User talk:Nlu/archive43

Can you please protect Gaya confederacy from unregistered users? this persistent user is using two different IPs to add this irrelevant blog page as a source. thanks. Odst 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Academic Challenger (talk · contribs) has done it already. Still, thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:DBTN? And did you actually check the link? Bad form. Ryan4314 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBTN is not a justification for your own improper actions. I looked at the site in question. In my opinion, it clearly violates WP:EL. Whether you agree or not, "But I'm a newcomer whose actions should be tolerated!" is not a proper argument. --Nlu (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, this was not my IP, you were wrong to assume it was (If you looked at my contributions you could clearly see my "post registration" edit history pre-dates this particular edit). I merely came across this exchange as I have recently joint the article, in an attempt to keep it updated. If it was me as a newbie, you better believe you would've of heard about it!

You're also mistaken again, I was not attempting to "debate" the matter with you. Only to tell you of your bad tact in the use of generic templates. These templates were created so we could give un-volatile warnings to vandals, to save time and add uniformity to Wikipedia, they are still however templates none-the-less. Templates are un-specific, emotionless and should not be used in every situation.

I presume, that being an administrator you are still modest enough to chalk this up as a "lesson learned", to draw a "positive" from this experience? Or have you learnt all there is to know about wikipedia and interaction with those who use it? Ryan4314 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing improper with reverting an improper link. If you believe otherwise, tough. --Nlu (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tough", I can see you've obviously devoted a lot of thought that response, to a member of community you were elected by to administrate. Ryan4314 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Hi Ryan... I hear what you're saying, and it is very obvious that the contents of the page you are discussing have some importance to you personally. I know that the Wikipedia way of doing things can be bewildering and even annoying at times. It takes time to adjust into the system, and what you have to bear in mind is that most of the time things that may seem rude or abrupt to a nascent editor are actually just the actions of an editor who has done the same thing hundreds of times to hundreds of articles, and is doing something that large numbers of other editors have also done hundreds of times to hundreds of articles. It's possible that from your point of view the action doesn't seem appropriate, because the contents of the page that you are involved with have been removed by someone who is a stranger to you. Moreover, the verbiage on the template that was put on the talk page may seem a little impersonal and matter-of-fact. However, from the point of view of people who have been around a long time, these actions are quite appropriate. I think the key point here is that the article in question is clearly important to you, but to everyone else (and I hope you'll forgive me for saying this) it is merely words on a page — and the words need to be checked, and the sources need to be checked, and there are a number of relevant rules and guidelines that apply. I actually agree with Nlu's actions (again, I know you may be offended by that, and I'm sorry), but I hope you can see they were not intended as a slight or an attack or an action of callous disregard or anything at all like that. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm British, but not a serviceman or in anyway involved with any of the personnal mentioned in the article. I also agree with NLU's actions (I agree with all wikipedia policies, that I know of), originally I was only informing NLU that I thought his use of templates in such a delicate situation was "bad tact". Since then the messages I've added have only been corrections e.g NLU thinking I was the IP, you thinking I'm involved with the deceased. This was never a debate, and NLU has been rather brusque in his responses e.g "Tough", and therefore I have become disappointed administrators like this exist on Wikipedia, am I allowed to be disappointed?

I will say though Ling, you have been very civil in the way you message, which is painfully obvious next NLU's messages, and I feel your comments were designed to be informative, not provocative. Cheers Ryan4314 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the POV-pushing somewhere here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svooun757 (talk • contribs)

You know what you did. This is hardly the only edit that you made on the page. --Nlu (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any POV-pushing? Because I can't find any. Provide at least one link for that article. I bet you didn't even look at the differences between revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svoun757 (talk • contribs)

Whatever. I am not going to play this game with you. You know what you've been doing when you were IP hopping. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make a fool out of myself on AFD, I thought I'd check with you first. I'm suspecting this article to be a hoax, what do you think? _dk 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hits on Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR or Academic Search Premier. Looking very suspicious, esp. given the surname "Dong". --Ling.Nut 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page subject turned from a Han Dynasty eunuch to a Tang Dynasty one....now this change is very suspicious, as it looks like the author changed the subject to Tang after his cover is blown for the Han period. But since Tang Dynasty is really out of my scope, I'm even more unsure whether to put it on AFD. So far a prod notice and a hoax tag have been removed by the author. (p.s. Ling, Dong is a very common surname! There's nothing wrong with it :) _dk 10:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's fictional (rather than hoax). I think what gives it away is that Liu Keming wasn't killed by anyone named Dong; it was another powerful eunuch, Wang Shoucheng, who killed Liu. (Sorry I didn't get back to you quickly on this; I've been worn out all week waiting for my trial case (set for this past Tuesday) to get a courtroom available.) --Nlu (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I thought of speedy deleting it, but I can't find an appropriate criterion to fit this under. If you can file an AfD, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I also misread the text of the article slightly. However, there is nothing I can find that confirms the existence of this person. --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and AfD'ed it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, of course I know Dong is a surname.. but it is also one of many AmerEng slang words for penis, and its use in an article about a eunuch seemed highly coincidental to me :-) -- Ling.Nut 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this question? Perhaps you could tackle the query or refer me to a wikipedian who could be of help? Thanks in advance, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. These are questions that call for answers that are really outside my area of expertise such that I can only make semi-educated guesses, and I don't think I should. --Nlu (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i've read lots of your article about Chinese history there & i ve translated some of it into Indonesia, ex:Yuchi Jingde, Qin Shubao, Du Ruhui, etc. it enable me to know more about Chinese history/ our ancestor history. keep writing. I wait u to write about the historical figures from Song & Ming Dynasty because the availabled articles are not expanded enough. Thx. --125.163.27.218 16:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I also appreciate your translation work. I haven't been writing as much lately since I've been busy, but I do plan to write more when I get more time, which I should, next week, for example. --Nlu (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nlu, from where do you get such a complete information about history ? u always get new knowledge from your work here, thx --125.163.27.218 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.94.127.3 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was a history major in college... :-) But my main source is the Zizhi Tongjian] -- both the original and the modern Chinese translation by Bo Yang. I also use the official histories. --Nlu (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nlu. It's been a while since I've last sought or talked to you. Well, I was trying to move the page Richard John Archer to Richard Archer, but then realised that I couldn't (I can't delete the page Richard Archer, which I intended to move it to). Could you do this, please?

I was also meaning to ask whether I should make an RfA or something. Any tips, or anything? Thanks! Qwerty (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry didn't notice this earlier. --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu,

I'm currently in Taipei being the recipient of a Taiwan gouverment scholarship. I think (??) you leave in Taipei, if it's the case, please can you contact me (via email), I'm especially interesting to get a cheap [Taiwan "version"] of the Cambridge history of China, especially about the Sui & Tang dynasties.

Regards

Yug 11:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually live in California, not Taiwan, although I visit Taiwan occasionally. I actually wouldn't know much about Taiwanese bookstores (new or used). Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.o Ok, that's sad but I will survive !, see you [maybe in Taiwan?]. Yug 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Nlu (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu, sorry to bother you again...I've been repeatedly reverting fiction from the Zhou Yu acticle, but the fictitious parts have all been restored by a editor who is convinced that the popular fictitious account of the Battle of Chibi is actually historical fact. Despite my daily reversions and attempts in proving him wrong, he keeps reverting to fiction. Is there anything to do that can resolve this problem? _dk 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be on your side. --Ling.Nut 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest filing an WP:RFC (not for user conduct yet, but for content discussion). If that doesn't help, I'd then consider reporting to WP:AN/I to ask for an admin warning/block. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional thought -- I'll leave a comment on the person's talk page as well and see if that helps. --Nlu (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help :) _dk 08:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. --Nlu (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You helped me before on Chin Gee Hee, which I have been steadily working on as I've found sources. Right now I'm working from Willard G. Jue, "Chin Gee-hee, Chinese Pioneer Entrepreneur in Seattle and Toishan", The Annals of the Chinese Historical Society of the Pacific Northwest, 1983, 31:38. There are Chinese characters for quite a few of the relevant names of people and places. I don't have the knowledge of Chinese to be able to enter these into a computer (for that matter, I don't have an IDE). Unfortunately, they are handwritten and not so well photocopied, but they're what I've got. If I can photograph them and pass them along to you, would you be able to transcribe them? - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. It would depend on whether the results are readable. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do some time in the next few days. It shouldn't be too tricky, since there will be some sort of transliteration next to each (though, sadly, not one of the more standard systems as far as I can tell). - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.73.116 (talk) [reply]

The images are at Commons:Image:Chin Gee Hee ideographs.jpg, Commons:Image:Chin Gee Hee ideographs 2.jpg, and Commons:Image:Chin Gee Hee ideographs 3.jpg. Ideally, what I'd like for each item in these images is the Unicode and pinyin for the ideographs (because Jue's transliterations are clearly not pinyin). Probably the best place to do this is in the image descriptions on Commons (that is, edit my descriptions accordingly). Please drop a note my talk page either on Commons or here on en: to let me know when you've done this (or if you cannot). Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably take a look at this tomorrow night. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through now. Initial thoughts; most of these are readable, and the transliterations are clearly Cantonese. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with the first image. Most of these are names.

• 北街, Bei Jie (North Street)
• 六村, Liu Cun (Sixth Village?)
• 宏伯, Hongbo
• 陳程學, Chen Chengxue
• 陳霖, Chen Lin
• 秋宗, Qiuzong
• 歐陽明, Ouyang Ming
• 皇兵, Huang Bing (Imperial Guards) (as the text of the image says, may refer to the United States National Guards; I cannot either vouch or disavow)

--Nlu (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is also mostly names:

• 李鴻章, Li Hongzhang
• 寶泰和, Bao Tai He
• 字暢庭, Zi Changting
• 朗美, Langmei
• 公益, Gongyi (usually means "public welfare")
• 岑春恆, Cen Chunheng (this is this one that I am least sure about)

--Nlu (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third image, also mostly names:

• 王清穆, Wang Qingmu
• 梁誠, Liang Cheng
• 新寧鐵路, Xinning Tielu (Railroad)
• 余灼, Yu Zhuo (this one I am also not sure about)

--Nlu (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, though, Chin spoke Cantonese (or rather, Taishan dialect, to be more specific); therefore, how he (and his companions) would have spoken these Chinese words may be very different than how they would be rendered now in Mandarin (which pinyin is for). Unfortunately, I am not aware of a Wikipedian who is fluent in Taishan. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I spoke too quickly. It looks like Aaronlee (talk · contribs) is a Taishan expert. I left a message on his talk page to see if he'd be interested in giving input. --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I'm not an expert! Unfortunately, there is no consensus transcription for Taishan. I am a big fan of Deng Jun's transcription system, but I have left my copy in China. Some of the characters may actually have different pronunciations depending on which family and which part of Taishan Chin came from. In this, I am certainly no expert. In order to avoid dealing with all the different pronunciations, I prefer using pinyin, along with the way that the characters were romanized when published at the time. If you are still interested in the Taishan romanization, I can really only give you transcriptions using Deng Jun's Kaiping system, and which reflect my family's Chikan dialect. Aaron Lee 06:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Aaron. Looks like maybe we're better off with pinyin anyway... --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enormously. I just noticed that there was one more name I need help with, I've put it at Commons:Image:Chin Gee Hee ideographs 4.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

胡冠炳, Hu Guanbing. --Nlu (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. This is the first time I've found myself working on a Seattle-related topic where I lack the relevant language. I suppose it could be worse: it could be Chinook jargon (which I believe Chin also spoke moderately well; I'm still looking for a citation for that, though). - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another related matter: it turns out that his company safe in Seattle is now in a museum. Can you tell me what this writing on the safe means? Commons:Image:Quong Tuck Company safe 02.jpg, Commons:Image:Quong Tuck Company safe 03.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first means, "May national treasure fill the storage," and the second means, "May wide sources of wealth come in." --Nlu (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enormously. That makes the safe much more interesting! Again, could you possibly provide the Unicode form of the ideographs (not something of which I am capable). - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

國寶盈庫 and 財源廣進. --Nlu (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again. You've been so helpful! - Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not an admin I'm not sure which template, coz I don't use them. Please look at this talk page to see the message I left for the Cluebot operator, and the page where you deployed the template. The solution appears to be simple, but the relevant template is probably protected and requires an admin to edit it. I'm hoping you can either edit it or find an admin to edit it Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell which template it was? --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the challenge. If I could I would have done a better job in highlighting it, but it has been substed, and, since I donl;t use it, I have no idea :( Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the example you gave didn't seem to be a template that I used. I'll watch out for it, however, and when I find out which template it is I'll take a look at it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhenzhu Khan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu. I'm looking for references for Liu Penzi, Chimei and Emperor Gengshi of Han. I want to provide references and citations for the claims in the articles.

However, I only speak and read English (not Chinese), and finding English sources to back up the claims in the articles is becoming somewhat difficult. Can you lead me to any resources?-- Mumia-w-18 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had no English sources when I wrote those articles, and I am aware of none that are detailed enough. Do you want me to give you a list of Chinese sources or to add citations myself, or is there anything else that I can do? --Nlu (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please give me a list of Chinese sources. Thanks in advance.-- Mumia-w-18 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say:

• Book of Han, vol. 99, parts 1, 2, 3 (biography of Wang Mang).
• Book of Later Han, vol. 11 (biographies of Liu Penzi and Emperor Gengshi)
• Zizhi Tongjian, vols. 38, 39, 40, 41.

There are also other related biographies in the Book of Later Han which can be cited for specific propositions, including the biographies of Emperor Guangwu of Han and his generals. If you need specific pointers, let me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Mumia-w-18 11:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the Chinese characters?-- Mumia-w-18 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOS-ZH, if there is a separate article for the link and that article provides the Chinese characters, the Chinese characters in the linking article should be removed unless absolutely required to clarify context. --Nlu (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay.-- Mumia-w-18 18:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [ User_talk:John_Hill#Thibet_under_the_Tang & the following section on the John Hill talk page ]

Hello Nlu, an user came to say that my map about Tang Taizong's conquests was misleading : showing Thibet as a Tang vassal. An other French user came to say to me that the 641 wedding of a Chinese princess was not enough. After futher talk, I have some doubts on what I read several months ago in the Cambridge History of China. So, having a doubt on Tang Taizong period, I come here to ask your help and enlightment ( ^0^y ) on the following issues :

1. What make a kingdom "vassal" in Chinese history ? [the kingdom sent gifts annualy ? de facto alliance ? presence of Chinese armies on the kingdom soil ?]
2. From which year to which year Thibet was a "Vassal" ? (641-670 ?)

In the same idea, when I say that [according to European Middle Age standard] send gifts/tribute annually is the proof of vassalisation, I meet Koreanese students who argue that "Korea was never vassal of China, we just sended gifts because by the time we believed that it was only Korea and China in the world which was civilized." So this pose again the question : send annual tribute to Chinese Emperor made it a kingdom the vassal of Ancient China ?

Yug (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a single set of universally accepted definition, but I'd say that either sending tribute to China or acknowledging Chinese overlordship would make a state a vassal of China. Tibet did both (although not for very long and also only did so intermittently). I'd say that it was a vassal during all of that period. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I said to the user that I will change a bit the colors of the temporary vassal areas, to be clearer, and to continue to encourage a fair use of the map -stating clearly the full legend-. I think nothing more is need since add years in the map may be hightly contreversial. Yug (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you didn't take my unsourced tags personally. You did a great job on the originals of those articles. Dppowell 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. :-) These do need more sources, I agree. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thought it was going to lead here though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]