User talk:Ghostexorcist/Archive2

Game
The name of the game appears to be "ABOVE Knife Sword Ocean Gold Fight Jewel". I don't know much about video games, but the game developer is souhu.com and the game is abbreviated on the page a lot as "Knife Sword". The character on the middle of the ring is wu 武 the same as in "wushu". --Fire Star 火星 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Promotion
You could have done it yourself although I believe its better to be removed from the promotion if you are responsible for the bulk of the edits. So its good you asked. I promoted it to B but I would suggest removing all the dead links. Those compounded by the use of lists make the article a bit hard on the eyes - I would also consider moving a picture to cover the open space beside the content list but I don't know how to do that. From B to GA requires a nomination but personally I would not put it forward for a while. Generally speaking the rankings up to B tend to be subjective.Peter Rehse 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful comments. I have added a picture to fill in the empty space beside the content list. However, I don't think I have any "dead links", all of them are active. (Ghostexorcist 08:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Games
The first one is called "Legendary World" and in the body of the text the first level is basic leitai, the second level involves lightning, evil spirits and curses and the third level (version 1.75) costs extra, naturally! I haven't had time to look at the 2nd one yet. --Fire Star 火星 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The second game is called "PK" (using Roman letters) and it looks like the site it is on is a game review site (though it could be an ad disguised as a review) called "Swallow's World". It is geared toward a younger crowd than the first one, with fewer (if any) supernatural elements, but it seems like you can control multiple parties to fight with more than the first game. --Fire Star 火星 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
I'd like to request your opinion on two articles that I have spent some time on recently, in regards to eventually upgrading their article class status, especially. They are T'ai Chi Ch'uan and Hard and soft (martial arts). The first one is too bloated (IMO) and probably needs to be split up some, and the second one started as a polemic and has since turned into a decent enough article. I've also asked Peter Rehse to comment on T'ai Chi Ch'uan and he is involved as well in evaluating the second one, but anything you notice will be appreciated. I'm going on a short Wikibreak and will be back Monday. --Fire Star 火星 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lei tai
I responded at Peer review/Lei tai/archive1. I hope you find it helpful.-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Water Margin
i believe you meant 'run' very fast and not 'fun' very fast. i suspect the person you are talking about is Dai Zhong. Chensiyuan 12:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant "run". Thanks for the help. (Ghostexorcist 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

License tagging for Image:250 Bagau016ChangChaoDong.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:250 Bagau016ChangChaoDong.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:
 * Image use policy
 * 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 Media copyright questions. 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its been tagged with fair use. I followed the formula off of the fair use page. (Ghostexorcist 04:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Avatar: The Last Airbender citations
Information about the show can only come officially from the show itself, or from official sites with official statements by the production crew.

What is revealed in an episode can not be cited except in the form of referencing that specific episode. Citing a third party website with a synopsis of the episode (like avatarspirit.net) is not appropriate due to the site having no affiliation with the show.

A synopsis from that site is as official as a synopsis on Wikipedia: written entirely by an unaffiliated third party. The episode is the official, primary source for the information, and referencing it is far more preferable than citing a third party website.

As such, the only time that a citation is needed, is when something was NOT mentioned in an episode, for in that situation there is nothing to reference, and thus the proof of the claim is neeeded. When writing an article on a movie, you don't rely on a website's synopsis of the movie to present the facts. You rely on the movie itself. This same logic applies to a TV show.

Accordingly, I have removed the tag on Aang's entry. Sage of Ice 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the following tag...

undefined


 * This tells me that third party sources are considered the best since they are unbiased.(Ghostexorcist 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC))


 * If you click on the link of "Primary Sources" in that tag, you will be taken to a page on historical primary sources. There is a massive difference between a historical primary source and an episode of a TV show.


 * This is because historical primary sources are often accounts written by people that lived near the time of the actions depicted. Their objectivism in the matter is almost always contested and few such classic historians are considered mostly neutral. They often cite rumours and myths as part of true history, which is obviously something that needs to be considered when using it as a reference. Essentially, historical primary sources are not entirely credible, and therefore caution needs to be exercised when citing one. A credible, third-party source is then needed in order to account for any false history present in the primary source.


 * I'll admit that my choice of words was poor in describing the episodes as "primary sources". I should have called them the "canonical sources" instead.


 * See, a primary source is essentially an unverified account or description of something with no backing but its own original research (which was pretty much all that was available to the early historians- can't cite what hasn't been written yet). This is what makes a primary source inappropriate for refence citations.


 * However, you must realize that an episode of a TV show is nowhere near being such a thing.


 * The tag you have presented me with, therefore, does not apply to a situation such as a TV show, in which the episode ("primary source") is not only 100% objective, but is in fact undeniable; it is canon. Citing the canonical source (the episode) is far more suitable than citing a third-party account of the canon. No one can say that events that took place in an episode were "biased" events. That just does not make sense.


 * Take, for example, the page of George Costanza. It describes the character entirely based on events from the series episodes. Canonical sources. What happens in an episode becomes a fact of the character. These sources suffice as reference, for they are undeniable. Anything else is non-canonical and inappropriate if cited unless it came directly from a series creator/producer (those who have the power to create canon). As such, you'll notice that there are no citations or references in that article, merely external links for more information.


 * By your logic, however, that page should be full of references to third-party websites that summarize each and every episode. If that were indeed the appropriate approach, then I'm certain that a Seinfeld page would have seen to it by now. As it stands, however, you are incorrect in your proposition.


 * Once again, I apologize for using "primary source" when I should have said "canonical source" in its stead.


 * However, if you plan to use tags as a means of supporting your arguments, then you must first read up on what exactly the tag is referring to beforehand. I hope this has cleared up everything. Sage of Ice 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Thank you for the long-winded lecture. I’m a history major; I know what a primary source is. However, you seem to miss the entire point of me adding this tag. Unaffiliated third-party sources are still acceptable. The Aang page should at least have sources cited so others can check the material presented for accuracy and or consistency. That is the entire point of Wikipedia. It’s a “starting point” which allows others to branch out from the sources given.


 * "Take, for example, the page of George Costanza. It describes the character entirely based on events from the series episodes. Canonical sources. What happens in an episode becomes a fact of the character. These sources suffice as reference, for they are undeniable. Anything else is non-canonical and inappropriate if cited unless it came directly from a series creator/producer (those who have the power to create canon). As such, you'll notice that there are no citations or references in that article, merely external links for more information."

The Aang page does not have a single external link. Just a book citation which I added.


 * “No one can say that events that took place in an episode were "biased" events. That just does not make sense.”

But who says the people writing the article are not? From reading the article’s talk page, I’ve seen that people view the same episode in different ways. Not everyone is going to agree with each other. So people might add things to the article, which a small circle (not the majority) agrees with, but might not be viewed the same way the original writer had intended. That’s why some sort of source should be used. Toph is the only character article within the group that I've seen which uses an external source.(Ghostexorcist 09:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
 * There was no point missed. By citing the primary source tag as a defense for your claim in the context of a TV media article, there was not much to logically conclude from your argument. Thus the "lecture". I'm especially more perplexed now, having found out that you are a history major, for you should have known better in that case.
 * There was no point missed. By citing the primary source tag as a defense for your claim in the context of a TV media article, there was not much to logically conclude from your argument. Thus the "lecture". I'm especially more perplexed now, having found out that you are a history major, for you should have known better in that case.


 * But I digress. Let's move on to what is relevant.


 * A third party unaffiliated source is acceptable within certain contexts. As they are freelancers, they are free to operate and state whatever they want. Their actions are not bound by official authorities. As a history major, I'm sure you are perfectly aware that every research paper you present must reference only certifiable sources: those found in accredited journals or papers, whether online or offline.


 * Wikipedia should not operate any differently. As the legitimacy of the writing on a third-party unaffiliated website can not be guaranteed, such sites should only be used to provide extra information or a starting point for the reader, not to reference facts. The difference between other "starting points" and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is bound by the presentation of facts, whereas others are free to determine their own approach.


 * For the betterment of the article, however, and if it will appease you, I shall add an external link on the Aang page - and every Avatar page - directing the reader to transcripts of the episodes.


 * However, be informed that a movie or TV show episode is indeed a verifiable source. It is no different than citing a book. If a book is cited and you wish to verify the claim by looking it up, you go and check the book out from a library or purchase it. For a movie, you go and rent it or purchase it. Because episodes can be rewatched, they are a verifiable source just the same.


 * If someone missed the episode on TV, they should NOT be allowed to rely on third-party websites OVER the episodes themselves if they wish to write on Wikipedia. What those who watched the episode wrote down should only be contested by others who watched the episode. Not by those who read transcripts. Someone who only read the Cliff's notes of a book should not contest that which was said by someone who read the book in full.


 * Reading text for what is meant to be a motion media is not as accountable as the actual video source. Much can get lost in the transition. What is visual can not always be properly described by text. Just try to explain the color "yellow" to someone who has been blind their whole life. As such, the first and utmost resource for the verification of claims made on an Avatar page should be the Avatar episodes itself.


 * Information should be presented by those who know it, not by those who are learning it.


 * As I said though, I believe the article can benefit from a link to a transcribed source and shall see to it. Not as a reference, but as a resource.


 * And pardon the second lecture, but I tend to get wordy when I start debating. It's a sickness. Sage of Ice 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem on the second lecture. Thanks for adding the external link. I see that you fixed a typo on my Lei tai page. Other than The Blind Bandit, do you know of any other avatar episodes where benders fight on a raised, square (or rectangular) fighting service? I haven't seen it, but I hear The Storm episode shows flashbacks of the fire prince facing his father in an Agni Kai. One of the rules is to knock an opponent on his back, which is also rules in lei tai.(Ghostexorcist 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC))


 * There is indeed one such flashback in "The Storm". The platform that Zuko duels Ozai on is elevated and rectangular, so it might qualify as a lei tai. The only difference I see between it and lei tai commonly presented in your article is that it's more elongated.


 * Here, I have a link to an image I took of the episode, it’ll show you the platform. http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/chronoice/agnikai.jpg?t=1165652085


 * However, it doesn't seem like a lei tai is needed for an Agni Kai. In "[The Southern Air Temple]]", if you've seen it, Zuko duels Zhao in an Agni Kai on flat ground. There aren't even any markings to symbolize a ring area, it’s just enclosed by walls of what appears to be a sparring area.


 * The rules to Agni Kai haven't really been elaborated on much in the series thusfar. It seems that the main goal is to knock a person on their back and strike them in the face with a finishing blow. Just knocking the person on their back isn't enough though, as we see Zuko get knocked down by Zhao, but dodge the strike to the face. The match only ends when Zhao is knocked on his back and Zuko delivers a strike to his face (which he deliberately misses). Not much else is known aside from those basic goals.


 * I was originally going to give you some examples of a lei tai used in video games, seeing as how you’re already got a section started. In the end, though, I chose against it. Your article would be clogged with video game references if you took them all into account. Sage of Ice 08:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese dictionaries
Thanks for suggesting Fire Star, who I asked to fix my Xian page move error. I'm a native speaker of English, have a PhD in Asian Languages, and have been studying Chinese for 30 years. For online Chinese dictionaries, I'd first suggest this Open Directory category, which is edited (grin) by someone using the same username as me (What are the odds?). There are numerous CEDICT interfaces, like YellowBridge listed under "Chinese/English TalkingDictionary", but dictionaries I use regularly include the "Unihan Database", "Lin Yutang's Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern Usage", and "CJKV-English Dictionary". What printed dictionaries of Chinese do you use? Best wishes. Keahapana 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for suggesting those dictionaries. I’m not a linguist by any means. I’m an Asian studies/Cultural Anthropology double-major. I hope to get my doctorate in Chinese history at some point (many years from now). Do you teach at a university or do you perform pure research. As lame as it sounds, I think research would be the best route for me. I plan on translating several Chinese books in the future, so a bit of linguistic know-how wouldn’t hurt me a bit. (Ghostexorcist 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

article
Sal Canzonieri has an article in the current issue of Kung Fu magazine about the connection between Taizu Changquan and T'ai Chi Ch'uan, in case you're interested. I don't agree with everything he says, but his articles are always edifying. JFD 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me about it. I’ll have to look it up. I like how Sal uses his behavioral science degree, especially the anthropology portion of it, to map out the similarities between styles. HOWEVER, his theories do not always match up with history, which is the most important :factor when comparing styles from different eras. For instance, I know he was writing an exhaustive paper on the dissemination of martial arts originating from Yue Fei. But there is no historical evidence in any of Yue Fei’s biographies that he created any boxing style at all. I may sound like a hypocrite when I say this (as I once believed it myself), but it took me a while to convince him that Jow Tong, Yue Fei’s archery teacher, was NOT a Shaolin monk.


 * I think he may look down on my "historical" claims as I don't currently hold any college degrees, but I will finish them out in due time. Besides, I've done enough self study to earn an honorary doctorate (at least in my head anyway). Despite my “non-degree” status, he seems to have drastically changed his stance on several subjects compared to a year ago before he started corresponding with me. If you read some of his year old forum posts, you will see he believed Zhou Tong was a Shaolin monk who either practiced or originated Bashanfan and Chuojiao. Now he knows the Shaolin thing is a myth and now attributes the dissemination of Chuojiaofanzi boxing to an ex soldier who participated in the Taiping Rebellion. He believes this person spread the rumor about Zhou Tong being a monk. I personally believe it was spread by eagle claw practitioners, since I've only seen these claims in their books and websites. But since Fanzi is part of northern eagle claw, I guess there could be a connection. I do, however, agree with him on one point though, Yue Fei did not create Eagle Claw, more specifically the “108 locks”. Xingyi is out the door as well. Thanks again. (Ghostexorcist 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pk 081.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pk 081.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was once attached to my Lei tai article, but I removed it to make room for another video game clip. Delete with extreme prejudice! (Ghostexorcist 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

Hello
I have reviewed the Zhou Tong article as requested in WikiProject_China/Peer_review/Zhou Tong (monk). Great work on the article! AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to write one. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yue Fei
Stanley Henning has a historical survey of Yue Fei in the latest Journal of Asian Martial Arts. JFD 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist: sorry, I'm not able to improve this article; without more background, the research involved to separate fact from fiction sounds like a major rewrite of the article. User:Ranmin seems to be familiar with the article's edit history, so he might be a better person to contact. -- Robocoder ( t|c ) 04:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IZAK
Hey...I don't mean to butt in here..but I completely agree with you...IZAK is out of control. MetsFan76 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Extreme bad faith
This edit is obscene. You delete another user's comment and characterize it as vandalism. If this is characteristic of your editing style, I'll be glad to open an RfC regarding your behavior. If it's not, I think an apology is in order. Tom e rtalk 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that I accidentally overlooked the provided link and generally had no idea what the hell this guy was talking about when I made the following remark ...


 * What the hell are you talking about? Check the page's history again. That wasn't me! (Ghostexorcist 06:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * It was you. I don't know if you were trying to undo some other perceived "vandalism", but the only thing "undone" by you in that post was the deletion of RyanFreisling's post, which was replaced by your own posting of the Poll.  Review the history for yourself.  Tom e rtalk  06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I hit the "+" when I created my poll comment. How did I delete someone's edit? If I did, I did not mean too. (Ghostexorcist 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I honestly don't know...it could well be a glitch of the software. As I said, check the history, it quite clearly shows you making an edit that obliterates the previous edit, which your edit summary characterizes as "vandalism".  If that was not your intention, I still think an apology to the person whose edit you deleted, unintentionally or otherwise, is in order, to be quickly followed by a complaint at the village pump.  Tom e rtalk  06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's let it rest as a confluence of bad timing and misunderstanding and move on. Opening a straw poll mere hours after an issue has been raised is silly, and quite out-of-process.  Instead of opening a straw poll with 3 days' duration, let's let the discussion continue 3 days, and then perhaps, if there is still interest in doing so, open a straw poll at that time.  In any case, RyanFreisling's removal of the poll as inappropriate was correct, and your reversion of that removal, characterizing it as "vandalism" was inappropriate.  In the interest of amicable discussion, however, I recommend we move on and let bygones be bygones.  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, wrong again. It's a discussion page. So, If I deemed some of your comments inappropriate, I have all the right to delete them? That makes no sense at all? It's vandalism plain and simple!(Ghostexorcist 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Recap
What basically happened was a person from the Hindu Wikiproject sent a welcome notice to a Jewish user who took offence to the Hindu swastika present on the info box. He went to the Jewish and Hindu wikiprojects and pissed off a lot of people by ranting about how the Hindu swastika shouldn’t be used because it was the emblem of the Nazis. This ignited a huge debate about how the Hindu swastika was used millennia before Hitler took it as his own. Then the debate turned to possibly replacing the swastika with the Aum syllable to calm tensions. Then the debate changed to why removing the swastika would be considered censorship. Then the debate turned back to replacing the swastika with the Aum. From this point on it gets really messy. One user came into the Hindu wikiproject and decided to tell practicing Hindus what and what not their holy symbols/syllables were (turning the debate to which emblem was holier than the other). He cited English sources that played in favor of Aum as a "symbol" and not the proper "syllable" and continued to tell the Hindus what and what not their religious symbols were.

Meanwhile, I contacted this person on their talk page and asked them for their true reasons for wanting to replace the swastika with the Aum. They gave me their nondescript reason and then I told them I hoped they would learn the difference between the two. They took great offence to my comment and deleted the entire discussion. I reverted his page since users are not supposed to delete discussions, thus unintentionally pissing them off.

After hours of endless “wheel-spinning” debate, I suggested a non-binding poll to see who wanted to keep the swastika or use the Aum. After a few votes, the person maliciously deleted my poll. I’m guessing he did this to retaliate against my rightful reversion of his page earlier. I reverted his vandalism and later got the hate mail above from his buddy. What I did not realize is that I had accidentally deleted the post he replaced my poll with. Later, the two would take it upon themselves to hide the poll without consent from myself or unanimous vote from everyone else in the discussion. I didn’t know about this at the time since I had gone to work by then. But sometime later, another person suggested a poll. The results were that MANY people strongly opposed any change to the welcome template. When the person saw he wasn’t going to get his way, he once again hid this poll and called it a failure, even though it was a clear success. Anyway, the debate is still going strong. (Ghostexorcist 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

the poll
and ryan's and izaks antics in general. our welcome template is freaking ugly now.--D-Boy 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Henning
I think you'll like Stanley Henning's work. In English, his scholarly rigor and quality of work are IMHO exceeded only by Meir Shahar. Good luck! JFD 03:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He wrote you back already?! That is unbelievably cool. JFD 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever tell you that I was once offered a job at YMAA Publications? I really, really wanted to take it, but another offer paid better. (The YMAA opening was for an entry-level editorial assistant position.) JFD 18:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This was years ago when I was living in Boston. I found out via a classified ad, of all things, and applied. My new job is something recent and, to tell the truth, I'm away a lot, sometimes for months at a time. JFD 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)