![]() | 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. |
Hi Keahapana, Would you mind reviewing the recent changes to Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, and perhaps weighing in on the corresponding talk page discussion? I would like to recuse myself for now, but I have provided a summary of the edits in question. Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keahapana, I just posed a question on the talk page for the concerns and controversies article. Seems that everyone is telling everyone else to discuss before reverting, yet there are three reverts and no discussion in more than a month. I am pretty confused, and would appreciate if you could head to the talk page to explain what the thought process was behind your changes (I hope other editors will do the same). I'll try to mediate if I can, but don't know how much more I can invest in parsing through all the diffs to understand what's going on. Thanks, Homunculus ( duihua) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much, Factseducado ( talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Keahapana, I was checking the references in the Ma Gu article, and I noticed that you not only started the article, and contributed to it over time (and may perhaps still be interested in it). I also know that you are generally knowledgeable, even erudite, in many areas of ancient Chinese culture and linguistics. Therefor, I was wondering if you would happen to know a better reference to the section Ma Gu#Hemp goddess?, where it says:
Referring to Needham, Joseph. 1980. Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology; Part 4, Spagyrical Discovery and Invention. Cambridge University Press.
However, page 152 in this text appears to involve a discussion of distillation of alcohol, rather than Chinese mythology or religion. Might you know whether this reference is incorrect (perhaps found elsewhere in one of Needham's works), or do you think that the statement in the article is just inaccurate (or, at least, not supported by this particular reference)? Dcattell ( talk) 16:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Dcattell and thanks for your erudite corrections and suggestions. Yes, I've already found a surplus of references, and probably the most specific academic study is Campany 2005 (which became Chapter 3 of his 2009 book). I'll correct my Shiji mistake about Li Shaojun and Wudi in the Lunheng, thanks again for mentioning it. This Shiji 乃學辟穀道引輕身 usage of bigu also mentions qingshen "lightening the body", which is another example of Daoist terminology with fascinatingly obscure semantics. Yes, bigu was understandably (with its rich denotations and connotations) a popular word among poets. I'll check for some well-referenced examples. I did see a note in Campany 2009 citing Mair's Mei Cherng's "Seven stimuli" and Wang Bor's "Pavilion of King Terng", which I haven't yet seen. You're right that bigu was frequently combined with neidan, and Campany says that many legendary xian used it in combination with other techniques, but none attained xian-hood exclusively through bigu. I didn't know that Wang Wei starved himself (<grin>, Famous people who starved themselves to death…that would be a good list), and will look into 留侯 too. I truly appreciate your interest and help. If I can ever help with your WP editing projects, please let me know. Best wishes, Keahapana ( talk) 22:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be running out of " lives". #1 #2 #3 Such action is not a necessary prelude to discussion. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I addressed some of your points at Talk:Mizuchi. I conceded to using parenthesis citation on this, but I still needed to footnote stuff, and I also used internal linking from refernce to citation list, which I don't think most editors should have a problem with. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
Hi, Keahapana, I started an article on Kunlun Mountain (mythology), which you may find of interest. I noticed that you had some etymological information on kunlun etymology, in the Hundun (which you helped to rescue from its state of primordial, nebulous chaos). I believe an equivalence with hundun? Also I find that 崑崙 seems also to have been used to describe an area and people from an area somewhere around the Indian Ocean (Kurung/Kunlun, per Edward H. Schafer). Any ideas either to me or added directly to article would be received with gratitude. Dcattell ( talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. -- PCPP ( talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference tip. I did manage to access JSTOR, and download the pdf of Schipper's "The Taoist Body," and started reading it. (That is, until my head started to spinning too much)! What is it? Kunlun Mountain = Laozi's mystical body's head = Hundun = primordial chaos, connecting Kunlun with primordial chaos! Well, as a reference to Kunlun and Hundun being cognate (p. 366), it seems like a good, straight-forward reference. The part about Kunlun being Laozi's head (p. 359) sounds kind of esoteric and hermitic, but makes a certain sense. Interesting.... Dcattell ( talk) 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(And looking at the huntun (wanton) connection, it appears that Kunlun Mountain, may in fact be just an enormous stuffed noodle!)
Hi Keahapana. I saw your edits on Mu (negative); I really like them.
Could you give your opinion on my recent edits on Kensho? They have been removed three times without adequate explanation or discussion. See also the TP of Kensho. I've also asked User:SudoGhost for advice, User:Tengu800 for his opnion, and taken the issue also to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho. Friendly greetings, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 06:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keapahana. Could you take a look at the etymology of Nirvana? See Talk:Nirvana#Literal meaning wrong, or rather slightly incorrect. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 05:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that page has a lot of talk page watchers; it would probably be a good idea to bring the issue to WT:CHINA or something. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baka (fool) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka (fool) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AshLey Msg 12:55, 23 November 2012 (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. |
![]() | 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. |
Hi Keahapana, Would you mind reviewing the recent changes to Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes, and perhaps weighing in on the corresponding talk page discussion? I would like to recuse myself for now, but I have provided a summary of the edits in question. Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keahapana, I just posed a question on the talk page for the concerns and controversies article. Seems that everyone is telling everyone else to discuss before reverting, yet there are three reverts and no discussion in more than a month. I am pretty confused, and would appreciate if you could head to the talk page to explain what the thought process was behind your changes (I hope other editors will do the same). I'll try to mediate if I can, but don't know how much more I can invest in parsing through all the diffs to understand what's going on. Thanks, Homunculus ( duihua) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much, Factseducado ( talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Keahapana, I was checking the references in the Ma Gu article, and I noticed that you not only started the article, and contributed to it over time (and may perhaps still be interested in it). I also know that you are generally knowledgeable, even erudite, in many areas of ancient Chinese culture and linguistics. Therefor, I was wondering if you would happen to know a better reference to the section Ma Gu#Hemp goddess?, where it says:
Referring to Needham, Joseph. 1980. Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology; Part 4, Spagyrical Discovery and Invention. Cambridge University Press.
However, page 152 in this text appears to involve a discussion of distillation of alcohol, rather than Chinese mythology or religion. Might you know whether this reference is incorrect (perhaps found elsewhere in one of Needham's works), or do you think that the statement in the article is just inaccurate (or, at least, not supported by this particular reference)? Dcattell ( talk) 16:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Dcattell and thanks for your erudite corrections and suggestions. Yes, I've already found a surplus of references, and probably the most specific academic study is Campany 2005 (which became Chapter 3 of his 2009 book). I'll correct my Shiji mistake about Li Shaojun and Wudi in the Lunheng, thanks again for mentioning it. This Shiji 乃學辟穀道引輕身 usage of bigu also mentions qingshen "lightening the body", which is another example of Daoist terminology with fascinatingly obscure semantics. Yes, bigu was understandably (with its rich denotations and connotations) a popular word among poets. I'll check for some well-referenced examples. I did see a note in Campany 2009 citing Mair's Mei Cherng's "Seven stimuli" and Wang Bor's "Pavilion of King Terng", which I haven't yet seen. You're right that bigu was frequently combined with neidan, and Campany says that many legendary xian used it in combination with other techniques, but none attained xian-hood exclusively through bigu. I didn't know that Wang Wei starved himself (<grin>, Famous people who starved themselves to death…that would be a good list), and will look into 留侯 too. I truly appreciate your interest and help. If I can ever help with your WP editing projects, please let me know. Best wishes, Keahapana ( talk) 22:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be running out of " lives". #1 #2 #3 Such action is not a necessary prelude to discussion. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I addressed some of your points at Talk:Mizuchi. I conceded to using parenthesis citation on this, but I still needed to footnote stuff, and I also used internal linking from refernce to citation list, which I don't think most editors should have a problem with. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 08:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
Hi, Keahapana, I started an article on Kunlun Mountain (mythology), which you may find of interest. I noticed that you had some etymological information on kunlun etymology, in the Hundun (which you helped to rescue from its state of primordial, nebulous chaos). I believe an equivalence with hundun? Also I find that 崑崙 seems also to have been used to describe an area and people from an area somewhere around the Indian Ocean (Kurung/Kunlun, per Edward H. Schafer). Any ideas either to me or added directly to article would be received with gratitude. Dcattell ( talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes". Thank you. -- PCPP ( talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference tip. I did manage to access JSTOR, and download the pdf of Schipper's "The Taoist Body," and started reading it. (That is, until my head started to spinning too much)! What is it? Kunlun Mountain = Laozi's mystical body's head = Hundun = primordial chaos, connecting Kunlun with primordial chaos! Well, as a reference to Kunlun and Hundun being cognate (p. 366), it seems like a good, straight-forward reference. The part about Kunlun being Laozi's head (p. 359) sounds kind of esoteric and hermitic, but makes a certain sense. Interesting.... Dcattell ( talk) 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
(And looking at the huntun (wanton) connection, it appears that Kunlun Mountain, may in fact be just an enormous stuffed noodle!)
Hi Keahapana. I saw your edits on Mu (negative); I really like them.
Could you give your opinion on my recent edits on Kensho? They have been removed three times without adequate explanation or discussion. See also the TP of Kensho. I've also asked User:SudoGhost for advice, User:Tengu800 for his opnion, and taken the issue also to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kensho. Friendly greetings, Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 06:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Keapahana. Could you take a look at the etymology of Nirvana? See Talk:Nirvana#Literal meaning wrong, or rather slightly incorrect. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 05:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that page has a lot of talk page watchers; it would probably be a good idea to bring the issue to WT:CHINA or something. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 04:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baka (fool) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka (fool) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AshLey Msg 12:55, 23 November 2012 (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. |