at the FAC. When you have a moment, would you care to comment again? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this again, but I've found some stuff that makes me re-evaluate my earlier edits and think we should perhaps remove the Gunaratna stuff altogether; I started a section here suggesting that we take him out of the article. If you're interested, you may want to comment. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your extremely well written argument for deletion here. i wish i had written what you wrote. and i wish more editors had a better understanding of the subtleties of what makes some superficially acceptable lists ("who could argue with this list? its a list, its about notable things, its interesting, its subject has been discussed, so it must be ok!") often wildly inappropriate. I'll see an article like this and my mind will just warp, trying to put into words exactly why i sense its inappropriate here. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started the RfC. I'm trying out a new discussion template - please put your statement in the s2 parameter of the inbrief template - it will display your position and mine side by side. we can debate the issue below the template.
also, I totally screwed up and originally pointed to the wrong editor. it's fixed now, so don't laugh at me. -- Ludwigs2 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your contributions to the History of the alphabet article. I am trying to find some source or inline citation for the bit you contributed to the Prehistory section. If you could add the citation yourself or tell me where you got that info I would gladly add the citations for you. andyzweb ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sent an e-mail to you. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Done! Sorry, I hadn't seen your earlier message :) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Gunpowder Ma, I noticed you deleted Song dynasty armored warships because, according to you:
Minus the fact that Needham made the claim as a statement, not as speculation, I wonder what your sentence implies. Do you mean that if I did give a list of other authors who "followed up", you would undo your removal of the existence of Song iron-plated warships, and add the deleted information back into the page? Or would you delete the new information as well? Please list the conditions you would require in order for the information to be added back into the page. I am also not aware of any Wikipedia rule that states any source must be "followed up" by other authors or else the claim is deleted. If it exists, do you mind telling me where you got that rule from? Much appreciated. Gnip 8:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that as the nominator of the AFD you have a right to withdraw your nomination? What the heck is the point in prolonging it? It is your right to withdraw your own nomination and remove the AFD tag. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You had your chance with the FIght history article. Now its looks as if it will be kept, even after I took the effort to redirect it and clean it up.. Good one. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Undefeatedcooler (
talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a notice, I moved your report to the ANI board which is a more appropriate location for discussions of an editor's misconduct requiring administrator action. I've also notified Undefeatedcooler of the report, which is required at noticeboards. -- Atama 頭 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The translation from French seems fine to me. The one issue I have with the section:Geometric figure is the phrase "most recognized pattern." The issue is: most recognized by whom? Was a poll taken? Who conducted the poll? I recommend avoiding such claims. It is easier to say, "In one pattern, the two ...."
I request that you change the introduction to read at the end: The patterns of the taijitu form part of Celtic, Etruscan, and Roman iconography. After "iconography," I would stop. I hope these comments help. PYRRHON talk 19:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse my inconstancy but, on re-reading the article, I came up with some ideas for change. I propose that the section=Geometric figure be changed to read only as follows:
To make the classical Taoist symbol, which speakers of English may know as the yin yang symbol, one draws on the diameter of a circle two non-overlapping circles each of which has a diameter equal to the radius of the outer circle. One keeps the line that forms an "S," and one erases or obscures the other line. Nature may draw yin yang symbols; see the image at the right.
I propose the change because:
Congratulations on finding the image with Nature's handiwork.
I also recommend that the line under Celts about the La Tène culture be removed. If the section I suggest above is used, that line is otiose.
On the whole, I like what you have done to the place. You have a fine article. Thank you for introducing me to "apotropaic". PYRRHON talk 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Nate
t/
c 14:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gun. It seems you are a bit busy with Bruce Lee and other topics as of late, but I was hoping if you wouldn't mind suggesting a few (good) sources on a recent project I am pursuing: rewriting Parthian Empire. From the library, I've picked up the two-part volume for Parthia in the Cambridge History of Iran (1983), as well as Maria Brosius' The Persians: An Introduction (although she is an established academic, the book is not from a credible university press, i.e. published by Routledge, 2006). I was hoping, given your interest in ancient Rome, if you knew of any good recent academic sources on Parthia or even Roman-Parthian relations that I could utilize (from articles that aren't already found at JSTOR, I've already scoured those). So far I've started a new sandbox on the matter: User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Parthian Empire if you want to check it out.
Regards,
-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gun Powder Ma. I have a working draft over at User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Parthian Empire. Have a look! I've got the introduction and first subsection fleshed out. I don't have too much information on Rome just yet (in fact, only in the intro so far), but I wouldn't mind if you consulted me on Roman issues as I move along. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you italicized the title of Four Great Inventions of ancient China, as it is not a book or other work of art. Since it doesn't appear to be in any of the categories mentioned in the documentation of [Template:Italic title]] ("species and genera that use binomial nomenclatures, ... certain mathematical symbols, .... book, movie, or other media titles"), I have reverted the change. Thanks LK ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Undefeatedcooler (
talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
HI - thanks for the invitation to review that article. I took the liberty of brushing up a bit of the wording. You are to be commended for your substantial efforts to improve and amplify wikipedia content. By the way, your talk page is getting a bit out of control; you might consider archiving it (suggestions on how to accomplish that appear at the top of your page when you select "edit this page"). Thanks again. Raymondwinn ( talk) 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could you please not change the word "university" to "madrassa" in articles like Al-Azhar University and University of Al-Karaouine? Sources routinely call these two places universities, in fact I have never seen the phrase Madrasa al-Karaouine. nableezy - 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Al-Azhar is called a university or college in many sources. See [8]: in 989 it acquired the status of a college with the appointment of thirty-five scholars to teach the Ismaili Shia theology to which the Fatimids adhered. ... After the Ottoman conquest, when the Mamluk colleges (madrasa) were in decline, al-Azhar become the center of Islamic scholarship in Egypt and one of the principal theological universities in the Muslim world. There are many more. Could you please explain why you are segregating Islamic universities from the list of oldest universities and why you intent on calling these places "madrassas"? nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't edit war with that guy. The next time you make a change that was agreed to by consensus, etc and he reverts, take it to the Admin Noticeboard on Edit Warring. I'm tired of playing games with him.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I would recommend setting up a WP:RFC for Undefeatedcooler ( talk · contribs · logs). This will create a point of reference for any future disputes with this user, and allow for more timely admin action. — Myasuda ( talk) 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma.I´m really worried about a user called Jagged 85 and all the awful edits he´s making in wikipeda.He has a political and religious agenda and he´s trying to distort history.For example,he even wrote that Da Vinci was of arabic origin!!! Seriously,this guy is problematic.We must do something. -- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok,thanks for answering.I´ll try to keep an eye on his moves.Muchas gracias ;-) -- Knight1993 ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the proposed changes at WP:Verifiability will clarify the policy issues, in the long run an uncooperative editor must be dealt with by the appropriate dispute resolution processes. These are time-consuming and will be especially difficult to resolve in this case. Dispute resolution procedures deal very well with clear-cut violations of policy; they are not so well suited to deal with subtle misinterpretation of specialized scholarly sources by a "productive" editor.
I've already been the lead on two clearly defined cases and don't want to undertake that again. I will gladly provide comments if someone is willing to undertake the months of effort to document the problematic edits for an RFC/U to make him aware of a community consensus on his problem edits. If these don't improve his edits, subsequent administrative action at AN may even be necessary to resolve this problem. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Great work,Gun Powder Ma!! you have exposed all those lies and manipulations made by Jagged.Truly,this man has an obssesion with proving Islam has contruibuted to mankind,but as history is not on his side his distorts it in a blatant way.Poor guy,I almost feel sorry for him-- Knight1993 ( talk) 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I provided complete reference to a reliabe written source. You can go to the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library) in The Hague and look in the newspaper in cosideration. You can go to the archive Tresoar, Frysk Histoarysk en Letterkundich Sintrum (Treasure Chest, Fisian Historic and Literary Centre) in Leeuwarden and read the newspaper. At 1 May, internet access will be available again under the new name www.dekrantvantoen.nl (you can read that at the website of Tresoar http://www.tresoar.nl). The auction was mentioned in a series of (Dutch) newspapers. However, those newspapers are not searchable via internet. Therefore I gave the date, so that people can search other newspapers from just before or after the date of the auction. The article in the Fisian newspaper mentions also that an unknown Dutch businessman bought the piece of paper for a price of more than hunderd thousand guilders (I guess in those days more than 30.000 dollars), I do not remember the exact price. Your removal denies people access to interesting information and I was hoping that someone can provide a better description from an auction catalogue, by removal you make that impossible. By the way, on your website is an error in the name of a German person of Dutch (Flemish) descent. Funny, again a Dutch-German connection. His name is "Van Beethoven" and not "Beethoven". I hope you will be so civilized too restore the information. I want to avoid an "editing war". I have no objection if you move the information to be restored into a note. Robvhoorn ( talk) 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, your statement "the earliest German-language university" is not supported by the sources you have provided:
Pope Eugenius: "The university of Vienna, the oldest German university (not considering the university of Prague)..."
German realities: "The university of Leipzig was founded in 1408 when professors and students from Prague (the oldest German university) fled from religious persecution." There was no religious persecution, the university was founded in 1409 etc. This source is laughable.
The German Myth: "Prague university, the oldest German university, was divided into German and Czech sections in 1882."
History of Education: "The oldest German university is Prague, founded in 1348." This book is over 100 years old and was written at the time when Bohemia was still part of the A-H empire and was considered part of the German Mitteleuropa.
None of these sources elaborate the German character of the university and especially not the language or ethnic issue. They only repeat the German nationalistic POV which is based on the fact that Bohemia was part of the HRE and was according to them eo ipso German. They see HRE as the German "First Reich" omitting the fact that it was a supranational entity which could be hardly described as German or as an empire. Bohemia itself was a very special member of this conglomerate, a fully sovereign country with only a few formal obligations between the King and the Emperor and with an overwhelming non-German majority. The only true fact is that the majority of students and probably also the staff were German-speakers during the first 60 years of the university simply because it was the only institution of its kind in this part of Europe at that time and there was no university in any of the German states until 1365 when the University of Vienna was founded. This is however already mentioned in the article. The language of instructions was of course Latin. I am going to remove it from the lead and add this POV into the proper section. Qertis ( talk) 10:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma!! Just wanted to remark your excellent work in the university article,eliminating the bias there used to be.Congratulations!! And by the way,happy Easter!!-- Knight1993 ( talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments on my talk page and even more for opening the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. My discomfort with the current situation is probably very obvious, as is my difficulty in knowing what might be the best way to approach it.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma.I´ve been reading the article "Bimaristan",about medical institutions in medieval Islam.Could you tell me what you think about it and the claims it makes?What I find extremely weird is the claim that they had medical degrees for physicians,when we clearly know from the university-madrasa controversy that those "degrees" were only for religious studies.So please tell me your opinion.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 17:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a confusing term - it is by no means "conventionally dated" to any period without a dynastic prefix. As our article says, in full it runs from the 630s to 1924 or whenever. It is completely unsuitable to use here. Please do not revert my improvements to the picture caption. Johnbod ( talk) 02:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree that the influence of Islam is often given excessive credit on Wikipedia (and good luck trying to argue that Europe had a heavy influence on anything Islamic...), but I still think it is useful to see what was going on elsewhere in the world, especially since North Africa and the Middle East are so closely connected to ancient and medieval Europe. Adam Bishop ( talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Medieval art. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Modernist (
talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Your 4 edits there are already over the limit... Modernist ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll certainly write something. As you can see however, I'm rather busy ;), so this may take a few days... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a proper name, so it's called "House of the Tiles" not "House of the tiles". A requested move needs to be made because BOTijo made another edit to the redirect, preventing non-admins from moving it. Viriditas ( talk) 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What is going on here, the turtle ships were from the 1400s, the Atabakune were from the 1570s, at this point no one knows if they were iron plated. There are on and off mentions of iron in the 1400 ships and the Japanese ships but we don't know to what extent. Hideyoshi states he needs to counter the Korean iron-clad ship, so we know something with iron was happening in the 1590s. If in the 1570s Japanese ships already had iron plates why would Hideyoshi state this in the 1590s. And no one is sure how much iron was in the Korean ships of the 1400s. Everything is cloudy, but the turtle ships were from the 1400s. We need to put this in chronological order and let the readers decide on when/how much iron plates were used. -- 199.91.34.33 ( talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
When you edit, because you disagree with me that is fine but please don't delete the quotes for references, thanks -- 199.91.34.33 ( talk) 00:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I've started a draft revision at User:SteveMcCluskey/Cathedral schools. At the moment its in shabby shape, but give it a week or two. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Stop blaming others with issues as it is clearly for fault. you even attacked an admin. Get yourself together man. Don't loose your mind. You take things to seriously, just go one at a time and not try to get it all done at once with the Bruce lee Article. AM I Wrong about this??
To avoid duplication of effort, you should probably keep an eye on
this page.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
XD I'm guessing you're a long-haired dude. Lol. My hair was once grown past my shoulders; it was at a perfect length for headbanging to metal. Hah.
Anyways, the real reason I'm bugging you is so you can have a look at Parthian Empire, which is being fleshed out at the moment. I have already mentioned the exploits of Publius Ventidius Bassus in the history section, although I have yet to cite the source you shared via email. I will do that in a moment, but for the meantime check things out.
Regards, -- Pericles of Athens Talk 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. You have posed two very excellent questions. In my sandbox notes, I unfortunately did not copy Bivar (1983) verbatim in regards to the Carrhae episode, but I do have an exact quotation from Brosius (2006) who explicitly mentions use of the Parthian shot during Carrhae. Although Brosius doesn't mention it, Bivar does describe a futile charge into the main Parthian lines by Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir), which is probably where the Parthian shot was employed as a harassing tactic to draw the detachment inward and surround them. This was, of course, different from the larger main force under the elder Crassus which ultimately retreated under constant fire. As for the Hatra image, the uploader of the photograph alleges that it is an entrance to an iwan, the barrel-vaulted audience hall of Parthian times. It is quite possible, given the proximity to the Roman East, that the entrance facade to this particular Hatran iwan was deliberately built in the Roman style. Brosius (2006) and Schlumberger (1983) both describe the iwans of Hatra as rich examples of Parthian architecture; they do not, however, mention the influence of Roman architecture. However, you may well be right about the use of ashlar blocks in this photograph. Moreover, do you have a scholarly source on Roman architecture which might cover influence on ancient Hatra? Here are some pictures from Wikimedia Common's page on Hatra:
The first image clearly looks Roman, especially with the columns following the Corinthian order. However, Schlumberger writes (pp. 1037-1040) that the Parthians were using the Greek Ionic order at the top of columns as far back as the construction of the capital Nisa, Turkmenistan (i.e. during the reign of Mithridates I of Parthia). It is quite possible that the use of Greek architectural elements in Hatra had little to do with the expanding power of Rome, and more to do with the Hellenistic period ushered in by Alexander's Asian conquests.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Early Mesopotamian vaults have several distinct characteristics. Normally, of course, they are made of unbaked mud brick. The bricks are not shaped specially, since they do not have the expected wedge shape, the curvature being achieved by the appropriate packing of the interstices with mud and stone. The first few courses of the spring are gradually corbelled outwards, and thereafter the voussoirs are tuned at an angle which permits each to be supported by its predecessor and the adhesion of the mud mortar until the gap has narrowed to approximately half its original span, with the result that only the crown of the vault needs the support of scaffolding. Baked brick was used by the sixth century Be when arch and vault achieved something approximate to the classical semicircular profile; examples exist in the 'Hanging Gardens' at Babylon, but they still clearly used mortar packing.'2 The wedge-shaped voussoir, then, does not seem to be a part of Mesopotamian building technique. Related techniques are still employed in the vaulted structures of Hatra of the second century AD: here stone voussoirs are used but they are not fully wedge-shaped, but still fitted together with packing mortar. Footnote: I am grateful to H. S. Issa, who is studying the architecture of Hatra for a Ph.D. under my supervision, for information on Hatra's vaulting techniques.
R. A. Tomlinson: "The Architectural Context of the Macedonian Vaulted Tombs," The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 82 (1987), pp. 305-312 (310)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata ( talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
wikipedia is NOT a sopabox, see WB:SOAP, it applies to USER PAGES TOO. your user page was clearly advocating propaganda. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
its not the FLAG thats the problem, its the ONE WORLD ONE DREAM FREE TIBET thats the problem,... and you might want to read the rules yourself......no soapoxing anywhere on here ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
WB:SOAP read it.... ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ( talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I believe there were discussion over these matters before, anyway I had added new materials on the talks page over your responses that you had raised before. Thank you Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, although I agreed some of the question you raised, but I don't think the templates should be treated over the articles, plus there are in fact too much of it. Thanks! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Why haven't you quoted Sarton's article yet? Do you not even have access to it?! Please, prove me wrong, and show me that you actually read his article.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, who are you calling a nerd, I hope that's not me. Lol. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Below, this is so turth for me, I meant I have a life which keep me busy. And I rarely edit other articles. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma said on Talk: List of Chinese inventions:
Btw Sarton's is a book from 1970. I gave you the pages, look it up, if you are interested in the truth
I am going to my university library to rent out a book by the late George Sarton (1884–1956). I just read a really sweet memorial journal article dedicated to him on JSTOR...written in 1957. It commemorated him as a true scholar, so apparently the guy wasn't a hack. His book I will be renting out is called Ancient science and modern civilization, and was published posthumously in 1959. Hopefully he deals with the gimbals. Are we satisfied now, Gun Powder Ma?--
Pericles of Athens
Talk 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be rational when discussing [1], I already told you not to make discussion over personal than content. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't, this is both personal attack and Ad hominem attack. Not to mention, you 're refering me earlier to as a nerd who have no life [2] Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
His edit summary actually said see talk page for earlier specimen, but I do not found any new argument at that time over the talk page, so I thought it was a vandalism. This is clearly personal attack, not matter what you do, don't make any attack on others. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this was never a content dispute, his removal came to me as vadalism, despite what he said over the edit summary, I only realised it was a mistake when he provide this explains over the talk later. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, could you mind don't makes any questions over my edits, I cited Needham and Li Shou-hua is a dated research already. Thanks Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well said, of course I am not his labour, so mind you. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What impression anyway, is all according to you! Thus your fault for having such impression. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
But speaking of which impression, in fact what you give on others was a distorted man, probably aged around 40s, who likes to pick on articles you hate and removes the entires. It is not just me who have such impression, some anon had said that too previously. So it is not the other's and mine fault that you give that impression. Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 22:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You could lies as long you like, but you can't cheat on other's human instinct! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, actually Li Shua-hua is indeed dated, take a look at the source, it was published in 1954. Anpersonalaccount ( talk)
Gun Powder Ma says
In the meanwhile can explain why would like a short defintion rather than a correct definition
Hello Gun Powder Ma, I think this is rather long for the bullet, do you have any other suggestions? Or shall we just stick to the "rudder" still? Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Gun Powder Ma, I changed the the quotes as I found out another source of Li Shu-hua, I guess we rest on here with this. Thanks! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma, in case you're not aware of it, I just quoted the page from Needham you asked for. Take a look at it! Anpersonalaccount ( talk) 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Kingdome is the only record holder on the list that no longer exists.
The title of each category is not the largest ever built... it is specifically domes "...that have held the title of the largest dome..." (in a place, by type, etc.). Does the Kingdome still hold the title of the largest concrete dome? It held the title of the largest dome built in its category, but as it does not exist, it cannot hold any title at this moment.
Is the tallest building in New York City still the WTC? Not according to Wikipedia... it isn't even on the List of tallest buildings in the world... because it(tragically) doesn't exist. Do you think Wikipedia should change that list?
If someone comes to the site and asks...where is the world's largest concrete dome... the article says... at present... it is the Kingdome... unless you check the notes.
By putting the word "demolished" in the place of "present", the Kingdome can still hold the record by being last in line, since Scope's claim on the chart will have terminated in 1976. Ruedetocqueville ( talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Roman De architectura of Vitruvius, and I was hoping that you know a thing or two about its content, given that you have an interest in all things Greco-Roman. This is in regards to an entry I want to add to List of Chinese inventions, but I am unsure if there was a precedent.
In the early 12th century Song Dynasty architectural treatise Yingzao Fashi, there is a graded system of architectural timber components in standard dimensions called caifen (材份制). Each of its eight grades were assigned to a different-sized timber hall in progressive order from smallest to largest. This is not simply a system of measurement, but a graded system of components meant to fit in structures of different sizes. In other words, it was a module system, which the free dictionary defines as thus:
Architecture The dimensions of a structural component, such as the base of a column, used as a unit of measurement or standard for determining the proportions of the rest of the construction.
Did such a system exist in Vitruvius' book? Or even any of the Indian Vastu Shastra? If not, I believe the Chinese were the first to establish such a system; correct me if I am wrong.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This user wants you to
join WikiProject Alternate History. |
Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You really don't like giving any credit to the Chinese and Muslims do you? I can understand the former as that fire is liberally stoked by a spate of Chinese Nationalism (but I don’t want to pay lip service to idiots). However the latter is harder to argue against 'cos you can't deny their contributions despite the fact, as it has already been said (much to the disgrace of Robert Kilroy Silk [bastard nevertheless]) that they haven't done much in the past 500 years, but neither too have the Greeks though for at least twice as long. I think though that they had a civil war at some point in the past century. You ought to learn to accept that western society and modern society as it has now been established de facto internationally is the germination of seeds planted many a year ago in India, Persia, Middle East, Egypt and of course Greece and Rome. Indeed if one were to draw a real historical line between East and West I would go far as to put it at the border between India and China (Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan nations respectively) if not that at least Persia or the Middle East. Aarandir ( talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article needs further tagging.
You may want to know that I requested a peer-review on it here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1.
Cesar Tort 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd certainly be interested. I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, but I'll do them. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello again! I've sent you an email, but I'd like to ask you here what you think of the article structure. Wandalstouring raises some legitimate points in his objections, but I'd like the opinion of others before engaging in so drastic changes. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. LOL. The evidences are QUOTED in the text right now without your personal commentary NOR mine. Your reverts are in violation of WP:NOT#OR so take your original research elsewhere and leave the article as it is. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Do you have a source to support the Hadrian's Wall claim made by another contributor? 62.56.99.2 ( talk) 02:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You've shadowed my edits to continue your disruptive editing. Please stop. If you continue to shadow my edits I will have to file an incidents' report. Thanks. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
SOME people THINK the turtleship had iron armor. That isn't good enough for you?
And I'm done here. You and melonbarmonster and all the people who is still yelling all over can keep whacking each other like you've done since the beginning of the big bang. This place is such nonsense now, I don't know why I stuck my head in here just to see whats been happening so far. Whats the point of fighting over this? Theres nothing at stake here and nothing in the real world will change regardless of whatever stuff we scribble in this place. And whatever you people write here isn't going to persuade anyone who reads these articles. If someone thinks the turtleship had iron then thats that and if someone thinks the turtleship had nothing then thats that. Nobody should care whether kimchee is made with nappa or chinese or american cabbage. Its still korean food and thats that.
I have chemistry homework and other things to do. so GOODBYE and do whatever you want with the turtle ship article only to have it reverted by melonbarmonster and vice versa.
Good friend100 ( talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gun Powder Ma, I'm currently translating your Maliakos Gulf Tsunami article ( no sorrows about the autographic faults in the lemma, please), but I actually don't know about the correct German Lemma. If you do: tell me (in de.wikipedia or here)! Greetings,-- Fecchi ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very interested by and with this article, being both familiar with the area and the science behind the technology. I was wondering if you were aware on an existing English translation of the main ref. If not, I'll have to hit up one of my local German-speaking friends to develop one. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 15:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What other oddities has he produced. I must say that articles like that on that topic are all too common, YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world. Nommed YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry, saw your entry on my talk page just now. Do not know about any other articles such as these two, but I have seen that user now for over a year copying and pasting badly researched and consistently one-sided material in all kinds of articles. He has over 40,000 edits, so you know...I think his consistent misquotation and overinterpretation of sources has brought POV to a new level in Wikipedia, because people tend to believe in assertions more if thez are backed up by a footnote. They are less prone to assume that the information is taken out of context or subtly modified to suit fix preconceptions. Thats why it has been so hard to come this new method. It needs hundreds of footnotes to be checked and most third party observers do not have the time, nor the interest to completely rewrite articles which were written wrongly from the scratch. A case in point is Talk:Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. The net result is that, while many believe the article to be POV and have tried to improve it, many dubious assertions are still there and spread their message.
PS: Just checked again Timeline of historic inventions. It is hard to find a single uncontested invention there. Too many lists just lack information to the contrary. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun Power Ma, I'm really confused what you are doing on the Ritten page. hehe The article is Province of Bolzano-Bozen, we don't switch it from Bolzano-Bozen to Bozen-Bolzano on certain pages. Also, English usage for Bolzano, is, well, Bolzano. We don't call Milan, Milano on Italian-focused pages, nor do we switch Munich, to Munchen on German-focused pages. Thanks, Icsunonove ( talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You say, " can't believe that you do a dozen edits on a short article about a simple bridge just to get your political point across. I was really not invloved in your petty naming guerrilla war, but some others and you repeatedly invading the article have got me a bit pissed now. So now we really have to talk the naming conventions through, I guess. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)"
How dare you. You come on my talk page and spout these amazingly stupid accusations. My "political point across"? You have issues dude, what political point am I trying to get across about a BRIDGE? I'm trying to summarize citations as clearly and in a neutral fashion as possible. You on the other hand seem to have some political theory made up and are here enthusiastically playing Wiki-soldier. Grow the heck up. And my "petty naming guerilla war"? Are you smoking something? Please show me my naming war. I've been at the forefront of making sure that all names are included and respected in this province. How about you?? If I make an incorrect edit, you can point it out politely and at least try to be civilized. Invading the article?!?! I didn't know that this article was your kingdom! You have got some major issues Gun Powder Ma, and I don't need your regards. You should evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page, and then check yourself. You obviously are a bit too much into "military history" with all your tired ways to accuse someone. holy beejeesuz! Icsunonove ( talk) 03:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a sense of déjà vu... Don't you remember this and this?-- Suppar luca 13:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have expected more of an explanation after you reverted 70% of the changes I made. To make it short:
For now I reverted only the section title "Demographics of South Tyrol" to "Demographic history". I know that when an article is about South Tyrol it's hard to assume good faith, but honestly, South Tyrol is not Bosnia or Rwanda.-- Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso ( talk) 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The upshot is: We both agree that the article lefts wanting. That is a good basis. But you did the reverts, so it would be nice if you explain your reasons first. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Except that I did. In the edit summary.
Also I don't think that answering questions with questions is a good basis for discussions, but I will answer first, because otherwise it would never end.
Fine. I still don't quite understand that merely stating that something is "useless" or "more relevant" without giving further reasons, constitutes an explanation, but anyway. Actually, I intended the box and the table to be the first elements for improving and enlarging the article. It was just so, that I had these pertinent sources, so I began with them.
My edits are mostly reverting chinese nationalists. I really don't think we'll have a problem. Akkies ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop editing Korean topics without expert knowledge. --Korsentry 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry ( talk • contribs)
![]() | The Category:Alto Adige has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. |
I've got an idea for you Gun Powder Ma. Instead of keeping up your constant personal attacks against your so-called "usual suspects", how about you try and tone it down and start discussing things in a civilized manner. First of all, I don't like how you trivialize Alto Adige as a fascist invention -- it is not. The fascists abused this term, that is for certain, but you have no right to permanently blacken it and unilaterally discard it. Second, that is highly offensive that you go to a discussion about a category-keep/delete and use it as a soap box to make accusations towards others. I find an invite on my talk page to contribute to this discussion, and the first thing I find is accusations towards me, and discussions of how we biased the naming and you are going to fix everything. Then anyone wonders why people get tired of contributing on Wikipedia? You think that is good wiki etiquette to come here and treat people you don't even know like that? You have no comprehension of how lopsided the pages and page locations were at one point, and how there was constant (and I mean constant) fighting on here for over two years. It was finally a group of us, including me and Supparluca -- and many others -- who helped hammer out this compromise. The arguing has all but gone down to zero. So, while you may think you've entered this arena and have these brilliant ideas to re-write everything and make things as they should... you completely disrespect what we went through. Lastly, trivial items that you guys are fighting over on the pages like the website locations, etc. Man, get over it, either one is fine. We had used a certain format to be consistent with all Italian provincial pages, you don't have to dream up that there is some grand conspiracy. I'm curious if realize also that Standard Italian (Tuscan) is simply the Chinese Mandarin of Italy. Each and every province and valley have their local languages, and German happens to be one of those in Bolzano. Anyway..... so, let me suggest this: start over, shake hands with everyone, stop with the usual suspects b.s. and accusations, and lets pick a page to discuss things here like educated people. Is that fair enough? Icsunonove ( talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't really help. I have no particular views about turtle ships and no access to any evidence about them. Nor do I really have time to get involved with the disagreement. Can I suggest you mention the issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships; that will hopefully attract some uninvolved editors to the article. The Land ( talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gunpowder Ma. I just read your comment about the Muslim science/debate page. It's a disaster really. Wikipedia can't become a propaganda site. Listing a history of invention/scientists should be pretty easy, just go by well-sourced, region, and time period. Its only when people make wild claims and try to tie it to religion that it becomes a problem (in my opinion brought on by massive personal insecurities, but...) At best there was a unified Muslim state to 750, after that it fractured. Most of this science was based on Greek, Persian, and Roman work, some of it was done by Jews, some by Zoroasterians, most by Persians. Slugging through that article will be a mess but its got to be done. Has a consensus been reached on it? Gunslinger1812 ( talk) 05:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, a newly created article which IMO sounds like synthesis - and trouble: I used to follow the debates on various history forums and they almost always ended along the line 'my dad is stronger than yours'. What do you think, is this article and topic WP conform or not? Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
History of the Han Dynasty; I included some info about the empires of Rome, Parthia, and Kushan in this article that you might be interested in. Also, I have a neat picture in User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Economy of the Han Dynasty that you might like, a classic example of Roman gilded silverware (comparable to Roman pieces found in Han Chinese tomb sites, as illustrated by Harper, 2002).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Lao Baixing is created, I think most of the English word Chinese in all of these history articles such as Qing, Ming and Song, Ming can be replaced with Qing Lao Baixing, Ming Lao Baixing, and Song Lao Baixing. What you think? Arilang talk 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not push your own POV. Just because you do not like the article does not mean you should not put a link to it in the Roman Empire article; the point of the see also section is so the reader can access information about the Roman Empire. Just because an article has been nominated for deletion means nothing; the fact it survived means that the community believed it was an article that should stay on wikipedia. Also, please do not edit the article when you do not have correct information; your edits are completely absurd(Persian empire larger than both), as Han Empire includes basically all of modern day China except a few remote regions in Tibet and Dongbei, while Roman Empire covered all the Mediterrenean. I welcome constructive change to teh article, but Do not edit with your own POV. As to OR allegations, there are at least four sources comparing the two empires in the article, and in the sections where there are not such sources, the info is listed seperately, so there is no OR. I know its difficult to put your anti-chinese POV under control, but you must do so if you want to become a contributie editor. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, < http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf> (Accessed December 27, 2008)
Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [1] (accessed December 26, 2008)
Scheidel, Walter (ed.) 2008 Rome and China: comparative perspectives on ancient world empires (Oxford University Press) 9780195336900
Fritz-Heiner Mutschler and Achim Mittag (eds.), Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0199214646 (Google books preview)
Chapter 7 summary of W.W. Norton & Company, Worlds apart, Worlds together, A History of the world, second edition. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/worlds2/contents/summary/ch7.asp
There are 5 sources, thank you very much. and as to size of both empires, it would depend on your view. Like, Han did not have commandries over Mongolia. But did they control it after expulsion of Huns? that answer could very easily be yes. Also, would you count central asia in Han empire?(Ban Chao had bases on caspian sea). It all depends on which historians you quote. In my case, the one I quoted merely stated that both empires were quite large. Teeninvestor ( talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you point me to the relevant guidelines? What does the first user who put the reference have to do with this?-- Suppar luca 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
In sum, the URLs in the municipalities should follow the naming conventions applied in the rest of the article. Which means in Ritten, there is little place for a provincia URl. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You deleted the request for this move without comment while moving the passer river request from one section to another. Can you please restore the request or explain your actions if this was done intentionally? Thanks. Kjaer ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I would already have done it myself but am not an admin, let me know if there's any trouble, it should be a rather uncontroversial revert to the original name. Thanks.Kjaer ( talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you just created a new "etymology" section in the Province of Trento page. The reference you used is self-published, in a foreign language, and partial (you don't need to know German to understand "Totengräber"). If you can fix this, I would suggest moving this piece to Trentino-Südtirol or Trento, as Trentino is not used officially for the province itself.-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC with a proper set of links for comparison, and left a statement of my own. you might want to make a statement as well. -- Ludwigs2 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the right wording of naming conventions is extremely important for sensitive topics. NCs should be edited with care, and reflect consensus. This being said, if you could formulate your arguments in a more calm way, this would certainly speed up the process. Your posts on the talk page show a certain anger, which, while maybe understandable, does not benefit the discussion. WP can be happy that Kotniski reacts in a calm manner; there are several of your words which not every editor would have had the patience to ignore. Cheers Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently created a dab for South Tyrol, and in the process you made "South Tyrol" a redirect to the dab. In the case this wasn't just an oversight: we can't have that, South Tyrol is a very popular redirect, receiving about one seventh the total hits of "Province of Bolzano-Bozen". It needs to stay the way it is. I also removed the third section of the disambiguation page: no one is going to type "South Tyrol" looking specifically for the history of Tyrol.-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me someone hacked your account. Or something the like. I mean first you remove categories I added minutes earlier and you call them "reverts", then you alter you own messages rendering mine senseless, and last you use misleading edit summaries when you revert, such as in South Tyrol. You didn't behave like this yesterday. What's making you change your attitude this much?!-- Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux ( talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
From where was the text plagiarized? Opensensestep ( talk) 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have put a new page up here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gordium/Temp
Opensensestep (
talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A small hint. The original author told me that he would have no objection against the plagiarism if somebody made a request. It is not the first time that www.livius.org waspractically copied & pasted in WP. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you help to write more about the introduction of the lateen sail in Byzantine navy. It's a major technological change enabling better cruising and the article doesn't currently quite cover that. Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring ( talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For very good contributions in elevating the Byzantine navy article to Featured status, for providing tons of material on it and related issues, and for pure enthusiasm. With the best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
Looking forward to continued collaboration. :) Constantine ✍ 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Lookup IP Address: 218.20.25.39
General Information
Hostname: 39.25.20.218.broad.gz.gd.dynamic.163data.com.cn
ISP: ChinaNet Guangdong Province Network
Organization: ChinaNet Guangdong Province Network
Proxy: None detected
Type: Cable/DSL
Blacklist:
Geo-Location Information
Country: China
State/Region: 30
City: Guangzhou
Latitude: 23.1167
Longitude: 113.25
Area Code:
In regards to the tribute thing, it's not a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of what sources say. In this case, the source I used, Rafe de Crespigny's A Biographical Dictionary of the Eastern Han to Three Kingdoms (2007), does not explicitly say "tribute" but rather "gifts" that the Romans presented (he speculates they are merchants, not diplomats). I will use the term "gifts" instead, just to be safe on this matter. Sound better?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the passage in full from Crespigny's work:
Page 600: QUOTE: "Most spectacularly, it is recorded that a mission from Daqin 大秦, identified as the empire of Rome, came to Luoyang from the south in 166. The envoys claimed that they had been sent by their king Andun 安敦, presumably the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus [reg. 161–180], and the gifts they brought, including ivory, rhinoceros horn and tortoise shell, had evidently been gathered on their journey. There was and still is some suspicion that these men were enterprising traders rather than accredited officials, but their visit provided valuable prestige to the emperor at a time of political difficulty. [It may be only chance, but the date of this visit coincided with the outbreak of the Antonine plague which ravaged the Roman empire from the middle 160s: the question of epidemics is discussed in the entry for Liu Hong, Emperor Ling.]"
-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
To beef up the crediblity, I recently added a citation (page 460–461) from this source:
Yü, Ying-shih. (1986). "Han Foreign Relations," in The Cambridge History of China: Volume I: the Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. – A.D. 220, 377-462. Edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521243270.
...who also uses the word "gift", not tribute. However, Yu notes that nothing is entirely confirmed in regards to the occurrence of this alleged visit to Huan's court by Romans.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Although in Pliny's "Natural History" there are several references to the Seres and a very full account of the mining and smelting of iron in all parts of the world that were in communication with Rome, there is no other passage in that work in which the Seres and iron are brought together, nor is there in any other work that survives to us from the Roman and Greek period anything to connect the people known as the Seres with the production of or trade in iron. Yet upon this slender authority rests the assumption that steel was brought overland to imperial Rome from far-away China.
The various referenees to the Seres in the Roman writers cannot be harmonized for any one people, and it is certainly an unneceessary interpretation to identify them with the Chinese, or to transfer the "Serie iron" to China. I have already indieated that the Indian steel, although mainly an Andhra produet, was attributed by the Romans to tbe Chöra Tamils, and then eonfused with the Seres of Turkestan; and I will elose with a further identifieation of one of these ubiquitous Seros, not heretofore made, so far as I am aware.
Wilfried Schoff: The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), 224-239 (224, 237)
I am taking a look into some of the sources you relied on and then I come back to the nomination page. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently commented on the FAC page after I removed the mentioning of Japan and Rome from the lead (an issue which seems like your biggest concern since it comprises two of your three points), and I recently added this, QUOTE: As promised, I added a bit of analysis on why Han involved itself in the Western Regions:
The Eastern-Han court periodically reasserted the Chinese military presence in the Western Regions only as a means to combat the Northern Xiongnu. [1] Han forces were expelled from the Western Regions first by the Xiongnu between 77–90 CE and then by the Qiang between 107–122 CE. [1] In both of these periods, the financial burdens of reestablishing and expanding western colonies, as well as the liability of sending financial aid requested by Tarim-Basin tributary states, were viewed by the court as reasons to forestall the reopening of foreign relations in the region. [1]
I hope you find this sufficient, especially since the issue of the article's size does not allow me to add much more. In the next paragraph, the comparison of the cost of putting down the Liangzhou rebellion (24 million cash coins) to the average annual amount of minted coins (220 million) should demonstrate just how the court's finances were suffering and why they could not commit their forces to far-flung campaigns of conquest and settlement. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Limyra Bridge has been promoted to GA. Please see the comments about improving the article. Spevw ( talk) 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Helm (mountain), is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have responded and provided further evidence for my claims, as well as reworded some sentences in regards to your suggestions (some of which were good, some of which, however, I find unhelpful to say the least).-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Gun Powder Ma, in addition to all your other points of concern which I've now addressed in the article (i.e. sparse evidence of arch bridges, no vaults and domes above ground, the absence of watermills for grinding, the "firsts" in China or world, and Thorp's input on archaeological scarcity of architectural remains), I am proud to say much of the "Mechanical and hydraulic engineering" sub-section has been reworded and given a true narrative form, as you desired to see. Here is the newly-reworded part:
Literary evidence of Han-era mechanical engineering rests largely on the choice observations of sometimes disinterested Confucian scholars, since professional artisan-engineers (jiang 匠) did not leave behind detailed writings of their work.[377] Han scholars who had little or no expertise in mechanical engineering sometimes provided insufficient information on the various technologies they described.[378] Nevertheless, some Han literary sources provide crucial information. For example, in 15 BCE the philosopher Yang Xiong described the invention of the belt drive for a quilling machine, which was of great importance to early textile manufacturing.[379] The inventions of the artisan Ding Huan (丁緩) are mentioned in the Book of Later Han. Around 180 CE, Ding created a manually-operated rotary fan used for air conditioning within palace buildings.[380] Ding also used gimbals as pivotal supports for one of his incense burners and invented the world's first known zoetrope lamp.[381][382]
The discovery of Han artwork through modern archaeology has brought to light inventions which were otherwise absent in Han literary sources. As observed in Han miniature tomb models but not in literary sources, the crank handle was used to operate the fans of winnowing machines that separated grain from chaff.[383][384] The odometer cart, invented during Han, measured journey lengths, using mechanical figures banging drums and gongs to indicate each distance traveled.[385] This invention is depicted in Han artwork by the 2nd century CE, yet detailed written descriptions are not offered until the 3rd century CE.[386] Modern archaeologists have also unearthed actual specimens of devices used during Han. For example, Han-era sliding metal calipers used by craftsmen for making minute measurements were found to have inscriptions of the exact day and year they were manufactured, yet this tool does not appear in Han literatary sources.[387][388]
Isn't she pretty! (lol) I'm glad you nudged me a bit to rewrite this section, because it sounds much better now. What do you think?-- Pericles of Athens Talk 09:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi - Sella towers (in lower case) just looks really peculiar as the name of mountains / a mountain, which as a proper name would take a capital letter on the second element. But I am not sure that in any case in English it would be "Sella towers/Towers", which sounds like a block of flats. Have you some sources for the name in English? HeartofaDog ( talk) 16:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind your removals. The late date of the Spanish pic possibly was misleading. I searched for one that illustrated the theory. Do you mind backing up the various remaining sentences with references that you consider appropriate? Are you having an anti-anti-Western-World-propaganda blitz, or what? Amandajm ( talk) 08:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be edging towards 3RR in edit warring in that section into the Sonia Sotomayor. Please stop and discuss on the talk page and gain a consensus before attempting to put it back into the lead. Brothejr ( talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun. Long time, no see. At least since that FAC page for Government of the Han Dynasty, which is now a featured article, btw.
Every once in a while I choose to focus on non-Chinese history articles. My featured articles on Augustus and Giovanni Villani come to mind. Recently I've set my sights on Ancient Egyptian literature, which is still quite a small article for such an important topic.
I've started compiling notes from several scholarly sources on the subject. I know that you are mostly interested in Greco-Roman subjects, but I was wondering if you knew of any good (as well as easily-accessible) sources on Egyptian literature (perhaps a journal article online that you are familiar with). Regards.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 10:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, as you may have noted, I am linking only those artillery pieces to the list which are listed there (plus those lists which include this artillery). Please elaborate why do you feel that this is "unencyclopedic". Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! I think it was you who opposed in summer the creation of this article of mine on the grounds that it compares apples with oranges. I believe you are right. Grouping together all these different kinds of cannon is close to WP:Synthesis.
I propose to split the list into three smaller ones (on the same page). The criteria would be the kind of of projectiles used:
What do you think? Do these subdivisions make sense? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that, in hindsight, large naval guns were a waste of money.. better results were obtained by torpedoes and mines and finally by airpower. Britain achieved its great naval success largely with smaller guns, before WWI. On land, monster guns were so slow in movement that I believe they hindered rather than aided military campaigns. In the Boer War Britain discovered its "siege train" was too slow in movement to be usable. In WWI Germany did use a few Big Berthas and 30.5 cm Austrian howitzers to destroy the Belgian forts but the delay in bringing them up arguably contributed to losing the Battle of the Marne. The huge resources invested in the Gustavs could not really be justified by Germany in WWII in return for Sevastapol, which would have been eventually captured by infantry with mortars anyway. Germany under Hitler failed to grasp that strategic bombers had long ago replaced monster guns... the "Adolf guns" were able to fire across the Channel and strike England but were strategically irrelevant. In contrast, a proper German strategic heavy bomber force would have won the Battle Of Britain. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
There is a lot more to be done please dont stop. J8079s ( talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC) |
I reverted some of the good work you did on this page; some redaction of content seemed highly subjective and counter purpose- every bit as much as its presence! Of course, we still have your edit's history; my concern was that with such a single, heavy edit, an onerous burden is placed on subsequent editors to revise, adjust, contribute. You might consider editing sections individually. I would care to discuss the mater in detail, as time allows. Mavigogun ( talk) 10:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That washstand in Philo of Byzantium's article is pretty cool! I've never read Lewis's article, but since it was published in 2000, I'm surprised you haven't gotten a hold of it already. Good work. I've already made note of it in List of Chinese inventions.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, by the Western Han, the separate "schools" of Gan De and Shi Shen already existed, but we don't know much about the two men (if they existed at all), let alone have contemporary records about them. The Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian mentions both men and their different astronomical "schools", along with that of Wu Xian (astronomer). What Cullen doesn't mention in this passage here (much to my surprise) is the catalogue of stars found in Sima Qian's very own Records of the Grand Historian (in the chapter Tianguan shu), which is obviously a work of the late 2nd century BC (see page 21-22 of Sun, Xiaochun and Jacob Kistemaker. (1997). The Chinese Sky During the Han: Constellating Stars and Society. Leiden, New York, Köln: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 9004107371.). When Cullen says 2nd century AD, he is most certainly speaking of Zhang Heng's later (and much larger) star catalogue.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gun Powder Ma. Thanks for your message. Just thoughts really, but what I am trying to say is that language should not determine policy and justify a certain cultural outlook or bias. It is true for any language, but even more so with English, which is used more as an international language than a country-specific language nowadays, and is in effect a sort of "Esperanto", to your point, for contributors from around the world. Best regards Phg ( talk) 11:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a request that Meran be moved to Merano, at Talk:Meran#Requested move to Merano (5 July 2009) Ian Spackman ( talk) 14:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating work on 15th century cannons! Do you plan to consolidate these under a larger article? I will try to incorporate them in the template Template:Artillery of the Middle Ages. Regarding Taccola, I do not have much time to expand the article at this point. Cheers. Phg ( talk) 17:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
After our discussion at AfD, it seemed the one thing we did agree on was that the article could be merged, so I've done that, it's now at Abbas Ibn Firnas#Armen Firman -- Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of Firman from the Early Flying Machines article: it is not in our purview to establish fact- only to furnish material supported by reference. To point: our judgment of likelihood is not a factor for inclusion- this includes the area of folk tales and legend. The role of the editor is not that of arbiter of truth. Any argument for deletion of the Firman event would, in kind, hold for the material merger discussed here; as with the Flying Machine article, "I think it was probably not true" is not the metric to be used; if there are conflicting sources, cite both. Mavigogun ( talk) 05:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to s:la:Vicifons:Scriptorium#Taccola. -- John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are two Han architecture ruins I've added to the Han Dynasty article recently. A while back you wanted me to show you the remnants of Han architecture; here are two types. The first is a stone pillar-gate in Sichuan located at the tomb of Gao Yi, who lived during the Eastern Han period. If you look at the rest of the images uploaded by User:Zeus1234 for the latter structure, you can see the detail of the relief-carvings of human figures, animals, and wooden building components such as dougong brackets and roof tiles. This pillar-gate image looks much better than the early-20th-century black-and-white image I was using for an Eastern Han pillar gate at the Wu Family Shrine in Shandong province. The second is a ruin of a rammed earth Han watchtower in Gansu province (plenty of those still around, some in better condition than this if you snoop around online). Enjoy.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your changes to the article are not only completely without merit (as well as explanation to larger a degree, as you seem to remove highly relevant and sourced information for no good reason), they are also in violation of WP:CAT as you have little grasp of the relevant heirachy needed in an article like Cataphract. My information which you removed twice predates your additions regarding "Early Armored Riders" and sets up the chronological basis of the article. Moreover, you fail to properly cite your new additions and write in an entirely encyclopaedic sytle, in total contrast to the rest of the article.
Please, let's stop the childish revert war and try to actually improve this burgeoning but very, very important article into something much better. I'd be happy to work with you to gradually, piece-by-piece reintroduce your information as long as we discuss it prior.
Thankyou Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to better integrate your section on Assyrian & Central Asian Cataphracts within the article by adding some more background information and rewording a lot of it to conform with a more readable & easily-understandable style. Please refer back to me and tell me what you think on the talk page; I have also outlined a list of problems I see with the inclusion of your information here: [5]
Gamer112(Aus) ( talk) 06:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
According to a new archaeological discovery in Rome, Nero apparently had a water-powered revolving restaurant! Read here. If you can find out any more about this, please share an article! Regards.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 11:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there's a note basically addressed to you right now on the 1421 talk page. Please have a look, I think we'll agree on a solution rather easily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 14:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
17th & 18th century, so what? Congratulations BTW for at least checking out one of the cites - which was it, Ayres or Lindsay?
Kitchen cranes use leverage, sometimes screws, to lift things. SO WTF is you problem with them appearing in the crane article? Your obsession with them need for pulleys is just plain, simple wrong.
Secondly, why should the fact they are surviving from the 17th century matter at all (there's some indication they're earlier too, but not by a huge amount)? That's still post-Roman, pre-most other sorts of crane. What difference does it make?
Finally your claim to have deleted text because of a claimed image problem is just wriggling because you know you've no answer to the real question. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Stop lying and wheedling. You've deleted a whole section four times now, all of them wrong.
Kitchen cranes (I can't believe I'm writing this) are simple machines used to gain a mechanical advantage when lifting things. Some smaller ones are merely jibs and fixed positioners, not lifters, most of the larger ones lifted by levers. Their non-use of pulleys (quite probably because of proximity to fire) is irrelevant.
I can't claim to understand your agenda. Your past history suggests that you simply do crazy edits. Congratulations, you've won. Welcome to Wikipedia, it's yours. Enjoy. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:Gamer112 reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Both warned), which ended with warnings to both parties. Let me know if you have any questions on how to use the WP:Dispute resolution policy. Since there are only two disputants, you might consider requesting a WP:Third opinion. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have co-ordinates for this dam? Josh Parris 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Great expansion. Thanks. Could you provide the full reference for Wilson? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested in the Treadwheel crane article which was created yesterday. The list of historical harbour cranes which you created also covers the subject, but not all treadwheel cranes were used in harbours - Guildford is alongside a canal. Mjroots ( talk) 07:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hallo! Nach (zu) langer Zeit hab ich mich endlich damit befasst, Deinen Artikel zur Brücke von Limyra ins Griechische zu übersetzen! Hier kannst Du es finden. Ich habe einige Probleme mit den Fachwörtern, die sehr oft stark von den entsprechenden deutschen und englischen Wörtern abweichen, aber es wird schon. Ich hoffe, den Artikel bis Ende dieser Woche vollkommen übersetzt zu haben! Machs gut! Constantine ✍ 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, the Copernicus page has the invisible text which says "no assertion of nationality here! see section on his nationality, the discussion page and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". It has this invisible text for a reason - the long and sordid history of the edit wars on that article over whether Copernicus was Polish or German or something else. The point of that invisible text is to prevent the recurrence of these pointless edit wars. This injunction applies to indirect "hints" at Copernicus' supposed nationality as well as to outright assertions of it. Now, I know that the German version of the name can be referenced, just like the Polish one can, but it's best if BOTH are kept out of the lead. Otherwise, pretty soon editors are going to start competing on # of sources for each, adding additional versions, including info from other encyclopedias as to nationality etc. That way lies madness and it's not worth. It's best to just state "Nicolaus Copernicus" and leave it at that. A similar thing applies to the assertion that "Copernicus spoke German as native tongue and everyday language" - yes you can find a couple (German) sources which claim that. You can also find sources which claim that Copernicus spoke Polish (quick example of such a English lang source [6] - Polish lang sources would be even easier to find). And this is also something that's been debated and fought over a hundred times already (that's not hyperbole) so why refight it again? Really, these kinds of edits are just going to provoke people and stoke the ambers. It's much better to treat the matter carefully, leave the matter as it is now - ambiguously phrased that Copernicus was sort of German sort of Polish. As far as the images go, a few of them can probably be removed, but it should be discussed on talk first.
Thanks. radek ( talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As a aside, I am happy to be read many times in the article that Thorn was Poland then (via Prussia), but to balance that I believe it is worth noting at least once that the city was actually inhabited predominantly by cultural Germans. Generally, I would prefer not to waste much time on the article, but the tons of retrospective Polish memorabilia (coins, bill, statues), which, being invariably of modern date, actually have no bearing whatsoever on the question of Copernicus's 'nationality', are too a gross attempt to appropiate NC for the Polish point of view to be ignored. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Sure, include a link to the Walhalla temple or any other Copernicus monument you know of.
2. I didn't see the Polish name till I got around to editing - note I took out BOTH.
3. I gave a source above and there's more. The reason why it's not in the article is because it was removed, along with similar assertions about "German being his native tongue". The honest truth is we don't know what his "native tongue" was or what he spoke at home or whatever, though various sources speculate variously. The point is that including EITHER will just encourage pointless fightin' on the article.
Some of the images can probably be removed, but it's probably something that should be brought up on talk page first. Actually, pretty much ANYTHING to do with the man's ethnicity should be brought up on talk first. You also restored Goethicus' word "anachronistically" which is a straight up POV pushing since it's not in the sources and is just that guy's opinion (he tries to sneak it in about once a month or so. Much like the banned Polish user Serafin occasionally tries to insert "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer!" into the lede every once in awhile (though he's been quiet lately)). radek ( talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Airplaneman
talk 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made some edits to this page to rduce the undue prominence of the Roman shield design section- there would need to be some much better WP:RS covering the Roman material to justofy its previous length in an article about the Taoist symbol (rather than a design). I see from the Discussion page that you have previously reverted such changes but I think the article lacked balance. Martinlc ( talk) 14:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll check there and may take photos, thanks. OnurMor e 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking you to cool it and to drop 'delete' comments. You must have seen that Teeninvestor is using your edits in a way you probably would prefer them not to be used. I'm going to warn him about his language. Let's let Nev1 and others work on the articles without a sideshow, ok? No offense meant, just trying to cool this down. Dougweller ( talk) 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article based on your comments at the FAC. When you have a moment, would you care to comment again? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this again, but I've found some stuff that makes me re-evaluate my earlier edits and think we should perhaps remove the Gunaratna stuff altogether; I started a section here suggesting that we take him out of the article. If you're interested, you may want to comment. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your extremely well written argument for deletion here. i wish i had written what you wrote. and i wish more editors had a better understanding of the subtleties of what makes some superficially acceptable lists ("who could argue with this list? its a list, its about notable things, its interesting, its subject has been discussed, so it must be ok!") often wildly inappropriate. I'll see an article like this and my mind will just warp, trying to put into words exactly why i sense its inappropriate here. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I've started the RfC. I'm trying out a new discussion template - please put your statement in the s2 parameter of the inbrief template - it will display your position and mine side by side. we can debate the issue below the template.
also, I totally screwed up and originally pointed to the wrong editor. it's fixed now, so don't laugh at me. -- Ludwigs2 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your contributions to the History of the alphabet article. I am trying to find some source or inline citation for the bit you contributed to the Prehistory section. If you could add the citation yourself or tell me where you got that info I would gladly add the citations for you. andyzweb ( talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sent an e-mail to you. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Done! Sorry, I hadn't seen your earlier message :) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Gunpowder Ma, I noticed you deleted Song dynasty armored warships because, according to you:
Minus the fact that Needham made the claim as a statement, not as speculation, I wonder what your sentence implies. Do you mean that if I did give a list of other authors who "followed up", you would undo your removal of the existence of Song iron-plated warships, and add the deleted information back into the page? Or would you delete the new information as well? Please list the conditions you would require in order for the information to be added back into the page. I am also not aware of any Wikipedia rule that states any source must be "followed up" by other authors or else the claim is deleted. If it exists, do you mind telling me where you got that rule from? Much appreciated. Gnip 8:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that as the nominator of the AFD you have a right to withdraw your nomination? What the heck is the point in prolonging it? It is your right to withdraw your own nomination and remove the AFD tag. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You had your chance with the FIght history article. Now its looks as if it will be kept, even after I took the effort to redirect it and clean it up.. Good one. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Undefeatedcooler (
talk) 05:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a notice, I moved your report to the ANI board which is a more appropriate location for discussions of an editor's misconduct requiring administrator action. I've also notified Undefeatedcooler of the report, which is required at noticeboards. -- Atama 頭 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The translation from French seems fine to me. The one issue I have with the section:Geometric figure is the phrase "most recognized pattern." The issue is: most recognized by whom? Was a poll taken? Who conducted the poll? I recommend avoiding such claims. It is easier to say, "In one pattern, the two ...."
I request that you change the introduction to read at the end: The patterns of the taijitu form part of Celtic, Etruscan, and Roman iconography. After "iconography," I would stop. I hope these comments help. PYRRHON talk 19:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse my inconstancy but, on re-reading the article, I came up with some ideas for change. I propose that the section=Geometric figure be changed to read only as follows:
To make the classical Taoist symbol, which speakers of English may know as the yin yang symbol, one draws on the diameter of a circle two non-overlapping circles each of which has a diameter equal to the radius of the outer circle. One keeps the line that forms an "S," and one erases or obscures the other line. Nature may draw yin yang symbols; see the image at the right.
I propose the change because:
Congratulations on finding the image with Nature's handiwork.
I also recommend that the line under Celts about the La Tène culture be removed. If the section I suggest above is used, that line is otiose.
On the whole, I like what you have done to the place. You have a fine article. Thank you for introducing me to "apotropaic". PYRRHON talk 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Nate
t/
c 14:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gun. It seems you are a bit busy with Bruce Lee and other topics as of late, but I was hoping if you wouldn't mind suggesting a few (good) sources on a recent project I am pursuing: rewriting Parthian Empire. From the library, I've picked up the two-part volume for Parthia in the Cambridge History of Iran (1983), as well as Maria Brosius' The Persians: An Introduction (although she is an established academic, the book is not from a credible university press, i.e. published by Routledge, 2006). I was hoping, given your interest in ancient Rome, if you knew of any good recent academic sources on Parthia or even Roman-Parthian relations that I could utilize (from articles that aren't already found at JSTOR, I've already scoured those). So far I've started a new sandbox on the matter: User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox Parthian Empire if you want to check it out.
Regards,
-- Pericles of Athens Talk 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gun Powder Ma. I have a working draft over at User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for Parthian Empire. Have a look! I've got the introduction and first subsection fleshed out. I don't have too much information on Rome just yet (in fact, only in the intro so far), but I wouldn't mind if you consulted me on Roman issues as I move along. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you italicized the title of Four Great Inventions of ancient China, as it is not a book or other work of art. Since it doesn't appear to be in any of the categories mentioned in the documentation of [Template:Italic title]] ("species and genera that use binomial nomenclatures, ... certain mathematical symbols, .... book, movie, or other media titles"), I have reverted the change. Thanks LK ( talk) 04:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bruce Lee. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Undefeatedcooler (
talk) 16:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
HI - thanks for the invitation to review that article. I took the liberty of brushing up a bit of the wording. You are to be commended for your substantial efforts to improve and amplify wikipedia content. By the way, your talk page is getting a bit out of control; you might consider archiving it (suggestions on how to accomplish that appear at the top of your page when you select "edit this page"). Thanks again. Raymondwinn ( talk) 02:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, could you please not change the word "university" to "madrassa" in articles like Al-Azhar University and University of Al-Karaouine? Sources routinely call these two places universities, in fact I have never seen the phrase Madrasa al-Karaouine. nableezy - 21:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Al-Azhar is called a university or college in many sources. See [8]: in 989 it acquired the status of a college with the appointment of thirty-five scholars to teach the Ismaili Shia theology to which the Fatimids adhered. ... After the Ottoman conquest, when the Mamluk colleges (madrasa) were in decline, al-Azhar become the center of Islamic scholarship in Egypt and one of the principal theological universities in the Muslim world. There are many more. Could you please explain why you are segregating Islamic universities from the list of oldest universities and why you intent on calling these places "madrassas"? nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't edit war with that guy. The next time you make a change that was agreed to by consensus, etc and he reverts, take it to the Admin Noticeboard on Edit Warring. I'm tired of playing games with him.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I would recommend setting up a WP:RFC for Undefeatedcooler ( talk · contribs · logs). This will create a point of reference for any future disputes with this user, and allow for more timely admin action. — Myasuda ( talk) 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma.I´m really worried about a user called Jagged 85 and all the awful edits he´s making in wikipeda.He has a political and religious agenda and he´s trying to distort history.For example,he even wrote that Da Vinci was of arabic origin!!! Seriously,this guy is problematic.We must do something. -- Knight1993 ( talk) 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok,thanks for answering.I´ll try to keep an eye on his moves.Muchas gracias ;-) -- Knight1993 ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Although the proposed changes at WP:Verifiability will clarify the policy issues, in the long run an uncooperative editor must be dealt with by the appropriate dispute resolution processes. These are time-consuming and will be especially difficult to resolve in this case. Dispute resolution procedures deal very well with clear-cut violations of policy; they are not so well suited to deal with subtle misinterpretation of specialized scholarly sources by a "productive" editor.
I've already been the lead on two clearly defined cases and don't want to undertake that again. I will gladly provide comments if someone is willing to undertake the months of effort to document the problematic edits for an RFC/U to make him aware of a community consensus on his problem edits. If these don't improve his edits, subsequent administrative action at AN may even be necessary to resolve this problem. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Great work,Gun Powder Ma!! you have exposed all those lies and manipulations made by Jagged.Truly,this man has an obssesion with proving Islam has contruibuted to mankind,but as history is not on his side his distorts it in a blatant way.Poor guy,I almost feel sorry for him-- Knight1993 ( talk) 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I provided complete reference to a reliabe written source. You can go to the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library) in The Hague and look in the newspaper in cosideration. You can go to the archive Tresoar, Frysk Histoarysk en Letterkundich Sintrum (Treasure Chest, Fisian Historic and Literary Centre) in Leeuwarden and read the newspaper. At 1 May, internet access will be available again under the new name www.dekrantvantoen.nl (you can read that at the website of Tresoar http://www.tresoar.nl). The auction was mentioned in a series of (Dutch) newspapers. However, those newspapers are not searchable via internet. Therefore I gave the date, so that people can search other newspapers from just before or after the date of the auction. The article in the Fisian newspaper mentions also that an unknown Dutch businessman bought the piece of paper for a price of more than hunderd thousand guilders (I guess in those days more than 30.000 dollars), I do not remember the exact price. Your removal denies people access to interesting information and I was hoping that someone can provide a better description from an auction catalogue, by removal you make that impossible. By the way, on your website is an error in the name of a German person of Dutch (Flemish) descent. Funny, again a Dutch-German connection. His name is "Van Beethoven" and not "Beethoven". I hope you will be so civilized too restore the information. I want to avoid an "editing war". I have no objection if you move the information to be restored into a note. Robvhoorn ( talk) 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, your statement "the earliest German-language university" is not supported by the sources you have provided:
Pope Eugenius: "The university of Vienna, the oldest German university (not considering the university of Prague)..."
German realities: "The university of Leipzig was founded in 1408 when professors and students from Prague (the oldest German university) fled from religious persecution." There was no religious persecution, the university was founded in 1409 etc. This source is laughable.
The German Myth: "Prague university, the oldest German university, was divided into German and Czech sections in 1882."
History of Education: "The oldest German university is Prague, founded in 1348." This book is over 100 years old and was written at the time when Bohemia was still part of the A-H empire and was considered part of the German Mitteleuropa.
None of these sources elaborate the German character of the university and especially not the language or ethnic issue. They only repeat the German nationalistic POV which is based on the fact that Bohemia was part of the HRE and was according to them eo ipso German. They see HRE as the German "First Reich" omitting the fact that it was a supranational entity which could be hardly described as German or as an empire. Bohemia itself was a very special member of this conglomerate, a fully sovereign country with only a few formal obligations between the King and the Emperor and with an overwhelming non-German majority. The only true fact is that the majority of students and probably also the staff were German-speakers during the first 60 years of the university simply because it was the only institution of its kind in this part of Europe at that time and there was no university in any of the German states until 1365 when the University of Vienna was founded. This is however already mentioned in the article. The language of instructions was of course Latin. I am going to remove it from the lead and add this POV into the proper section. Qertis ( talk) 10:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma!! Just wanted to remark your excellent work in the university article,eliminating the bias there used to be.Congratulations!! And by the way,happy Easter!!-- Knight1993 ( talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments on my talk page and even more for opening the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. My discomfort with the current situation is probably very obvious, as is my difficulty in knowing what might be the best way to approach it.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gun Powder Ma.I´ve been reading the article "Bimaristan",about medical institutions in medieval Islam.Could you tell me what you think about it and the claims it makes?What I find extremely weird is the claim that they had medical degrees for physicians,when we clearly know from the university-madrasa controversy that those "degrees" were only for religious studies.So please tell me your opinion.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 17:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a confusing term - it is by no means "conventionally dated" to any period without a dynastic prefix. As our article says, in full it runs from the 630s to 1924 or whenever. It is completely unsuitable to use here. Please do not revert my improvements to the picture caption. Johnbod ( talk) 02:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree that the influence of Islam is often given excessive credit on Wikipedia (and good luck trying to argue that Europe had a heavy influence on anything Islamic...), but I still think it is useful to see what was going on elsewhere in the world, especially since North Africa and the Middle East are so closely connected to ancient and medieval Europe. Adam Bishop ( talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Medieval art. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Modernist (
talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Your 4 edits there are already over the limit... Modernist ( talk) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll certainly write something. As you can see however, I'm rather busy ;), so this may take a few days... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a proper name, so it's called "House of the Tiles" not "House of the tiles". A requested move needs to be made because BOTijo made another edit to the redirect, preventing non-admins from moving it. Viriditas ( talk) 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What is going on here, the turtle ships were from the 1400s, the Atabakune were from the 1570s, at this point no one knows if they were iron plated. There are on and off mentions of iron in the 1400 ships and the Japanese ships but we don't know to what extent. Hideyoshi states he needs to counter the Korean iron-clad ship, so we know something with iron was happening in the 1590s. If in the 1570s Japanese ships already had iron plates why would Hideyoshi state this in the 1590s. And no one is sure how much iron was in the Korean ships of the 1400s. Everything is cloudy, but the turtle ships were from the 1400s. We need to put this in chronological order and let the readers decide on when/how much iron plates were used. -- 199.91.34.33 ( talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
When you edit, because you disagree with me that is fine but please don't delete the quotes for references, thanks -- 199.91.34.33 ( talk) 00:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I've started a draft revision at User:SteveMcCluskey/Cathedral schools. At the moment its in shabby shape, but give it a week or two. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Stop blaming others with issues as it is clearly for fault. you even attacked an admin. Get yourself together man. Don't loose your mind. You take things to seriously, just go one at a time and not try to get it all done at once with the Bruce lee Article. AM I Wrong about this??
To avoid duplication of effort, you should probably keep an eye on
this page.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
XD I'm guessing you're a long-haired dude. Lol. My hair was once grown past my shoulders; it was at a perfect length for headbanging to metal. Hah.
Anyways, the real reason I'm bugging you is so you can have a look at Parthian Empire, which is being fleshed out at the moment. I have already mentioned the exploits of Publius Ventidius Bassus in the history section, although I have yet to cite the source you shared via email. I will do that in a moment, but for the meantime check things out.
Regards, -- Pericles of Athens Talk 20:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. You have posed two very excellent questions. In my sandbox notes, I unfortunately did not copy Bivar (1983) verbatim in regards to the Carrhae episode, but I do have an exact quotation from Brosius (2006) who explicitly mentions use of the Parthian shot during Carrhae. Although Brosius doesn't mention it, Bivar does describe a futile charge into the main Parthian lines by Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir), which is probably where the Parthian shot was employed as a harassing tactic to draw the detachment inward and surround them. This was, of course, different from the larger main force under the elder Crassus which ultimately retreated under constant fire. As for the Hatra image, the uploader of the photograph alleges that it is an entrance to an iwan, the barrel-vaulted audience hall of Parthian times. It is quite possible, given the proximity to the Roman East, that the entrance facade to this particular Hatran iwan was deliberately built in the Roman style. Brosius (2006) and Schlumberger (1983) both describe the iwans of Hatra as rich examples of Parthian architecture; they do not, however, mention the influence of Roman architecture. However, you may well be right about the use of ashlar blocks in this photograph. Moreover, do you have a scholarly source on Roman architecture which might cover influence on ancient Hatra? Here are some pictures from Wikimedia Common's page on Hatra:
The first image clearly looks Roman, especially with the columns following the Corinthian order. However, Schlumberger writes (pp. 1037-1040) that the Parthians were using the Greek Ionic order at the top of columns as far back as the construction of the capital Nisa, Turkmenistan (i.e. during the reign of Mithridates I of Parthia). It is quite possible that the use of Greek architectural elements in Hatra had little to do with the expanding power of Rome, and more to do with the Hellenistic period ushered in by Alexander's Asian conquests.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Early Mesopotamian vaults have several distinct characteristics. Normally, of course, they are made of unbaked mud brick. The bricks are not shaped specially, since they do not have the expected wedge shape, the curvature being achieved by the appropriate packing of the interstices with mud and stone. The first few courses of the spring are gradually corbelled outwards, and thereafter the voussoirs are tuned at an angle which permits each to be supported by its predecessor and the adhesion of the mud mortar until the gap has narrowed to approximately half its original span, with the result that only the crown of the vault needs the support of scaffolding. Baked brick was used by the sixth century Be when arch and vault achieved something approximate to the classical semicircular profile; examples exist in the 'Hanging Gardens' at Babylon, but they still clearly used mortar packing.'2 The wedge-shaped voussoir, then, does not seem to be a part of Mesopotamian building technique. Related techniques are still employed in the vaulted structures of Hatra of the second century AD: here stone voussoirs are used but they are not fully wedge-shaped, but still fitted together with packing mortar. Footnote: I am grateful to H. S. Issa, who is studying the architecture of Hatra for a Ph.D. under my supervision, for information on Hatra's vaulting techniques.
R. A. Tomlinson: "The Architectural Context of the Macedonian Vaulted Tombs," The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 82 (1987), pp. 305-312 (310)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. -- Syncategoremata ( talk) 17:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)