User talk:Gun Powder Ma/User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 01

{talkarchive}}

Welcome

Hello, Gun Powder Ma/User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I draw your attention especially to the following when editing articles and talk pages:

• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Etiquette
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:WikiLawyering

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make goofy mistakes, here is a guide to what Wikipedia is not. Please always sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date so that others will know who left which comments. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Have a great day!
Arbo talk 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

24h

You have been temporarily prevented from editing Wikipedia following this report. Thanks for your comprehension, and I look forward to seeing you editing again in the near future. yandman 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Also, in the future you should "assume good faith" and avoid personal attacks. Your message to me did not make me want to work with you at all. I was here to help improve an article that had very little content, and you have effectively prevented that. Please make an effort to be a more kind and considerate wikipedian in the future. Thanks. And again, apologies if I was too bold myself. Citynoise 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

List of domes

Apologies for my edits; it looked to me like that page had been long-abandoned.. lists with no entries, huge gaps in historical time, awkward grammar and prose all around. (It seemed to me like it was translated directly from the German page. There was no talk page at all to the article; this suggested to me that very few people were involved with it.) I was trying to make it consistent with other lists -- having one major list of domes, ordered in an intuitive way. The "sortable wikitable" also made it possible to include information on continents in the same table as everything else -- in fact I cut out no information, but put it all into one table instead of seven or eight small ones. I added some more recent domes, and made it clear that one dome hasn't been the largest since 1781. But I liked the idea of having a separate table for historical record-holders, so I kept that. Frankly, I found it very difficult to get any information from the previous page, and was trying to help by being bold. But it looks like you are very attached to the page, and I have no patience for edit wars. So it's all yours. Good luck with it! I hope it improves. Citynoise 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to care for the article which, in fact, was drafted and launched under consultation with a WP moderator. Sorry for my blunt language, I just had the feeling that your bold edits did not respect the work of others. Kind regards and let's move on Gun Powder Ma 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not going to work on the article.Citynoise 16:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant you move on to your pages, and I to mine. ;-) I am going to expand the article a bit. Regards Gun Powder Ma 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan

Please vote for the Kamal Haasan article to become an article to be improved to be featured here, Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Kamal Haasan Thamizhan 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Article edits

There seems to be some complaints regarding your edits as demostrated by most of your efforts being reverted, and also no one seeming to agree with you on article talk pages. I ask you to look over a few of our guidleines and policies here including no original research, reliable sources and verifiability. But one thing that struck me about your edits was the interesting but rare immediate use of edit summaries and your quick mastery of citation styles [1]. Thanks.--MONGO 10:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I am only interested in serious research as you can see from my recent contributions on the 'spread of printing' and such. User Evertype complained, right? So far, other than in indulging in a rough tone, he has not contributed a single source, while I have already contributed two (I also contributed definitions from the Encyclopedia Britannica). These were from serious scientific publications, which means I fulfilled the criteria of reliable sources and verifiability. Gun Powder Ma 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I reedited 'printing press'. The printing press is a separate device from movable type, let alone woodblock printing. To include these sections is not just a matter of opinion, it is factually WRONG. Please check out Encarta where they got it right and distinguished precisly between movable type and the printing press. When you want to become Wiki a more knowledgeable place, you would not reedit my edit, until someone comes up with a hard proof of the existence of printing presses in East Asia prior to Gutenberg. Gun Powder Ma 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

stop

Stop reverting the page. the pd does not belong in there. Everyone except you agrees. Enough. I though you and i had reached some kind of agreement on this.I set up history of printing in east asia so you could put all the asian material there., Please do so. If you move it, I'll put in a sentence & a link. If you put the pd material in pd, I will put in a sentence & a link. You are messing up the work of a number of people, because we cant edit the page and put in more material until it becomes stable. DGG 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I added in talk: printing the paragraph: The printing press was not invented in East Asia. I hate to say that, but I was right all along with my contention that

• movable type and woodblock printing were separate inventions from the printing press
• the printing press was not invented in East Asia

And I will try to come back with more sources which call the PD 'printing'. Gun Powder Ma 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA Request

Hello Gun Powder Ma. I saw your request. The page you created was speedied under G1, patent nonesence. If you do want to write an article, how about starting in userspace? Make it in a sandbox, like User:Gun Powder Ma/sandbox, and then ask if it's a good enough article. Just try writing it there, then contact me and I'll check it to see if it warrents an article. If it needs some fixes, I'll tell you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not made any replies, but are active. Do you still require advocacy? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still planing to write the article, but my sources show in several cases slightly different numbers. Not by much, by 1 or 2 meters, but enough to hamper rankings. In addition, I have only collected material about 5, 6, 7 ancient domes which would only cover the time period up to the 17th century at most. Therefore, I am still hesitant. Any idea how to tackle that problem, especially the first one? Gun Powder Ma 23:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice would still be to start the article in a personal sandbox. Once the article is fully written, then move it to the mainspace. Differences in numbers can be said in the article. Something like "one souce says this, but another souce says this". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

seriously, why?

Dear Ma, in a perfectly friendly way, I really want to know why you think the PD might be printing, and why views saying so belong here, rather than the PD page, which includes a great number of interpretations, among which printing is not the least likely by far. Do you think the object is apt to be overlooked by those who might be interested? A see also will do that--the name is unusual enough to appeal to the curious. Do you think the object actually is the start of a historical tradition? The complete absence of anything possibly following from it would make this doubtful. But do you seriously think it might have been part of a local technological tradition, of which no traces remain, just as no traces remain of the script? Statements like that are always impossible to absolutely deny, & anyone interested in any aspect of the PD must hope that some further relevant object might be found.

By analogy, if it has any connection with printing it would be expected that other cultures might have invented something of the sort for the purpose. But they don't seem to have done so, while movable type, for example does seem to have been invented twice, and for basically similar reasons. Similarly the script has at least some analogies, for a few of the characters are found elsewhere, and there have been many discoveries of unique examples of a script, -- both from the same general period.

The general concepts of stamping and marking do need a full presentation, and do not seem to have one here. To take the most obvious case, there's much more known about making coins , recently and in antiquity, than WP has about it. (I can't think why, since there are certainly many knowledgeable amateurs, and plenty of documentation.) But the first coins are 1000 years later than the PD. I have no knowledge about possible use of stamping otherwise.

I probably won't get to the NES article you rely for another week--have you read it--could you quote the key pts?

I will certainly support you in getting a suitable 1-sentence mention & the citation in where they should go. DGG 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 21 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taccola, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

tags in article

I have every bit as much doubt about the facts in the quotation as you do; I have read the Christensen article, and he refers elsewhere for sources--it is just a popularization. I haven't started looking for the sources yet. If he doesn't help, we could at least break up or rearrange the quotation, maybe, to avoid giving the impression that it is more than just talk. DGG 06:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Amate

Why should this be in the lead para & papyrus not? No wonder so many of your edits get reverted when they are this cavalier. I'll leave it myself, but I think we both know it won't be there for long Johnbod 15:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Because papyrus is no paper at all? If anything, then the line refering to the 4 great inventions should be taken out from the entry, since I do not see at all why the independent Maya invention should be kept out, only to give more space to the stance of a single historian (Needham). And I am afraid it is pretty often you who just edits my entries without further consultation which is bad style. Anyway, as a sign of good will I am going to shorten the entry. Gun Powder Ma 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- I must say I can't see why papyrus is not paper! It is much more clearly so the the dreaded PD is printing anyway. Johnbod 17:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the papryus issue aside...I can't see how you can be against an Amate entry in the introduction, considering that the article is about the history of papermaking...? Why don't you cut out the secondary Needham quote then, if you are so concerned with brevity. I find it curious that you are so concerned with bringing in East Asian typography in every article about printing (even to the point of changing the title of an article!), but at the same time blocking out a simple entry on Mesoamerican paper in an introduction. Isn't this a double standard? Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

- well if amate is in the lead para, then papyrus should also be. But I don't think either belong there, since they are covered perfectly well not much further down, & I don't think 'dead-end' parallel inventions should go in a lead para. I really have very little interest in or knowledge of "East Asian typography", but I am concerned to balance NPOV and accuracy with a sense of relevance & proportion Johnbod 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if "dead end inventions" have little place in the article, then we most certainly have to comb through quite a few articles relating to printing, where people tried to squeeze in an entry on the died out Eastern typography, even in articles relating directly to Gutenberg asprinting press. Specifically, your suggestion to change the title of the article "spread of printing" makes then no sense altogether. I will cut out the part "in the new world" to make the sentence again shorter, and I hope this will suffice. Regards Gun Powder Ma 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Papyrus article simply says "Papyrus is an early form of paper ..." We don't have to do all of this ourselves; there are some good WP articles besides the ones we have worked on:)DGG 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An Update on you AMA Case

I got in touch with an admin, who was nice enough to undelete the page and move it to my userspace so I could look at it. It's located right now at User:Royalguard11/WLD. From what I can tell, the speedy tag was put on by an IP about 2 1/2 hours after you made the page. From my standpoint (and after asking another editor too), I believe that the page was deleted as a mistake after a speedy tag was put on it. Just make sure that you source the article with reliable sources. I think it would make a good article once it's done. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the page now exists at List of the world's largest domes, with the history merged and all. I was just asked to make sure that you use the "move" button for now on for pagemoves (it's at the top by edit). If you no longer require advocacy, then I'd encourage you to fill out the Followup on the request page. Good luck with the article! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Oval Cupola.of the Decagon (Completed 1227), St. Gereon's Basilica, Cologne, Germany.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oval Cupola.of the Decagon (Completed 1227), St. Gereon's Basilica, Cologne, Germany.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

lets leave the sections alone for a bit

I basically agree with you that the EA content should go in the EA section with the minimum of references elsewhere, but it will be easier to make a case for this when all the sections have more content. Please let them in for a while--it will be just as easy to deal with them in january when i will have time to add the content, and you also will have added more. They are not actually doing harm. DGG 03:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How i look forward to the possiblility of a single day without defending the G and assciated articles. :)DGG 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

just to keep things straight

Ma, did you archive the earlier part of your user talk page before Oct28 or whatever?--I'm trying to find something I think I may have written there,07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\

Don't know what you mean about archiving, but I have not deleted one word here, I can assure you. :-) Gun Powder Ma 14:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, in your user contributions there are edits referred to from Sept 3 for cannon, and from Sept 23 for printing. In your user talk there is nothing recorded in the history before oct. 30, and no items actually there dated before Dec 7, though I can reconstruct others from the page history, There seem to be gaps. The only way I know this to be possible if you were editing under another name. I am asking for clarifying my own edits because there's some talk I cant seem to find.DGG 07:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For a long time, there was no action on my user page. So Oct. 30 could about right. Again, I did not delete anything and won't do so in future. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Never thought you had. I'm still hunting for my stuff, because Im getting ready to archive the first pat of my own. (& I used the tag as a sort of compromise, in the hope that the other two wouldnt be reinserted.)DGG 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:"Grosse Deutscheland"

The main talk page policys are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope we will never actually need admin involvement on the printing and related articles, but if it did, the person who loses their temper the first & the most generally does not do well. It's relatively hard to judge the intrinsic merits of edits on a specialized page, but very easy to judge what words were used in discussing them. A sign of understanding might be to use strikethrough for comments one regrets having made. that's <s> before and </s> after. DGG 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Printing press

No problem with your "compromise proposal". How about mine in Talk spread of printing? Regards Johnbod 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons given there I do not think it would constitute an improvement. However, we could place the various countries under the category 'Holy Roman Empire' (Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic, etc.). Gun Powder Ma 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That has been discussed too - what about Italian bits, Lorraine etc. Czech lands were ruled by the Emperor as King of Bohemia, but not then part of the HRE itself (also discussed before). How many readers will have a clear idea of what the HRE then consisted of? Actually you haven't commented on the proposal there at all Johnbod 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

See "names in general" for my comments. Just for the sake of simplicity, I propose to lead the discussion there. Gun Powder Ma 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You made me laugh

After reading all your mottos, I saw: "Mottos suck, lets get down to business. ;-)" --Leo 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Stern-mounted steering oar of a Roman Boat (RG Museum Koeln, Germany).JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Stern-mounted steering oar of a Roman Boat (RG Museum Koeln, Germany).JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hist. of typog. EA

Please don't get excited, but I have added all the east-asia relevant material from the movable type page to the HTEA page without removing it from the MT page, with the intention of centralizing all the material there. (next step is to summarize the pt. on the MT p., as long desired, but I want to get some missing citations first--see that p.)But I see we have a visitor again. DGG 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Take your time. :-) And please do not forget that obsolete EA printing section in "Johannes Gutenberg". Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

and everything else I can find :)DGG 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Characters

Gun powder, you need to check your history. First of all, your own source online gives a date of 1300 B.C. aside from other sources which are more current and secondly, to suggest that the inscriptions found are a living, readable writing system is irresponsible and erroneous. It is not a current writing system and as the article that I cited suggests, no non-archeology professional would be able to read or interpret the symbols. I will restore the information that I added to the article to embellish its history. I will however modify my edit to include your reference to its possibility of being the oldest SURVIVING writing system, although written in a fashion that readers will not mistake the meaning of that misleading statement. Stevenmitchell 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checked all three sources again (Boltz, Keightley and deFrancis) and they unanimously give "1200-1050 BC" for the oracle-bone inscriptions of the Late Shang dynasty. Since that date has been frequently a point of contention, I was particularly careful to give three references of credible authors, so please do not change it unless you have much better sources. As for the rest, nobody says that the OBI need to be readable to Chinese speakers today to be taken as Chinese script. What counts is that there is an unbroken line from 1200 BC to 2000 AD of the Chinese script. That makes it 'perhaps the oldest surviving writing system'. Gun Powder Ma 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Floating Dock. Woodcut included in the 'Descrittione' of Venice 1560.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Floating Dock. Woodcut included in the 'Descrittione' of Venice 1560.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironclad

Please make sure that all the one are agreed with your split before you making such a great change.I didn't mean that you haven't a point.But you should really to respect all the opinions for this article.--Ksyrie 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been put forward several options as to how we could proceed as of 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC), that is for ten days now. Regards Gun Powder Ma 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Turtle Ship article the way you want it. I have been reverting your edits and that will not continue. You have not discussed in any way on the the talk page as to how to word it and/or discuss evidences of iron on the Turtle Ship. The article has been stable for most of the time before, and I don't understand why there has to be such a motivation to weaken the Korean position on the ironclad claim. Having a general acceptance means that there is a controversy since not everyone agrees with it. Good friend100 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, general acceptance means that there is a "controversy" going on?!? I am acquainted with Latin, English, Spanish, German and French and in all these languages the respective words (which all derive from Latin) do NOT mean that. Please look up what "generally" in English really means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generally Please stop making up such sweeping original research claims. Regards Gun Powder Ma 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of Floating Dock

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Floating_Dock._Woodcut_included_in_the_%27Descrittione%27_of_Venice_1560.jpg
I think the tag is fine because there are other images of woodcuts from Venice from about the same era. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Avicenna_princeps.jpg My example uses the same tag I did and about 40s years difference. I couldn't find the image in the commons probably because I wasn't using the right key terms. Kolrobie 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kolrobie. I believe, too, that the tag is fine. I just took the tag from the pic away for tactical reasons: I want the pic to be automaticly deleted, in order to replace it with the one at WP Commons, because I know no other way how to do it (obviously, right now we have two the very same pictures at Wiki). Do you? Regards Gun Powder Ma 11:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironclads

I've referenced my quote (which I'd previously mentioned on the talk page). I think it's very useful, because I think it's important for the Ironclad warship article and for Battleship not to get too bogged down in semantics, because naval classification is never very consistent. The Land 18:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. What do we do now with Pre-industrial armoured ships? I created the page to accomodate the EA material, but now it is kind of treated like a step-child. Delete or not? Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting it might, in the long run, be the right answer. However I'd leave it for a while to avoid unnecessary provocation... The Land 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PD

Why do you ask me how to handle the PD material after you have already inserted it in at least one article? Anyway, I read your edit to movable type. Glad to know you're not unique. First, the material, and then where to put it. Sounds like opinion, but to see what substantiates the opinion I'll have to read the article. (quoted opinion is fine, but the emphasis depends on the context & authoritativeness & the evidence.) ( I may not get to read it until next week, as I have RW stuff to get out. Fortunately, the nearer of my univs. has both titles. (I suppose I can manage 5 pp. of academic humanities German, though in general I've avoided using the GJ. The best bio of G is also in Ger, but 2 vols. is too much. ). The way to do it is the way you did, to rely on the quotes. I can understand your being exuberant, but remove the cquote emphasis. For the Schwartz quote, on the other hand, you should put in more than just 3 words to show the context. I also suggest that you do not emphasize the two millennia, etc, its clear enough without the editorializing.

Now where. You cannot put the full quotes in more than once. You may remember some discussions with somebody else about doing this with material from another part of the world. One place in full, and then the others get a sentence and a main| link. More than that looks like POV pushing--as does typographical emphasis. Remember, I am by no means the person who doubts this the most, so the safest place is PD. I think a good section on this is now perfectly defensible there, and you could even put 2 longish quotes in as a footnote. Then you can put a para in both printing and m.t. referring to that aspect, with the link. I'm trying to suggest this in such a way as to avoid an edit war among others. Anything more would be like putting in a log section of Coster--for there is enough material to say and some authoritative people to quote (speaking of him, the way might be to do articles on him, & on other early printers.). And, what was that third place you mentioned? Congratulations. DGG 03:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find the exact quote at the German page about the PD (Diskos von Phaistós). I do not want to discourage you, but I have to tell you that Brekel's German is very professoral, which needs quite a good command of German. Basically the quote is what he has to say about the PD (the article also features a pic of the PD). The important thing is that he is a recognized scholar publishing recently (1997) in a recognized journal an article which directly addresses the subject of what defines typography. Since he gave on the anterior page a definition of typography, I feel his stance that the PD is printing, even movable type printing, is worth the entry here.

I agree with your policy of putting quotes only once in. But on the other hand I have no idea how to address the subject appropiately in "Printing" and "Movable type" without a direct quote. Do you?

As for Schwartz, he - and Faure also - refers passingly to the imprinted dies as "movable type", since he, as most scholars, is primarily interested in the decipherment. The idea of including him is showing that Brekel is not alone with his opinion, but that there are other scholar around sharing the same stance, though they, unlike Brekel, do not care about giving exact definitions. Therefore only the one-liner. which I think is sufficient for the time-being. Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Timeline of underwater technology

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Gun Powder Ma! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

G

OK you did it. I took care of some of the things you forgot, and i think we have a text that can be defended in this respect. I assume others will help us. I strongly suggest the gentlest possible reply if challenged, & perhaps I might make it, so as to be defending you, not you defending yourself. DGG 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

Hi, GPM.

I did make a change to the content of the passage in Zheng He about Dr. Lee's theory that the Chinese fleet reached North America. I resisted the temptation to just delete the whole thing, but do not want to discuss it at length either. I'd value your opinion.

BTW, what a great user page! I will probably steal all your quotes. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not hold copyrights on them. ;-) Your edits have been already undone. Better provide a source for your view and put the page for some time on your watchlist. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg etc.

Please do not push too hard on either a/the prominent inclusion of the PD---you have found 2 and only 2 quotes asserting it as MT among the dozens of other PD hypotheses. Sure, leave it in. But uncertain matters like this do not go in the lede. As for the para on EA--for which there are much better authorities than for the PD including the most notable encyclopedic work & the most notable current popularizer--it is much much wiser to leave it in a small way than fight about it again.

What I am suggesting amounts to "live and let live". Please don't risk the loss of the rationality you & I (& others have finally established after all these months. DGG 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After talking with your friend, we agreed to insert the PD at 'movable type' - where there was an entry on it already before. If you feel, there is a more balanced way of phrasing the two-liner please go ahead. For the time being, there is no plan to insert the PD in any more articles. :-)

I agree MT is the place to put it, but I am going to read the 2 articles myself & then see if I can find later articles/books criticizing the earlier ones to judge acceptance, but that is a bigger job than it sounds unless I get lucky. .

As for the conjecture on the supposed influence of EA printing, though, I have given enough reasons at the various talk pages why this constituted POV pushing. For example, I once gave a detailed account, backed up with sources, that Christensens talks bullocks. Still, the full quote has mysteriously been reincluded in History of EA typography! This does not confrom to encyclopedia standards. Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus that G. was the inventor and without direct EA influence, but 1/ there is a minority viewpoint supported by reputable work.

2/ Further, there is no consensus that some relationship is impossible, just that it it not yet proven. Given that, the C viewpoint must be included proportionately. C. is a reputable scholar, even though you & I agree he's going far beyond the data, since i am not quite sure you & I are qualified to pass judgment. & I think my view here would be generally accepted as basic NPOV. Do you have any source specifically critiquing his conclusions? His work must therefore be included fully in the HEAT article, and mentioned in the others. I am glad to see that others have agreed with me here.DGG 07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

C. presents things as "certain" which I have shown not to be be so. That is not acceptable. Also, you seem to be of the opinion that a balanced article needs differing viewpoints REGARDLESS of their intrinsic value. I am not of that opinion, I do not think that one has to give those who deny the holocaust just as much room as those who acknowledge it, that is not the definition of 'balanced' article which we have to follow in an encyclopedia. Finally, the quote was already for two months taken out from the article, so it is actually not me who is acting against an established consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ma, I strongly object to your characterising my edit back to the concensus version as "POV pushing". As you know, I don't believe in the Asian transmission theory at all, and never have, and have supplied some of the arguments you have used against it (not always entirely accurately). But like other editors, I think it is sufficiently widely known and discussed to need some brief coverage here, referring to other articles. That was the previous consensus which you have typically and regretably decided to break without prior discussion. Johnbod 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I too do not believe in the Asian transmission theory, but I see no need to pretend it doesn't exist. I'd have restored the quote earlier had I noticed, but I was assuming that the article was stable & that there was no need to check from day to day.

But the suggestion that C's position is erroneous is OR in the classic sense--none of us has the standing to accept or reject arguments on the basis of our own unpublished determinations of their validity. If one of us can write a response, and get it published in a source of similar reliability, I think we all would be delighted to cite it and include a quotation--in addition to C's existing quote. To remove his on the basis of invalidity, it would be necessary to publish saying that his view was invalid to the point that the author's position should not be regarded as academically acceptable--and then demonstrate that it did in fact result in this consensus among oriental art experts. Even then probably it should remain included, with a note to the effect that it was no longer believed. I am not happy with calling trivial correlation of data OR, but preventing the use of personal research to promulgate this sort of decisions is exactly why the principal was established. DGG 00:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

DGG & Johnbod,

That was not the consensus. The consensus was to wait until DGG had finished his restructuring of the Gutenberg article, which I did. It is rather me who feels that a consensus was broken, to be honest. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT against including material on a possible Asian transmission, but I am

• against including amateurish or even wrong comments like Christensen's (better waith until we have some good, qualified comments).
• against plastering the transmission theory all over the place. Now we have FOUR places where the theory is discussed
  • Johannes Gutenberg
  • Printing
  • History of typography in East Asia
  • Movable type

That is definitely too much for so thin a theory. I chose the Johannes Gutenberg article, since the EA material there is IMO the most displaced regardless of its accuracy. I know both of you are very active in the printing section, but I am doing more work in the history of technology branch here, and I can assure you that such a situation is unique. If people started making assumptions just on the basis of temporal priority, the articles on most inventions would have to be rewritten, I can assure you. So what do we do? The status quo is untenable.

(This is btw callled the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: It cannot be logically excluded that JG was influenced by EA printing (unless we would have an unreal situation of complete information concerning his life and work), BUT common sense nevertheless dictates that the burden of proof lies with the transmission theorists.) Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's see where we are. If you noticed the Gutenberg talk page today you will realize that another ed. is trying to push the material in the exact opposite direction. this is why I think there needs to be a reasonable compromise. compromises always are in delicate balance/. There is a great deal of material I would remove if I had my way with the article, and it is not the same as what you would do.

1. Christensen has to stay until you can prove him not a RS. When you have a published comment critical of him, it can be added, but it is not our place to arbitrate academic quarrels. He is an apparent authority, and it is WP:POINT to try to say otherwise. Whether you or I agree with him is irrelevant, as we have no basis for adding our own views until we can first publish them.
2. This all the more so about the influence of EA on Germany. I have read the secondary literature by now; I have not actually examined the primary sources nor do I have the language ability necessary to do so. I've seen a few GBs; I've never studied them. I am a librarian with bibliographic interests, not a qualified analytical bibliographer. But it wouldn't matter if I were, unless I myself published on the subject. And the same goes for you. Christensen has. And that is why his views matter, and your view and my view do not matter, as far as WP is concerned.
3. What we all possess is common sense. Unfortunately, the conclusions we draw from this are not the same: yours' is not to include unproven hypotheses, and mine is not to exclude them. My common sense is that strange things happen as trade fairs. I just remind you that the whole subject of Chinese-European contacts is full of traps for common sense, e.g. Marco Polo, etc. Therefor the only think to do is to be catholic in what is included, but to do so proportionately to the scholarly consensus, not proportional to our views. I started out on WP not really convinced of NPOV, but editing this topic has fully persuaded me that it is the only reliable guide.
4. As for balance, I will look again. its always good to look again. I like making adjustments in slow stages. I think it absolutely reasonable that a sentence and a ref. to the main article on EA should be in all of the printing related articles, because we cannot tell what article a reader will encounter. But even if I think the balance is a little off, remember the pushes in the other direction. Neither I nor you nor you own the article, and the only way to keep it stable is to let everyone have their hobby horse.
5. the most useful thing to do now, actually, is to correct the real imbalance: there is not enough EA detailed material on the EA page. That would also be the place for a full discussion of all the hypotheses of transmission, both the likely and the unlikely. Alternatively, we can start finding details for spread of printing--which book, etc. DGG 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello DGG. Concerning your view that "Therefore the only think to do is to be catholic in what is included, but to do so proportionately to the scholarly consensus, not proportional to our views", I absolutely share your view: To include an unproven hypothesis in FOUR OUT OF FOUR articles is too much. Actually, I think three articles is already too much, but I am aware as well as one always meets in the middle, that is everybody has to compromise.

And look, DGG, you saw it yourself: people are keeping away from the original EA typography article, but try at the same time to spread their prop material rather NONTOPICAL in other articles like the Gutenberg one. I will keep away from the JG article for the moment in order to not disturb your work there, but I remain definitely of the opinion that the EA transmission hypothesis, as totally unproven as it is, has no place there. In the other three articles, alright, but not there. Regards & good luck Gun Powder Ma 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking your original point, of the four articles covering possible transmission:

• The main discussion, such as it is, is naturally in the East Asia article
• Movable type has two lines saying there is no evidence.
• Printing has a one line bald statement that there is no evidence
• JG has the current short section.

- I don't see how this can be called excessive. The question of transmission is, as we know, alive in the "popular mind", whatever scholars think. Attempts to censor all refererence to it in obviously relevant places will only mean an endless battle against usually not-well-informed editors who think it has just been overlooked. We have already seen this in a brief space of time, and I have seen the same thing in other subjects. We did not get this while the previous status quo was in place. You may not like it being in at all, but the matter should be addressed. It could only be described as being "discussed" in one place - the East Asia article. 1/2? of the other references need linking to this, which I will do. Johnbod 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wollaton Waggonway

I note your edit to the above page. Whilst the edited change you made does not justify the making of a reversion back to the previous version your statement in the edit comments that the waggonway is a German invention should be corrected as it is false. Like all researchers into early railways I concur that underground hund technology was of Germanic origin but that was not a waggonway and the hund system design was impractical for development into lengthy overland use. The accepted view is that the waggonway is of English origin although possibly inspired by hunds. There may be some doubt amongst historians as to whether this breakthrough first occured, but without surviving provenance, on the banks of the Severn or at a place as yet unknown prior to Beaumont's line in Nottinghamshire but it is in England where this event undoubtedly occured.

Johnrnew 15:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gun Powder Ma

PericlesofAthens here; it's nice to see your contributions to wikipedia so far. I share the same sentiment about haughty "sinocentric" views (especially in terms of the printing press, although woodblock and moveable type were efficient enough for their day in East Asia). However, I have been doing lots of editing on Chinese history related articles, since I feel there is a general lacking in many (check out my lists of edits, expansions, and creation of 1 article so far, here: [2]). I feel most proud in my additions so far to the articles on Zhang Heng and the Southern and Northern Dynasties. Also, check out this stub article I have recently expanded on Ma Jun, it is rather good, with excellent info from Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China.

Take care, --PericlesofAthens 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pericles, nice to see you here. I surfed a bit through your edits...no offense intended, but do you think it is appropiate to include Chinese material in the life of Eratosthenes? Does that mean we also have to include Greek material in an article on Zheng Hang? Also, I feel legendary material like the supposed invention of a south pointing chariot 2000 vears before the actual invention had been done has little place in an encyclopedia or should we now also include Icarus in an article on the history of aviation? ;-) Regards

Actually, there are mentioning of Greeks in Zhang Heng's article (Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes). In retrospect, I suppose it really doesn't belong in Eratosthenes' article, so I deleted the part about Zhang Heng (considering that Zhang Heng is already described in the article armillary sphere).

Oh, and are you talking about the Yellow Emperor legend? I never included that. I added the info about Ma Jun only, because of what is related in the Sanguo Zhi and in Fu Xuan's testimony. In Ma Jun's article the Yellow Emperor is mentioned once, but only in the context of Ma Jun's fellow court ministers hazing and teasing him about his beliefs that historical accounts of it were true. To tell you the truth, I probably would have done the same! Sorry, ghost of Ma Jun! I hope he forgives me in the afterlife. Lol.

Icarus? Haha! That makes me smile. ;)

--PericlesofAthens 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pericles, may I give you a small advice. Try not to post the same stuff in several articles, it is against WP guidelines (I committed the same mistake at the beginning). Better work with links. Regards Gun Powder Ma 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Can you send me an (empty) email. Just for (re)establishing contact, I have a question to you. Gun Powder Ma 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would, but the email that you sent me (I believe it was about Ricardo Duchesne's article Asia First) was so long ago it's buried in the eons of time (of my hotmail email that is, lol). Sorry, but you can ask me any question here if you'd like, or on my discussion page at User talk:PericlesofAthens.

--PericlesofAthens 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw your contribution list...has your university closed down or have you left your girl-friend or what? Do you sleep at night...just for a change?

No, seriously, how much was your Science & Civilisation compendium and where did you buy it? And how many volumes?

PS: Do me a favour and do not make Aunt Wiki a branch office of Needham's. His book is already a bit dated (partly 40-50 years), and to be honest, I have my issues with his unremeediable scientism, diffusionism and partial views. Why don't you take more recent reserach from the new - and less prone to scientism - generation of sinologists. ;-) Regards Gun Powder Ma 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You're Funny

"Well, I saw your contribution list...has your university closed down or have you left your girl-friend or what? Do you sleep at night...just for a change?"

Are you kidding me? Not only are most of the articles I have edited minor edits (one or two sentence additions, one embedded picture added, random grammatical mistakes corrected), but this entire week I have had to sit at my computer reading texts online for class, since I have had two tests this week and a major paper due, all immediately after Spring Break (which was last week). In reality, I slacked and did no work over Spring Break, only got drunk with friends, went to a concert at a nightclub in Alexandria, or took care of errands here and there. As for tonight, I plan on getting absolutely smashed and ****faced off some Johnny Walker, hells yeah.

There are, however, 6 articles that I gave large amount of attention to and truly expanded.

The Science and Civilization in China series was a special and rare Christmas gift given to me by my folks last December, and they got it off ebay or amazon for about 500 bucks (by far the largest and most expensive present). I felt kind of bad, since I only spent about 60 or 70 bucks on them total (cuz I had to get gifts for my bro and sis too, and got some friends some liquor).

As to your P.S. (with just a dash and a hint of passive-aggressiveness): no, I will do you no such favor, and nor do I plan on making wikipedia.org a site called Josephneedham.org; besides, your issues with "scientism, diffusionism, and partial views" should have no basis with Needham and his life's work. Out of the three, the outdated term 'Scientism' for Needham probably makes the most sense, since, after all, he was a biochemist (and a damn good one at that). However, Needham didn't ignore issues of the social sciences at all, something you would know if you read his work (which I'm assuming you haven't). Diffusionism in pre-modern Eurasia seems to be a sore spot for you for some reason (tired of Chinese and Koreans saying they invented printing, perhaps? How dare they lessen the work of Johannes Gutenberg! Lol). However, Needham is very descriptive on every issue presented, relating examples of almost every other civilization and their achievement before getting down to 'brass tax' so to speak on a Chinese equivalent or relative achievement. The latter can be applied to your false notion of his "partial views", which, after reading a good chunk of his work, is pretty confusing to me to say the least.

For the most part, Needham's work is not outdated (although in the decades after the 60s there has been much discovery in China in the field of archeology, which has brought to light treasures of their past that Needham did not mention because they were unknown at the time). On that note, I will continue to quote Needham as needed, since I only have in my possession a few other decent sources committed to solely to Chinese science and technology, which are trumped and dwarfed by the size and brevity of Needham's volumes.

On a side note, check out my expansion to the article Song Dynasty, on the section I created for the Southern Song navy. Needham's quote there is excellent.

--PericlesofAthens 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Alexandria? Bugger off, Cleopatra is my toy! Yeeaah, lets play. :-D And I consider JN as sinocentric when he writes that the Chinese were the greatest sailors of all time (sic) and had dominated science and technology for full 1500 years (1-1500 AD (sic)). IMO he sails under a false flag pretending to be for international understanding, but actually psuhing heavily his sinocentric agenda. Even his inofficial 'biographer' Robert Finley said that he was (quote) "always eager to inflate Chinese achievements". I just returned from a three week trip to China last Sunday and bought some Chinese books which rely on his works. If you like I can quote sometime from them...."the modern world is a creation of China and the West"..."China lead the world for most of history" and sick stuff like that. Maybe I am a bit unjust to Needham as I have received much of his work through his stout sinocentric adlatus R. Temple, but you will agree with me at least that none of Needham's many diffusionist thesises (rudder, 'escapement mechanism', etc.) have been since accepted by mainstream historians - all Chinese transmission which are now largely accepted (gunpowder, paper anyway, etc.) have been already before recognized by a substantial part of Western scholars. That is food for thought. Have fun tonight. :-) Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued

Lol, you can have Cleopatra, all she does is cause trouble! Seriously though, Alexandria (Virginia) is a cool town, especially the old part of town (which of course pales in comparison to what is considered "old" in any German town, such as Koln for example ;) ).

JN said they were the best sailors? I must not have read enough of Volume 4, Part 3: Nautics, yet (although I have covered some ground in it). Any speculation or opinion that Needham provides any subject is sparse and few within the virtual vast sea of info on historical text and scientific dissertation, that much is true no matter from whos perspective.

Saying that China dominated science for 1500 years is silly and absurd, since it does not take into account thousands of variables to consider in Korea, Japan, India, the Islamic world, Europe, or even Axum in Ethiopia as far as I'm concerned (lol). In some ways scientific discoveries in the 10th and 11th century Abbasid realm of Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Persians were ahead of China, with access to Greek classics and influence of Neo-Platonism (plus a good amount of contributions of their own, example: Jabir ibn Hayyan). However, in other ways, China was ahead of the Islamic world at the same time. It's a tug-of-war game that no one should put absolutist-type labels on in describing either's achievements, because the real situation of anything dealing with science is always complicated.

As to what Chinese books say, "China lead the world for most of history", statements like this (even for people who admire Chinese history like me) confuse and anger me to a good extent. First off, China never 'led' anything except for cultural, political, and martial influence over Vietnam, Korea, Japan, etc., this much is true. Yet China had little knowledge of the West, it's Greek and Roman past, until recent centuries, and what they understood of the Islamic and South Asian (India) worlds was still limited in total scope. In addition, what do you expect from books published in a country run by the CPC?

It is not known whether the rudder was diffused to Europe from China. I can't really say much about the subject, as I haven't read extensively into it. As for the escapement mechanism, this is something that in all likely scenarios was an indigenous invention of both China and then Europe, and separate accounts that had no influence from one to the other. In fact, Needham does not assert a diffusionist stance on this as you suggest. Here is what Needham says (the tail end of his description about Europe):

"As for the verge-and-foliot escapement, Fremont must surely be right in his suggestion that it derived from the radial bob-type of fly-wheel. This became associated with the upper ends of the worms of Hellenistic screw-presses, originally used for making wine or oil, when later on, in the 15th century, they began to print books. In the +16th century (AD) and probably earlier, it was used to assist crank action. The originality lay in its combination with the pallets and crown-wheel so that it oscillated back and forth rather than continuously turning. Now one of the greatest mysteries of the early European clocks was the origin of the escapement principle. For a long time it was thought to appear in a strange design found in the notebook of Villard de Honnecourt about +1237 (AD), where a cord carrying weights at each end is wound round two axles, one vertical and one horizontal, finally passing between the spokes of a large wheel on the second axle. It was supposed that the motion was periodically checked and then released on the recoil. The object of the device was to make a figure of an angel turn and point its finger at the sun. Another design was intended to make an eagle turn its head towards the place where the priest and clerks stood to read the Gospel. But it is now agreed (here Needham references Price, p. 34, p. 108) that these mechanisms cannot have been escapements, but simply a means of turning the figures by hand. If so, no predecessor for the first European escapement remains - except the Chinese type shortly to be described."

After that point, there is a long chapter on Su Song and the astronomical clock, but no where does Needham assert that the Chinese use of the escapement traveled from China and was introduced that way to Europe. He only notes that China's escapement was a predecessor to that which developed separately in Europe after 1275.

--PericlesofAthens 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pericles, see Talk:Arch bridge: It appears that the claim of Zhaozhou being the first stone segmental arch bridge is not correct anymore. It was rather the first stone open-spandrel segmental arch bridge, but I am not sure whther this rather specified title reserves an entry in Zhaozhou bridge. In a word, the Romans were apparently the first to build wooden AND stone segmental arch bridges, although they mostly relied on semi-circles and the Zhaozhou is anyway great. Regards Gun Powder Ma 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget the above for a moment. Time out. ;-) Gun Powder Ma 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Trajan's Bridge (the great hallmark monument of travel in light of Rome's pacifying of Dacia), we already had this discussion somewhere else before (wink wink). Speaking of discussions we've had elsewhere in the past, I updated the odometer article with info on its separate development in China, pretty interesting stuff actually.--PericlesofAthens 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your article on the Ponte Santa Trinità in Florence.

I appreciate your contribution and thank you for making it. Steve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.197.81.152 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Wait until I have O'Connors book in my hands ;-) Keep up the good work. Gun Powder Ma 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Such a beautiful bridge now, and a shame though that the Nazis had to demolish the original for strategic sake. --PericlesofAthens 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they also blasted several very old bridges in Germany in the last days of the war (Heidelberg, for one). Also the Roman bridge in Verona. This makes me really angry. Gun Powder Ma 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

China and 'Four Great Inventions of ancient China'

That's perfect! It is a term that 'someone' devised, and the quotes allude to that. Great. I seem to be 'jumpy' lately. I jumped at someone yesterday because they edited a set of articles in a somewhat similar pattern to ones badly hit May 2006. And frankly, most any article derived from the China, Japan, Korea triangle is a target from at least two directions. It is a wonder that maelstrom doesn't suck the whole lot down to the deeps. See Korea vs the Korean peninsula at WP:LAME where somebody nominated an article just days before I thought to. If I never see "Sea of Japan" <--> "East Sea" ... Oh, the seas have been calm for 6 days!   ;-)   Shenme 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just looked at your user page, and saw:

Personal observations at Wiki:

Put two people in a room, and you will get out three opinions.

I think you should change it to:

Put two people in a room, and you will get out three opinions. Over time, more.

Shenme 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I disregarded the temporal factor to keep my analysis two-dimensional, I could have added put a man and his girl-friend in a room, and you'll get out 27,395 opinions. 27,394 when you leave the room. ;-) Gun Powder Ma 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

4 Great inventions

Ma, I am being patient with you as always. What is your problem here? Is Woodblock printing printing? Did the Chinese invent it? Does it not belong in this article for some other reason? Is your editing disruptive or not? Answers on a postcard please. Johnbod 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hind is still in print (Dover Pubs) & remains the standard work on the subject, heading the bibliography (for example) of last years NGA Washington catalogue on medieval woodcuts. Your pal Moutou Teakon or whatever is trying to use an 1863 source in another article. As you should know by now, the Chinese invention of woodblock printing has never been seriously questioned except by some Hinduvuta extremists. Please answer my questions above, or revert your removal of referenced & accurate material, or I shall take this further. Johnbod 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

John, you gave two totally contradictory viewpoints with reference to one and the same source (from 1935...):

Contra diffusion:History of typography in East Asia :But historians of the Western prints themselves see no need for such a connection, as they see a clear progression from patterns to images, both printed on cloth, then to images printed on paper, when it became widely available in Europe in about 1400. Text and images printed together only appear some sixty years later, after metal movable type

Pro diffusion:Four Great Inventions of ancient China :Woodblock printing, initially for textiles, reached Europe by the 14th century or before, via the Islamic world, and by around 1400 was being used on paper for old master prints and playing cards.

That IS a contradiction, hence your second edit was correctly reverted. Gun Powder Ma 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction - woodblock printing was diffused from China, movable type printing was not. Johnbod 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see someone else has edited the text preceding the quote in the East Asian article, which was written for another article, to make it refer to woodblock printing. This is not correct. No one suggests that woodblock printing was invented in Europe - the passage referred to movable type. Woodblock printing on cloth in China goes back to the Han dynasty, and seems first to be seen in Egypt in the 6trh century, possibly invented seperately, but probably spread from China. I wonder who twisted the quote in the East Asia article? Johnbod 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The passage is to be found under woodblock printing which, I take, is under your scutiny. I do not think your source from 1935 is trustworthy, and I do not think it valids an entry ober at 4 FGI. Please refrain from inserting the material all over the place, I am prepared to make reverts without you providing a much better (and more recent) source of yours. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

btw I could reference all these points from "ref name="Griffiths">Prints and Printmaking, Antony Griffiths,p , British Museum Press (in UK),2nd edn, 1996 ISBN 071412608X</ref>" - which in fact has a new edn of 2003 (?) where only the bibliography & last chapter is changed, and is by the current Curator of Prints ands Drawings at the British Museum, just as Hind was in his day. But Hind is the better reference, as his work is much larger & more specialised. Griffiths references & repeats his account. Of course Hind writes before carbon-dating & 70 years of archaelogy, so those dates have moved, but I have now provided current references for these. Johnbod 03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I just added info for gunpowder on the Four Great Inventions of ancient China article.--PericlesofAthens 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

edits to Gutenberg

Ma, you are in apparent violation of 3RR on the Gutenberg article, in your continuing attempt to maintain the position that even the possibility of East Asian influence is not worth mentioning there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Gutenberg&oldid=121177181 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Gutenberg&oldid=121298577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Gutenberg&oldid=121300630 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Gutenberg&oldid=121326999 DGG 04:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To avoid escalating matters between two of my friends, I'm not reporting it. DGG 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Turtle ship

Can I ask you if you have any references or citations that support your claim that iron cladding is controversial?melonbarmonster 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Please provide facts that the ships were iron-clad (at the talk page). Regards Gun Powder Ma 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did and I left a substantial explanation. Prof. Park's article clearly concludes that iron cladding exists and then gives technical information on the iron cladding. What reference are you using to claim that a controversy exists?melonbarmonster 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Prof' Park"? There is no reference in the text to such a person. Please provide literary, archaeological or pictorial evidence that ironcladding existed. Gun Powder Ma 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, if you're not even familiar with the references that's used in this subsection, I don't see how you can even participate in this discussion. I've already explained in detail in talk page or you're welcome to actually verify the footnotes yourself as I have already done.

PS: And don't do it by interpreting existing quotes to your own liking....Gun Powder Ma 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the guy put up technical drawings for iron cladding and spikes. Did you not even read the 1977 Korea Journal article by Prof. Park from SNU??? Are you disagreeing with my "interpretation" that the article support iron cladding?? Seems like WP:A would support statement of published facts rather than your subjective opinions.melonbarmonster 01:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article that you are talking about, written by a Korean physicist employed in a nuclear engineering department (not a history or Korean studies department), is simply more or less an exploration of if it is even really a possibility that they had iron (since it isn't well known). If I recall, Bak's conclusion is that it might be a possibility, but he's basically looking at the same sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article (those written 200 years after the fact). What's more, he's talking about iron in a somewhat different sense than traditional "ironcladding." The whole article is kind of in the form that "wouldn't it be fun to think about this neat ship." It is, but that hardly is the "conclusive proof" you've been trying to find to make your point. —LactoseTI^T 01:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

4 great

Ma, I think you are losing it. Is adding a picture of JG on the page your idea of low-key? The page is now rather less of a hymn to European, and especially German, greatness. But I suppose your Kulturkampf will continue until all traces of any Asian every doing anything have been eradicated. Regards, Johnbod 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree, there is quite a lot of European supremist opinions which I would prefer that you tone down on. Just a little more of this and the next thing you know China didn't invent gunpowder. ImSoCool

Actually, they didn't. China only invented one variety of gun powder (black powder), not the one used today (smokeless powder). It is also still far from clear where the propellant qualities of potassium nitrate were discovered first. Therefore, the triumphant ethnocentristic thesis of Needham has no place in an encyclopedia without further commentary. Regards Gun Powder Ma 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Details please! Johnbod 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Smokeless powder is the article Ma refers to. Whether or not China invented "gunpowder" is not clear. Europe and the Islamic world(it is hard to spot a difference between them in the development of blackpowders, although the Islamic enigneers possibly used combinations of liquids and saltpetre in their incendiary grenades) have also a claim on inventing gunpowder. What is not disputed is that the purification and medical use of saltpetre (and saltpetre with sulfur) does have its origin in China. Unlike other military or economically important products, there are no known restrictions on its export. Wandalstouring 10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear I just predicted your response. Seriously Gun Powder Ma, inventing colored TV should not mean you take all the credit from the one who invented colorless TV. You also seem to have some negative view of Needham based on vague guesses instead of actually reading it. Needham has already mentioned the Potassium Nitrate part in his Volume on Chemistry. This private war in your head between East and West is not very productive, neither to you nor to general society. Do something else as a hobby, like studying history without such an one-way attitude. You'll be happier, and eveybody else will be happier with you. ImSoCool

He's a tad vague on the point isn't he? I've seen no other references to European textile printing, as opposed to imports, that early. Nor does he have anything to say about whether there were seperate inventions & where. A rather speculative reference for you to go plastering everywhere. I notice several of the articles you work on are very short of references, let alone page numbers, btw. Johnbod 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

9Crossbow

thanks for contributing and correcting. Wandalstouring 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Mineralogy

I pretty much just added the entire 'History' section for the article on mineralogy, from Greco-Roman and early modern Europe, to the Middle East, to China. I thought you'd like to see it, enjoy!

--PericlesofAthens 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, besides employing Google Scholar, I really don't have any sources written purely about flat earth model theory and its historical context. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Flat Earth article again

I just added an interesting quote from Shen Kuo worth looking at.--PericlesofAthens 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Movable type printing and History of typography in East Asia

I recently got rid of your "citations needed" by adding information and citations on Wang Zhen's wooden movable type of 1297-1298 AD, and information for Hua Sui's metal movable type of 1490 AD. Their articles provide more elaborate details. Enjoy.--PericlesofAthens 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Needham/Compass

I added back in the links to Joseph Needham and Four Great Inventions of Ancient China in the China section of the Compass page, and wound up rephrasing the whole paragraph. Take a look and see what you think. I'll put a little more explanation on the talk page there. Aspenocean 09:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the Four Great Inventions, I just added new info on gunpowder to that article.--PericlesofAthens 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also updated the info on China in the compass article, describing the thermo-remanence compass of the 11th century, and the dry suspension compass of the 12th century.--PericlesofAthens 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"The assertions by Needham have been in fact contradictred by the scholars already quoted" Um, no they haven't. In fact, they haven't at all. You should be lucky that I'm not reporting your edits as vandalism, because you in fact have brought no sources to the table to show that Needham was wrong. I repeat, not one.--PericlesofAthens 01:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the source you use is before Needham's Volume 4 Part 1 was even published in 1962. Before you make edits, refer to the talk page, where I have already explained this. You can argue with me there.--PericlesofAthens 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I like you, we have simmilar ways of thinking.Aarandir 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

watermill/waterwheel

You were right to remove the section on irrigation in India from watermills. However it was a good piece of writing, just in the wrong place. Have you ensured that it still appears, but somewher more appropriate? - or does it appear in waterwheel already. Care needs to be taken to ensure that these two articles do not cover the same ground. I had not been watching waterwheel. Do you want to tackel this or shall I? Peterkingiron 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alain Prost

Hi. I've re-read through the various points we're all raising on this. I think we've reached stalemate, in that none of us are really raising any new points, so it looks to be time to agree a compromise. I've edited to what looks like the middle ground to me - please see talk page and comment on whether it's acceptable to you. I suspect we all have better things we could be doing with our time! ;-) 4u1e 14:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of world´s largest domes

Leave the tag on that page. It is not unusual for a tag to sit months before a consensus is reached.--Jorfer 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Johann Carolus

Hi. I noticed you switched the Strasbourg into Strassburg. I kind of understand your reasoning, but I feel that you are stretching it quite a bit in claiming that it is the same as Constantinople/Istanbul. To me your edit, even if based on a sound argument, seems completely fruitless.

First of all, if you are going to change it, then change it to all the articles in the Wikipedia accordingly. Naturally I am only referring to similar occasions, where it appears in the proper historical context. Still, might be quite a task.

Secondly, without any further explanation in the actual article, that looks like a contradiction to the policy of using English forms in the English Wikipedia.

Thirdly, the whole "name war" is something that doesn't seem like a good idea. If you get into it, it is going to be a never-ending battle. There are so many names that have been transformed during the history. We don't need to call Rome ROMA, or Julius Caesar IVLIVS CAESAR, just for the sake of fussing about historical accuracy. Of course, you can and should add those forms, but using them everywhere just would not be very practical. (Besides, all the variations of Strasbourg/Strassburg are quite similar and recognisable, unlike many other place names.)

My suggestion: If you still want to have keep Strassburg in there, out of whatever personal feeling, how about even adding an explanation? At the moment, most people might regard that just as a typo. --Gemena 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Printing history

Hello! I am working on the printing category in general, but specifically improving how they all relate to the History of printing. Can you help me with this? What would you like to help with? —Parhamr 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Stern-mounted_steering_oar_of_a_Roman_Boat_(RG_Museum_Koeln,_Germany).JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Stern-mounted_steering_oar_of_a_Roman_Boat_(RG_Museum_Koeln,_Germany).JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Turtle Ship

You've made several wholesale reverts of this article without any participation in the talk page. There has been extensive discussion on iron cladding in the talk page and consensus reached. I'm more than willing to discuss your edit proposals and explain the discussions that you missed but please stop reverting the Iron Cladding section unilaterally and respect the talk page discussions. Thanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Villani's history of Florence, the Nuova Cronica

Hi there, haven't heard from you in quite a while. I remember you had an interest in the Ponte Vecchio bridge in Florence. I've recently put Giovanni Villani up for a Featured Article Candidate, as well as the related article Nuova Cronica for Good Article status. In the latter (which I just created today), there is an interesting story about the flood that washed the bridge away (all except the piers) and other disasters because of the flood. Hope you like what I've done with the articles. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You still alive? Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Still alive, but busy with life. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic tsunami

The Thucydides reference was elegant; but if you could append an in-line citation, it would enhance the power of your statement. Someone else search it out later, of course; but since you probably have the text at hand, why not add it now?

I also wondered if it wouldn't be more effective to use a less accurate term -- anything other than "tsunami"? I would have thought the Greek translation would have used a term like "great wave" or maybe "tidal wave" -- something specifically non-Asian or Euro-centric because of the time-frame in which Thucydides' work would have been created? Just a thought. Do you see my point? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Chain drive

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chain drive, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. NipponBill (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated 365 Crete earthquake, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on February 17, where you can improve it if you see fit. BorgQueen (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC

Fresh news for me! I added a couple of links: quake was not what you intended to link to! If you could rifle your main source again and give more of the specific sources that mention the quake (in a footnote), that would provide a start to enlarging this interesting article. --Wetman (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'll respond at User talk:Wetman, but I don't give out my e-mail at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On February 22, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 365 Crete earthquake, 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.

Well done! Do feel free to self nom in future! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but who changed the line on the main page from "AD" to "CE"? And also so fervently the article itself (See: Revision as of 04:13, 22 February 2008). According to WP guidelines, the denomination chosen in the article by the author has actually to be kept. I am a bit pissed off by such a high-handed intrusion. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

11th century "Father complex" indeed...

If one wants to find the "father" of any science, then one needs to look no further than the old-timey Greeks. ;) I'm working on a new article, Pope Sylvester II, who was quite an intriguing fellow. The sources I've consulted allude to the fact that the abacus and armillary sphere had fallen out of use in Europe until he reintroduced them in the late 10th century; do any sources you have ever read concur with this?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see your edit summary about Byzantium; do you have any source to point out on the top of your head that I could use? I'm trying to improve the armillary sphere article as well.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Educated guess, to be honest: Ptolemaios' Almagest was the basic work for Greek, Arabic and Latin alike and the work was known throughout medieval times in Byzantium (and transmitted to Florence in the middle of the 15th century by Cardinal Bessarion). I have read somewhere that at least one Byzantine armillary sphere is extant, but unfortunately cannot point you right now at the source. You may want to extend your search to Astrolabs, since both were often treated synonymously in early Greek works. For astrolabes, NOT in the sense of armillary spheres, see for a start O. Neugebauer (1949): The Early History of the Astrolabe. Studies in Ancient Astronomy IX, Isis 40, III 1949, 240-256. For the abacus in the Middle Ages in England this may be useful: Gillian R. Evans: Schools and Scholars: The Study of the Abacus in English Schools 980-1150, The English Historical Review, 94, 1979: 71-89. Btw Are you getting paid by Wiki or what is your girl-friend saying about your writing mania? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice between AD and CE

Would you please link me to the policy that states the aforementioned rule? αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may want to start by linking me to a WP policy of "CE, surely". Thanks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Touché, my friend. Although I should add that I have not done this to multiple articles (like your message on my talk page insinuates). Anyway, have a nice day. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:Convert

As it turns out, there is; for the last parameter, set abbr=on. See {{convert}} documentation. —Rob (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Works fine. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

365 Crete earthquake

Could you add/restore the reference to the 1988 National Geographic article to 365 Crete earthquake? I'm not experienced enough to do it correctly. In edit history, you suggest this information is already in the article, but it isn't: "The earthquake and the destruction it caused at Kourion, on the island of Cyprus, is featured in the July, 1988 issue of National Geographic magazine (Vol. 174, No. 1, p.30-53)." 69.149.15.191 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The cite is in the article for Kourion, reference # 3 -- "The Day the World Ended At Kourion, National Geographic: July 1988, Vol.174, No. 1, p.30-53" 69.149.15.191 (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Done so. If you want to expand the article btw, I can send you some of the listed references below. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

the policy on biographies of living persons

The article on Jin Jing is on a living person. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This sentence is seriously against the policy on living persons: "Some even said "she first lost her leg, now she lost her brain."" We need to remove this sentence immediately.

--Jingandteller (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite the specific WP guideline on which you have based your verdict? It is clear that the attacks on Jinjing are well sourced by Sueddeutsche Zeitung which is, as you certainly know, one of the most respected newspapers in Germany. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

   Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

--Jingandteller (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I miss your link to the specific WP guideline. And why do you first remove the Chinese source and then single out the German one? That lacks consistency, given that other statements in the article are not relativized like this. Please apply consistent standards. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi, could you please read the three points of the naming conventions that I mentioned? In your edits on Ponte Romano you used the name "Passer" instead of "Passirio", that is against the third point (use in every article the same name as in the title; in this case: Passirio), you used the name "Meran" instead of "Merano" (third point) and the name "South Tyrol" instead of "Province of Bolzano-Bozen" (third point), you removed one of the alternative names in the lead section, that is against the second point (include alternative names), and you moved the article to a name that isn't the most commonly used in English (see this google search: "ponte romano" "merano" -"steinerner steg" -wikipedia: 56 hits; "steinerner steg" "merano" -"ponte romano" -wikipedia: 8 hits]), that is against the first point (use the name that is the most commonly used in English). Could you please revert your edits?--Supparluca 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Google...yes. First "Ponte Romano" is also a common generic term, which blows up your hit list. Second, half of the entries are from encyclopedically irrelevant hotel adverts, and some others refer to a street named "Via Ponte Romano". And third "Steinerner Steg" is underrepresented because a. you wrote "Merano", not "Meran", and b. because the German term, unlike the Italian, is subject to declension, and thus much more present in the web as its first case form suggests. You cannot be serious to base your repeated reverts on 56 minus x hits in Google.

I was last month in Meran, making pictures of this bridge, and I can assure you the towns people refer to the bridge as "Steinerner Steg". Italy is in the EU and in the EU there is a strong tendency to give local names priority over national ones. This principle has also been recognized by Wikipedia by giving French names priority over Italian names in the French speaking Aosta valley, see for example the article Pont-Saint-Martin, Italy, which is not named Ponte Martino. There is no reason why the same should not apply for South Tyrol. And btw I did not remove any names, I just reverted your rather high-handed changes to the original version. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ponte Romano" isn't a generic term in English, and I even included the name of the city in the search. By the way, you wrote that "Steinerner Steg" means "stone bridge", isn't that a more generic term? I used the name "Merano" because that's the English name, to avoid as much as possible Italian or German pages. I made the same search with the name "Meran": meran "ponte romano" -wikipedia -"steinerner steg": 82 hits; meran "steinerner steg" -wikipedia -"ponte romano": 10 hits.
"Ponte Martino" doesn't exist as far as I know; the Italian name is "Pont-Saint-Martin".
In my version there are both names ("Ponte Romano" and "Steinerner Steg"), you removed one of the two names.
Please read the third point of the naming conventions and see the title of the articles Merano, Passirio and Province of Bolzano-Bozen: these names should be used according to the conventions.--Supparluca 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Please check out first what Europe is like today (that is 21st century): European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
2. Almost all names in the Aosta valley are actually spelled in French, despite having Italian names. See Communes of the Aosta Valley. So why should not apply in South Tyrol what in the Aosta region is actually common naming convention?
2. "Ponte Romano" (Roman Bridge) is a generic name which applies to several dozen bridges in Italy. See Colin O’Connor: Roman Bridges. Cambridge University Press 1993, ISBN 0-521-39326-4, Table in Appendix
3. "Steinerner Steg" is not a generic name, as steg is very rarely used for bridge. I for one do not know of a single instance of a bridge named "Steinerner Steg" other than the one in Meran.

4. Merano is not more the English name more than Meran. Same with Province of Bolzano-Bozen. See South Tyrol:

"The Province of Bolzano-Bozen..., also referred to in English as ...South Tyrol (from the German name Südtirol)."

Your whole reasoning is circular. One Italian name supports the other, always to the exclusion of German, while in fact, every German name (South Tyrol, Passer, Meran, Steinerner Steg) is just as common in English.

5. I would ask you not to meddle any longer with such sensitive language questions in articles you not created. Going around Wikipedia trying to conform language according to what YOU perceive as conventions, that is your rather personal preferences, is IMHO a recipe asking for trouble. I can live well with article names on South Tyrol in Italian (actually a very beautiful language). Can you live with articles on South Tyrol in German, can you live with diversity?
6. I am adding Ponte Romano as a second name and I hope we both can move on to more important work here.
Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just pointed out that it's not true that French names are given priority over Italian names in the Aosta Valley. All the names in Category:Communes of the Aosta Valley are Italian names, check the Italian wikipedia.
I just try to conform the articles to the real naming conventions of the English wikipedia. We don't want the German wikipedia to use Spanish names, and we don't want the English wikipedia to use German names. English doesn't have an Academy: the way we use to decide which is the English name is to chose the most commonly used in English. It seems that "Ponte Romano" is more used than "Steinerner Steg", is it a problem? The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages doesn't have anything to do with the names we use.--Supparluca 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem, because you are patently sailing under a false flag, my friend. These are French town names, and the question is why are there two Italian naming conventions, one for the Aosta valley and one for South Tyrol? There are actually German article names in South Tyrol like Franzensfeste. I am currently planning an extensive list of Roman bridges and I am leaning towards the local Italian names (Ponte). But your insistence on indiscriminate Google searchs might compel me to look for each of the several hundred bridge for the English names. Try to impose your all-Italian naming policy for articles you yourself created, and please stop meddling with articles you did not contribute any contents to. We do not want users from the Italian Wikipedia changing arbitrarily names in the English Wikipedia. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you're going to create articles on Roman bridges in Italy? And that you want to use the local Italian names to "please" the local population or something like that? Then I ask you to check if there are English names instead, because this wikipedia is written in English. I don't understand the first part of your message, and I don't understand why you say that I want to impose an all-Italian naming policy.--Supparluca 08:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know who changed the names anonymously (you?), but I would say this is kind of a fair compromise now, and we both can move on for more important subjects. :-) Note that I am btw a great fan of Italian bridge building, as I have just put online a vast List of Roman bridges which went for the Italian bridge names wherever possible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation

Sorry, can't help you there - I speak no German and don't know any editors who do.You could try asking at WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST. The Land (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{talkarchive}}