Talk:Lie Yukou

Lionel Giles's quote

Eiorgiomugini, Hello! I will specifically explain my choices, if you still feel compelled to change them, please give specific reasons why. Please make sure you understand the point before changing it.

1) The claim that "Lie Yukou" may not have been a real person did not need a citation because it was provided in the very next sentence. The quotation was copied exactly from the book, and the book title is provided.

2) The quotation does not need to be changed. It is a quotation. The author can not change it. The author is dead. He was a popular and influential Chinese scholar of the late 19th century. I added the link so you could check that yourself.

3) Mr Giles was not trying to prove whether Lie Yukuo existed or not. All he did was show why others said he did not exist. Mr. Giles seems to have believed he existed. Please read the quote again to make sure you see this point.

4) If you seriously doubt the conclusions of a well known scholar, fine, but you must provide citations explaining why his position is questionable. Or, better yet, you could add a new paragraph showing your own documented research. Until you do that, I must question your questioning.

Please discuss your changes. If you are using some checklist before changing articles, it would be helpful to understand what it is. In this case, it appears you may have used it incorrectly.

Take care, mamgeorge 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do seriously in part believe what he said, but the quotation was not being specified enough, and had left readers to a conclusion of questions, I hope you do understand that adding those temps does not meant to provide a citations explaining why his position is questionable. " Or, better yet, you could add a new paragraph showing your own documented research." Or you could had done it yourself, but I would had removed it, since it is perceptibly an original research. Eiorgiomugini 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini, Hello.

Sorry to remove your change, but I needed to point out the difference between a quotation and a citation:

1) Quotations can be made by anybody. They are not necessarily attributed to any specific person, and can be made up.

2) This quotation was, and still is, completely unreferenced. What are the "Statutes of the Ming Dynasty", "Text of the Border Sacrifice", "Annual Sacrifice Ritual"? Are these recognized by any scholars? Are they described in any book? How can we check the wording to verify this is a correct copy?

Now, look at the citation for Mozi. You can see the book, the author, the date, the chapter, even the paragraph. You can check it yourself!. The same logic applies to the Lie Yukou article. I do not know if Lie Yukou existed or not. I am not trying to prove it one way or the other. If you read the quote I provided, not even Lionel Giles, the scholar, knew. But you can check the quote, because the citation shows you how to verify it. You can check if he really said what I wrote.

3) Also note: I did not remove information; In good faith, I do not believe the person who wrote about the "Border Sacrifice" was making it up. My only concern is that they must cite a checkable reference. If you check the page history, I even added details to make it easier to find a quote. As of yet, no one has added this.

Eiorgiomugini, you did provide a reason this time, and I appreciate it. Please recognize I am being very detailed so you can check my reasons.

Please recognize I am not attacking you, Shangdi, the Ming Dynasty, the quotation, or anything else.

Please consider responding to this talk page first, and giving me some time to comply. I have compromised with your suggestions before, and am willing to discuss your approach. By the way, if you have the citation, please add it!!! :)

Thank You. mamgeorge 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I not trying to make any claims to the article Shangti like you did several times, but the article itself is clearly referenced by Creel, Herrlee G's book, so if you got to question it maybe you should had verified the book (i.e. in pages) below, before you seemed to be questionable or pointed out that they're completely unreferenced. Although it might be disputed whether the book did provided the refs on what the article had said.

Now the Mozi article didn't have a reference nor did it provided a footnote, all we get is an external link to an anon. personnal website (which is clearly an link spam). Those quotations and citation from the body of the article as like you said could had been "made up" by anybody, e.g. "By reflecting on one's own successes and failures, one attains true self-knowledge rather than mere conformity with ritual. ("Refining Self" in Mozi)". Now how do we verified this paragraphs to be realible (since it doesn't provided the quote in original Chinese nor English)?

The same logic applies to this article, how to we verify what Lionel Giles had said "a certain critic of the Sung dynasty" or "rejected by the compilers of the great Catalogue of Ch'ien Lung's Library". I meant who they were? How do we knew they are real, if it is regarded as real or incredible why didn't the author himself specificed in the preface? When I read a Chinese preface I get all the specificed names on the preface that actually perish the questions on my mind.

"If you check the page history, I even added details to make it easier to find a quote. As of yet, no one has added this." I'm sorry I didn't noticed that, but you seemed to imply that your contributions were unparalleled, which in this cases are certainly truth.

Take a look at what you had done on:

• 22:09, 8 May 2006,
• 22:25, 8 May 2006,
• 15:58, 12 May 2006,
• 23:06, 12 May 2006,
• 23:29, 12 May 2006.

You had changed "Ma Rong (79 166 AD)" to "Ma Rong (079 166 AD)", "Ma Rong (079 166 AD)" to "+0079 AD +0166 AD Han Dynasty scholar 馬融 MaRong" what are you, an astronomer? Adding characters on linked article, which go against the MoS, e.g. "書經 ShuJing" to "書經 ShuJing". Giving details, e.g. "Mohist philosopher 墨子 MoZi (470 390 BC), in the philosophical text 'MoZi' explicitly mentions ShangDi 26 times; as shown in 2:12, 4:16, 5:15, 6:25ab, 7:26ab, 27, 28ab, 8:31, 32, 9, 35ab, 36, 37, 12:47. He also describes ShangDi as a benevolent creator [specific citation needed]. ", and leaving "specific citation needed" behind as if those sources you given cannot be verified.

Eiorgiomugini 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini, Thank you for a detailed reply; I feel like I can begin to understand your concerns more precisely, and perhaps address something specific. By the way, I numbered your points to make it easier to respond.

1) For example, I am not sure what you are saying in point one. I think you are talking about the "Border Sacrifice" quotation when you used the word "article". Is that correct? If it is, then the reference to Creel IS exactly what is needed. I am not familiar with Creel. Can you add the citation? Again, I am not trying to embarass you, it is very hard to follow your point.

No, I'm talking about the article itself, it had got nothing to do with quotations within, when I said "article" it really meant just "article" and nothing else. Please re-read my edit. "I am not trying to embarass you" Well, you did not, but you did embarassed yourself by not reading my post. Eiorgiomugini 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the renumbering. I was honestly trying to avoid repeating this reply, which is already long. Hmm. I think I see why you are talking about Creel. Part of the problem is that this is a composite article. I did not add the "Footnotes" and "References" section. Since this is a composite article, I do not know which parts in Creel are actually being used. I do not believe that reference is adequate for this reason: Do we know if that specific quotation is in it? Do we know where?

I agreed with you, this is a composite article, as I had said it might not provided the references on what the book had said. But since you're the one who trying to figure out, you should had verified the book yourself. Anyway, It does make sense that the article itself is referenced. And not as you claimed completely unreferenced. Eiorgiomugini 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, using Creel as a reference can not confirm the legitimacy of any singular claim without a specific reference. That does not mean it is not a legitimate reference. It only means no specific point can be supported by Creel unless it is specifically cited. The "Border Text" quotation is unreferenced in this way.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who used Creel as reference on the article. I don't really know about its legitimacy, why don't you check it out? Btw, I'm not sure what did you meant by the "Border Text" quotation. Did you meant by Text of the Border Sacrifice? Sorry I had no idea what is it, since it was added by you. Eiorgiomugini 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2) Again, I really do not know what you are trying to say about Mozi. I am not trying to "fight" with you, I honestly do not know what your point is. I was referring to the line "from Book 7, Chapter 27 (aka 天志, "Will of Heaven"), paragraph 8" as a citation. That line is easy to look up because of the detail. Did you mean I should include the publisher, date, etc.?

Re-read your post "Now, look at the citation for Mozi. You can see the book, the author, the date, the chapter, even the paragraph. You can check it yourself!." Read what I said "Now the Mozi article didn't have a reference nor did it provided a footnote, all we get is an external link to an anon. personnal website (which is clearly an link spam). Those quotations and citation from the body of the article as like you said could had been "made up" by anybody, e.g. "By reflecting on one's own successes and failures, one attains true self-knowledge rather than mere conformity with ritual. ("Refining Self" in Mozi)". Now how do we verified this paragraphs to be realible (since it doesn't provided the quote in original Chinese nor English)?" Eiorgiomugini 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a spam link, it should be removed. The footnote, of course, is verifiable, but the only one in this article is about the Shujing. What I refer to as the citation is this: "from Book 7, Chapter 27 (aka 天志, "Will of Heaven"), paragraph 8". I may be missing how you are linking this to the Mozi quote. In the quote you suppled, you provided the Book and Chapter ("Refining Self" in Mozi), so I can find the quote. We can do that with the Mozi quote in the article too: ("from Book 7 (of Mozi), Chapter 27 (aka 天志, "Will of Heaven"), paragraph 8"). We can not do that with the "Border sacrifice" quotation.

After reading your post, "Now, look at the citation for Mozi. You can see the book, the author, the date, the chapter, even the paragraph. You can check it yourself!." I had look up on the citations at Mozi, and replied: the Mozi article didn't have a reference nor did it provided a footnote, all we get is an external link to an link spam. Those quotations and citation from the body of the article as like you said could had been "made up" by anybody." But you seem refer to a quote on an otherwise article. It should be noted that what I said had got nothing to do with the Mozi quotation from Shangti. Eiorgiomugini 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. You were referring to the Mozi article. I thought you were referring to the Mozi quote referred to in the Shangdi article (since we were talking about the Shangdi article). If your point is that the Mozi article uses quotes without documentation, I agree with you. They may not have been required if the text is not contentious, or commonly known, I was using the Mozi quote in the Shangdi article as an example of a good citation. My point was the "Border Text" quotation needs a similar quotation. Do you agree? Do you know if Creel references it?

No, I don't. But do re-read my post "I agreed with you, this is a composite article, as I had said it might not provided the references on what the book had said. But since you're the one who trying to figure out, you should had verified the book yourself. Anyway, It does make sense that the article itself is referenced. And not as you claimed completely unreferenced." Eiorgiomugini 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How do feel Creel specifically supports the "Border Text" quote?

No, I don't feel a single thing, re-read my post, I'm not the one who added the referenced sources. If you couldn't over again re-reading my post you won't see the point and will never get your answer by babbling. Eiorgiomugini 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

3) It is also good to see we are in agreement about the citation for finding the quote (from Book of Lieh-Tzü", Lionel Giles, 1912). The point of adding the quotation itself, however, was to show what a popular scholar thought about Lie Yukuo's existence. The quote shows him adding evidence "against", and then showing evidence "for". Maybe he gives more details in later quotes; but that seems out of the scope for this statement. for a single quote, it is pretty objective. I really can not see why this is a problem.

Of course Lionel Giles could be wrong; every quotation can be evaluated that way. But what I can not understand is that if you want to add citation requests to his individual points, then why would you NOT add them to the "Border Text" quotation about Shangdi? By the way, on a personal level, what do you believe about Lie Yukuo?

Please explain what did you meant by "The quote shows him adding evidence "against", and then showing evidence "for". " But if you do have more details of his later quotes, feel free to add it in. Again here "why would you NOT add them to the "Border Text" quotation about Shangdi?", please elaborate what you said instead of blabbing. Eiorgiomugini 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, Mr. Giles shows why people appear to have doubted his existence: "On the insufficient ground that he is not mentioned by the historian Ssu-ma Ch'ien, a certain critic of the Sung dynasty was led to declare that Lieh Tzu was only a fictitious personage invented by Chuang Tzu, and that the treatise which passes under his name was a forgery of later times."

Here, Mr. Giles shows why others disagree with the "unnamed" critic: "This theory is rejected by the compilers of the great Catalogue of Ch'ien Lung's Library, who represent the cream of Chinese scholarship in the eighteenth century."

My point is if you are really that concerned about the accuracy of individual references within a single quotation from Mr. Giles, then why not be at least as critical (or more so) with the unreferenced "Border Sacrifice" quotation?

Now you had confusing me, the Border Sacrifice had obviously added by your own will, if you are really that concerned about the accuracy of the references, why don't you cited it? It does make sense, since you had added it you should had cited it. Instead of begging for citations why don't you cited the unreferenced "Border Sacrifice" quotation added by you? Eiorgiomugini 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My addition was not the "Border Text" quotation. The quote I added was the Mozi quotation. I knew it was a legitimate quote, but did not have the chapter and verse at the time. I knew I could document it, and I did add that later. If someone would have removed it before I added the citation, they would have had the right. The "Border Text" quotation was added by "2005-11-05 15:37:44 131.111.8.96"

It had shown here that you added the "Border Text" quotation, I had no idea why did you denied this. It does really help if you could get on to the point. Read my post "Now you had confusing me, the Border Sacrifice had obviously added by your own will, if you are really that concerned about the accuracy of the references, why don't you cited it? It does make sense, since you had added it you should had cited it. Instead of begging for citations why don't you cited the unreferenced "Border Sacrifice" quotation added by you?" Eiorgiomugini 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Eio, the "Border Text" quote was added by [1]. Please see the link. The link you keep pointing to is when I MOVED it from the "Chinese Religion" section. Look at your link again, at the original page. Then look at the lionk PRIOR to it. I am correct in stating that I never added this link, and that it still is undocumented.

Thanks, I had see the link and I saw nothing with regarding to the "Border Text". It had shown here that you added the "Border Text" quotation your own self, I had no idea why did you denied this. Again, it does really help if you could get on to the point and show me a real proof. Eiorgiomugini 00:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Eiorgiomugini. I hope you are well. I am sorry you missed the addtion made by 131.111.8.96, but in fact, it is quite there.

a) It is in the third paragraph of the section "Chinese Religion". Please take another look at it: [2].

b) Also, please do not erase my responses again. Even if you do not like them, they represent legitimate contributions by me.

c) Since this response is so long, I made it into sections, since this section, after all, was my original response. You obviously did not like that, but remember, you are modifying my original response, and reverted the changes I made to your section (which did not remove your answers, only put it in a section). When I reformat this, please do not reformat it again. Rather, create a new section,

You had requested that to respone in a numbered paragraph at first and followed your point, but I had no ideas why did you added in the sections and dismissed the originally suggestion you proposed. The next thing I could remembered is that you add your comments right below my reply, "the verifiable detail is resolved in the point 3 "Border Text" section. The date issue is explained below in point 4b." note that you are not addressing to my question, and those respone are clearly not for me, which is the reason I removed it. Btw, I had checked upon all 131.111.8.96 contributions and none of those had implied anything with regard to the so-called "Border Text", the only places I could see is in your edits right here. Eiorgiomugini 06:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

a) However you interpret my response, I politely request that you do not remove them again. I believe they are legitimate and pertinant responses.

b) I intend to put in section divisions shortly, this change comes about from the increased length of oue correspondence. They will be based on the 1,2,3,4,5 numberings of this response section.

c) The quote I added that you keep linking too in the Mozi quote. I do not deny adding the Mozi quote. I explained that I knew the Mozi quote was legitimate, and at the time did not have the detailed citation. I have since added the citation. I believe that is a valid example of a citation. This is the only point about it I have wanted to make.

d) When I say "Border Text" quote, I refer to the statement made in the Ming Dynasty added by 131.111.8.96. I did not add that, although I did move and added the citation request to it. I believe it still needs an appropriate reference. Although I think it is legitimate, I am not as confident with it as the Mozi quote, and I strongly believe it needs a detailed citation.

I do not have access to anything of Creels, so I can not verify if he even uses it. Because of the unsusual nature of this quote, I strongly believe it needs a detailed citation. Thanks, mamgeorge 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not getting into the point despite you're dividing them into sections, all you do is cut and paste from your originally post, and "restored" a section under the title of "Scans Discussion" from 4d). "However you interpret my response, I politely request that you do not remove them again." Since when did I removed your responses now, why can't you just stop defaming other, the problem is people like you defaming others under an disgusted and troublesome habits, just where's your ground on that. Show me a sources that I had removed your responses, a real proof, not like the one you had done on the "Border Texts". "I intend to put in section divisions shortly" I'm not sure what did you meant by that, but there's no way you had an agreement about this with me. "this change comes about from the increased length of oue correspondence" The length of our correspondence had increased because you're not making any points and not being addressing to my questions. Here's another example "Why did you add these? Are you trying to show I make mistakes? Of course I do! We all do. But is that not a defensive manuever? Are you feeling attacked? If so, I do not understand why. How else could you have seen a change without taking it as an attack on you? ". "The quote I added that you keep linking too in the Mozi quote. I do not deny adding the Mozi quote." We're not talking about Mozi anymore, please wake up and get to the discussion that held currently. Re-read your post "I think I see the problem here. You were referring to the Mozi article. I thought you were referring to the Mozi quote referred to in the Shangdi article (since we were talking about the Shangdi article). If your point is that the Mozi article uses quotes without documentation, I agree with you." Now, you're denying on "When I say "Border Text" quote, I refer to the statement made in the Ming Dynasty added by 131.111.8.96. I did not add that, although I did move and added the citation request to it." we're talking about "Border Texts", a topic started off by you. Re-read my post "I had checked upon all 131.111.8.96 contributions and none of those had implied anything with regard to the so-called "Border Text", the only places I could see is in your edits right here." Eiorgiomugini 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

4) I most certainly was not implying my contributions were unparalleled. That was not my point at all. I was trying to say that I do not remove info; and although the "Border Text" quote was not cited properly, I tried to add details to make it easier for others to research.

While this is what you said "If you check the page history, I even added details to make it easier to find a quote. As of yet, no one has added this." So it does implying your contributions were unparalleled. Eiorgiomugini 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The only point of my emphasis was that I was attempting to make it easier, not that I am perfect or unparalleled.

You had not made a point. In fact you made a tousle to the article, that's what I seen, why would it be easier by adding detail that you can't verified it or blazing date, such as +1664 or +0079? Eiorgiomugini 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "tousle" or "blazing date". Did you mean the "Border Text" quotation when you wrote "detail that you can't verified"? Again, I did not add the "Border Text" quotation, I added the Mozi quotation, and I did verify it. I explain the date formatting below.

You had completely lost your point. The whole disscuion would be pointless if you attempt re-started your babbling again. Re-read your post "The only point of my emphasis was that I was attempting to make it easier, not that I am perfect or unparalleled." and mine "You had not made a point. In fact you made a tousle to the article, that's what I seen, why would it be easier by adding detail that you can't verified it or blazing date, such as +1664 or +0079?" Eiorgiomugini 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your "error" references:

4a) The examples you cite are close in time. I often save articles that are incomplete so the data does not get lost. The intermediate entries can sometimes be wrong. The final product is, hopefully, correct. If it is not, I invite the correction.

4b) The examples you cite show I am learning the proper formatting. I had to go through a learning stage, too. Originally, I cut and pasted from earlier material I had written, which of course uses a different format.

4c) These errors do not show me removing someones information. THAT was my point. Why did you add these? Are you trying to show I make mistakes? Of course I do! We all do. But is that not a defensive manuever? Are you feeling attacked? If so, I do not understand why. How else could you have seen a change without taking it as an attack on you?

4d) Incidentally, I see in the page history you took my comments about English as a personal attack and removed them. They were not intended as a personal attack, period. I was proposing the possibility that the real difficulty in this discussion was not intellectual, ideological, or factual; but merely translation issues. The real reason I added "specific citation needed" to the Mozi quote was because another wiki person said Mozi talked about Heaven as Creator, not Shangdi. Some people think of them as different, some assume they are the same. Personally, I do not know. The Shangdi quote numbers (which I compiled) were based on text scans. I did not print out the quotes at the time, and could not verify that they applied to that one quote. I only added them because I wanted people to see Mozi DOES talk about Shangdi, and wanted them to be able to check that themselves.

"These errors do not show me removing someones information. THAT was my point." No, the point is you had added rubbishs into the articles, not beause you had removed someones informations. I removed your edits beacuse they're a personal attack for me, and I would done so if I seen it again. Here again you're not making any points, "Why did you add these? Are you trying to show I make mistakes? Of course I do! We all do. But is that not a defensive manuever? Are you feeling attacked? If so, I do not understand why. How else could you have seen a change without taking it as an attack on you? " I had no idea where to reply you, please get to the point and stop embarassed yourself. The real difficulty in this discussion is that you are not getting into the point. Read my post again: "You had changed "Ma Rong (79 166 AD)" to "Ma Rong (079 166 AD)", "Ma Rong (079 166 AD)" to "+0079 AD +0166 AD Han Dynasty scholar 馬融 MaRong" what are you, an astronomer? Adding characters on linked article, which go against the MoS, e.g. "書經 ShuJing" to "書經 ShuJing". Giving details, e.g. "Mohist philosopher 墨子 MoZi (470 390 BC), in the philosophical text 'MoZi' explicitly mentions ShangDi 26 times; as shown in 2:12, 4:16, 5:15, 6:25ab, 7:26ab, 27, 28ab, 8:31, 32, 9, 35ab, 36, 37, 12:47. He also describes ShangDi as a benevolent creator [specific citation needed]. ", and leaving "specific citation needed" behind as if those sources you given cannot be verified." So why added it if you could't verified it, remember those are refs that you added, if you can't verified, why bother yourself to add it. It seemed doubtful that you added your sources as "26 times as in 2:12, 4:16, 5:15, 6:25ab, 7:26ab, 27, 28ab, 8:31, 32, 9, 35ab, 36, 37, 12:47", how could you verified this if you can't verified what the citation said? Eiorgiomugini 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I adress questions on attacks in the revert section.

I address Ma Rong dating in point 4b.

I explained I scanned for the text in the Shujing, I can count and verify their use from that.

The Mozi quote is different. The Mozi quote was not based on a word count or scan. My original citation request was a general request to ask for others to add it since I did not have the specific citation handy. I knew the quote was valid from many other sources. Waiting until I had the actual citation would have been fine. I chose not to do it that way, knowing I could add it later, as I did. Meanwhile, another wikipedian questioned the Heaven vs Shangdi issue, and this became a new issue. It made the citation more important.

I had no ideas what did you meant by you "address" your questions, in facts in 4a, b you're giving your futility excuses on addressing my points. Again, "I explained I scanned for the text in the Shujing" please elaborate what you said instead of addressing your issue between you and another wikipedian, what did you meant by you "scanned" the text, and how accurate is it? Are you doing your original research again? "The Mozi quote is different" I don't see why is it different, you had given 26 times; as shown in 2:12, 4:16, 5:15, 6:25ab, 7:26ab, 27, 28ab, 8:31, 32, 9, 35ab, 36, 37, 12:47. How could you verified this if you can't verified what the citation said? Please address to the issue here. Eiorgiomugini 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But, thank you for at least sharing your reasons. I can now understand why you would have made your statement. I think you read something into my words I was not saying. In any case, reverting without reasons often comes across as an attack. My hope is that we work together to build better articles.

I'm sorry, but since when did I reverted your edits or removed your informations, care to explain on that? In any case, an defaming without reasons would comes across as an attack. Eiorgiomugini 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really not know to what I refer? This is already long enough, and I would rather spend my time on the earlier points. I will retract the implication you are guilty of "reverting without reasons". You are right: "defaming without reasons" is an attack. Let me affirm what I feel is truly more important: My hope is that we work together to build better articles. mamgeorge 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And where's your evidence on that? What should I be guilty of? Frankly, you seem to affirm that I had reverted your edits and removed your informations, but where's your ground on that. By removing, did you meant by this? Maybe I should had make myself clearer, since when did I reverted your edits or removed your informations, please claritied what you had said about next time. Eiorgiomugini 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The most consistant reverting/removal was the pinyin on so many articles in the past. That really baffled me.

The link you supply shows MelItitis removing the TOC I added. Yes, that is definitely worse (by the way, that article should probably be split into person and text).

Let me affirm what I feel is truly more important: My hope is that we work together to build better articles.

mamgeorge 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"The most consistant reverting/removal was the pinyin on so many articles in the past. That really baffled me." You had not shown your point at all. Re-read my post "And where's your evidence on that? What should I be guilty of? Frankly, you seem to affirm that I had reverted your edits and removed your informations, but where's your ground on that. By removing, did you meant by this? Maybe I should had make myself clearer, since when did I reverted your edits or removed your informations, please claritied what you had said about next time." As for the claim on reverting/removal was the pinyin, you should had shown me your sources. Eiorgiomugini 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For examples, I can refer to my contributions on: Guo Pu, Liu Xiang, Zuo Qiuming, Sima Zhen, Li Fang, and others. It took time to verify the pinyin on some of the more obscure characters. Did you see that I was accepting the corrections of format? But even after I was willing to correct them, you insisted on using Wade Giles, and many times overwrote my changes without incorporating the actual MOS which requires the pinyin. The formatting was not the issue; it was the removal of the pinyin information which took time to add.

That's gibberish, shown me your sources on that, and I might even apologised you. Since you claimed that I had reverting/removal your pinyin/informations, you should had shown me your sources. And if you does really trying to get in and edit the texts, why don't you bother to read the MoS at first? Like I said, please claritied what you had said about next time. In any case, an defaming without reasons would comes across as an attack to me. Eiorgiomugini 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. mamgeorge 13:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

July Response

Hello, Eiorgiomugini! Basically, I feel confident that I have expressed all the details necessary to affirm my points. There was only one left I can not understand; its this "Border Text" quote issue. It needs cited!

When I say the Shangdi "Border Text" quote, I mean the quote below. The quote below is not mine; I only added a citation request to it. This is cut and pasted from the current Shangdi article:

In the beginning there was confusion and chaos. The five elements had not yet began to transform, nor did the sun and the moon began to shine. In the midst of this there existed neither forms nor sound. Then the Spiritual Sovereign came forth, and began to separate the purer from the grosser parts. He created the heavens, He created earth, He created man. All things with reproductive powers received their being. The beginning of all things was the result of His Kind Act. All things received His Great Love. All of the myriad things are found lacking compared with His Great Virtue. Who knows of all the blessings that He has sent to us? Only Huangtian Shangdi (皇天上帝) is the True Ancestor of the myriad things.

Now, here is the same quote, added, for the first time, by 131.111.8.96 on 2005-11-05 at 15:37:44. It is in the third paragraph of the section "Chinese Religion". Please take another look at it: [3]. Here it is, again:

In the beginning there was confusion and chaos. The five elements had not yet began to transform, nor did the sun and the moon began to shine. In the midst of this there existed neither forms nor sound. Then the Spiritual Soverign came forth, and began to seperate the purer from the grosser parts. He created the heavens, He created earth, He created man. All things with reproductive powers received their being. The beginning of all things was the result of His Kind Act. All things received His Great Love. All of the myriad things are found lacking compared with His Great Virtue, Who knows of all the blessings that He has sent to us? Only Huangtian Shangdi is the True Ancestor of the myriad things.

My two questions to you are:

1) Do you agree I did not originally add this quote?

2) Do you agree this needs a citation?

Take Care. mamgeorge 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)