Balthazarduju

So call "better suited" image was finally removed  !! --Gisling (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

about the zhang ziyi controvesy,why did you deleted? if you think it was pooly written, then youcan improve it. these controveries were true, why you deleted them?????Mmmvidyahoo (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just picked up your 2007 suggestion on the discussion page for Le Monde regarding the Clearstream Affair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Le_Monde#Clearstream_Affair.3F

Not questioning your call. In my opinion, the original Clearstream affair remains THE financial scandal - one vastly underreported by English language press. I'd be happy to write such a reference. But can you clarify a few things for me:

1. Are you referring to the original 2001 expose or the secondary 2004 so-called fake lists scandal? 2. where on the Le Monde page you think such reference should be made? In the controversies section, or the famous investigations? 3. If the former, is there notable public debate on Le Monde treatment of the affair? Or if the latter, is Le Monde actually the media organisation that has led investigations, as opposed to, say, Bachich or Rue 89 ?

All good and look forward to further discussion.

Avaiki (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

. . .

I have also proposed to undo deletions made by the media relations head from Clearstream, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clearstream#undo_deletions_by_media_relations_head_at_clearstream

Avaiki (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

. . .

Thanks for the edits. I'm sorry to put you through all that work. I asked for input here and here, but got little guidance.

I am now working on this, and could use your input. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you be so kind as to correct the "collapse" entry in that table? Many thanks if you can. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Encyclopædia Britannica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Balthazarduju, I reverted your change to Architecture of the Song Dynasty, and started a discussion thread on the talk page. Please air your opinion there before reverting back to your version, as we're both getting into edit warring territory, and that's best avoided.

I won't have internet access for another week or so, as I'm 'out of town' but there's really no rush. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Stop stalking my edits. Do you have anything better to do than to hurl insults at the content I add?Son of the River (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Highly inappropriate comment, please review Wikipedia:Etiquette.--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

As you have edited both Traditional Chinese law and Zhou dynasty, I request you review the fact that extremely irrelevant weight is being placed on the practice of castration, when #1 chinese law contained hundreds of laws for every offense imaginable, #2 none of the other empires (byzantine, roman, ottoman) which practiced castration have a special section on it in their articles.I have discussed this on the talk pages of the articles but User:Spanglej keeps reverting me.Bunser (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a note to let the main editors of Ming Dynasty know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 16, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

 

The Ming Dynasty was the ruling dynasty of China from 1368 to 1644. The Ming was the last dynasty in China ruled by ethnic Han Chinese. Ming rule saw the construction of a vast navy and a standing army of one million troops. There were enormous construction projects, including the restoration of the Grand Canal and the Great Wall (pictured) and the establishment of the Forbidden City in Beijing. Emperor Hongwu's rebuilding of China's agricultural base and strengthening of communication routes through the militarized courier system had the unintended effect of creating a vast agricultural surplus that could be sold at burgeoning markets located along courier routes. By the 16th century, China became involved in a new global trade of goods, plants, animals, and food crops known as the Columbian Exchange. Trade with European powers and the Japanese brought in massive amounts of silver, which then replaced copper and paper banknotes as the common medium of exchange in China. During the last decades of the Ming the flow of silver into China was greatly diminished, thereby undermining the entire Ming economy. The ensuing breakdown of authority and people's livelihoods allowed rebel leaders such as Li Zicheng to challenge Ming authority. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Classical Gardens of Suzhou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zhang Liang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Does the short name "Site Protected at the National Level" sound comical? See here, thx. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yulin, modifications, renovations, restorations etc - hi, just to quickly explain, as per the text "A number of caves were reworked and repainted in later periods, since the site remained in use throughout the Tang, Five Dynasties, Song, Western Xia, and Yuan Dynasties. It fell into disuse during the Ming Dynasty. There were early efforts to restore the caves at the time of the Qing Dynasty and several new caves also date to this period", some of the more recent activities may count as "restoration", but that generally ought to avoid wholesale repainting; if you trace the cave histories at Mogao, initially come a new donor a new cave was excavated and decorated; a little later, as space in the centre of the cliff began to run out there were two choices, to extend at the margins or modify an existing cave (the latter presumably cheaper and easier); one of the interesting things about many of the "Dunhuang" caves is that they are multi-phase sites; sometimes it's just a question of adding some new donor portraits and sometimes it's a much more comprehensive reworking, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Thanks for taking a peak at the article and chipping in! I'm just wondering, why did you remove the museum locations for the paintings. It's incredibly helpful to use to find information about the work on the web or in books. Sometimes, it's the only thing that helps me find a particular work. It's also standard practice to have museum or collection names for works of art. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the more appropriate calligraphy examples added to Chinese fine art.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your attempts at dealing with this problematic IP are mostly helpful, but I will have to disagree with you deeming mainland China/Taiwan, "inconsistent". Such a pairing is certainly much more consistent that PRC/Taiwan, or worse, China/Republic of China, and avoids the unnecessary usage of official names while keeping neutrality. Since most of the DAB entries are locations and not institutions of government, using "Taiwan" over the "ROC" is preferable. GotR ^Talk 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually I initially used the common known name China/Taiwan, and I prefer using it too, but from GotR's strongly anti-Taiwan independence POV, (s)he thinks that it implies that Taiwan is not part of (greater) China. See the edit summary of this edit.However, GotR insists on using "Mainland China", an term only common in China and Taiwan, which implies that Taiwan is part of China. I have a pro- Taiwan independence point of view and I oppose this usage. I also oppose using ROC because readers not familiar with Taiwan strait issues will find ROC confusing. That's why I used PRC/Taiwan, as implying that Taiwan is not part of the PRC causes no problem. 61.219.36.191 (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Date and time stamps are a part of digital photos, and landscapes do change in time. Is there a rule that prohibits date and time stamps? --Roland 02:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I added Cixi out of concern for the male-heavy selection of notable Han Chinese. Out of curiosity, what was the reason for removing her? Is she not Han Chinese, not notable, or doesn't qualify as a statesman? I am content with your edit though. Thanks. →⚙量zhu (talk·contribs) 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have seen the Culture of Japan, there are a lot of paintings, architectures in it. Why can the others add beautiful photos japanse painting in japanese culture, and I can't add them (include chinese painting, Qinghuaci, chinese garden and other) in chinese culture? I am Chinese, and I was so worry about some UGLY and GROTESQUE photos in chinese culture, they are not real chinese culture! Those photos will destroy the beauty image of chinese culture!!

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese culture has so many beautiful photos, why do you think the VULGAR photos can on behalf of china!? Why do you vilify chinese culture!??

--111.248.21.104 (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uhh... excuse me if I may ask, but why are you decorating his user talk page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

To the above anonymous user. As wiki editors, we should not just paste a bunch of photos in an article. This isn't a personal blog where you can gather your favorite pictures, but an encyclopedia article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Balthazarduju. You have new messages at Ozhu's talk page.
Message added 17:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

The issue's been resolved, thanks to Jackmcbarn. →ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 07:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we are already stucked in a edit warring. Maybe haveing some dicussions in the talk page is a good idea. --Someone's Moving Castle 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Hanfu". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, are you one of those weird editors who latches on, stalks, and reverts for the sake of reverting something? Because you're seriously getting on my nerves now with your incessant nitpicking of every edit I make to those articles. I normally welcome corrections and gnoming, but that's not exactly what you're doing, is it?

I get the distinct impression you're being contrary just for the heck of it, because you sure as hell aren't improving anything with your edits. All you're doing is cutting off various parts of the text completely arbitrarily, removing wikilinks, and changing the wording for no reason whatsoever other than your personal value judgements. I bet you haven't even read the actual study.

In case you're thinking I have vested interests in this or something, the Liangzhu addition was not mine, I merely expanded an IP's earlier addition. I'm also not exactly a new editor either, so enough with the condescension. I have neither the interest nor the time for a pissing contest, if arguing over every single comma is what gets you off. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh god. Seriously. Stop treating me like a week-old editor, LOL. Don't hide behind WP:NPA. I'm addressing your actions, not YOU. I don't know you at all. And I'm still waiting for an explanation. Because what you're doing is itself borderline WP:WIKIHOUNDING.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I know it was alphabetical, because I was the one who alphabetized it a long time ago. I'm just not willing to start flamewars over it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you reverted the correction of the image description on the History of the Great Wall of China article. In fact, as you can see when looking at the picture, the tower was made of adobe, bricks made of clay, rather than of rammed earth. This tower is well known since it's very close to a road and because of its unique form. Also, it is not Han, but Qing. The Han wall is actually 30km north of this tower. Please undo your revertion, thank you. -- 193.29.76.37 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Beijing Midi School of Music may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Beijing Midi School of Music''' ([北京迷笛音乐学校; pinyin: Běijīng Mídí Yīnyuè Xuéxiào) is a music school in [[Beijing]], [[China]],

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

'According to a study by Laurent Sagart, Yangshao group evolve into Sino-Tibetan.'^[1]

Do you think I should put the above quote in Yangshao page under new section?

I don't think that information adds much to the article at all. An entire new section is even more unnecessary, considering how scarce the content in the section is going to be. If its within the right context, maybe briefly note it in a sentence.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zhang Ziyi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Crossing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we need to remove the recent genetic studies from the wiki article. I'm not sure what you mean when you said misinterpret. It look accurate to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanghaiWu (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well you do realize that there were no portraits of zhang heng when he was alive, a depiction of him was made up by a person in the people's republic of china. I do know that the earthquake detector is a replica, I used it because it showed the wonderful invention of zhang heng, so who care's if it is a replica, it is modeled after the original earthquake detector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddragonawakens (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't mean if infoboxes of other ethnic groups' wiki pages that don't have an object to represent someone means the han chinese infobox must not have an object representing a person. You make no sense in your argument you stupid asshole. Reddragonawakens (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is clear that you lack the intelligence to know and identify famous historical han chinese people, so you edited the han chinese page and changed the infobox, changing a famous scientist like Zhang Heng to an actress that nobody in the world cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddragonawakens (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your notice. I agree with you that it may be not authentic real English, but it is the official translation, see [1][2]--Huang Jinghai (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I posted this to Kanguole as well but you are also involved in the page, so I'm copying you: In the latest edits from Easy 772, he completely misrepresents scholarly material. You can read it yourself here: this is his cites (to the exact page, although no where else says it either that I can find): Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia, 83. This is extremely troubling to me in terms of his work as an editor. Ogress _smash! 09:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's ogressbonecrusher Ogress _smash! 12:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ogress: It's ogressbonecrusher?--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The address you wrote is correct, but the spaaaaam, I deleted the at and gmail part Ogress _smash! 20:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ogress: Sorry about that, my bad! I just sent you an email.--Balthazarduju (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ninth statement by Ogress

Thanks for the reminder, I've been busy with flying roommates and terrible insomnia. Ogress _smash! 00:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Balthazarduju, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

For bringing it to my attention but I don't have any special insight into the topic. I'd be careful about asking people to look at AfDs because it can be looked at as canvassing.--Savonneux (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No real way to make a discussion move. If there aren't enough responses it will get relisted. Usually participation in AfD isn't very active unless the article is very controversial.--Savonneux (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

For AfDs, the suggestion is to first ask the closer. You can do so here User talk:SwisterTwister. If it fails, the second step is to do a deletion review WP:DRV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Balthazarduju,

I'm a journalist who's been working a series of stories about interesting Wikipedia editors. For example, I recently wrote for the NY Times about two teenagers behind the pages for the subway: If You See Something, Write Something

I'm working on a story about the Wikipedians behind well-known Chinese subjects like the Great Wall of China and the Ming Dynasty. This is partly driven by a trip I'm taking to China next month.

Would you be available for a short interview? My email is stephenbharrison at gmail dot com if you prefer.

Thanks for considering. Stephenbharrison (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese art by medium and technique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giuseppe Castiglione. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply