User talk:Steven Crossin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

responce to «attack others»

Thank you for your comment in my talking page. But could you please tell me ONE sentence that I attacked others? Just one, please!

In the page of Ming Dynasty, I pasted a well-sourced map, but there are several persons who removed it all the time, because they don't believe it. Is it English wikipedia? It is authorized to give personal opinion in English wikipedia? Even there's a guy who has removed my discussion in the talking page of Ming Dynasty. Sorry, I really don't know how English wikipedia works. It's totally against the wiki orders, but it's authorized here.--LaGrandefr (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stop ur crazy acts and accept different opinions!" seemed to be bordering on a personal attack. I also noted to them that changes should be discussed on the article talk page, instead of wildly reverting without discussion. And, I also recommended that, if that didn't work, to pursue dispute resolution. And, Wikipedia is generally not for adding your personal thoughts on a subject, but your opinion on changes in an article are most welcome, just discuss these on the talk page. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the history page of Ming Dynasty? Personally, I think I have controlled my tolerance to extreme. I have said thousands of times Please don't change the page all the time. It's best to find a solution in the talking page, even I've pasted the ActiveDiscuss template. But someone has chosen to endlessly remove and the discussion in the talking page has been removed in the same time.(It came back 3 minutes ago). So I beg you to handle this problem in Ming Dynasty, please.

I paste a well-sourced map, ming_1443.png, sourced from History Atlas of China Sinomap press, ISBN：7503103841, which shows the largest territory of Ming Dynasty, I think it's very suitable for a featured article. However, someone reject it, no matter what I sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaGrandefr (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Opened a thread on the Admin Incident noticeboard Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue to watch the article.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, is it a joke? The final solution is a well-made map replaced by a map inexact? I cannot agree to it.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the section you created. I've made some introduction of the map and Sinomap Press. So I'm waiting the response of admins or the arguments of editors. Regards.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV reports

Hi, Steve. Could I ask that if you're going to provide commentary on AIV reports that you keep in mind previous edits by the reported users? Your comment regarding Ronzie (talk · contribs) said "insufficient recent activity" but a look at the previous edits indicated that they were all vandalism over almost a year of infrequent editing; it's pretty obvious that editor wasn't here to build the encyclopedia, so I've blocked as a vandal-only account. I'm sure admins appreciate some of the commentary, but do keep past actions in mind when you're making those notes. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that user, but I thought maybe that there was a gap of over a month [1] in editing, to maybe wait until they had been warned, or vandalised further. But, of course, admins are free to decide otherwise, I suppose I'm starting to go a little soft on vandals. I'll keep in mind to treat vandal-accounts differently to IPs. Cheers, and thanks for the feedback. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true for IP's because they are commonly shared by multiple users, but an account is a different story and past actions should be taken into account. Thats why it is called a "vandal-only account" ;) Tiptoety ^talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definetly a different matter, I realise that now. I'll keep this in mind in future. I might hit the hay soon, I could use some sleep and some quality time with Mellie. Tip, you take care of the templates, OK? I know you're so eager to use them ;) Steve Crossin (talk to me) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good night. :) Tiptoety ^talk 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

After muttering "Why do I bother" to myself for an hour I figured it would be better to make my objections known, so I came here. Then I saw that Tony Fox had already stated my point. (I'm the editor who reported Ronzie.) Glad to see the matter has been solved. Goodnight from me, too ;-)  Channel ®    16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if an account meets the vandalism-only criteria, it does not need a final warning in order to be blocked. Accounts are treated differently from IPs, with good reason. They call me X Really 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:LaGrandefr and the Ming Dynasty

I think the new section I just created on the talk page for Ming Dynasty should interest you. I will post it below here on your talk page as well. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Countering Wang and Nyima's argument, and in extension, LaGrandefr's

Once the protection ban on this article is lifted, I intend to add this to the Tibetan sub-section of the article to counter the argument of Wang and Nyima that Tibet was part of the Ming Empire.

In their argument, Wang and Nyima failed to mention the ongoing civil war between Tibetan lama monasteries during the Ming Dynasty—the two major sects being the "Red Caps" and "Yellow Caps" which employed their own guards of armed monks. Riggs states that the Red Cap sect "tended to look to China for help" while the Yellow Cap Sect was in league with the Western Mongol federation. The fifth high lama of the Yellow Cap sect proclaimed his sect to be the official religion of Tibet in 1642, after his predecessor had been granted the title 'Dalai Lama' by the Western Mongols.

The source used is Riggs, Fred W. "Tibet in Extremis," Far Eastern Survey (Volume 19, Number 21, 1950): 224–230.

If Tibet was an administered part of Ming China, then why did the Ming avoid intervening in this civil war, which, according to User:LaGrandefr, was on their claimed soil? If Tibet was part of the Ming Empire, then how could rivaling sects within their empire be allied with the Oirat Mongols, the enemies of the Ming Dynasty? If the Ming titles granted to leading Tibetan "officials" had any great significance, then why did the Ming court just sit back and watch the Oirat Mongol federation confer titles onto the same Tibetans?

I think User:LaGrandefr, claiming to be an innocent Frenchman, has a PRC political ax to grind in all of his zealous efforts to promote his bogus map while ignoring McKay's book which I cited above, and I'm sure he'll also ignore this as well, because I don't think User:LaGrandefr is here to contribute like other normal Wikipedia editors. In fact, looking at his edit history, he joined recently and all of his edits are focused on this one article. Take a hint, moderators.

One should never politicize history so that it can fit nice and neat with the desires of people in current affairs; I hope LaGrandefr contemplates this before making a response.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)