User talk:LaGrandefr

ridiculous! there is never one-person war in the world. I cannot support ur honor.--LaGrandefr (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty
Due to the dispute, the article has been locked. Further information is here, I have offered to mediate the content dispute. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd ask you try to follow the instructions in the section I created. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility Warning
I've been reading the dispute. Some of your comments have not been civil. I ask that you remain civil, regardless of the circumstances. Keep a cool head. I cannot do anything about it, just to ask you to watch how you say things, and remain civil. Incivility is something I cannot tolerate as a mediator. And, yes, I have notified the other person of the exact same issue. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Debunking the Mingshi and LaGrandefr's map ming_1443.png
WARNING. Certain users may experience total and utter earth-shattering disappointment that their argument has been mercilessly beaten and torn apart by Turrell V. Wylie in the following section, as the Mingshi loses all credibility as a direct and reliable scholarly source. Wikipedia users should use the Mingshi with caution and a grain of salt while consulting modern secondary source literature of scholarly books and journals to check and verify their arguments!-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is rich; to further buttress the points of scholars I've already mentioned here on the talk page and in the main article, I point to this chapter "Lama Tribute in the Ming Dynasty" by Turrell V. Wylie, pages 467-473 in the book History of Tibet (Volume II):

...the payment of tribute in Ming times cannot be interpreted as evidence of China's suzerainty over any country. Li Tieh-tseng himself noted that the tribute missions were highly profitable to the lamas and became such a drain on the Ming treasury that they had to be curtailed. If the purpose of the Ming policy towards the lamas were to maintain Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, then surely such control depended on means other than the so-called "tribute missions."

This brings us to the issue of the bestowal of titles and seals on the lamas. Both Chinese authors cited in this paper interpret this as a continuation by the Ming emperors of the lama policy of the preceding Yuan dynasty and that it constituted the official renewal of appointments made by the Mongol emperors. Li Tieh-tseng wrote that "Most of the offices were hereditary under the Yuan dynasty. Their occupants, in command of one thousand or ten thousand families, were reappointed with new patents." He refers, of course, to the offices of a chiliarch and a myriarch; offices which were in effect during the lifetime of the Mongol-imposed Sa-skya government.

I have dealt with the first Mongol conquest of Tibet in the 13th century in some detail elsewhere. Suffice it here to say that following the census of 1268, Khubilai Khan had central Tibet divided into thirteen myriarchies for purposes of taxation and administration. The hierocratic he imposed on Tibet employs lamas as viceroys with administrative headquarters at Sa-Skya. Historically, Tibet came under Mongol domination a decade before China was finally conquered by the armies of Khubilai Khan.

In the middle of the 14th century, Tibetans led by the myriarch of Phag-mo-gru rebelled against the Sa-Skya government. Mongol military failed to intervene and Sa-Skya was overthrown. The Phag-mo-gru myriarch became the de facto ruler of Tibet and the Mongol Emperor Toghun Temür conferred on him the seal and title of T'ai Si-tu. The Phag-mo-gru ruler established a new form of centralized government with headquarters at Sne-gdong in the Yar-klungs district. He replaced the myriarchy system imposed by the Mongols with administrative units called rdzong, each governed by an official appointed by him. Thus, the "lama-patron" relationship (yon-mchod) which, beginning with Khubilai Khan and 'Phags-pa of Sa-Skya, had been the underlying principle of the Mongol-imposed polity in Tibet, came to an end. Historically then, Tibet became independent of Mongol domination before the Ming dynasty ever came into existence. In view of such chronology, one cannot help but question the validity of the claim that Tibetan myriarchs—whose offices had ceased to exist—"were reappointed with new patents" by the Ming emperors.

The Chinese authors cited in this paper view the Ming policy as a continuation of the Mongol policy towards the lamas. Granted that the myriarchs and other officials of Tibet were confirmed in office by the Mongols, the primary sources make it clear that the khans focused their political support on lamas of the Sa-Skya sect as their viceroys. Contrastingly, the Chinese emperors of the Ming dynasty lavished rewards and titles on all leading lamas who accepted the invitation to come to court, regardless of their sectarian affiliations. The Ming Shih lists various titles bestowed on lamas; eight of which end in the title "King" (Chinese: Wang). A contemporary Tibetan text notes that the Ming emperor bestowed the office and title of Dhang (phonetically: Wang) on the hierarch of Phag-mo-gru, but it then states that the hierarchs of 'Bi-khung, Rtse-dgong, and Gling were equally given that title as well.

Even though the Chinese authors cited regard the entitlement of lamas as the renewal of appointments made earlier by the Mongol emperors, evidence contained in the Ming Shih itself disproves such an interpretation.

So here LaGrandefr is, trying to use the Mingshi (as he states here, his 'Bible' of Ming history) as the prime text to secure and validate his point about rule over Tibet, and even the Mingshi contradicts him! Oh this is too much for words. Irony, much?

More to come...-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuing his point on the next page, from pages 469 to 470:

Consider first the title Ta Pao Fa Wang ("Great Precious King of the [Buddhist] Law"). This was the same title Khubilai Khan gave to 'Phags-pa Lama of Sa-Skya as his Imperial Teacher and Viceroy of Tibet. If it were the intention of the Ming emperors to continue the Mongol policy towards the lamas, then one would have expected that this exalted title would have been bestowed on a descendent of the Sa-Skya lineage in order to perpetuate—even if only symbolically—a semblence of the "lama-patron" relationship that pertained in the Mongol dynasty. Or even better from the pragmatic view of maintaining suzerainty, that title should have gone to the successor of T'ai Si-tu of Phagmo-gru as the de facto ruler of Tibet. Notwithstanding, these historical or political considerations, the title of "Great Precious King of the Law" was bestowed according to the Ming Shih in the year 1407 by the Yung-lo Emperor on the fifth hierarch of the Black-hat Karma-pa sect.

It is impossible to interpret this entitlement of the Karma-pa hierarch as a "renewal of appointment" by the Ming emperor for the simple reason that the Black-hat Karma-pa lamas were not appointed to myriarchic office during the previous Mongol dynasty. In fact, the Black-hat Karma-pa is said to have been politically eclipsed by Khubilai Khan because Karma Bakshi, second hierarch of the sect, refused Khubilai's invitation to become his court lama. Logically, if the Black-hat Karma-pa hierarchs had not been appointed to office by the Mongol emperors, then there could be no "reappointment to office" by succeeding Chinese emperors.

A successor of the famous 'Phags-pa Lama of Sa-Skya was given a title, albeit a new one; namely Ta Ch'eng Fa Wang ("King of the Law of the Great Vehicle" [=Mahayana]).

As for the Phag-mo-gru hierarch, de facto ruler of Tibet at the time, it is said he was the first to go to the Ming court. The Ming Shih refers to him as the "acting Imperial Teacher" and states that the emperor changed his title to the lesser one of "State Teacher" (kuo shih). Decades later, however, one of the successors of the Phag-mo-gru hierarch was given the more exalted title of Shan Huo Wang ("King Who Teaches Liberation"). Even more important to the contention that the Ming policy cannot be regarded as one of renewing official appointments is the case of Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes, a personal disciple of Tsong-ka-pa, founder of the Yellow-hat Dge-lugs-pa sect. The Yung-lo Emperor repeatedly invited Tsong-ka-pa to come to court, but he declined. Tsong-ka-pa finally sent his disciple, Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes, in his stead. On his first visit to the court, this disciple was given the title of "State Teacher"; the same title originally given the Phagmo-gru ruler of Tibet. On a later visit to the court, this disciple received the title of Ta Tz'u Fa Wang ("Great Compassionate King of the Buddhist Law") from the Hsüan-te Emperor. Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes was just one among the many disciples of Tsong-ka-pa, yet he received a title with the pompous designation of "King". Presumably, he was then regarded as being on the same religious plane as the hierarchs of the Black-hat Karma-pa, the Sa-Skya-pa, and others who also were given the title of a "King". Again, it is impossible to regard the title bestowed on Chos-rje Shākya Ye-shes as a "renewal of appointment" made by the Mongol emperors. The reformation movement that led to the rise of the Yellow-hat sect did not begin until after the fall of the Mongol dynasty, consequently no member of that sect could have been appinted to office by the Mongol court. At this point it is important to note that neither the name of the Yellow-hat sect or that of its founder, Tsong-ka-pa, appear in the official history of the Ming Dynasty. The reason for this is provided by Li Tieh-tseng himself, who wrote that "In China not only the emperor could do no wrong, but also his prestige and dignity had to be upheld at any cost. Had the fact been made known to the public that Ch'eng-tsu's repeated invitations extended to Tsong-ka-pa were declined, the Emperor's prestige and dignity would have been considered as lowered to a contemptible degree, especially at a time when his policy to show high favours toward lamas was by no means popular and had already caused resentment among the people. This explains why no mention of Tsong-k'a-pa and the Yellow Sect was made in the Ming Shih and Ming Shih lu."

And with that last statement of Wylie quoting the challenged scholar Li Tieh-tseng, do you see now, User:LaGrandefr, why it is wrong and dangerous for YOU to make judgments about the Mingshi, as if you were some qualified historian and professor with a Ph.D? Here is a gigantic error of history embodied in your supposedly faultless Mingshi. With that in mind, you better drop your present argument and pick up a book and start reading, because your argument has just now been destroyed.

Still more to come...-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After quoting Li Tieh-tseng here, Wylie continues by wrapping up his argument here (NOTE: the bolding of text here in two spots is my own doing, not Wyli'es):

Such censorship of the official history of the Ming dynasty distorts the true picture of the period. It is clear, however, that the Ming emperors were not continuing the lama policy of the previous Mongol dynasty. Beginning with Khubilai Khan, the Mongol emperors had appointed a Sa-Skya lama as "Imperial Teacher" to serve as the viceroy of the Mongol-imposed government in Tibet. When the last Sa-Skya lama to hold that title died in 1358, the Sa-Skya regime had already been overthrown and the office of the "Imperial Teacher" fell into disuse. Although the Mongols had focused their support singularly on lamas of the Sa-Skya sect to rule Tibet, the Chinese emperors rewarded all who came to court regardless of sectarian affiliation. Since the Ming emperors were not following the Mongol practice, their lama policy must have been based on another consideration. Relevant here is the turn of events during the reign of the Shih-tsung Emperor (1522-1566). This emperor embraced Taoism, degraded lamas, and suppressed Buddhism. The Ming Shih states from this time onwards "Tibetan lamas rarely went to China". In view of the lavish rewards and titles that were given to lamas for almost two centuries, the fact that they stopped going to China in the 16th century suggests a dramatic change in Ming policy towards the lamas. It is mere coincidence that this change was synchronic with the return of the Mongols to the Kokonor region? Even though the Mongols were overthrown in China, they continued to be a force in Inner Asia. Early in the 16th century they began again to infiltrate the Kokonor region, and in the reign of the Shih-tsung Emperor, Mongols under the leadership of Altan Khan began to harass the Chinese frontier. Altan Khan finally made peace with the Ming court in 1571, but that did not stop him from becoming involved in Tibetan affairs. He invited the third hiearch of the Yellow-hat Sect to Mongolia and in 1578 he gave that lama the Mongolian title of Dalai ("Ocean"). Following the example of his ancestor Khubilai Khan, Altan Khan entered into the "lama-patron" relationship with this Dalai Lama.

Although I'm done with Wylie's source, I'm not done here by far, more to come.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal Case Filed incorrectly.
Please read this, and follow it's instructions. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to refile the case, have the issues more clear as to what needs mediating, keep the comments neutral, and ypou must include all users involved, the ones that commented on the Ming talk page. Thanks, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Annam in your map
Quick question about the new map that I somehow didn't notice before: why is Annam shown as part of Ming China in 1443? The Ming Dynasty was pushed out of Vietnam in 1428, and the Ming court recognized the new Lê Dynasty in 1431. This creates an entirely new problem, no?-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment? Listen, I'll give you about a week to fix it, but after that, I'm replacing the map, because it truly is inaccurate, and not in the debatable sort of way. Annam was truly not part of the Ming in 1443, as evidenced by Lê Lợi's rebellion and independence.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you haven't changed your map by now, so I am beginning to wonder. I told you on Talk:Ming Dynasty that I would change it by Tuesday if you did not revise it by then. Tuesday is tomorrow, so I will give you this one heads up notice.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Still a problem
I appreciate your efforts, but in your newly revised map, Image:MingEmpire.png, Annam is no longer colored the same as directly-ruled territories, but you have it under the same color as Tibet and Manchuria. What are you getting at here? If you were simply coloring all of the Ming's tributaries as light blue, then why not color Korea light blue as well? After all, it was a tributary to the Ming. Like the Joseon Dynasty of Korea, the Le Dynasty of Vietnam is not contested, the latter was fully independent after 1431, and your map is supposed to represent 1443. I can't believe you still don't get this. Please revise your map again, this time with Vietnam as a blank color, as it is not contested by scholars as being ruled by the Ming, but a well-known fact that it was independent (although paying tribute like Korea, Malacca, Borneo, etc.)-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, simply coloring Annam differently from China proper will not do. You must blank Vietnam completely with no color, same as the neutral territories of the map. The whole reason Manchuria and Tibet are colored light blue in your map is because they are contested regions by modern scholars, not Vietnam though!-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And another thing; this new edit war you are engaged in is not of my doing; after all, I'm not the only one opposed to your map. As the phrase goes: "I have no dogs in this fight". If you want to resolve this then that's up to you and your personal efforts to talk to User:Balthazarduju, User:Bertport, User:Angelo De La Paz, User:Neo-Jay, and User:Josuechan. I am not a mediator, I am a challenger (well, at least not this time around, although I am still not content with Vietnam in your map, which should have no color at all). If you're looking for mediation then you should talk to Steve Crossin again.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty map
I appreciate that you try to help out on the Ming Dynasty article, but the map you uploaded simply isn't up to the standards, and many users questions the validity of the map. For example, you used the term "China proper" on the map; for all I know, the term never existed in Chinese vocabulary and certainly wasn't during Ming Dynasty (and Ming certainly regarded the areas they ruled just as properly China as anything else). I also noticed some users dispute the map's source "Sinomap press" as not neutral and some questioned the extent of Ming's control of Manchuria and Vietnam on your map. That is why I think the Harvard University Map is probably the more suitable version since it is directly from the source and hard to argue about.

I understand that you probably wants to create a map that shows Ming Dynasty at its largest extent right? Why not use the Minnesota State University's map (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/later_imperial_china/ming.html) or the Encarta's map (http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T028712A.gif) of the Ming Dynasty to create a map that is labeled as "Ming Dynasty at its greatest extent"? Many other political entities on Wikipedia have similar maps (see Safavid dynasty, Timurid dynasty, Mughal Empire...).--Balthazarduju (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, once again
What the hell are you guys doing now? Why does the page have to be protected again? And LaGrandefr, if you're going to edit an English Wikipedia, try learning English grammar first. Your nefarious passage on Tibet and the Mingshi that you slopped together in a disheveled fashion without regarding the narrative flow of the sub-section displays an atrocious understanding of English grammar and will be deleted as soon as I can edit the article. With total disregard for the negotiation we had above, you added a gigantic block of new text to a section that we agreed needs its own split article if there was to be further elaboration on the subject of Tibet. Your unthoughtful and poorly-decided placement of the Tibet sub-section in the main government section is unwelcome, as you did not approach any of the editors here to ask their opinion about the organization of the article and where the Tibet sub-section is relevant. Also, how many times on Talk:Ming Dynasty have I been over this issue of the Mingshi with you? You are not qualified to write anything about the Mingshi in regards to Tibet. Period. End of story. No more discussion. If you wish to contribute something, you will do so with secondary scholarly literature. I can't believe that after all this time, after all this debate, you still haven't learned how to obey that fundamental rule about Wikipedia: No Original Research by using primary sources.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have a better idea! The Mingshi information you have placed in the article (which I should note you haven't even cited accordingly) can easily be countered by Turrell V. Wylie on why the Mingshi is not a source to be trusted in regards to Tibet. In a way, LaGrandefr, you sort of shot yourself in the foot by adding that information which is simply going to be debunked in the article. Actually, since we agreed that any new material added should go in a separate article (as this main article is already too large), I will provide Wylie's interpretation of the Mingshi in a separate article I will create called Sino-Tibetan relations during the Ming Dynasty, which will, of course, have your Mingshi info intact (I do ask that you properly cite your sources for goodness sake, at least try to act professional).-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 16:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your humorous accusations of me lying and your map again
Alright, since you don't speak English I'm not going to make fun of you for these remarks here (although I am laughing right now). Tell me, sweetie pie, where exactly in our discussion above did you properly cite the Mingshi? You did not. You made statements about the Mingshi, but you never gave us proper citations here, or in the Ming article. So to call me a liar for that is a bit slanderous, LaGrandefr, unless you have some evidence (which you don't). Oh, and your recent addition of citations as of this morning to the Tibet during the Ming Dynasty article doesn't count in your argument that I am a "liar", because you just added them today. Also, your refusal to fix Annam spawns a new problem with your map, which I have discussed with you again, and again, and again, etc. etc. I can't believe you still don't understand the difference between Yongle's reign era (1402–1424) when the Ming Dynasty ruled Vietnam, and the year 1443 which your map is supposed to represent, which is 12 years after the Ming court recognized Vietnam as a fully independent state with its own emperor. Why would you want to include a map in an article that doesn't have a definite year for it? That's some lazy-headed slipshod work right there. You're pretty much conceding at this point that your map is inaccurate, but you don't really care, do you! It is grounds for me to keep it out of this article until you revise it. So why don't you fix it for me and come back here, sugar bumps, and then I'll wholeheartedly accept a balanced, non-bias map that has NPOV and accurately portrays the year 1443 as SinoMap Press claims it does. Ok, sweetie-pie?-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 13:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lying about sources cited
I find it ironic that, earlier today at Talk:Ming Dynasty, User:LaGrandefr accused me of lying when I stated that he never provided any citations for the Mingshi in the main Ming Dynasty article (and not even in Talk:Ming Dynasty, look for yourselves in the long collapsible discussion). He has the audacity to call me a liar, and then creates a huge, disingenuous, and quite unpardonable lie himself on the same day. He cited Patricia Ebrey's 1999 book the Cambridge Illustrated History of China as a source for the campaigns of Deng Yu and Mu Ying and put words into Ebrey's mouth that she did not say (of course, LaGrandefr did not provide a page number). Unfortunately for LaGrandefr, I own the book and am looking at it right now. He used an unknown page from Ebrey's book to make this claim:

"Moreover, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China records Ming's several military expeditions to Tibet in the beginning of the dynasty, DENG Yu (鄧愈) and MU Ying (沐英) were sent by the imperial court to conquer Tibet in 1373 and 1378, as a result, Tibetan tribes showed submission to Ming court."

Looking through the index (I'm holding Ebrey's book in my hand right now), Tibet is only mentioned on pages 13, 110, 118, 129, 130, 164, 173, 175, 227, 267, 295, 303, 305, and 331. And guess what? Not only is Deng Yu or Mu Ying never mentioned in her book, but she also claims the opposite of what LaGrandefr is saying. On page 227, in writing about the later Qing Dynasty conquest of Tibet from 1717 to 1720, Ebrey states this:

Previously Tibet (like Korea and other neighboring states) had acquiesced to tributary status but had not had troops or governors from China proper stationed in its territory. Still, the Qing interfered relatively little in Tibetan affairs, allowing local leaders to do most of the actual governing.

So tell me, LaGrandefr, what other sources are you using in order to lie and put words into other people's mouths that should never be attributed to them? There's a whole bunch of your statements in this article that I've tagged with tags, but I wonder how many of them are falsely attributed because of you twisting the sources to say what you want. And don't think this is some issue I have with the Deng Yu and Mu Ying campaigns, since I've recently updated the article using John D. Langlois' Cambridge book chapter to include the info on Ming military intervention. No, this is about honesty, and apparently you have none.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet during the Ming Dynasty
One day, this maturing young article might grow up to be a big boy and a featured article, so please, parent it wisely and provide all further suggestions for edits on the Talk page, which I will also adhere to for major edits and additional material. In fact, you can show me just how you want the article to look (if you have additional changes in mind) by creating your own sandbox. I have mine, it's simply called User:PericlesofAthens/Sandbox. Feel free to create your own (User:LaGrandefr/Sandbox perhaps?). In it, you can copy the entire existing article and make your own changes as necessary before actually changing the real article.

As of now, the only scholars in the article who support your position of sovereignty are Wang, Nyima, and Chen, which is not much compared to the amount of scholars I have found opposing your view: Chan, Wylie, Norbu, Sperling, Hoffman, Van Praag, Xagabba, Ebrey, and Goldstein. What the article needs is mentioning and elaboration from scholars with your point of view. Can you find them? And please, allow me to verify them and look at the sources, since you have had trouble with using sources as evidenced by my rightfully angry post above.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to cite a different book from Chen, you have to do it properly. Your citation method (i.e. Chen P47) does not match at all with the reference style I have chosen for the article. I ask that you conform to that. Look at all the citations in the notes section and conform all further things you cite to that style and layout. For example, providing the authors name first, then the title, then in parenthesis the place of publication with the publisher's name and the year it was published, followed by a comma, and then the page numbers you are citing from that book. Clear?-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the internet site that you cited is not in the correct format. Dude, listen. I can't babysit you all the time and explain to you all this stuff. Please observe how I've cited everything in the article before making edits. Keep in mind, I just put this article up for FA status. I don't mind you including information from Chen, but I will not have it cited incorrectly. Also, you have not improved upon your grammar, which I have to clean up every time you edit. Don't you see how this is a headache for me? Please, show me your edits first in a sandbox and I can go over these problems with you so that they are fine before you include new material into the article.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 16:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

British Empire Image
You know full well where that image came from - it was the image pre your adjustments to shade the whole of China as a British sphere of influence. Please stop readding this unsourced material to the British Empire article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Tables in Tibet during the Ming Dynasty
I recently added this comment to the talk page:

As for the clunky tables, which LaGrandefr has added another recently, they are an eyesore and distraction in the article. However, I don't want to remove them altogether, since they do make a good reference as to which lama was granted a certain Ming title, along with the Ming terms for administration in the other table that are a bit helpful as a reference. I think, though, that they can still be moved somewhere else, perhaps in a notes section separate from the footnotes? I want to hear what LaGrandefr has to say about this.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LaGrandefr, you are truly, absolutely pathetic. From pages 44 and 48 of Tibetan History, you copied the lines of Chen's book word for word without quoting him. That is truly bizarre, and bordering on plagiarism. Why would you do that? Seriously, if you want people to take you seriously on anything, please don't ever do that again. Do you not even understand the concept of paraphrasing someone's writing?-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 19:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your tables, they have not been removed since that would be a POV decision in favor of Tibetan independence during the Ming (or at least a bad decision since they do provide a useful reference to who was granted what title and when), but they are now located at the bottom of the article where they are no longer a gigantic distraction from the prose of the article. I have added citations from Chen in your second table as well, since you provided no citations in that table to verify the content.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I said that administrators cannot indefinitely fully protect one version of an article, unless it's heavy, persistent vandalism. MedCab is generally for mediating a content dispute, it's not for requesting one's wishes be fulfilled, unfortunately. There's a content dispute on the article, but fully protecting it for a long long time isn't the solution. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
It seems you never got a welcome message. I've found them to be a helpful source of links and maybe you'll find it useful too?

By the way, I responded to your request for mediation. <font color="indigo" face="blackmoor let" size="3">clicketyclick yaketyyak 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was welcomed. Appeared he removed it. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, in any case, that welcome didn't have links to the most important policies and guidelines on sources, bans, and how to deal with other people. <font color="indigo" face="blackmoor let" size="3">clicketyclick yaketyyak 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All my responses to your message, LaGrandefr, will be on my talk page. (Steve, you may want to check it out too.) <font color="indigo" face="blackmoor let" size="3">clicketyclick yaketyyak 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tibet
Please sort out the disagreement on the Talk:Tibet page. Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to engage in edit warring you will be blocked, which I don't want to happen. Himalayan   14:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, it can be frustrating. Somebody I know is blocked for a year because he believed he was right about something. Just take care that's all, I know you mean well, if in doubt that Yaan and the others have got it wrong ask my good friend User:John Hill to help offer his view.Don't worry about numbers reverting for now, if you are correct we'll sort something out in the next day or two. Himalayan   15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Chinese restoration of Tibet
I have nominated Chinese restoration of Tibet, 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/Chinese restoration of Tibet. 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. Bertport (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Chinese restoration of Tibet
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese restoration of Tibet
A tag has been placed on Chinese restoration of Tibet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tibet
Dear LaGrandefr, Your edits in the section "independence" of this article a highly problematic as they unilatery reflect Chinese opinions re. de facto independence of Tibet and therefore violate neutrality. I have changend "all authorities" again to "most authorities" recognized the suzerainty of China over Tibet beteen 1913 and 1950, since for example Mongolia which had gained independence from China (despite China´s claim on this country) during this period certainly did not support China`s claim of sovereignty and not even suzerainty over Tibet. Clemensmarabu (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear L.

Shame on all propagandists!!! Propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.

I wish you would follow these very sensible statements and not try to regurgitate Chinese communist propaganda regarding Tibet, and in doinng this give outright support to a totalitarian state.Clemensmarabu (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please sort out the disagreement on the Talk:Tibet page. Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to engage in edit warring you will be blocked, which I don't want to happen. Bertport (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reported you for 3RR violation and edit warring at. Bertport (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for a week for a persistent ideological battleground attitude, as manifested in your permanent edit-warring on Tibet (breach of 3RR as evidenced in current report at WP:AN3, together with your explicit statement you would consider a daily 3 reverts the norm of your editing ). This in connection with totally unacceptable tendentious edits like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What a crying shame you decide to view wikipedia as a warground for your propoganda and POV. There is enough ignorance in real world politics without you igniting them on english wikipedia. I loathe editors who have agendas on here. It spoils it for the people who are trying to build a neutral fair encyclopedia. <font size="2" style="color:white;background:#B00760;">‡ Himalayan ‡ <font size="-4" color="#C5B358">ΨMonastery 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not evade your block through logged-out editing, as you did here. If you want to appeal your block, you may post an unblock request here, but don't use IPs to edit anywhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)