User talk:Balthazarduju

Criticisms section removed from United States National Academy of Sciences

User:Kborer may be objecting to the removal of the Criticisms section from United States National Academy of Sciences, and is requesting comment on Talk:United States National Academy of Sciences#Criticisms. Could you address some of his concerns by adding a comment? / edgarde 17:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forbidden City

Hey, thanks for your work on Forbidden City. It's good to see the article getting some good faith edits for once, instead of just vandalism (and it gets a lot of vandalism...). --Sumple (Talk) 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits on Beijing opera

Hi, I am unclear about why the sentences that you recently changed in Beijing opera were POV. Based on your edit summary, it seems like you feel that there it is POV to differentiate Beijing opera on the mainland and Beijing opera on Taiwan, but I am not sure if that is really what you mean. Certainly, Beijing opera began in Beijing, but it has since reached Taiwan in a relatively unchanged state. However, the politics surrounding the form in the two places are different, which is why I differentiate them. The same form has different names, and has had different names over time, but all of those names are translated into English as "Beijing opera" (or "Peking opera", but I feel like that is a bit archaic now) Forgive me if I am just misunderstanding your intent. I have provisionally re-added one sentence that you removed from the lead, but if you clarify your edits and we discuss it, I would not be opposed to letting your changes stand, provided that the rationale is solid.--Danaman5 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the reasoning behind your edits now. I attempted to provide a source for everything that I wrote, and references 9-18 do convey political goals behind the control of Beijing opera. It's all sourced in the article itself, but I hadn't gotten around to sourcing the lead yet (if at all; it is unclear to me whether or not the lead needs to be sourced if the same material is sourced in the article). I'm fine with leaving out the sentence from the lead, but we will probably get nailed later if the lead doesn't summarize the article.--Danaman5 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Eva Green, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't do any major changes to the Eva Green article when I edited. Are you mistaken my edits with something else? -Balthazarduju 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian cinema

HI you may be pleased to know I have set up an organization page for Itlaian cinema but note this is just a page for organizing Italian cinema not a wikiproject - it is a single page for a dto do list of Italian cinema. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Cinema of Italy and add your name as you are working in this area. If you know of any missing major films, articles that require particular expansion missing nmajor actors etc place them on the page. THanks - I also intend to do the same for France ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You should make more use of these, especially if removing material. Otherwise your changes are likely to be reverted. Johnbod 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod about edit summaries, without them it's sometimes guesswork what the ed. has in mind and hard to distinguish a principled removal from a wanton one. But with respect to the article on movable type, I personally think your version of the paragraph is best for the introductory section--we can't reasonably get all the nuances in a single paragraph. Trying to do so is what tends to produce back and forth changes in wording. For the intro--of articles in general--shorter is better, at least as I see it. . DGG 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting

When you see something you doubt is true, try to add a tag like this, (that is add {{fact}} after the dubious part) rather than just deleting it. -Oreo Priest 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I find it fairly irritating that you continually re-add the citation to the introduction. I am going to delete it again, and I will re-add it if you find for me an academic source with a citation in the abstract or introduction. Failing that can you please stop this? -Oreo Priest 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not standard practise to add any citations to an introduction or abstract. It draws on later statements, which are supported in the body of the text. A simple search for citations in any academic abstract or introduction will show that this is simply not done. -Oreo Priest 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But both statements used different sources though. In this case, I'm talking about the reference from Encarta. Do you want to add this reference to the body of the text?--Balthazarduju 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the latter, being the work of a historian, seems to me to be a better source for an encyclopedia (rather than another encyclopedia). You can change them if you really want (after verifying that they say the same thing), but I think a better solution would be to change the other citation to proper form, if I haven't done it already by the time you read this. -Oreo Priest 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just did it. It seems (fittingly) much more professional now, now that the proper citation template was used, rather than just copying the link as a reference. -Oreo Priest 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

History of silk

I think for practical purposes, in addition to including User:Zapvet, we should move this to the discussion page of the article. It's probably on your watchlist, so it shouldn't be too hard to follow. -Oreo Priest 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you could chip in and help us translate it, it's a pretty long article. Ultimately, though, it's up to you. -Oreo Priest 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Toba

The Toba wasn't really pure Xianbei people, centuries of mixturing had made them an unique tribes, their relations including the rest of the Xianbei between the later Mongol are somewhat obscure. It been deemed that a handful of their clans were related to Xiongnu and Gaoche as well. Eiorgiomugini 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss

Please do not revert good-faith edits without discussion, as you did on Forbidden City. Please discuss your reasons for reverting changes on the talk page. I have listed the reasons for the changes on the talk page; please respond there. --Ideogram 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also extremely rude to revert an entire edit without taking the time to separate edits you disagree with from edits that you agree with. --Ideogram 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries again

Please be sure to use edit summaries for your edits. --Ideogram 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:TheravadaBuddhism's "& Regions" addition

Hi Balthazardugu -

I was wondering if you could help me understand why you added the phrase "& Regions" to the listing of countries on the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template. Is there any country in the list (Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand) that is not a country but is a region instead? Frankly, my main concerns are space, communicative pithiness and stylistic consistency -- the addition lengthens the table significantly (especially given the font size), does not appear to me to add any meaning (although this could just be a matter of my own ignorance!), and expands a category title when the trend (e.g., for Template:MahayanaBuddhism, Template:Buddhism and even Template:JapaneseBuddhism) has been to reduce the length of category headers, keep the category headers to only one line and keep them shorter than what the template's width would be otherwise.

Relatedly, I see you made a similar change to Template:MahayanaBuddhism but I can more readily understand that change given perhaps Tibet's questionable status as a country. (In addition, I primarily created Template:MahayanaBuddhism as a gift to User:TonyMPNS and other Mahayana-practicing WP editors, so I leave it to him as to whether or not your addition is in any way dissonant.)

Thank you for your time, thought and cooperative spirit. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju -

Since there are no Theravada "regions" that are not also countries (unless we specify "Southeast Asia" instead of the individual countries as is done in the current template) and for the above stated reasons, I'm going to change the category header back to "Countries" alone. If in the future a "region" is added, lets consider changing it to "Region" (similar to the way it is on Template:Buddhism) or something more generic such as "Places" or "Homelands" or "Lands." Okay?

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While your contributions indicate that you've been active elsewhere, you haven't responded to my last note, so I went ahead and undid your change to the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template -- at least for now. I hope you take no personal offense at my action and could understand (while perhaps disagreeing with) my reasoning.

FWIW, I can appreciate what I understand to be your reasons for the change: The Template:MahayanaBuddhism category header was insufficient, so you changed that to "Countries & Regions," and then perhaps for symmetry, you also changed the Template:TheravadaBuddhism template (although the latter template seems to have been changed first?). I think the symmetry you seek and the concerns I raised can be addressed by using one of the other words choices I mentioned, such as "Lands" or just "Regions." Perhaps this should be discussed further on one or both of the template's talk pages? I'd be sincerely happy to discuss it there (or on our talk pages) if you want to pursue this further.

I wish you much happiness and peace, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the changes you made are fine and reasonable.--Balthazarduju 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju

Yeah, I agree, the Freer Gallery and M Sackler Gallery have some amazing antiques and precious artworks. If I am allowed to take pictures in the museum itself of all this artwork, then I can use those photos for wiki. Otherwise, no, and they might all be deleted.--PericlesofAthens 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Qing Dynasty

Because the preceding entity of the Qing Dynasty is the Late Jin Dynasty, and the preceding entity of the Late Jin Dynasty is the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, the Ming Dynasty and the Shun Dynasty should not be the p1 and p2 of the Qing Dynasty unless you combine the Late Jin and Qing. There is no other former country that add all the entities it ended to be the preceding entities. You can refer to the templates of the other former countries.--24.18.102.154 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Ming Dynasty

I did not changed it, I just added it. Please don't reconvert me if you understand what I am doing. --24.18.102.154 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you think that Late Jin Dynasty should not be included into Qing Dynasty's template, then Qing Dynasty's preceding entities Shun Dynasty and Ming Dynasty do you agree?--24.18.102.154 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About the template of the Tang Dynasty

Please talk on the talk page before you revert to avoid the revert war, ok? --24.18.102.154 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think using the most conventional way of labeling these dynasties would be the most helpful to readers.--Balthazarduju 06:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)