User talk:Children of the dragon

你的edits
您会经常上吗？哪里的人？ --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

found this look
why not ask permission link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see thanks, :)Children of the dragon (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Lennikov
Hi, I answered your question on Talk:Mikhail Lennikov  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Buddhist terrorism
A tag has been placed on Buddhist terrorism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kudpung (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Your addition to Buddhist terrorism has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Marcus  Qwertyus   20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Buddhist terrorism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --moreno oso (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags
When you add a fact tag could you use the correct date format i.e, not. The second one incorrectly categorizes the article in Category:Articles with unsourced statements from 2010, instead of Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2010. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think and  have the same effect. If you use either (and don't use the date) then User:Smackbot will come along and add the appropriate date. I think Smackbot will replace 'fact' with 'citation needed' as well. If you look here you can see redlinked categories which have incorrect dates (plus some due to a bug). Adding the date yourself when you add the tag (any tag)  is fine, as long as the format is correct :) Happy editing! Tassedethe (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Buddhist terrorism
I have nominated Buddhist terrorism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Buddhist terrorism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cossde (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Ashley Kirilow
I have nominated Ashley Kirilow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ashley Kirilow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Mencius and socks
Hello! I wanted to respond to your query on Mencius : -ius is a Latin ending, which was adopted at the prerogative of Michele Ruggieri and his fellow Jesuits, who translated Confucius's and Mencius's books into Latin in the early 17th century, when Latin was still used as a written language in Europe (from Confucius).

I also think that you should know that User:Iqinn has told me that s/he is gathering evidence for a SPI on the hypothesis that I am your sock puppet based on our edits on this article and this AfD, an allegation that I have strenuously denied. By the way, if you do recover the text of that deleted article from a willing administrator, you should put it in a subpage of your userpage and post a link, so that I (and others) can help add sufficiently strong content and reliable sources such that it would survive another AfD. Quigley (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help and information. BTW how dumb does that ass IQuinn has to be to assume that you are my sock puppet, lol. Anyways, too many assholes on wikipedia I've run into lately, I'm not even surprised anymore, as to be expected. For all I care he can shove a stick of dynamite up his ass and light it.


 * OH yeah regarding that Buddhist Terrorism article, I did have some later thoughts on it, thought I might share it with you here:


 * As a scientist, I try to be as impartial and unbiased as possible, but we are all human and I think sometimes POV ideas do get slipped into articles via edits from time to time. So after hindsight, I'm going to concede (on one aspect only) to those Buddhists Wikipedians from Sri Lanka (who wanted the article to be deleted) - that I should NOT try to purposely create the concept of Buddhist Terrorism (if no major (Western) source has ever cited so. Let me explain in details what I mean:


 * Professor Richard Dawkins has said the following (or a form of it) on several occasions: you can almost 100% positively say that what the 9/11 hijackers did was motivated by religion (he often said this to rebuke the argument that Stalin and Mao caused so many deaths in their respective countries in the NAME of atheism). Some religious people have argued that NO, but in fact what those hijackers did were motivated by the socio-economic and political turmoils in their respective countries. I now believe that BOTH of these viewpoints are correct, to a certain degree, here's my expounding on these views by taking another example: Palestinian suicide bombers blow themselves up because they are trying to take revenge for what they consider as the religious and ethnically motivated economic, military, social, and political actions taken against them by the Israelis (and the West). Perhaps if they weren't Muslims (who believe that martyrdom would lead to them going to heaven), they might NOT BE SO EAGER TO blow themselves up. So my point being, regardless of the ORIGINS of the conflicts there, the definite actions of the Palestinian suicide bombers to detonate themselves are definitely CATALYZED by their religion, but I think anybody in their position might need to take drastic actions against an oppressor.


 * So the same goes for those Buddhists who happen to commit crimes (contrary to their religious teachings) as well, perhaps it's not completely religious-based, but there may be many other factors there that's not apparent on the surface. BUT you see I'm not conceding to the idea that there are no Buddhist Terrorists, I'm really saying that if anything, we might need to reconsider ALL of religious terrorism as a whole, on Wikipedia, for example.


 * Anyways, that was a difficult point, I hope I explained it properly. BTW, I will still try to gather information regarding Buddhists who commit terrorist-like acts, because there's still probably a good location to put such information - they should not be hidden from public view on Wikipedia. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not a part of this discussion but it's too tempting, so if I may add my unsolicited $.02: On the subject of the motives of Palestinian Muslim suicide bombers...Sam Harris points out that Palestinian Christians are subject to the same economic, social and political hardships (humiliations?) that their Muslim neighbors are and yet why do we not see Christian Palestinian suicide bombers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist State "article"
Your hunch is very correct, that article is nothing more than a propaganda piece for anti-atheists. It has been pointed out before and clearly the article should be renamed or deleted. It would be a featured article on Conservapedia. I'm going to drop by COnservapedia to see if they have a similar article, I would not be surprised if they had copied and pasted the entire article over there. Usually, but not always, bad propaganda pieces like on Wikipedia are eventually discovered and corrected but this one has stayed under the radar for some time. And it is so ridiculous that it's not worth trying to "be bold" and improve it. How does one improve a piece of feces? You simply flush it down the toilet. That article has no readership so and I have very little time so I have not done all the official things to bring that nonsense to the attention of others. I just wanted to say that yes your instincts are correct about it. Perhaps the editors are tired of all the articles that demonstrate the cruelty, murder and totalitarianism we have seen Christian States indulging for the last 17oo years or so that makes them want to even the score, so they portray atheism as some sort of philosophy of authoritarianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china too.

Those pages are too koreancentric. And Buyeo isnt even korean as they are manchurian. And the kingdom of Buyeo should be listed as history of china and Balhae should be listed as history of china and korea.

I think its best wiki China project should be involved in those pages. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)