User talk:PericlesofAthens

• 
  Battle of Normandy, June of '44, quite possibly my favorite pic on Wiki.
• 
  Animated naval gun turret, this pic has to be my favorite animated illustration on wiki.
• 
  Pangea breaking up into the continents we know today. Amazing.

Hey guys, and welcome to my user talk page. Feel free to ask anything on your mind, or any general help with articles. If you would like to look over old talk page discussions, simply view the archive links in the box to the right. -->

If you are looking for my image gallery page, click here.

If you are looking for my minor edits and DYK page, click here.

For the freewebs.com website I maintain that is dedicated to the history of science and technology in China, visit this link here.

Jingkang Incident RV

Hi there, please state your reasoning for the edit. I don't think it was wrong and I don't think it was funny. But I want to improve the article so please let me know where I got wrong (if I did). Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I stand corrected. My invitation to you for contributing to the article still stands. Thanks. TheAsianGURU (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I just updated the article with Infobox Military Conflict. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

(This is probably a stupid thing to do, but...) Ran across your recent run-in with Matisse. Just wanted to note that, contrary to what he/she keeps saying, I have not been in an active dispute with him/her since early November (see Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture), and in fact, I voted against the idea of arbitration because I had disengaged and the dispute was no longer active by that time.

Yeah, I know, Mattisse told me the dispute ended on January 16 or what not.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just on the current issue, I find it a little disturbing that Mattisse keeps on dodging (/denying?) the issue of Caisson = Zaojing and has now "preserved" his/her favoured material about "zaojing" in the Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. I wish he/she would confront the issue and accept the outcome (that the two are the same - or, bring at least some evidence to show that the two are not the same). Sigh. Again, not trying to add fuel to the fire. Happy editing, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Architecturally, it's the same concept; however, from what I understand, in China the "zaojing" carries a significant symbolism (geomantic?) that the coffer or caisson in the west has no parallel for. In any case, I have trouble understanding how the two of you could engage in such an asinine argument for months on end, literally.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I know - which is why the Caisson (Asian architecture) article is only about Chinese/Asian caissons, not the general structure. On the second point, I wonder the same thing. My fault was in insisting that there be only one article on the one topic. But I wish Mattisse would accept that the two are the same, and discuss about its proper naming, rather than creating one identical article or section after another. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Luzon Empire

Hi Pericles! I looked at the history of the Song Dynasty article and noticed that there is an article entitled Luzon Empire created by Ushiwaka. The article describes the historic chronicle of the Yuan Dynasty as fake, and that the last Song emperor Songdi Bing along with Zhang Shijie escaped to the Philippines and established the Luzong Empire or "Lesser Song Empire". Is this for real? I mean it just seem like alternative history to me. If indeed this was just a alternative theory, the article shouldn't even exist, and shouldn't be included as part of Song history.--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was something extremely fishy about it. Though I'm not claiming to be an academic expert, but the theory just sounds too absurd and "alternative" to me. Even if there are some established sources to support this "Luzon Empire" theory, it had to be at least well-known (or simply known) enough to have this kind of article written about it. If it is proven to be just a speculative theory and the article is full of original research, it should certainly be deleted.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ushiwaka's claim sounds like some conspiracy theory to me. Another editor questioned about the claim and he quoted 東西洋考, a book published during Ming Dynasty. (He later deleted the whole comment [1]). I read the relevant pages (the last 2 pages of volume 5; images 44 and 45) but they didn't mention anything about Luzon. But I have to admit the resolution wasn't very good and the text was written in classical Chinese. Hm... it's a pretty tricky business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josuechan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Villani FAC

Hi Pericles, I hope you noticed already, but there have been several comments left at the Giovanni Villani FAC. If you're intending to address the issues, you might want to leave a quick note on the page to let the FAC directors know so that they don't close the nom while you are in progress. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reread the article and left more comments. Sorry it took me a bit to get back to it; I tend to do most of my editing during the week and not on the weekend. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so amenable to chop up your article at the whims of the FA reviewers ;) I think it reads a LOT more clearly now, and you've done a really good job overall on the article (plus you made me laugh at your FAC comments and that is always appreciated). I changed my vote to support. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was the Men in Black who specialized in memory removals? I'm grateful that you've called off the guys in suits/uniforms, regardless of who they are ;) I had moved the comments to the FAC talk page, but Sandy asked me to move them back. She showed me how to do the cute little hide box, so now they are back on the FAC nomination but are not so visible. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Beijing

Hi Pericles, sorry to bother you. There is an user User:Nikkul who recently did a lot of editings to the Beijing article. He also removed the entire "tourism" section, claiming that it is not a travel page. The tourist section was a bit long and lacks proper format. However, I told him that he should instead write a summary about the historical sites/tourist attractions in Beijing, without deleting the whole thing and leave a blank spot. I was wondering if you have time, could you write a section for the article, and sort of expand on that? Thanks!--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like a Cityscape, Sites, or Landmarks section in the Beijing main article (similar to Paris or Saint Petersburg article), and gave some subsections like monuments, parks, temples, etc. What do you think?--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the Mausoleum article btw.

I think the article Beijing probably needs a main section (==Places==) and then some paragraphs and subcategories about specific palaces, temples and parks and stuff (since the city has many well-known sites, it would be just to put up several paragraphs describing the city's locale and places).

I was looking at the online Britannica. However, since that encyclopedia is not free, I can't access to more than a few beginning sentences. Do you have any good references about Beijing in particular?--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image adding

I like the image you added to History of Silk, but in future you should mention in your edit summary that you changed an image and you should not mark changing an image as a minor edit. Thanks, Oreo Priest 12:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

HuoLongJing

Sorry for the late reply, I was very busy for a pretty long while. I do not have the book with me, but I will look for it again when I have the time. Feel free to delete it for me. Gnip 1:59, 7 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nuova Cronica, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

I've nominated Qianling Mausoleum for DYK. Please see how you like the wording of the proposed hook and modify it if you wish. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Giovanni Villani is an FA!

Congratulations!--Kiyarrllston 10:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Burial of Emperor Gaozong/Wu Zetian

It is not quite accurate the way that you worded it in the article for 706. I am revising it. As for the other articles, it's not as problematic, but feel free to modify in conformance thereof if you wish. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Qianling Mausoleum

On 15 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Qianling Mausoleum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert or not?

Hi! I want to hear your judgment to select whose revision of Religion in China; Angelo or Saimdusan:

[2]

Thank you so much!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with You

I agree with you regarding the issue of medicine in China. Can you help us cleaning Christian POV pushings in articles about Christianity and Christianity in China? Please read this article and its talk page. --Esimal (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Lingyan Temple, Pizhi Pagoda

On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Lingyan Temple, and Pizhi Pagoda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK selectors gave me this note by mistake earlier today. This should be yours. BTW, good job on the two new articles. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ming sex

I do confess I came across your dialog on the China History Forum and poked at the article to provoke a bit. I have mixed feelings about your intention to separate the material into a culture section. I would certainly suggest a bare mention in the article itself,something on the order that sexuality was commercialized and that males were particularly valued, with a link to a separate article, just so readers would have at least a hint of what awaited them.

As you probably noticed, there is some relevant material in the Pederasty#China article, including the illustration titled "The Way of the Academicians." Haiduc (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How could it have been repugnant if it was the fashion of the upper class? Haiduc (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Qianling Mausoleum

The article Qianling Mausoleum you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Qianling Mausoleum for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

George Washington

Go ahead, I don't mind. I don't own any articles. Cheers, and good luck, Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Hongfan

Zhang Hongfan was never a general of Song Dynasty and surrendered. He was a general of the Yuan Dynasty from the beginning.--64.56.255.95 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)