User talk:JFD/Archive4

I added the following to the Yue Fei page. I thought you might find it interesting:

History professor He Zongli of

Southern Song Dynasty

by Liu Songnian, Yue was more of a scholarly general with a shorter stature and chubbier build than the statue of him currently displayed in his tomb in Hangzhou. This statue portrays him as being tall and skinny.

Shen Lixin, an official with the Yue Fei Temple Administration, holds the portrait of Yue Fei from the "Zhong Xin Four Generals' Pictures" to be the most accurate likeness of the general out of all the existing material about him."

I'm going to write Sal about this as well. (Ghostexorcist 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here is a large version of the "Four Generals of Zhongxing". Yue Fei is the second person from the left (the chubby guy): image:Four_Generals_of_Song.jpg.(Ghostexorcist 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Should we really edit the other's articles ourselves now, JFD? I have refrained thus far though. This might tempt you for a reply with your trademark quotation but these edit wars are completely unnessasary. I'll refrain from editing the "Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection" article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have a thing or two to say about that but I'm about to devote my full attention to a med cabal case. I have not been attending to it as we're too busy hurling insults at each other until a third party comes up and tells us to go to our rooms and think about what we did, so to speak. Maybe when you take a break from your work and I'm free from tests and everything. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your "As it stands, the "Opposing theories" does not accurately convey the work of the authors cited. Matsuda, Lin and Ling are concerned with the authenticity of Yi Jin Jing, not with the historicity of Bodhidharma." query, that association was never removed by me at all. The historians are still primarily linked with the Yi Jin Jing.

In my edit I as much as removed a question about Bodhidharma being an entirely fictional charecter. This view is not supported even by the majority within the detrators. Kenny initiated an edit war which would have needlessly spilled over to three articles if cooler heads did not prevail just this once.

Since you have responeded cordially, I will reinstate it to the excellent version as edited by Djma12. I will revert my own edits and revert to a neutral version that (in my opinion) elevated the article from Start class to Class B.

Good luck with your exams.

Thanks, I will probably need all of it if I have to go for a master's degree in a good college.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do what I can, but I'm afraid I'll be away from tomorrow until the end of next week.--MichaelMaggs 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your eagerness for tidying up the Zen article. The article can use tidying up.

My understanding is that the Bodhidharma mention will retain it's status quo and neither parties involved will touch it.

As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I will add the early Mahayana Buddhism section that I mentioned in the merge proposal to the article as well.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we both waited for Saposcat and Michael. The edits will go more smoothly in their presence. _{Freedom skies| talk} 

Since both of us accuse each other of trying to vandalize the "correct" portrayal of Bodhidharma it would not help if either one of us as much as touches it. I have extended a request to Saposcat to unilaterally edit Bodhidharma to suit the Zen article. I'm sure that he will do an excellent job. _{Freedom skies| talk}  22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request to Saposcat. _{Freedom skies| talk}  05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made yourself perfectly clear. Most of Bodhidharma in it's current form in the Zen article is good enough to stay. His place of honor in Zen tradition will need a mention.

As for the connection of Bodhidharma with Buddhism "as a whole", his role in the spread and influence of Buddhism in East Asia ought to suffice. Outside of Zen Buddhism, buddhist philosophies still do not find adequate followers in China and Japan.

"The Buddhism of China" has more to do with the influence of Zen on Chinese Buddhism than comparing Zen with other schools.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I would appreciate if you didnt, "jump the list" on the evidence present page. Please move your evidence to the bottom of the list. It works like a queue. So if you came here after me, you will have to post your evidence below mine.
Thank you - --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do with some archiving, friend. My response is given here when you find time to read it. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, you sound very angry. I never called you a Taoist so you're imagining things. Your last message was vitriolic. Try to keep a cool head, JFD.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if you provided actual suggestions, JFD. Judging by this post you seem genuinely stressed. The factual accuracy of this post is debatable as well but at this point I won't be combative. Listen, if this seems too stressful then I can agree on a mutual wikibreak for a couple of days to help us both relax a bit. Kindly do me the courtesy of letting me know if you accept. I have refrained from commenting to your last paragraph in the manner that I originally would have and have provided a proposal which will incorporate your suggestion as well. Please relax. _{Freedom skies| talk}  01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the discussion between you and Freedom skies onto the Zen talk page, as it really belongs there for all to see, rather than hidden away on my talk page. Once I've done the move, I'm going to make a few brief comments as time allows. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFD - I deeply appreciate your comments and support. Thank you - don't worry about the progress of the case. The outcome, whatever it is, will only benefit Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revision, btw :-) Djma12 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for complimenting my work. Coming from you it means a great deal. Since no support seems to be forthcoming on Zen may I propose that we both work this out between ourselves? We have done it before and our relations have rarely been more cordial. Since both our positions are known and we have worked on similar topics multiple times before I don't think it's going to be a problem at all. Kindly let me know. Also, I can't find time for long discussions on multiple articles in foreseeable future. You watch my contribs and you'll note the many messages I sent indicating either uninvolvement or hinting a wrap up. Kindly help me do just that, wrap up prior commitments and not make any new ones that I cannot keep due to constraints of time. Extending genuine regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have moved the conversation to the page's discussion page. See you there!

Djma12 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I -think- now you have to ask whether they want to be a party. I know that in one of the previous cases, arbitrators had to allow someone to be added in as a party because there was an injunction about the case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. CiteCop 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a commendable job gathering evidence and you've worked very hard on organizing it but, if you'll allow me to be blunt, you've gathered so much evidence that it's swallowing up some of the points you're trying to make. CiteCop 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your work on this - I don't know if you've looked at Talk:Papermaking, where MT set up a RfC, which he then invited PR to comment on, which he duly did. Both behaved very badly in various ways during this. Also MT was highly abusive to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese inventions. I could comment at the above if you think it useful. Johnbod 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - not right now, but in next 24 hrs I expect. Johnbod 15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - but it's already too late isn't it? Johnbod 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Johnbod 17:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I am an open minded person. Wiki Raja 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me a source to show me when I said that and to whom? Also, please stop harassing me on my talk page. Thank you. Wiki Raja 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psst. SiflOlly 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been corresponding with experts in Chinese history, Literature, and folktales about my research on Zhou Tong. Prof. Peter Lorge from

Sneaky, sneaky fellow.Bakaman 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been corresponding with Prof. Shahar for a little bit now and he thinks my research into the comparison of the history and folklore of Yue Fei and Zhou Tong is very fascinating. He told me that it would be good for a MA or PhD thesis. He also recommended some books for me to read. Prof. Shahar also suggested that I read the section on Yue fei in his book on Shaolin, which isn’t coming out until 2008 now. I was happy when he closed his letter with “Best wishes for success in your research, Please do keep in touch.” (Ghostexorcist 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I sent you a reply. (Ghostexorcist 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Stanley Henning said Ma Mingda, the author of that book recommended by Shahar, is his mentor of martial arts history. He sees him every years. Stan reviewed the book in China Review International, Vol 11, No. 1, Spring 2004, 141-145. (Ghostexorcist 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have access to MUSE articles? (Ghostexorcist 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ask on the workshop page or the evidence talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.
• Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 18:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note re

Black powder. The British references that he uses, e.g. Buchanan (2006), Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: a Technological History and Elliott (1875), The History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume VI, are valid; and I have copies. I will check in detail the weight and context that he gives to them, but there will be a slight delay whilst I do this. Pyrotec 18:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to ask you to stop appearing on topics that you have not edited on and I have and then go on to revert every single one of my changes. Pasta is a good article; and you have put this warning on the article damaging my standing and reputation. You have also been appearing in articles where you have never appeared before and reverting changes made by my alternative accounts. In this version you vandalized the article so that the section began with "One this basis he suggested that the machine in question was a noria and that it was the first water powered prime mover" without any lead or explainations. I see that you have blanked a history section attributed to the LSU professor Subhash Kak as well.

Refrain from vandalism; refrain from flagging my edits for revert; and refrain from appearing where you have not appeared before and marking my changes for revert with malicious intent.

Failing to do so will lead to the actions of the last few days being revealed to the arbcom; these are actions where you personally attack me and then go on put tags on articles like "Pasta" and "Watermill" with which you have had little or no dealing except indiscriminately vandalizing my edits. Between 03:32, 5 May 2007 and 00:41, 6 May 2007 you have had nothing to do on wikipedia but to flag my articles for revert; this conduct will be reported if it persists.

It would be best if the contact between the two of us remained minimum; possibly non existant.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to China usually go under

I would still prefer it because—as I've also just mentioned over on Talk:Zen—I do feel that it's ever so slightly more accurate (but, as you say, somewhere inside that "ever so slightly" there really is "a world of difference"). I'm not vehemently opposed to "practice" or anything—it is a less specialist word, thus somewhat clearer if also somewhat less exact (as I see things, at least)—but personally I'd still opt for "praxis". Cheers. —Saposcat 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFD,

As you left a note about Gunpowder on my talk page, I have replied to you on my talk page. By all means make changes. I don't intend to do very much in the next fortnight, but don't expect to find a definite statement in either Asitesh Bhattacharya or Iqtidar Alam Khan on who invented gunpowder. They are interesting articles worth reading; the whole book is worth reading. Pyrotec 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your recent edits to Gunpowder and you are adding quotations, claimed to be from Buchanan (2006), but they do not appear in my copy of Buchanan on the pages that you cite. Asitesh Bhattacharya is a chapter author but Harvcoltxt is not. Please correct them; otherwise I will. I have no particular interest in whether China or India (or both) invented gunpowder, but I do object to false referencing. This will only diminish India's claims.Pyrotec 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your two replies. Your referencing in now correct. Can I suggest that you use harvard-type referencing rather than Harvcoltxt, other editors (like me) may object that the reference is invalid. Please take into consideration that the quotation you have taken from page 44 is much stronger than the the words given in the Conclusion on page 49. Unless you are able to justify the one quotation you have used, other editors may suggest that your quotation was unrepresentative of the Bhattacharya chapter.Pyrotec 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference Harvcoltxt does not work. If I click on it, it links to the top of the Gunpowder article. Please use the correct Havard-type referencing. I have no objection to you removing my extra words, but my reference works, yours does not. Pyrotec 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works now.Pyrotec 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out my first problem to day with the reference template; and secondly you are correct I did mean ref 45, not 43. I don't have access to Butalia. I own a copy of Elliot (1875) (it came from the USA from amazon.com as amazon.co.uk don't sell it) and Buchanan (2006); and I can borrow Needham and Partington when necessary.Pyrotec 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a Chinese website where you can download Zhou Tong's Lianhuanhua-style comic book for free! Needless to say, I was one happy boy! So here it is:

http://ebook.wtoa.com/list.aspx?boardid=5

When you click on the page, you will see a list of (1 - 30). You want (7 - 9). Just click on the link and then the "download" link on the next page. It's in RAR format, so hopefully you've got that program. You can only download it 3 volumes at a time and it takes about 25 minutes for each set of three. After it downloads, the WINRAR window will open and it will have the volumes listed on the left hand side. When you click on each individual volume number, another box will pop up asking for a password. The password is:

www.52ebook.com

Just cut and paste that address into the box. I kind of found that out on my own since it doesn't give you the password on the main website (or at least I didn't see it).

The presentation of each volume is really neat. The cover appears in the middle of your computer screen and when you click the corner of it, the page peels back like a real book. It's a Lianhuanhua-style comic book, meaning its got lots of big pictures, but only a few lines of text at the very bottom of the page. It's in Chinese, so you will need someone to help you read it.

Here is another tip, when the comic book appears in the middle of the screen, press "Ctrl-A" so an "exit box" will appear in the top right corner. This is so you can exit off of it when you are done. Happy reading! (Ghostexorcist 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

How does one find a Xingyiquan teacher? I'm looking for a teacher in LA. Someone suggested go to the park in China town. Do you have any other ideas? Tkjazzer 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm trying to figure out where authentic instructors are and find a style I like and go with it. I really enjoy

Shorin-ryu Shido-kan but I can't make it over to Long Beach to one of the affiliated dojos. I was hoping to find some nice martial arts between Pasadena and Chinatown / little Tokyo. I thought I would check out CMA. Tkjazzer 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I don't have to explain, do I? Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

verification

I have responded to your comment on both arbitration page and Talk:Out of India. Please insert the text back and remove the incorrect statement idenntified in the note.Sbhushan 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I provided the publication name based on [1], I copied the wrong line. Sorry about that.Sbhushan 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are the original author of the article Ryuchi Matsuda, which I am currently working on. One of the sources you added to the article was this:

Kennedy, Brian, and Elizabeth Guo (2005). Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 67.

ISBN 15-5643-557-6

.

If you have the information (book) available, could you please specify which part of the article's text that book sources? That is, would you please make it an in-line citation or provide the requisite information so that I may do so? Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have made the change (see diff). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that's Hkelkar? Intuition? I am sorry but that will not do, you need checkuser for that. It appears that it is a single purpose account created for trolling and it might turn out to be kuntan, for all we know. Kindly revert yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reach agreement on reference formats for Vedas before you continue with the method you are using? Please see the talk page. Buddhipriya 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading them, I can't think of a reasoning for either one why they should be taken out of the article. They are all pretty significant. As for the quote I wanted, it will find a home one day. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on editing this article, btw. It looks very clean.--PericlesofAthens 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [2], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues Sbhushan 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think the word minorty as used in the lede in

"samara sutradhara" in sanskrit translates to "battlefield commander" - a known treatise on the airship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarangana-sutradhara

"khand" is a division/portion. used in uttarakhand, jharkhand, akhand. also root of candy.

the use of words "satrapy" and suffix "stan" in the region indicate a sanskrit/indian influence.

the roman name Marakand is plausible. greek "marmaros" and hindi "sangmarmar" refer to marble and Samarkhand region has rich marble deposits.

as the city and its name pre-date the roman conquest by several hundred years the original etymology should be left in the article. Mntr 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with the auto-list-feature is that it uses {{

• How about listing Archimedes in "Greek mathematicians also proposed calculating the volume of objects like spheres and cones by dividing them into very thin disks and adding up the volume of each disk, using methods resembling integral calculus."
• In "translation of the works of ancient philosophers through contact with the Arabs," one might mention that scholars would learn Arabic in order to learn the works of ancient philosophers.
  Michael the Scot
  was one of these scholars.
• In "By the early 1830s Michael Faraday" it might also be appropriate to mention Hans Christian Ørsted, who proposed the connection between electricity and magnetism on philosophical grounds 30 years before, and who found some of the early experimental evidence. Although I see that Ørsted is mentioned later, it may be worthwhile to state that Ørsted triggered the work of Ampere, Faraday and Henry.
• "an early form of the Law of Inertia": might also mention Galileo's Two New Sciences in which Simplicio and Salviati discuss the motion of a ship (as a moving frame) and how that ship's cargo is indifferent to its motion. It might also be worthwhile to mention how Huygens used the motion of a boat along a Dutch canal to illustrate the conservation of momentum (not his terms).
• "the assumption of many physicists, that atoms were the basic unit of matter, was flawed" could also mention Rutherford's experiments which discovered the existence of the atomic nucleus. -- Or else cut the sentence, as Rutherford is listed in a succeeding paragraph.
• It might be worthwhile to mention the discovery of some new forms of matter, the
  Bose Einstein condensate and the fermionic condensate, which rest on some of the same technology used to calibrate atomic clocks
  .

I appreciate your work on the article. --Ancheta Wis 10:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]