User talk:Gun Powder Ma: Difference between revisions

• /User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 01
• /User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 02
• User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 03

Don't template the regulars. Woogee (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to tell that to Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) too, right? Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thanks, Nev1. Don't try to win arguments by templating talk pages. Childish this is. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gun Powder Ma. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Gun,long time no see.I´m glad for the outcome of Jagged´s affair,but we still have a lot to do,cleaning up wikipedia.I was wondering if you could help me with the Inertia article.Islamic theories looks unbelievable.Regards.--Knight1993 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up the attempts to establish a nationalistic POV by the Chinese Teeninvenstor!

Given the impasse at Spherical Earth, I request this matter enter into mediation. However, before we impose on others, it is important to establish whether the process is likely to succeed.

• Are you willing to go into mediation?
• Are you willing to be responsive during mediation so that it can progress?
• Is there a good chance you will accept the recommendations of mediation?

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Strebe (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes to all three questions. Let me point out that this is nothing personal at all; we just have a disagreement as to how interpret the relevant guideline. As long as there will be enough user input from third parties as to establish beyond reasonable doubt a consensus (and, hopefully, reword the relevant guidelines in the process to make them more explicit), I will consider the matter settled. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gun Powder Ma. You commented at a previous FAC for this article, so I just wanted to let you know that it is at FAC again (here) if you are interested in commenting again. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I have responded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parthian Empire/archive1 and will probably head back to the library today to read the two sources I have mentioned (Downey's book in particular). I need to go back to the library anyway to use an excellent source which explains Trajan's possible motivations for invading Mesopotamia (other than the casus belli of the Armenian enthronement). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here because User:Teeninvestor has opened a Wikiquette Alert about some of your remarks, at [1] and elsewhere. I'm aware that there is a slow-burning content dispute behind this inter-personal issue, which has been providing both fuel and smoke (if you will allow the metaphor), and I do not want to get involved in making any judgments on that score - that's not what admins are for. Instead, I'm asking you to please avoid making any personal remarks about Teeninvestor in future.

Feel free to review our guidelines for a refresher on what constitutes a personal attack. In a nutshell, please continue to be passionate about writing articles - but not when discussing other editors. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gun! I hope you´re fine. Now, I´m going straight to the point. I was reading the history of education article, and I noticed the islamic world section has the same problem you have been fighting in the University and Madrasah articles. Given that you did such a great work, I was wondering if you could balance this article too. PS: Jagged has not appeared anymore. He had agreed to revert his bad quality workin the RfC, but he has done nothing since then. Do you think he has quit?--Knight1993 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence/reason to claim that the ancient Nanjing imperial school is a mythology? Do you know that Chinese history today still preserved have reliablely recorded for at least 3000 years? Please find the records on education in ancient China in Twenty-Four Histories. -Peducte (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)?[reply]

The burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, I am afraid. Your claim is extraordinarily strong and very hard to prove. You need to show with reliable scholarly sources that

• this institution founded in the 3rd century AD was indeed a centre of higher learning
• this institution remained in service for the next 1700 years

And even then, if you can prove these points, which you will most certainly fall far short of (I know a thing or two about Chinese history), you will still find that your claim is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who hold that the university originated in medieval Europe. And, to be honest, since this just reflects a basic historical fact, you can put to rest all hopes that a consensus to the contrary will ever emerge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The institutions of higher learning in ancient China, from the Taixue to the Guozijian, were not universities in the modern sense (and quite different from their Medieval European counterparts). The chief purpose of higher education in ancient China was to groom students—usually well-to-do members of the gentry class—for government service via a pragmatic civil-servant's education combined with Confucian indoctrination. The end result of this was for one to become a scholar-bureaucrat; if not, one could become a teacher or writer, but these were secondary goals. There was very little if any academic freedom in the government-run schools, which accepted students and taught curricula based on the incumbent emperor's views and policies. The higher-education facility in ancient China which comes the closest to a university is perhaps the privately-run academy, particularly those which developed in the Southern Song Dynasty as a grassroots gentry movement aimed at reforming society from the bottom up. They were not monitored or controlled by the government, yet the main goal of these private academies was still to prepare students for the civil service examinations.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights. It should be stressed that - given that it is already difficult enough to prove the unbroken continuity of the medieval European universities - this task seems outright impossible for that 3rd century Chinese bureaucratic school. Frankly, I don't believe that Chinese sources will yield more than a few words for much of the alleged time period of its existence, but the burden of proof anyway rests on Peducte. For how a continuously-operating institution really looks like, look up cathedral school, madrasa and medieval university which are in that order the most ancient institutions of higher learning still existing anywhere in the world. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to Nanjing University, please see Talk:Nanjing University -Peducte (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the article Nanjing University and List of oldest universities in continuous operation. If you think it's not proper, plese tell and discuss it. -Peducte (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. However, I believe that all arguments have been exchanged, and you might have noticed that it was not only me who has been reverting your 258 AD claim. Perhaps you would like to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nanjing University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Plese see explanation on my talk page. -Peducte (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think query, debating and communication will help to ensure validity and proper way of description of contents, and finally improve article. Thank you for your participation! Let's continue to debate and communicate if needed. If we simply have different opinions, let's respect each other, and discuss in a friendly and constructive way. - Peducte (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I'm glad that you enjoyed reading my latest project on the Parthian Empire, which recently passed the FA nomination. While researching the subject, I naturally became very interested in the evolution of Rome's military from the late Republic onwards. I'm thinking about pursuing a new topic here at Wiki: the Marian reforms.

The article is ranked in the "start" class on its talk page, which seems very reasonable at present. I was wondering: in terms of a rewrite, would you agree that this article should be given priority over many others on Roman history? This subject just seems so incredibly important in regards to the military and society of ancient Rome, yet the article is quite undeveloped.

Or would you say another topic is more deserving? Given that it also has a start article which needs serious attention. In any case, I'd love to collaborate with you, since I believe you have access to both JSTOR and Project MUSE. Correct?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on PE. You are right, within the context of the late Republican Roman military the Marian reforms constitute most important change and there is more than a grain of truth in it that the reorganization of the army gave rise to military leaders which soon came to threaten the existence of the Republican order and ultimately toppled it. Mommsen would say that the concentration of military and political power first in a few hands (Marius, Sulla, Pompeius etc.), and then by the Principate in one hand, was the historical logical response to the challenge of space which came along with the rapid Roman expansion after the Hannibal Wars. So, yes, the interdependency of military reform, personal ambitions and the political order make it an interesting and challenging topic. You can contact me via email any time for literature, for special questions you can take also a look RAT here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I regret to announce that I am no longer pursuing this topic. A trip to my university library yesterday was very disappointing and unfruitful; there was not one piece of literature focusing solely on the reforms, and the sources on Roman military history which described the Marian reforms were truly lacking. I was able to find only one book published by a university press which seemed promising, but it has been checked out by someone else UNTIL AUGUST! I'm not going to wait around for it. I might pursue another worthy topic, like Roman historiography, which surprisingly is given greater attention than Greek historiography here at English Wiki. On a final note, have you been watching the USA-Slovenian game? Pretty exciting! Although us Yanks don't care much for football...err...soccer, since we are infatuated with American football instead. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I'd have recommended Adrian's Goldworthy: The Roman Army at War, 100 BC to 200 AD, but even that is no monograph on the Marian reforms. I am sure you will find another topic soon, as there is no dearth on Roman subjects in need of expert attention. PS: the goals were pretty spectacular, too! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these sources! However, without a substantial amount of ready material available at my library, I do not feel confident in tackling such a complex subject. On the other hand, you are right that there is no dearth on Roman subjects; I will find another deserving topic. Perhaps Roman Greece? I've always found the relationship between Rome and her semi-independent Greek city-states to be a fascinating topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stone of the Pregnant Woman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rifa'a el-Tahtawi was amazed when he visited France for the first time to find out that in France, "scientist" referred to someone who actually engaged in science, and that "knowledge" referred to any knowledge, while a "scientist," ('alim," or "ulama") in his own country was strictly a religious scholar, and the only kind of "science" or "knowledge" recognized to exist was the study and knowledge of religion. I have more extensive quotes lying around somewhere that I can dig up if needed, but the battle to have anything but religion included in the idea of "science" or "knowledge" was won by the religious during the Middle Ages, and this kind of obviates any comparison of the madrasa to the university, making it really comparable only to a seminary. You might be able to clean out the whole thing.Jayzames (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For medieval Islam, a more appropriate analogue would be a cathedral or monastic school. In the West, however, these predominantly religious institutions also included some study of the liberal arts within their curricula.

I don't know if anyone has done a comparative study of the curricula of religious schools in the Islamic, Jewish, and Eastern and Western Christian traditions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now up. You should probably edit the signature to your comment so that it post-dates the initiation of the case. Given the changes I have made to the statement of the case you might also want to edit your comment as well.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here on Peducte (talk · contribs) - I remain neutral and just try to facilitate and advise; I just wanted to thank you for presenting the prior findings in a compact, rational, factual and calm manner. Chzz  ►  16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you've begun an article on the Roman economy. I've been working on an article on the Economy of the early Roman Empire in my userspace for some weeks now. I don't imagine you're aware of this, but overlapping efforts are somewhat wasteful. Can't think of any convenient means of integrating the whole at present, but I thought I should inform you. It seems we were both inspired by the weird phenomenon of GDP estimates for the empire ... G.W. (Talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your email. G.W. (Talk) 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that your latest amendment is correct? Are you really asserting that the Romans intentionally produced cast iron? If this is right, it is an astounding claim. I have not seen the book, so that I am not in a position to assess the validity of the claims. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figures and sources regarding Roman metallurgy (especially the 80k tons per year) are debatable. Intranetusa (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to see some more credible sources on Roman iron production rather than those with exaggerated data from the 1970s-1980s. Intranetusa (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Just because you say so? Don't make a fool of yourself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources that quote 30 year old outdated information directly contradicts other wiki articles on the Wealden industry and more contemporary information. Old, outdated, exaggerated information = not acceptable. Intranetusa (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gun Powder Ma. You have new messages at Ludwigs2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gun_Powder_Ma_repeated_NPA]. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a community review of Romano-Chinese relations, you need to follow the instructions at WP:GAR:

1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer.

I think the reason there's been no input so far is you didn't use the GAR template. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there is such a page: Talk:Romano-Chinese relations/GA1. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think (not started a GAR myself) that it should be at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Romano-Chinese relations/1, for example the GAR for Winston Churchill was at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Winston Churchill/1. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know. It is my first GAR, either! I have notified the top contributors which hopefully will help me out there. Thanks for your care. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Pleaes do not question my neutrality, when I make an honest change conform general consensus within Wikipedia.

2) I do not waste peoples time. If I see something wrong, I change it and give good arguments.

3) History in Europe in that period is far from straightforward. One sentence from one article does not rule out every other option, as you obviously think it does. The Dutch Republic gained its indepence first and foremost from the Spanish Empire. Amsterdam in 1618 is by general consensus not referred to as part of the Holy Roman Empire, but as the Dutch Republic.

If you think the country column will generate the wrong message, improve the article with extra information.Joost 99 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post the same question to multiple forums, as you have done so here: [2],[3],[4],[5]. Doing so may be considered Forum shopping or Canvassing, and is considered disruptive. LK (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't know that. "Forum shopping"...funny term...actually never've liked online shopping! :-D Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement. Please join me in encouraging Nev1 to move what he wrote at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Criticism interpreted as attack. My guess is that Nev1's insights are likely to be undervalued as part of a talk page thread.

Nev1's step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain. The paragraphs illustrate effective writing. I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Statement of the dispute/View by certifier Nev1. This will give you and others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions.

Significantly, you will want to read the response drafted by Teeninvestor. The reaction shows that Teeninvestor also construes these words as a constructive investment of time and thought. Hopefully, the structure of this diff can be the catalyst for a few more steps in a productive process.

I wonder if Nev1's reasoning needs to be highlighted as a kind of template for use in other difficult contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of newspapers by establishment date, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yougo1000 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Please let me point out that this is only the 1st nomination, you somehow duplicated the page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it started, but it seems that the relations between me and you have not been exactly cordial since our first encounters. I suspect it has something to do with Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, which you were partially correct about. It is also connected with our very different views on the level of Chinese development. Nevertheless, it is my belief (and I hope you will agree) that editing work is a much better way to spend our time then bickering, incessant opposition, edit warring, and reverting; with the way wikipedia works, and considering that both of our viewpoints have their backing in academia (though one have a majority in some cases), I believe the best way to resolve our current disputes is peaceful coexistence; instead of trying to override each other, we should work towards letting both views be expressed.

I have worked with editors with diametrically opposed views before; for example, with a socialist on the Chinese economy and also on Johnson South Reef Skirmish. In these articles, both views were represented, with each editor editing one section, allowing peace to reign. There's no reason a similar process can't be at work in the current articles that the dispute is going on. For example, on Great Divergence I had previously asked you to add sources that rival Pomeranz's claims in the possible factors section, a request that was seemingly ignored 1. I believe that some of your information can be of benefit in several articles I am editing; for example, reducing Great Divergence's current overreliance on Pomeranz by buttressing some of his opponents' arguments, adding how western military technology influenced Chinese gunpowder weapons during the Ming and Ch'ing eras, etc. Therefore, I think it's best if you can systematically review the three articles you are currently disputing, and add sourced info in cases where they are applicable and where both views are roughly equal in academia.

I have several other suggestions about our possible collaboration, if you take up this petition. Toning down of language, to exclude terms such as POV-pushing, edit warring, etc, can help make the editing atomsphere more cordial. Review of each other's sources can also be helpful; dubious sources such as the silver wages paper should be used at best limitingly, and it is best if you also have access to the sources I'm using, and vice versa. Much of Pomeranz's and Temple's work, along with the cambridge history of China is online; I hope your sources are similarly accessible.

Now, I don't believe that this petition can solve all our disputes. But I do hope that it can mark the beginning of a more cordial collaboration than which exists now. Rome was not built in a day, and acrimony does not dissipate that fast either. However, I hope that by collaborating, we can resolve our disputes and get the articles under dispute to the GA or FA status that they deserve.

Regards,Teeninvestor (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]