User talk:Neo-Jay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Template categorization

Hello,

just to let you know, Category:Wikipedia templates is a kind of "abstract" category, which isn't supposed to directly contain any templates. If you don't know how to categorize a template, you should use Category:Uncategorized templates instead. Hairy Dude 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Template:Year nav? OK, I see. --Neo-Jay 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard College alumni category

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. When I first looked, I did not see that this sub-cat of Category:Harvard University alumni existed. I checked it out -- it is only populated by five articles. The broader alumni category has several hundred, and there is no Radcliffe College category (which I find more surprising). So, yes, I think this category should be nominated for merging. Would you like to do the honors? --Vbd (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No. On the contrary, if I had noticed that you asked to merge Category:Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Yale College alumni, I would have been opposed to this idea. I don't see any significant difference between Category:Yale College alumni and other Yale schools' alumni categories such as Category:Yale Divinity School alumni and Category:Yale School of Management alumni. --Neo-Jay 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the terms "Yale College" and "Yale University" are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the undergraduate institution. The university's graduate schools tend to stand on their own more obviously.--Vbd (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was in Wikibreak and could not respond to you. I am wondering how you can say that Yale University is commonly used to only refer to the undergraduate institution?? Where is your reliable source??? Yale University includes both Yale College and many graduate and professioanl schools. Yale College stands on its own as obviously as the other schools! Use your common sense! --Neo-Jay 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, chill. I don't appreciate your assertion that I am not using my common sense. It is rude. I am especially offended by it when you completely misconstrue my statements. I did not say that Yale University is "commonly used to only refer to the undergraduate institution" (your words, my emphasis added). Nor did I say that the College does not stand on its own as compared to the graduate and professional schools. Of course it does.

Let me try to explain this again. The distinction between Yale College, the undergraduate school, and Yale University, the broader institution, is often blurred, so that in common usage, graduates of Yale College end up being referred to as graduates of Yale University. That's why the Category:Yale University alumni was already heavily populated with undergraduate alumni, and Category:Yale College alumni was not. This blurring of the distinction is a reality, whether you like it or not (and no, I do not have a "reliable source" to point to for this proposition (granted, I haven't looked for one)); it just is what it is. We can debate this further, if you would like (and if you can be less rude), but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it is worth getting bent out of shape about.--Vbd (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, let us use our common sense. Less rude? All your arguments against Category:Yale College alumni are also applicable to the categories of other Yale graduate and professional school alumni. If you can say that the terms "Yale College" and "Yale University" are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the undergraduate institution, then I can also say that the terms of Yale Law School (or Yale Divinity School, Yale School of Management, etc.) and Yale University are also commonly used interchanable to refer to the law school (divinity school, school of management, etc), and I can also say that in common usage, graduates of Yale Law School (Yale Divinity School, Yale School of Management, etc.) also end up being referred to as graduates of Yale University. What is your reliable source to prove that alumni of Yale College are more commonly called as Yale University alumni than the alumni of graduate and professional schools are called as Yale University alumni? And how much "more" is "more enough" to delete only Category:Yale College alumni, not other alumni categories for Yale graduate and professional schools? --Neo-Jay 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. I do not dispute that Yale College is a distinct and separate division of Yale University, just as the professional schools and graduate program are. However, undergraduate alumni of Yale (or Harvard or any number of other schools) do not tend to use the specific term, "Yale College" when referring to their alma mater -- while graduates of professional schools do tend to self-identify with that particular school -- "I went to Yale Law School," or "I went to Harvard Business School." Do I have empirical data for this, or a reliable source? No. Do I have the time or inclination to look for one given this discussion? Not really. My assertion is based on experience and on the reality of the existing categorization scheme. The reality was that editors were fairly consistently categorising Yale College alumni in Category:Yale University alumni. As I noted before, Category:Yale University alumni was already heavily populated with undergraduate alumni, and Category:Yale College alumni was not; my nomination to merge the two was simply an effort to maintain consistency. Both this Cfm and the parallel Harvard College Cfm were successful. I am sorry you disagree with the results.

On a final note, just because I am annoyed, let me point out that, technically, one does not need to cite a reliable source in support of a Cfm. But thanks for linking the term (twice!), just in case I didn't know what it meant. --Vbd (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you do not have any reliable source. The previous practice of Wikipedians is not a good reason to delete a new category. Those editors put the Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni perhaps simply because they do not know Category:Yale College alumni exists. Just see how many articles are linked to Yale College and how many biography articles uses the phrase "graduated from Yale College" instead of "graduate from Yale University". You will find that "graduated from Yale College" are used very often and many Yale graduates also say "I went to Yale College". And if you have time, just check how much Category:Yale University alumni was also already populated with Yale Divinity School alumni or Yale School of Management alumni. Will this also cause you to ask to delete Category:Yale Divinity School alumni and Category:Yale School of Management alumni? And it's not true that Category:Harvard College alumni was successfully deleted. It is still there and was just changed to be a redirect. I will establish Category:Yale College alumni again and you may try to ask to change it to be a redirect. --Neo-Jay 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, you still don't get it. I am not in favor of deleting such categories as Category:Yale Divinity School alumni and Category:Yale School of Management alumni. I have never said that I was. In fact, I am in favor of populating them. (Note, however, that individuals included in those categories should not also be categorised in Category:Yale University alumni -- that would be a classic example of the basic guideline that, "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory.")

I am not about to conduct an empirical study of how many WP biographical articles link to Yale College versus Yale University. Knock yourself out if you want to. And it seems pointless to debate our individual personal experiences with whether people say "I went to Yale College" or "I went to Yale University" or "I went to Yale." You will think that you are right and I am wrong, and vice versa. But your assertion that "editors put the Yale College alumni [in]to Category:Yale University alumni perhaps simply because they do not know Category:Yale College alumni exist[ed]" is not particularly convincing (nor is it based on reliable sources). Perhaps editors categorized undergraduate alumni this way because most people think of the terms "Yale College" (or "Harvard College") and "Yale University" (or "Harvard University") interchangeably. I am not trying to legitimize the practice; I am simply suggesting that this is what occurs in common usage.

I have finally realized why we are engaged in this debate -- you created Category:Yale College alumni and you have taken personal offense at it being "messed with." I apologise for stepping on your toes. But please note that if you want to take issue with the deletion of Category:Yale College alumni, there is a process by which this should occur. See Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Vbd (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly, you still don't get it. Of course I know that you are not in favor of deleting such categories as Category:Yale Divinity School alumni. What I did was just using your logic to conclude that if you are against Category:Yale College alumni, then you should also be against other categories for Yale graduate and professional schools' alumni. But you are not against other categories for Yale graduate and professional schools' alumni, so your argument is not consistent. Got it?? Regarding why Wikipedians didn't put Yale College alumni into Category:Yale College alumni, you disagree with my assertion. But you yourself also only say that perhaps most people think of... interchangeably. Even if this is common useage, it does not follow that other editors should not populate a new reasonable and convenient category, just as you are also in favor of populating Category:Yale Divinity School alumni and Category:Yale School of Management alumni. --Neo-Jay 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is pointless. You fail to grasp the distinction between undergraduate alumni and alumni of the professional/graduate schools. Or you simply disagree with the underpinnings of the distinction. Whatever. The reality is that, with respect to the similar Category:Harvard College alumni, from the time it was created to the time it was redirected in March 2007, it was populated with six (count them, 6) articles. Editors were not using the category! I do not know when you created Category:Yale College alumni, and I do not remember how many articles were in it, but I do know that I would not have brought it to Cfd if it had been meaningfully populated. Quite frankly, I am not opposed to the existence of the category -- if it is used! I think that it was not being used because, as I have already tried to explain, many people blur the distinction between Yale College, the undergraduate school, and Yale University, the broader institution, so that in common usage, graduates of Yale College end up being referred to as graduates of Yale University. That's why Category:Yale University alumni was already heavily populated with undergraduate alumni, and Category:Yale College alumni was not. You haven't offered an explanation for why the category was underutilized. If you want to re-create Category:Yale College alumni, then I suggest you go through the deletion review process, and if you are successful, populate the category properly so that other editors will follow suit. Clearly, that was not the case when you created the category before. (I guess it wasn't a "reasonable and convenient category" then.)--Vbd (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

True, editors were not using the category. But why? I have told you that your explanation is only your guess (you just said that ...perhaps...). And I have offered my explanation for why the category was underutilized. I don't want to repeat it. If you like, just go back to read my previous discussion (You yourself have said that my assertion... is not particularly convincing. This means that I have offered an explanation and just you don't agree). You also said that you are in favor of populating some categories. I belive that Category:Yale College alumni is only a category that needs to be populated, not be deleted! Thanks. I will consider whether I will place my request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Neo-Jay 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I used the word "perhaps" to parallel your use of it. Your explanation is that "editors put the Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni perhaps simply because they do not know Category:Yale College alumni exists." Now you suggest that editors will "populate a new reasonable and convenient category." Hmmm. They didn't use it the first time you created it; why are they more likely to populate it now? What will you do differently to make it a more "reasonable and convenient category"? What does that even mean?--Vbd (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you even mean that you are in favor of populating some categories (such as Category:Yale Divinity School alumni and Category:Yale School of Management alumni)?? These categories are also underutilized! It always takes some time to let editors know and get familiar with some new categories! Are you ever going to stop discussing this issue here?? --Neo-Jay 11:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Thanks for the headup. But i prefer to ignore the rules (especially when they aren't even official policy) when 1. quality is upheld and 2. there is no ongoing dispute. Now please excuse me while i undo your changes. --Plastictv 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But you can improve the quality and at the same time not ignore the rules especially when the rules are reasonable! It is very important for us to respect our previous editors and keep the entire edit history. If you respect other editors, other editors will also respect you. If I cut a page substantially edited by you and paste it to another page and then improve its quality, what do you think of it? I hope you can follow the rules in Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page in the future and never rename a page by cut and paste. I have reverted your reversion at Devils on the Doorstep and Guizi lai le. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you have edited Devils on the Doorstep, now Guizi lai le cannot be moved there by ordinary editors. Therefore I just placed a request to move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please express whether you support the move at Talk:Guizi lai le. After moving, you can edit Devils on the Doorstep. Thank you for your patience. --Neo-Jay 18:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok i catch your drift. Keep up the good work. --Plastictv 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Neo-Jay 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just got a message from which is much appreciated but just wondering what it was referring to or if it was juat a general welcoming message. Dommccas 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dommccas, it was a general welcoming message. Wikipedians usually leave this message when they notice a new editor. Again, Welcome! --Neo-Jay 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks very much. Its nice to be noticed. Dommccas 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neo-Jay

Just wondering, can you create a table for all the victims with photos. I am really bad with tables. Thanks Mercenary2k 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your table looks perfect. I love to extend your table to all the other victims. But according to the discussion at its request for deletion page, List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre will be very likely be deleted. Very sad. --Neo-Jay 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, this page might get deleted. Thats why I was wondering if you could create a table for the rest of the victims and I will move it to the main page. Mercenary2k 02:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All the student victims' pictures have disappearred. Use of the fair-use photos is restricted by Wikipedia's guideline. I even cannot use them in my sandbox (User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson reverted my tests). There is no need to use the table now. --Neo-Jay 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cricket - Thanks

Thanks for removing the strange speedy deletion tag for Cricketer Steve Stuchbury, inexperienced editors do slap these on perfectly respectable first class cricketers sometimes and it gets very annoying, so thanks for removing this one! Nick mallory 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for your contributions on Stephen Stuchbury. --Neo-Jay 07:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:A Home of Our Own (1993 film).jpg

Hello, Neo-Jay. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:A Home of Our Own (1993 film).jpg) was found at the following location: User:Neo-Jay. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I changed the image gallery on my user page to internal links. --Neo-Jay 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Re: [1]. The 3RR rule does not give you the right to 3 reverts in 24 hours. Edit warring is unacceptable. The matter is presently before ArbCom, I would advise better editorial conduct. Further revert warring may result in a block. WjBscribe 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3 revert rule

The three revert rule is not an entitlement to 3 reverts each 24 hours. Following the intention of the rule, not the letter and because

# 15:52, 19 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 
(Undid revision 132021201 by Phil Sandifer (talk), 2nd revert, I can still revert for another time in 24 hours)
# 15:47, 19 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 
(Undid revision 132008322 by Doc glasgow (talk)The Consensus here is KEEP! not DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) 

I'm blocking you per revert warring and WP:3RR -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR fifth paragraph. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFARB

I believe you are blocked at the moment, for edit warring but I have just added you as a party to the request for arbitration. Please feel free to make an optional statment here, and I will make sure an arbcom clerk watchlists your page and moves your statement over there. The case is to be found here. Thanks for your time. Viridae^Talk 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 was 13 for Keep and just 9 for Delete or Merge. Nick ignored the community's consensus and closed the discussion on the ground of the two previous deletion discussions. If so, why do we need a third discussion at all? If he wants to challenge the decision of the deletion review, he may request for arbitration and should not abuse his administrator's power to block certain community consensus that he disagree.--Neo-Jay 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this statement over for you to the main requests for arbitration page. Regards --Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In response: 1) AfD is not a vote counting operation, see also for one Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion; 13 vs. 9 is not what is evaluated, the reasons on each side with reference to the encyclopedia and associated policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, etc. are what is counted. 2) The third discussion was probably not needed, but anyway the reasons brought up in prior discussions are just as valid in the third one. If you want to look at it as a vote, the people who voted earlier have no less voice than the people who voted last. 3) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is not an appeals court for deletions, and the third AfD was not bound to come for its conclusion to come to whatever the opposite of the second discussion was. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Who is the judge to count the reasons on each side? The Administrator? But the administrators still disagree with each other. And the point is that "Judge" Nick did not count the third discussion at all but totally based his judgment on previous discussion. 2) The reasons brought up in prior discussions are not as valid as those in the third one because the article Qian Zhijun was revised. I cannot see its old versions in the previous discussion. But the new version was apparently different from the old ones since Night Gyr said in the third discussion that "with some minor cleanup, (the article) refocus[ed] on the phenomenon rather than the kid". The reasons for deletion in the previous discussion may at least be changed to reasons for just renaming. 3) Who said that "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is an appeals court for deletions"? We are not complaining about the deletion decision itself, but an arbitrary abuse of administrator's power to close a community discussion. --Neo-Jay 06:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The third discussion was needed because the community decided by way of DRV that the first was improperly closed. The second one last all of 45 minutes so another DRV determined that that too had been improperly closed. A third, balanced fair and open discussion was needed but unfortunately this was once again improperly closed - which just leaves us with an arbcom case. At no point should an admin over-rule or ignore a discussion because they don't like the outcome. Indeed, ignoring a current discussion is one of the deifinitions of wheel warring. Viridae^Talk 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bai Yang vs. Bo Yang

As to wether the proper pronunciation of his name should be Bai or Bo, I think we should go with how his name is usually pronounced. I did a tiny bit of looking up and came to the following results: As Bai/Bo Yang resides in Taiwan, I feel we should follow the local usage. My 遠東簡明漢英辭典 (a standard dictionary on Taiwan) gives as first pronunciation for all meanings, including as a family name, bo. This confirms my personal experience, that the last name 柏 is regularly pronunced Bo by all Taiwanese I have met so far (as my own Chinese name is 柏 I constantly hear people pronounce it.)

Apart from that, a google search turns out the following results: "Bai Yang" 41.000, "Bai Yang" historian 557, "Bo Yang" 127.000, "Bo Yang" historian still 19.000. Even a PRC government website writes his name "Bo Yang" (http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=Interactions&title=Cross-strait+Interactions+and+Exchanges&m_id=188).

As almost all Western (and even mainland Chinese) references to him use Bo, and he seems to use this name to publish his books, furthermore in the area in which he lives this family name is usually pronounced Bo, I clearly feel we should give Bo as the primary prounciation of his last name. Laca 10:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that Bo is the primary pronunciation for 柏 in article Bo Yang and have made relevant change. FYI, in mainland China, where 柏杨 was born and grow up, the proper pronunciation for 柏 as a family name is Bai, not Bo. --Neo-Jay 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Baliqiao

It would not have been amiss to discuss the renaming on the discussion page before doing so. Also, please refrain from imposing American orthography on an article that began with English orthography. InfernoXV 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not realize that travelling is British English spelling. I just changed it by the automatic screen spell checking. Regarding the title of the article, I still think that Eight Mile Bridge should be renamed to Baliqiao and left my opinions at Talk:Eight Mile Bridge. You can go to talk there. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Zhou Tong redirect

I have reverted your recent redirect of the Zhou Tong page because those Zhou Tongs are two different people. --Ghostexorcist 07:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know that they are different people, but how can you say that Zhou Tong can only be redirected to Zhou Tong (Water Margin) and cannot refer to Zhou Tong (archer)? I changed that redirect page to disambiguation page do distinguish Zhou Tong (Water Margin) and Zhou Tong (archer). --Neo-Jay 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said it couldn't. You originally redirected Zhou Tong to Zhou Tong (archer) and deleted all of the Water Margin info. That is why I reverted the redirect. I don't think you had created the disambig page yet. The original Zhou Tong page was created well before the Zhou Tong (archer) page. --Ghostexorcist 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is disambiguation info at the top of Zhou Tong (archer). If Zhou Tong is still a redirect page, then it is equally right or equally wrong to redirect it to Zhou Tong (Water Margin) or Zhou Tong (archer). The reason why I changed the redirect is, as I mentioned in the edit summary, that I thought Zhou Tong was more often referred to Zhou Tong (archer). A good reason that you can reverted should be that Zhou Tong (Water Margin) is the primary meaning for Zhou Tong (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). But you only said that archer Zhou Tong and the Water Margin Zhou Tong are different people. This is not a good reason to revert. --Neo-Jay 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you have done it already, but you should probably drop by the Water Margin page to correct the redirect for any mentions of Zhou Tong's name. The same goes for any Water Margin character articles. I'm sure a person would be able to distinguish between the two on the disambig page, but it's a lot faster to go to the correct article. --Ghostexorcist 08:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed Template:Water Margin characters to link Zhou Tong directly to Zhou Tong (Water Margin). --Neo-Jay 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying at the time of your switch, you had not created the disambig page yet. I know this because I clicked on "Zhou Tong" and it redirected to "Zhou Tong (archer)", of which I of the author. More people know of the Water Margin's Zhou than Yue's Zhou. --Ghostexorcist 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Even before the time of my switch, there was also no disambiguation page. The disambiguation information can be found at the top of both Zhou Tong (Water Margin) and Zhou Tong (archer). So it's fine to redirect Zhou Tong to either of them even without a disambiguation page. I can create a disambiguation page, but I don't have to do it. Anyway, Zhou Tong is now a disambiguation page. If you still think that it should be redirected to Zhou Tong (Water Margin), please provide evidence to prove that more people know the Water Margin's Zhou than Yue's Zhou. Otherwise, we may stop discussing about this. --Neo-Jay 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously aren't reading what I'm typing. I have no problem with the redirect page. I have even bolded the first instance of this from a previous post. I know there are redirects at the top of each page, that is because I added them there! For proof of who is known more, just go to google and type in "Zhou Tong". The Water Margin's Zhou's article is first and there is another webpage that mentions him. Yue's Zhou is secondary because it is referenced less. Also, refer to the portugese doctorial thesis (on each Zhou Tong article) that represents Yue's Zhou and the Water Margin's Zhou as the same person. Before I wrote "Zhou Tong (archer)" and it was on the main page, very few westerners outside of college settings or martial arts circles knew who he was. And the Chinese wikipedia article is based on my english version. There was already a Chinese article on the Water Margin's Zhou. --Ghostexorcist 19:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably are not reading what you were typing. If you really have no problem with the redirect page, you should have not reverted my edit. If you yourself added the redirects at the top of each page, why not remember them? Why did you still keep complaining that I did not establish a disambiguation page (quote: 1. I don't think you had created the disambig page yet. 2. ...at the time of your switch, you had not created the disambig page yet)? That's the reason why I kept telling you that I do not need to establish a disambiguation page (although I later established one). Regarding the proof of who is known more, your evidence is obviously not enough. Go to Yahoo! Search, you will find that the archer Zhou Tong is the first one and the Water Margin Zhou Tong even does not appear in the whole first page. And you did not provide any evidence to prove that very few westerners outside of college settings or martial arts circles knew the archer Zhou Tong. Chinese wikipedia article is based on your English version? So What?? So the archer Zhou Tong is less popular than the Water Margin?? Obviously you need to do more research for your argument. There are 2,170 hits for "Zhou Tong" + "Yue Fei" at Google, and 2,090 for "Zhou Tong" + "Water Margin" at Google. In my view, there is no evidence to prove that the Water Magin guy is significantly more popular than the archer guy. Are you really seriously arguing to redirect Zhou Tong to Zhou Tong (Water Margin)? If so, you can continue to discuss this on Talk:Zhou Tong. If not, please stop.--Neo-Jay 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember exactly what I wrote. Your assumption that Yue's Zhou is more popular than the Water Margin's is horribly flawed. The disambig page issue was resolved a while ago, but you keep bringing it up. As far as I'm concerned, you are trolling. I will no longer reply to your messages. --Ghostexorcist 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seriously read my words? I am not arguing that one is more popular than the other. My current position is that the Water Margin Zhou Tong is not significantly more popular than the archer Zhou Tong. That's why I changed Zhou Tong to a disambiguation page. It's you that still argue that the Water Margin Zhou is more popular than the archer Zhou (please remember what you wrote). This assumption is really horribly flawed. But it also seems that you do not disagree to make Zhou Tong a disambiguation page. So I cannot understand why you still keep annoying me. So I have to keep asking you to clarify your position and asking you to stop if you don't want to redirect Zhou Tong to the Water Margin guy. And what really made me uncomfortable was that you once reverted my edit and provided a very poor reason. I think that you need to learn how to present a rational, logical, coherent, and consistent argument. OK, Again (the 3rd time), don't reply if you don't want to change Zhou Tong to a redirecting page, Please. --Neo-Jay 08:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aix-en-Provence

Please stop making minor cosmetic changes to this article which do not work. Your spacing solution did not work; I found a permanent BOT-proof solution myself. And your change to the V'Hello scheme overlooked the fact that the method of referring to Aix council notices by http links is used in all other places in the article. There is no reason to use a reference for an http website, since it is not a reference, it is a link. When you added the note, you left the description of the link in french with french punctuation: that is not a good idea. The french have their own WP page on Aix, which to some extent this page takes as its starting point and frame of reference. However, this article is primarily for an english-speaking, non-french, readership. --Mathsci 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what browser you are using. But your spacing solution does not work for major browsers including IE and Firefox. You added blank lines and makes the page look not good in my browser (remember that more spaces are as problematic as less spaces). If your solution does not work for my browsers (including IE and Firefox), and my solution does not work for your browser (what?), then whose solution is better? If you still insist on your solution, then do as you please. I am not interested in debating with you. Regarding the link to V'Hello, it's OK for you to change the description to English, but that link is an article, not a website. It's better to be a reference, not an external link. The proper external link for V'Hello is http://www.vhello.fr Again, if you don't like this idea, do as you please. --Neo-Jay 19:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked with 3 browsers, IE (windows xp) and firefox/konqueror (linux). Your reverted format does not work and the council link is not dead at all. It works just fine. I am going to ask you 3 questions: (a) do you speak french; (b) do you know anything about Aix and the region; (c) are you just attempting artificially to create an edit war with no intention of making any material contribution to this encyclopedia article? It took a lot of searching to find the images of Mme Bechard's Calissons and the Door to the original university building opposite the entrance to the Cathedral. Are you trying to harrass me? --Mathsci 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about inadvertently and quite unintentionally removing your footnote, which is of course an excellent addition. With my current browser (IE under windows xp), none of the solutions to the spacing problem seem to work. You were quite right to point out that there was a problem and I think that it will be necessary to experiment with several OS /browsers /screen sizes before deciding on a final solution. It seems that including images on both sides creates huge problems on the WP. But I shall try to find a solution that works under as many systems as possible. This is usually what I do when creating web pages, but I don't do it with WP. I'm sorry about this misunderstanding; hopefully the display problem can eventually be solved so that it works on all systems. Cheers, Mathsci 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the link of http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/letters/lette123.htm , in my browsers, it is automatically redirected to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.toc.html , a table of contents for all the principal works of St. Jerome. The link I updated, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXIII.html , is from the same website and is the exact letter 123. I don't know why the link is not dead in your three browsers. And this should be a footnote, not just an external link. --Neo-Jay 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As the 2nd note indicates, I misunderstood what you meant by reference and note: you had added a valuable historical note and, in my haste, I had thought we were still talking about velos. I now see that the image problem is actually a function of font size in the browser. In this IE / windows xp browser, the font is much smaller and so the images jar against the next section in every version of the page, after the introduction of images. I put the images there in the first place to improve the article; they had to be fished out of various non-english wp sites. It could be, as with the Marseille page, that sparser images plus a gallery at the end is the right solution. I will apply some thought to this, because there must be a good universal solution. Mathsci 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. Now I have no dispute with you on the spacing issue. Wish you find the good solution. --Neo-Jay 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done a trial run by stacking the images, reducing the size of the thumbnails and making a new paragraph at one point in the text. How does it look on your computer? I've only checked it on IE / windows xp. Is it better? Thanks, Mathsci 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks good in my IE and Firefox if I ignore the blank lines above the section Economy. But, again, if you like, you can leave those blank lines there. I am fine with them.--Neo-Jay 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the lines and changed the stacking order of the images. It should be OK now. Phew! Regards, Mathsci 22:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. --Neo-Jay 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mount Liang

Don't forget that the Mount Liang article mentions a city called Liangshan (which we don't currently seem to have an article for). Badagnani 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminding. That city is Liangshan County. I have added the information to article Mount Liang. Considering that most incoming links to Liangshan refer to the Mount Liang, I moved Liangshan to Liangshan (disambiguation) and redirected Liangshan to Mount Liang. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Funny how some cities are actually counties. It boggles the mind. Badagnani 08:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in China, it's acceptable to call a county as a city. You may compare County (China) and County (United States). --Neo-Jay 09:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Tsinghua University

I have protected this page for 2 days. Please see Talk:Tsinghua University for further information. Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Neo-Jay 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

:-s peoples republic?

What's the difference between the history of china and the history of the peoples republic of china? PhilB ~ ^T/_C 15:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not go to read History of China and History of the People's Republic of China? They are different articles. I think that it's also good to keep the section of History in Agriculture in China and the article History of agriculture in the People's Republic of China separate. Please go to Talk:History of agriculture in the People's Republic of China, not here, for discussion. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just wondering, why does the western go board omit "J" ? PhilB ~ ^T/_C 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is to avoid the confusion between i and j. Some western go board omit i, not j.--Neo-Jay 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hukou

Thanks for fixing the ref in the above. You drew attention that I damaged the reference. Guilty as charged M'lud, but was there really need to point the finger at me? After all, I did put most of the content there. ;-) BTW, no offense taken. Ohconfucius 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Really sorry. I disclosed the time of the mistake to help users easily compare the edit history. I knew that your edits were in good faith. In the future I will not disclose the good-faith user's name, but only point out the time when the mistake is made. Or I will clearly point out in edit summary that the mistake is made in good faith. Sorry again.--Neo-Jay 10:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving articles

Neo-Jay, I think, as a matter of courtesy, if you are going to move articles and create disambiguation pages -- like you did with Gao Yan (which I find unnecessary since there is currently no article for the PRC politician; we can cross the bridge when one is created) -- you should modify the links to the page so that they link to the right page. As it stands, given that there is no article for the PRC politician, I am inclined to move the article back (overwrite the disambiguation page) as unnecessary disambiguation, but I'd like to hear what you have to say. --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. First, it's just a matter of time that the PRC politician Gao Yan, a high official at the governor level, is created. Second, even if the PRC Gao Yan will never be created, there are still two articles for persons named Gao Yan. Although the title of article Emperor Xiaozhao of Northern Qi does not mention his personal name, Gao Yan is the Emperor's name. Many users searching for Gao Yan may want to find the Northern Qi emperor, not the prince. They may be more familiar with the emperor's personal name, not his posthumous name. The title of the Chinese Wikipedia article is simply zh:高演. It's good to keep Gao Yan as a disambiguation page since Gao Yan (Northern Qi prince) is not so famous to be the main article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Move done

Move of Military History of Goguryeo to Military history of Goguryeo complete. IceKarmaॐ 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But Talk:Military History of Goguryeo has not been moved to Talk:Military history of Goguryeo. Please also move it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Done now. IceKarmaॐ 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Li Na

See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%A8%A5

"訥 (simplified 讷, pinyin nà (na4), nè (ne4), Wade-Giles na4, *4)"

In this case Na is the correct reading. As I'm sure you know, it's common for less thorough dictionaries to omit some alternate readings. Thanks Quelcrime (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to confirm this, go to the Chinese Wikipedia page for Li Na, which gives the quotation from which both her and her half-sister's names were taken; then find a copy of the original work with pinyin or zhuyin fuhao annotation (eg Sanmin in Taiwan do the latter) and check the reading. It's a classical quotation, in classical Chinese characters often have variant readings. Quelcrime (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence, if you want it; Google "Li Ne" and Mao; 12,500 results, and many of those are not a name, just coincidental use of the words 'li ne'. Google "Li Na" and Mao; 134,000 results. I'm not guessing about this, by the way.

There's a problem now that, when creating the page I was careless and wrote 'Daughter' capitalised; you've created a page with 'daughter' so I can't move the article across. I'll have to get an admin to do it. Oh well.Quelcrime (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please leave message at the bottom, not top, of a user's talk page. I have moved your message to the right place. Second, the daughter of Mao Zedong is obviously Li Ne, not Li Na. You have not provided any reliable source to prove the pinyin of 讷 is Na. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wiktionary is obviously not a reliable source. Why not go to read a Chinese dictionary?? If you find any Chinese dictionary in which 讷 is pronounced as Ne, please present it to Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong). For further discussion, please go to Talk:Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong), not my user talk page. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese politics

I was wondering if you were interested in creating specific pages for lists of CPC secretaries and governors in different provinces as per the template at Politics of Shanghai. Colipon+(T) 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your creating pages for the politics of China's administrative divisions such as Politics of Shanghai and Politics of Liaoning. I appreciate it if you can also create pages for other provinces. I have added lists of Governors and CPC Secretaries to all the province-level divisions except Tibet (I am in Mainland China and cannot open the page of Tibet in English Wikipedia because it's likely a sensitive word in China's blocking). You can move those lists to the separate articles. I may also help create some. Thank you.--Neo-Jay 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You can just post the tibet list on my page. And I'll be happy to put it up on the Tibet Autonomous Region page. Colipon+(T) 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The lists of Tibet leaders can be found at this Internet forum page. It also provides the leader lists for all China's province-level divisions and many prefecture-level cities. Although Internet forum is generally not a reliable source, these lists seem basically accurate and can be verified by other sources.--Neo-Jay 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yu Yang (disambiguation)

You added there Yu Yang (swimmer) to the list. Are you sure, that it is another person than the already mentioned Yang Yu?

Best regards --Florentyna (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think you are right. They are likely the same person. I have removed it from the list. And I just requested to move Yu Yang (disambiguation) to Yu Yang at Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial proposal.--Neo-Jay (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta-Hia or Daxia?

Dear Neo-Jay: I am writing to let you know that I am planning to move the Ta-Hia page to Daxia and make adjustments throughout the article for the following reasons: Daxia is the proper spelling according to the Pinyin system of romanising Chinese - the system used by far more people today than any other - including just about everyone in mainland China and people studying Chinese today. It has also become the standard for articles in the Wikipedia (often with the Wade-Giles version included as an alternative). Ta-hsia is the name according to the Wade-Giles system which is an old English system still in use in Taiwan and by older Western scholars, while Ta-hia is from the French E.F.E.O. system and, therefore, not appropriate at all in an English-language article. Please let me know if you don't agree with my changes. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear John: I agree that Ta-Hia should be renamed to Daxia. The only issue is whether Daxia should be a main page or just a disambiguation page for this ancient state and Daxia River. I think that you can move Ta-Hia to Daxia (Bactria) or Daxia (state) and leave Daxia as a disambiguation page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the prompt reply! I am thinking of making Daxia the main page (a this will undoubtedly be the one most people are looking for) with a note at the top with a link to Daxia River. Hope this is O.K. with you. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's OK with me. You may place the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for another very quick reply! Yes, I have just placed the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Have a happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year. John Hill (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your greetings. Have a nice holiday! By the way, Wikipedia does not allow renaming a page by cut and paste (see Help:Moving a page). If we cannot move a page, placing a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves is the only thing we can do. I have supported your proposal at Talk:Ta-Hia. Thank you for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your friendly support and help - I have just listed the article at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

That was a mistake. No need to waste time at requested moves when Samba county doesn't even exist. It is clearly saga county intended -I don't know how I made an error there -perhaps because it is called samba on french wikipedia -I don't know but it is fixed now -thanks for pointing it out ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you may like to maintain the edit history of Samba County. Therefore I requested to move it to Saga County at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It's fine for me that you asked for speedy deletion of it. Thank you for your great contributions on Tibet-related articles. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I managed to get all the towns and villages in Tibet as well as counties up and running but I'm afraid many are stubs unlike articles such as History of European exploration in Tibet. I managed to get the infobox sorted for tibet with locators beginning with Alamdo. This will take a lot of time but I hope eventually the stubs will look a little more like Tingri and each district of Tibet becomes developed. Either way I feel it is important to cover it -I'm praying more info will become available on the districts as with other parts of china ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Best wishes. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing though if you are moving the pages to ...town as you do it e.g Baquen (town) rather than Baquen Town. Just the naming convention thats all. Kind regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Baqên Town etc.. Well, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), the town's name should be XX Town, not XX (town). I just follow the rules. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK I wasn't aware of the Chinese naming conventions just the other!! Either way I think its good to avoid confusion between the county and the town. Would you be interested in helping add the infoboxes. Also do you have a command of the Chinese language and the ability to add the Chinese titles of the places to the infoboxes? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There we are! -see Baqên Town now ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the knowledge to add the Chinese transcriptions of places like Dêlêg? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is already Chinese name for Dêlêg in the infobox. I am wondering why the settlement type cannot be showed in the infobox.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm i don't know. Of course I can see Deleg already has the Chinese in it -I was using it as an example. I'll ask again. Do you have the knowledge to add the Chinese? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a Chinese and can help add the Chinese names to the infobox. The template in Zhengzhou can show the settlement type but those in Baqên Town and Dêlêg cannot. I am totally confused.--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats great news. I can request User:MC Detroit to look into adding the settlement type. Please see List of towns and villages in the Tibet Autonomous Region. It would be great if you could help add the chinese script beginning with Alamdo. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your asking MJCdetroit to help me. I am adding Chinese names and more information to the places in Tibet. It will take a long time to complete it. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Use |name= X with |settlement_type = XX instead of |official_name = X to force the blue bar with the settlement type under the name. This is a little known trick that was recently added by User:Kotniski. See the diff here to see how it changes the infobox at Dêlêg. Let me know if you have any other questions (as I won't be watching this page). Regards, —MJCdetroit (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much! --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Of oourse it will take some time to do - but I am very glad you are intererested in working on them. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are interested but I am begun working a lot on Hong Kong cinema and have recently started the lists by year. See Hong Kong films of 1971 etc -I set up the templates too. I have about 60 years to complete here and get the films started. Feel free to expand any!! 11:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs)

I like Hong Kong movies very much. But I am afraid that I do not have enough time to help. Best wishes and congratulations on your great work. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please move the villages to the correct prefectures. Admittedly I haven't any source unfortunately to affirm which it is in - -it is based on geographical observation (which in an encyclopedia it shouldn't be). I would be very grateful if you could make those corrections -if I had source I would of course do it myself. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

When creating disambiguation pages...

please use "*" not "#" for each entry, and if you are disambiguating two geographic entries use {{geodis}} to help sort the disambiguation pages. Thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Question

Thanks for welcoming me! I do actually have a question for you, but I don't know if its your area of expertise. On the Wikipedia fauna talk page, I posed a question about creating a new type of fauna. If you could answer my question there even partially, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Here's to working with you towards a better Wikipedia! (ApostleJoe (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

Welcome again, Dear ApostleJoe. Sorry that I had had no idea about Wikipedia fauna before you asked me this question. It seems to me that you can simply join in more than one fauna. And I think that it's OK for you to create a new fauna. You may also raise the question at Wikipedia:Help desk, or leave your question at your user talk page and add a {{helpme}} there. Some experts may come to help you. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I didn't know any of that. I'll make sure to go to the help desk before doing anything major (I'm already a gnome!). Thanks for the help, and see you around the wiki, eh? (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

You are welcome! Please feel fee to let me know if you need any help in the future. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Batang Town

Merry Christmas and all the best for 2008 from the Bald One ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 13:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your greetings! Merry Christmas to you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neo-Jay! Sorry - you are just too quick for me! I am glad to see the article has been found already though, and that someone is interested! I had to stop at this point today because my wife came home from work and needed to have a chat and dinner. I am certainly planning to do more work on the article - although it may be difficult to find time for a couple of days as it will be Christmas eve tomorrow here and I have family commitments. However, here is some more info to help you find it: In Mayhew, Bradley and Kohn, Michael. (2005). Tibet. 6th Edition, p. 260. Lonely Planet. ISBN 1-74059-523-8, it says: "Lying 32 km from the Tibetan border and a 5½ bumpy hours down a dirt track from Litang, low-lying Batang is the closest town to Tibet that is open to foreigners." The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World (2007). Twelfth Edition, ISBN 978-0-00-780150-3, gives Xiaqiong as an alternative name and it appears to be just east of the Jinsha or Yangtse River. The Contemporary Atlas of China (1988). Edited by Nathan Sivin, et al. Collins Publishers, London. Reprint: Sydney (1989), p. 26. ISBN 0-7322-0053-9, gives the Chinese name as 巴搪. This, and the fact that I gave the Pinyin incorrectly as Pātáng rather Bātáng is probably what has led you astray. I shall try to fix those problems now in the article and will try to do some more work on it soon (I have more accounts of the town in various books here to). Sorry you had those difficulties - but thanks for pointing them out to me so promptly. Anything you can add to the article would be most welcome. I also plan to do some more work on Litang (and separate the town from the county (but not tonight). Cheers, John Hill 10:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thanks for your reply. If Batang's alternative name is Xiaqiong, I think it is 夏邛镇, the seat of Batang County Government (see the complete list of the towns and townships in Batang County). This seems the same problem as we met in Keriya Town. Moreover, Batang is more likely spelled as 巴塘 (the county's name), not 巴搪. That's why I cannot find a single hit for 巴搪镇 in the Google search. Thank you. Merry Christmas! --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

history of Four Great Ancient Civilizations ??

The article of Four Great Ancient Civilizations doesn't make any sense Persia is greater than Egypt and China, what about Greek and Roma? any way how come they mentioned Egypt as a whole, China as a whole and India as a whole and they just mentioned Babylon and not Mesopotamia as a whole? In matter of fact Mesopotamia is older than Egypt if you account Sumer. how come Babylon is the cradle of civilization while Sumer is older than Babylon? Sumer is the cradle of civilization not Babylon and this is fact. And let's suppose we didn't account Sumer or Mesopotamia as a whole, China is older than Egypt..so we should sort it like this China then Egypt then Babylon.. you make no sense. Mussav (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay calm. I personally agree with you and also think that Four Great Ancient Civilizations does not make any sense. Please remember that it is not I that created this concept. It is a concept in Chinese historiography and is not widely accepted in the world. And it is under criticism even in China now.--Neo-Jay (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replay and for Clarifying it. Mussav (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't seem right

I noticed you added a number of "succession boxes" in various articles, for example Yan Huiqing. I commented in the Talk:Yan_Huiqing that there seems to be something not right. There seem to be logical gaps in the various precession/succession sequences. I noticed the same discrepancy in other articles. Is there something I am missing? --VanBurenen (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Please check List of premiers of China, which I just added to Premier of the Republic of China. The Premiers of China in Beiyang Government did change very frequently. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5