en User talk:Yunfeng Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yunfeng. 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.

Archive 1

Edits by Rédacteur Tibet

Alexwoods, I have no idea why you reverted my edits of removing the reference added by this user.

Here is the reference [1] he cited in which he named it "Beijing orchestrating Tibet riots". But the article is actually called "Dalai Lama calls for calm in Tibet", and it mentioned nothing of the statement he was making. Read the reference first will ya.--Sevilledade (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[2], here you have deleted the text. It is true the reference was not appropriated, the correct reference can be found in the french version of the article fr:Troubles au Tibet en 2008 (http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article='Beijing+orchestrating+Tibet+riots'&id=19922). If ever possible for you, thanks to correct this information which is now missing on the english version. Sorry for the confusion. I had actually simply copy and paste the model inculding the wrong reference, without appropriated modification If possible for you, thanks to add the following (and more on the same line) --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) : According to GCHQ, the UK government communications agency, agents of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, disguised as monks, triggered the riots. It is therefore speculated that the riots were deliberately calculated Beijing.^[1]

According to Ruan Ming, the CCP staged the incidents in Tibet to force the Dalai Lama to resign and to justify repression of the Tibetans. He declare : « The demonstration on March 10 was meant to be peaceful. You can see from the pictures that the demonstration was all monks. The CCP arrested some of these monks and killed them. The killing angered some young Tibetans. By March 14, the Tibetans could no longer stand the killing of innocent monks and protested ». Ruan thinks the events in Tibet are aiming to influence world opinion. « The Dalai Lama has always proposed a peaceful solution to Tibet issues and has won the world's recognition. With all that in mind, the CCP has framed the Dalai Lama for having 'carefully planned and stirred up the event.' This is exactly like how the CCP framed Zhao Ziyang for the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989 and accused Zhao of 'splitting the Party and supporting unrest.' The Dalai Lama had already said he would resign if the unrest continued. The Dalai Lama is influential globally and if he really retired, the CCP could gradually push and label the Tibetans as terrorists like the Xinjiang independence movement. This will give the CCP an excuse to ignore Tibetans appeals and to further repress them ».^[2]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Tibet. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. diff ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

謝

Sorry, I'm not sure about the accurate pronouncing of 謝, because I'm unfamiliar with Pe̍h-ōe-jī. I had heard some people pronounce "chia" or "jia", but this pronouncing way seems used exclusive on "the family name" 謝.Bstlee (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

May be you can ask this question on [minnan wikipedia].Bstlee (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Littlebutterfly

Hi. I see that you are currently in a dispute with Littlebutterfly. They are a new editor and have tried to approach you with a friendly manner. Despite your differences in opinion, please be more civil and try to work with them and not against them. Try to come to a compromise and keep the discussion focused on the content, not the editor. You are the experienced editor here and you should know better. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 10:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

Alex, a 3RR report has been filed against you here. Please take a look. You appear to have broken the 3RR rule, though I have pointed out Littlebutterfly has done the same.

I strongly suggest you calm down a bit and work out consensus versions of the articles that you are in dispute over.

Apart from that I look forward to your further input on the 2008 unrest in Tibet article. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just keep cool and don't break the rules - I've learnt that to my expense. Get input from other editors if one is causing trouble. John Smith's (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet talk page

My apologise - I did not investigate the history as thoroughly as I should have. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

thank for correction, it is the Qing right? Akinkhoo (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PLA operations in Tibet

Care to elaborate? Thanks.219.79.27.59 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I raise no questions on posting DL's comment on talk page first. His commment, especially on the last sentense, clearly shows that overlap exists, implying inaccuracy in the 1.2M figure. He made such comment after a Chinese dissident residing in US, raise doubts on the figure:

"After I queried the sentence, The CPC killed 1.2 Million Tibetans' issued in "Beijing Spring" (March Issue of 1995), a Han woman passed on my query to the Dalai Lama on March 15 1998."[Xu Mingxu, Intrigues and Devoutness, Joint Publishing Hong Kong, 2004, p117]

The writer commented DL's explanation of the fig:

"The Dalai Lama mentioned the CPC killed 1.2 million Tibetans", from 1983 to the year when the CPC entered Tibet, while it is said in Tibet: Proving Truth from Facts issued by the Tibetan government-in-exile that the period was from 1949 to 1979. Which one should we believe?" [ibid]

219.79.27.59 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would move whole statements involving Wall Street Journal article into the media section. The original paragraph in the Lhasa section already featured references from CNN and BBC, adding WSJ source seems unncessary and prolonged the statment. You could move it to the media section while adding that the state television have been emphasizing on the Muslims and Han's suffering.--Sevilledade (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese characters for Guiyang

Guiyang: 潙仰

Also, there seems to be an article on this school on Chinese Wikipedia here: 沩仰宗. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information, 潙仰 is pronounced as Weiyang, not Guiyang. Please look up it in any Chinese dictionary, for example, Kingsoft's on line dictionary at here. --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your message. I didn't realize I offended you. If my message on your talk page made you uncomfortable, I apologize. But, the two links you provided to me do not provide the pronunciation of 潙. Can you provide a on-line source for a real dictionary? Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize again. What's the name of your dictionary? Does it say that 溈 is pronounced as Gui in 溈山? There are 10 results in Google Book Search for the Zen's Guiyang School, 2 for Weiyang School. It seems that there are still disputes on its pronunciation. But as far as Gui is one of 溈's pronunciation, I am wrong. I will be more cautious in the future. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The name of 溈仰宗 came form 溈山 and 仰山. I have not found direct source for the pronunciation of 溈 in 溈山. But, 溈山 is a mountain and the source of the river 溈水 (see a source here). And the pronunciation of 溈 in 溈水 is Wei, not Gui according to this online dictionary. It seems to me that 溈 in 溈山 should also be pronounced as Wei, not Gui. Of course I may be wrong. I will be glad if you can provide counter-evidence. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There seems to be a difference between the dictionary pronunciation and the common usage. Could you check your dictionary whether 溈 in 溈水 is pronounced as Wei or Gui? I met another controversy on the pronunciation of 訥 in Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). Could you also do me a favor to check 訥's pronunciation in your dictionary? And, again, what's the name of your dictionary? Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just found 溈's pronunciation in 溈水 in that online dictionary. So I guess that Hanyu Da Zidian may also give an example and possibly refer to this river's name. As for Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong), I think that Ne is the only pronunciation of 訥 according to all the Chinese dictionaries I can find. Some other editors disagree, but cannot provide reliable sources. If you can find that 訥 can also be pronounced as Na in Hanyu Da Zidian, that will be great. For further information about that controversy, please see the edit history of Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong) and its talk page. Never mind if you don't have time. Thank you again. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. But I am afraid that Na is not the most definitely a pronunciation, at least in Chinese dictionaries, for that character 訥 if you read the discussion at Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). All the dictionaries available to me show that Ne is its only pronunciation. I have provided them in the footnote in that article. Again, never mind if you have no time to read them. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you. I asked you for help because I don't have Hanyu Da Zidian, the most reliable dictionary. If you read the discussion on Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong), you may find that we don't have dispute that Na is *a* pronunciation. I have accepted that that article should be titled as Li Na. Our dispute is whether Na is a pronunciation in Chinese dictionaries (please also see the edit history for that edit war of that article). Therefore I am just curious whether Hanyu Da Zidian can prove that Na is also a pronunciation in Chinese dictionary. Thank you for your patience. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.　Some editors also referred to Wiktionary, but it is not a reliable source. I can understand that you may not have time to look it up for me in Hanyu Da Zidian. I may find it by myself someday. Thank you. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your information. I checked Kangxi Zidian p.649. The meaning of character 潙 clearly refers to 潙水. It seems that its pronunciation for this meaning is Wei. But I am not sure because I am not so familiar with Ancient Chinese. And the 潙 in Unihan lists three pronunciations but does not clarify which one is for the meaning of that river. I may continue to seek some paper-version dictionaries to check its pronunciation. Thanks for your help. Best wishes. Have a nice day. -- Neo-Jay (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Alexwood, in the last paragraph of the media section, it contain the same exact statement about foreign media entering Tibet and monks protesting. You should check the first reference of The Times and the second reference Associated Press, they share the same content.--Sevilledade (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the first and second statements I was talking about:

"As PRC officials were giving a guided tour which was meant to show that the Han Chinese were the ones who had suffered from the violence, about 30 monks at the Jokhang temple protested, which was considered to be especially notable as this temple is considered the one which is most under the control of the authorities, with most of the monks there enjoying government stipends." [3]

"On March 27th a group of monks disrupted the media tour organised by Chinese authorities through Lhasa with a short protest. Monks were screaming that there was no religious freedom [in Tibet] and that the Dalai Lama was not to blame for Lhasa's recent violence. The tour was a first opportunity given to selected foreign journalists to enter Tibet after the de facto ban on foreign reporters." [4]

Notice also, the first statement was also cited incorrectly because neither the Times Online and the AP references stated "the guided tour was meant to show the Han Chinese were the ones who suffered from the violence". But other than that, both are about the exact same event.--Sevilledade (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me out for a second. There is a user who is adding information that were already discussed on the talk page about the "Beijing orchestrating Tibet riots" by GCHQ. There are no major Western media outlets carrying this news, and the only news outlet reporting is a Tibetan news agency who supposedly got it from Canada Free Press (but Canada Free Press doesn't contain this article), which is very suspicious.--Sevilledade (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why he keeps adding references from www.phayul.com, when there are countless news sources. I mean it is really suspicious since that seems like it is the only news portal he prefer to use. It is also fairly obvious, based on his "user name", his edits might be politically motivated. But we need to tell to this use to use other references instead of phayul.com.--Sevilledade (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Alexwoods

This is Sean Maleter writing. Thank you so much for your encouragement and measured comments. (Pertaining to PLA Operations 1950-1951). I am going to have to buy a copy of one of these "Complete Idiot's Guides" to Wikipedia. There is so much about Wikipedia that is not self-explanatory. Perhaps I will have a go at it again at some point. I realize that my frustration truly shows, evidently too much. There are several dimensions to the frustration, really. One has to with the realization that Wikipedia, while being a flawed environment, is also enormously important. How can decent people do battle with a sinister presence, which exploits the "flaws" of democracy and free speech? One posts and then someone else wipes the chalkboard clean. Futile, really. Where within Wikipedia is the sage grown-up editor who says fine, we have this locked in now? This is mature, further deletions of substance and rewrites will be regarded as felony disruptive flaming? The other thing is what I regard as a fatal flaw of enormous dimensions built into Wikipedia by its very founder, and is - IMHO a malignant approach that is firmly ensconced in modern-day journalism as well, which is the well-intended mechanism of being "balanced". "Balanced" ends up being an objectivity killer. This is - with good intentions (with which the road to hell is paved) to give equal time in an article to - for example - Josef Mengele and one of his victims. It would be the same as to arrive at the gates of Dachau and to interview both the emaciated inmate and the well-fed SS guard in the tower and to attempt to make a melange of it. This is what leads to the dog's breakfasts. The idea of balanced reporting is theoretically fine, in reality it requires a high IQ, a moral compass and experience. Journalism, for example, is, in addition to its informational function, a moral craft. This is my rock solid conviction. "Being balanced" is a technique for the informational black belt and persons of maturity and integrity, often entrusted in real life to well-intended greenhorns and other innocents. I realize by bringing Dachau into this, I invoked Godwin's Law, which actually shows, in theory, I ought to shut up instead of dwelling further on the topic. I will have another go at it if needed a week or two from now after tending to some errands. My firm conviction is that someone set the very topic up as a foil - as a demagogic platform from the start - and that as such, this entry is living in a force field that had bad juju and bad intentions programmed into it from the word go. If this is so, it really does imply that the entry also has single-minded creators and custodians who want to keep wrenching it back into alignment with their initial subjective intentions. Encyclopaedia writing and top-notch journalism are joined at the hip, even though they are different, on the levels of: "Check your facts", "get it right", "be succintly comprehensive" (pithy), and "explain stuff". Sorry about the excess words here, if I had more time, I would write more briefly. Good luck and take care. --Sean Maleter (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - at the moment, the article is so much better than it had previously been on many occasions. Regards, --Sean Maleter (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS - I still think the belligerents were two countries, not the respective militaries of those countries. Armies are never belligerents. Armies are the armed tools of belligerents. Armies don't do things unless instructed to do so. --Sean Maleter (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

tibet

i have come to the conclusion that there is a systematic, coordinated effort to bias the tibet and related articles to a pro-china slant, i made an edit earlier today in the intro and by 6 hors ago the entire edit was twisted by 2 different accounts and 3 different similar IPs you seem to be the only other active editor of these articles who edits something other than tibet or china articles which i think exempts you from being a sockpuppet, care to join me and overhauling this article? Rubico (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

i have noticed Rubico (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being reported for 3rr violation --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yunfeng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

discussion

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not a forum for discussing the faults of others. Try WP:DR. — Sandstein (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't mind being blocked, as I acted rashly, and I'm not really contesting it. However, I hope that you or another editor will take a look at Littlebutterfly's edit history and comments and consider blocking them permanently. They have made statement on the talk page of People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)‎ that show an incredible prejudice against non-Chinese perspectives and non-Chinese people, and I don't think they are capable of contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Thanks. Alexwoods (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Eno edit is valid, then include the inline citation or it will continue to be removed and pay attention to erroneous punctuation if you don't want your edits reverted.Mike Presson (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Also your link to My Life In the Bush of Ghosts is a red link to nothing. This is fairly poor citation.Mike Presson (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent citation. Thanks!Mike Presson (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Seems like you're taking a lot of flak for these tibet topics. Just wanted to let you know I responded to your comment on my talk page. Keep up the good fight! Dragonnas (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop blanking

If you are going to request citation, use the request citation tag. If you are going to remove something I wrote, please write some reason and not just say remove. Otherwise, your action is vandalism. Coconut99 99 (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1950-51 invasion of Tibet

Okay, your turn now. I'm wiped. P.S. Keep your sense of humor. I'm up to nine separate sources for the word "invasion," and I haven't even used all my sources. Longchenpa (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I could to help with Littlebutterfly's removing any and all references to the Tibetan point of view of the invasion -- and wow, you weren't kidding. Not even a tip of the hat to WP:NEU. I'm going to be swamped for the next couple weeks and just can't stand up to the ruthlessness with which Littlebutterfly is removing anything other than the Chinese POV. Littlebutterfly has more free time than I do. Longchenpa (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) What a strange title... operations ... Invasion is the correct word, and the army is still present nowaday, showing this was really an invasion, whereas the chinese authorities claimed the army would set back after the so called "liberation". --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Invasion is not pejorative. It is quite soft. When an army is getting inside a territory, it is by definition invading this territory, unless this army is invited, which is not the case in the present case. You have actually Invasion of Normandy which shows this is not necessarily a pejorative word. Actually "operation" is showing the chinese propagande have something to hide, therefore it is even more pejorative for the chinese image. Sorry for my lack of diplomacy. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit on Women in the People's Republic of China

I think that your introduction starts with "Traditional ..." should be moved to the historical perspective where it could be elaborated. I am a little sensitive to such style of starting the introduction since it could lead to misinterpretations (if you've seen other pages on China you would understand my concerns). Also, it needs some references if we want to presented it as close to academic text as possible.

I don't have time to merge your text with existing text in the historical perspective right now, but I'd appreciate if you could do it on your own since your English is clearly better than mine. I mainly tries to control the flow of the text. Thanks. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I stumbled across the article and saw some rather dubious looking writing that reminded me of some of the articles linked in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Might have to take a look around. John Nevard (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling!

Hi there. Was wondering if you could take a look at Human rights in the People's Republic of China. You can see an IP editor messing the text up, but it's just intelligable so it might not count as vandalism - ergo I can't revert. Could you please take a look and keep the article on your watchlist to avoid future problems like this? Cheers. 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)

Thank you for protecting this page. I and some other editors have been having real problems with a particular super-pro-PRC editor on this article, namely Littlebutterfly. I actually got my first and only 3RR block for repeated removing a "the Dalai Lama is funded by the CIA"-type comment from an article about the PLA invasion (he was blocked too). I urge you go go to Talk:People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) and take a look at some of his comments. I am getting pretty fed up with his racism on the talk page and constant introduction of material into the article that is not relevant but simply designed to make the Chinese side look good and the other side look bad. It's propaganda, if you think about it. He really does not seem to care that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I don't really know what to do about it and I'd like some advice. Thanks. Yunfeng (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to use dispute resolution. I am sorry, but I do not have a lot of time to mediate disputes or investigate disruptive editors. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)