User talk:JFD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 List of archived discussions |
|---|
| 2005-07-25–2006-08-20 2006-08-22–2006-09-07 2006-09-08–2007-01-24 |
[edit] Appearance
I added the following to the Yue Fei page. I thought you might find it interesting:
History professor He Zongli of Zhejiang University says according to the "Zhong Xin Four Generals" Pictures', painted in the Southern Song Dynasty by Liu Songnian, Yue was more of a scholarly general with a shorter stature and chubbier build than the statue of him currently displayed in his tomb in Hangzhou. This statue portrays him as being tall and skinny.
Shen Lixin, an official with the Yue Fei Temple Administration, holds the portrait of Yue Fei from the "Zhong Xin Four Generals' Pictures" to be the most accurate likeness of the general out of all the existing material about him."
I'm going to write Sal about this as well. (Ghostexorcist 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
- Here is a large version of the "Four Generals of Zhongxing". Yue Fei is the second person from the left (the chubby guy): image:Four_Generals_of_Song.jpg.(Ghostexorcist 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
[edit] JFD
Should we really edit the other's articles ourselves now, JFD? I have refrained thus far though. This might tempt you for a reply with your trademark quotation but these edit wars are completely unnessasary. I'll refrain from editing the "Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection" article. Freedom skies| talk 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I may have a thing or two to say about that but I'm about to devote my full attention to a med cabal case. I have not been attending to it as we're too busy hurling insults at each other until a third party comes up and tells us to go to our rooms and think about what we did, so to speak. Maybe when you take a break from your work and I'm free from tests and everything. Freedom skies| talk 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
About your "As it stands, the "Opposing theories" does not accurately convey the work of the authors cited. Matsuda, Lin and Ling are concerned with the authenticity of Yi Jin Jing, not with the historicity of Bodhidharma." query, that association was never removed by me at all. The historians are still primarily linked with the Yi Jin Jing.
In my edit I as much as removed a question about Bodhidharma being an entirely fictional charecter. This view is not supported even by the majority within the detrators. Kenny initiated an edit war which would have needlessly spilled over to three articles if cooler heads did not prevail just this once.
Since you have responeded cordially, I will reinstate it to the excellent version as edited by Djma12. I will revert my own edits and revert to a neutral version that (in my opinion) elevated the article from Start class to Class B.
Good luck with your exams.
Thanks, I will probably need all of it if I have to go for a master's degree in a good college.
Freedom skies| talk 07:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zen
- Happy to do what I can, but I'm afraid I'll be away from tomorrow until the end of next week.--MichaelMaggs 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I welcome your eagerness for tidying up the Zen article. The article can use tidying up.
My understanding is that the Bodhidharma mention will retain it's status quo and neither parties involved will touch it.
As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I will add the early Mahayana Buddhism section that I mentioned in the merge proposal to the article as well.
Freedom skies| talk 15:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It would help if we both waited for Saposcat and Michael. The edits will go more smoothly in their presence. Freedom skies| talk
-
-
- Since both of us accuse each other of trying to vandalize the "correct" portrayal of Bodhidharma it would not help if either one of us as much as touches it. I have extended a request to Saposcat to unilaterally edit Bodhidharma to suit the Zen article. I'm sure that he will do an excellent job. Freedom skies| talk 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The request to Saposcat. Freedom skies| talk 05:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You made yourself perfectly clear. Most of Bodhidharma in it's current form in the Zen article is good enough to stay. His place of honor in Zen tradition will need a mention.
As for the connection of Bodhidharma with Buddhism "as a whole", his role in the spread and influence of Buddhism in East Asia ought to suffice. Outside of Zen Buddhism, buddhist philosophies still do not find adequate followers in China and Japan.
"The Buddhism of China" has more to do with the influence of Zen on Chinese Buddhism than comparing Zen with other schools.
Freedom skies| talk 11:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your evidence on India-Pakistan case
Hey. I would appreciate if you didnt, "jump the list" on the evidence present page. Please move your evidence to the bottom of the list. It works like a queue. So if you came here after me, you will have to post your evidence below mine.
Thank you - --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zen
You can do with some archiving, friend. My response is given here when you find time to read it. Freedom skies| talk 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Calm down, you sound very angry. I never called you a Taoist so you're imagining things. Your last message was vitriolic. Try to keep a cool head, JFD.
- Freedom skies| talk 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It would have helped if you provided actual suggestions, JFD. Judging by this post you seem genuinely stressed. The factual accuracy of this post is debatable as well but at this point I won't be combative. Listen, if this seems too stressful then I can agree on a mutual wikibreak for a couple of days to help us both relax a bit. Kindly do me the courtesy of letting me know if you accept. I have refrained from commenting to your last paragraph in the manner that I originally would have and have provided a proposal which will incorporate your suggestion as well. Please relax. Freedom skies| talk 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A short note ...
I'm moving the discussion between you and Freedom skies onto the Zen talk page, as it really belongs there for all to see, rather than hidden away on my talk page. Once I've done the move, I'm going to make a few brief comments as time allows. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] your comments on the ArbCom case
Hi JFD - I deeply appreciate your comments and support. Thank you - don't worry about the progress of the case. The outcome, whatever it is, will only benefit Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the revision, btw :-) Djma12 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zen
Many thanks for complimenting my work. Coming from you it means a great deal. Since no support seems to be forthcoming on Zen may I propose that we both work this out between ourselves? We have done it before and our relations have rarely been more cordial. Since both our positions are known and we have worked on similar topics multiple times before I don't think it's going to be a problem at all. Kindly let me know. Also, I can't find time for long discussions on multiple articles in foreseeable future. You watch my contribs and you'll note the many messages I sent indicating either uninvolvement or hinting a wrap up. Kindly help me do just that, wrap up prior commitments and not make any new ones that I cannot keep due to constraints of time. Extending genuine regards, Freedom skies| talk 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foreign Influence article
Please note that I have moved the conversation to the page's discussion page. See you there!
Djma12 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I -think- now you have to ask whether they want to be a party. I know that in one of the previous cases, arbitrators had to allow someone to be added in as a party because there was an injunction about the case. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Go right ahead. CiteCop 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You've done a commendable job gathering evidence and you've worked very hard on organizing it but, if you'll allow me to be blunt, you've gathered so much evidence that it's swallowing up some of the points you're trying to make. CiteCop 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Arbitration
| “ | Why are you going to bat for Freedom skies—alongside Bakaman no less—after the exceptionally ugly disputes you've had with them?
JFD 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
” |
I don't know about you, but I am an open minded person. Wiki Raja 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
| “ | You wrote that Freedom skies has been battling POV from other users. One of those users was you. You accused him of—your exact words were—"promoting Indo-Aryan fascism". JFD 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Can you provide me a source to show me when I said that and to whom? Also, please stop harassing me on my talk page. Thank you. Wiki Raja 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zhou Tong a confucian?
I’ve been corresponding with experts in Chinese history, Literature, and folktales about my research on Zhou Tong. Prof. Peter Lorge from Vanderbilt University suggests that Zhou might have been a Confucian-scholar because archery is one of their “Six Arts”. The Yue Fei Zhuan only says he taught Yue Fei archery and not martial arts. So its very possible what Prof. Lorge suggests is true. He told me I should read the book Chinese Archery to find more info on Confucians and their archery. I was scanning Google books and found a book on Mi Fu (1051-1107) that mentions how he was friends with a certain Zhou Tong who was a “principal graduate” (Jinshi, 1076 CE) of some government exams. I’m still waiting on the author of that book to reply with this Zhou’s Chinese characters. Even if they did match up doesn’t mean they were the same person. But it’s still interesting. (Ghostexorcist 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
