User talk:ETTan

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 3 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Be aware
User_talk:Gbog

User_talk:Mel_Etitis



¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do, there is an admin involved w a long history of such misconduct. I'll keep an eye out. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks.

--ETTan 03:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Conflict resolution may be a good place to look, as well as Five pillars and Writers' rules of engagement. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Emptiness and nothingness in Taoism
The way you approached that change was very well done, I thought. You outlined your perspective and said that you intended to make the change if there was no further argument. With that sort of approach you will go far in Wikipedia. Consensus is an important value here. Of course, if you enter into discussions, you have to be prepared to accept the consensus&mdash;which is sometimes more difficult. However, there is really no way around that if we are going to continue building this encyclopedia together.

In the apparent dissagreement between you and Gbog, I note that the two of you were actually looking at different things. You were arguing translation of a particular character. Gbog was summarizing a principle in Taoism. I will try to mediate if you still have problems with the article. Sunray 20:02, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

U've done well so far. I can see the effort u've put on. Impartiality is the key.

--ETTan 03:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

re: I'm pretty new in Wiki. There are only 2 articles I'd commented about: Taoism and Tao Te Ching as I'd already working on these 2 topics for years. For me, its kind of weird to translate the chinese character 無, which means nothing, as empty. This is the main reason that I insist on the changes. Besides, I also provide other reasons, which are established knowledge among taoist scholars, in my discussions. Hopefully, you are not taking grudge against all chinese just because of some bad examples. Please read my comments properly and consult some real experts, who have to know classical chinese, if possible. Finally, I demand an apology from Mel for throwing mud at me.


 * I don't know where Mel is throwing Mud -- there are a group of us that are pretty fed up with User:Mr Tan, to the point his wiki-behaviour is as of tonight being discussed directly with Jimmy Wales via email, as there is no really effective policy for dealing with POV editors such as he. If you are not he, then that should become obvious very quickly, but there are suspicious factors such as your sudden appearance on the scene concurrent with his sudden 'Wiki-vacation' after finally giving in on a similarly minor point with poor grace about the time you first signed on, certain word choices and sentence constructs, et al. Those comparisons too are being made behind the scenes.  No one is rushing to judgement here, but there are a lot of people watching for 'that Tan' created a lot of discord, time waste, and frustration &mdash; which is why I choose the ethical (to me) course of warning User:Gbog. One test occurs to me immediately, if you are accepting email, you are probably not he.
 * Furthermore, if you are indeed someone that can be persuaded to accept a consensus judgement, or defer endless minor edits (polluting the history record) for one good high quality edit and hold disputed changes without forcing your POV on the article, you are not He, and the resemblences are moot and will quickly be set aside. This is a fair group of people, and generally, a pleasure to work with... so long as one is willing to compromise. But understand, he has provoked a great many users by wasting their time, and while I even like the kid, any editor which cannot accept high standards of well sourced justifications had better keep to pop articles, not one's of substance and importance.
 * In the meantime, someone taking an aberrant perspective which makes no philosophical sense like your prefered 'nothingness' (which means what exactly in a philosophical sense? Says nothing to me, no pun intended.) in the face of 2,000 years of traditional usage of the term 'emptiness' (which does mean something emotionally), with similar fondness for phrasing is likely to be suspected to be that same young headstrong person who needs to read 1000 times more than he writes in Wiki... to gain perspective, if for no other reason.  In sum, he is busy trying to fly when he shouldn't yet be running, but just plodding carefully, determined to live up to the high research standards needed by academic writing.
 * I have no dog in your fight on the emptiness/nothingness arguement other than what I say above, but I have invested an inordinate amount of time in trying to coach Mr Tan into reasonable behaviour, with scant successes&mdash; most of June in fact. I am not a philosopher, but my recollection of long ago schooling disagrees with you, and agrees with a Mel Etitis, who is a tenured Professor of Philosophy in Oxford (No less!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For Gods sake!). Do you really have the horsepower to take on someone with that sort of credential in his own chosen field of study?
 * I submit you consider long and hard what he had to say about the drift of language and meaning over time in any alphabet... much less one of an idiographic nature. I makes sense to me that an idiograph connoting emptiness should be based on the concept of 'nothing filling the vessel'; which sense you seem to have overlooked. (In truth, I haven't perused the Talk pages, perhaps I missed something.)
 * Lastly, I have no problem with any race or background. We are all merely noticing and correlating similarities.  Take a few moment to read a few screenfuls of the two links I gave User:Gbog and see for yourself why we are wary of the infamous Mr Tan.  Just try to estimate the time spent, consider all the time the various editors had to give up solely to argue the same arguements over and over with the incorrigible Mr Tan.  I'm sure if you give up just a half hour to survey the cited documents, you'll find it in your heart to forgive one such as me warning one that they might be dealing with him.  Time is too precious to squander simply because some inconsiderate an likely immature person likes the attention that arguement gives his otherwise empty and lonely life.
 * I note for the record, you aren't accepting email. Another similarity.  Or common paranoia?  I truly hope you aren't he, and that this is the end of the mistaken identity problem for you. In the meantime, good luck and best wishes.   Fra  nkB  04:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)