Bertport

Welcome to Bertport's talkpage! Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started. Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied. If you post a message here, I will reply here, unless requested otherwise. I may add {{Talkback}} to your talk page if and when necessary. Please keep a cool head when posting messages. I will reply to your message as soon as possible. Click here to leave me a new message.

User:Bertport/Archives User:Bertport/Status

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes for just your name.

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk

To create a page that just redirects to an existing one, just put one line in the new page: #redirect [[title of target page]]

“published scholarly source from an academic press”

I fully support your addition of tone diacriticals to pinyin on Wiki! Jiāyóu! BTW, pls consider adding your voice to the discussion in section 2.1.1 here.Dragonbones 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I notice you've been moving a lot of articles to the titles in pinyin with diacritics. I'm not sure that's a good idea. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles)>Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you rejected my changes and additions to my father's (David Keirsey) page. In general I don't try to interfere with people's additions or changes to my father's page, except when I feel they are adding wrong or confusing information. In that case I try to correct or clarify the added material. If you are interested in relating Carl Jung's work to my father's and Isabel Myers, please make sure that you know what you are talking about. And if you are going to reject changes, make sure that you have a solid basis for doing so. Giving more credit to Jung for Myers work or misleading statements about Jung's influence on my father's ideas, are not acceptable to me. Edit wars on Wikipedia are not productive. To give you an example of misleading information -- "the sixteen types" and their descriptions was from Isabel -- Jung did not have any notion of "sixteen types" -- your writings had implied or at least did not make it clear -- many people attribute too much to Jung, than rather Myers, and unfortunately there is too much attribution of Jung ideas influencing my father also holds for my father's work too.

I can understand that you have strong personal opinions about what should be in an article about your father. However, this is an encyclopedia article, governed by standards of documented fact, not personal feelings, per Wikipedia policy. The source of the sixteen types, Jung's 1921 "Psychological Types," has already been cited in this article. If you read it, you will see clearly that this is the basis of Myers' work. Furthermore, Myers' book "Gifts Differing" also makes it clear that the inventory she and Briggs developed was an implementation of Jung's definitions. Bertport 20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree it is not a matter of feelings -- but by standards of documented facts. The references are fine, more the better. Notice I didn't delete that, on my edit. Although there is no such thing as an objective point of view, implied by facts. Everybody has their own point of view and bias(despite the "ideal" of Wikipedia policy) The fact is Katherine and Isabel acknowledged Jung's influence on their work, but "implementation of Jung's definitions" does not consider the fact that the sixteen types described by Isabel Myers (in the Myers Briggs Manual Form E, pages 70-71, 1958) is not a "mere" implementation of Jung's confusing ideas in Psychological Types. There is no place in Psychological Types that he mentions sixteen types of people -- he talks abstractly about many things - thinking, feeling, introversion, extroversion, intuition, and sensation. But you are short changing Myers in your prose, confusing the reader, and making it as though my father's ideas are based on Jung directly. Jung had very little influence on my father, on the positive. He had read Jung's Psychological Types, before encountering Myers, and didn't find any use for it. If you want to give credit to Jung, which he does deserve, I suggest you focus on -- his opposing of Freud's nonsense, and suggesting that there "types" (unfortunately he used the word "archetypes" to confuse the issue.) http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/difference.html

Again, Myers herself, in Gifts Differing, asserts that these are Jungian types. Her work is, nonetheless, significant and influential, as is Kiersey's. That doesn't change the well-documented fact that Myers and Briggs were applying Jung's theory of psychological types. I am aware that Kiersey connected with Myers' writings much better than with Jung's. That doesn't change the fact, attested to by Myers herself, that her own work is based on Jung's. To say that the system of types was originally created from Jung is not to say that Keirsey relied on Jung directly. It is your ideas, your logic, and your writing, that are confused. This article was a mess before I waded in to clean it up into something correct and readable. Bertport 01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article is a composition of numerous individuals as are all wikipedia articles -- the prose is the result of a "committee" -- they are not my ideas, my logic, and all my writing -- only by evolution does the article get better (and sometimes worse). I appreciate your interest and I only try to correct things that I see which are out of wack or not correct, sometimes simple things like misspelling of the Keirsey name ;-) This is not the article I would write about my father. Peace.

I would encourage the involved users to pursue Dispute Resolution. Edit warring is disruptive, and doesn't solve anything. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bertport, I have recently moved LaGrandefr's clunky tables down to their own section at the end, as they were a complete eyesore and distraction in the "Assertions in the Mingshi" section of the article. I'd like to get your opinion of this on the talk page in the relevant talk page section on tables that you started.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Recently, User:Collectonian has opposed the candidacy of Tibet during the Ming Dynasty as a featured article. One of the reasons he chose to oppose the article was that it lacked stability and people were still in disagreement about the title of the article.

Yesterday, I stated on the talk page of the article that I was not opposed to LaGrandefr's suggestion that the title could be changed, and I offered "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty", which was slightly different from his suggestion of "in the Ming Dynasty". I was wondering, since you opposed him in moving the article's title earlier, if you would weigh in and offer your opinion of "Tibetan history during the Ming Dynasty"?

Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

HELL NO! I have free access to JSTOR through my university, George Mason University. Like hell I would pay them that kind of money, those highway robbers. Lol. Don't even worry about JSTOR; I've scoured it, and they don't have anything about Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. My younger junior-year-in-college sister, on the other hand, has just informed me that she owns some incredible books on Tibetan Buddhism and one on the history of the Yellow Hat sect! Those should be good once I get my hands on them.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it might be a little belated, but I should inform you that her books did not contain any good information that I could have used. Lol. Hey, how's it going. I noticed that you edited History of the Han Dynasty recently, my new pet project. I notice that you support Barack Obama. What a coincidence? I support Barack Obama (and voted for him too, naturally)! And I plan on going into D.C. on the 20th. That should be hell, even on the metro.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Enjoy the inauguration ceremony. I'm sure the crowds will be intense. I lived in downtown DC for a while, it was fun, even though those were Reagan-Bush years. Bertport (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've got 'em, I just don't have time to go through all my materials today. They shall be forth-coming. Please don't revert it. If you just HAVE to, please, please, please, copy it and put in my talk section before you do, b/c I do have sources. Also, and this doesn't pertain to anything I've done so far, but do you think pictures of historical documents you take count as sources? They have a huge Beat exhibit in my town, Austin, including the scroll of On the Road and I've going back to get tons of pictures. I'm kinda doubting it. --Leodmacleod 3:17, 8 May 2008

Well, well, well. It looks like our old pal LaGrandefr is up to some dirty tricks again; you should at least take a look, his allegations are rather humorous (as usual). If you look here, he's been trying for the past week to have the both of us (and everybody but administrators) blocked from editing Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. His latest comment was just yesterday, while we were simultaneously expanding the article and making major improvements.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw this a few days ago. However, it looked to me like the people he was appealing to were probably getting a pretty good take on the situation. I also went back and read through the Talk page on TdtMD, and I thought a reasonable, unbiased third party would be skeptical of LaGrandefr. Bertport (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you notice, too, on Steve Crossin's user page, LG gave him a "diff" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibet_during_the_Ming_Dynasty&diff=210717906&oldid=209722180) that skipped 130 intermediate revisions, as evidence that you were doing something bad, he just couldn't say exactly what, to his work? Bertport (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, actually I had not seen that! Hahaha! What a tool. ;)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just responded to your email you sent 4 days ago. Sorry for being so late!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Funny name, isn't it? Added some sources here. HTH --Faith (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Help to preserve Serfdom in Tibet .

They have edited out almost everything, there were 2 comments from Charles Bell about slavery, Amban, and Cumulus Clouds edited out the one mentioning children being sold as slaves, however left the one says slavery was mild.

Thanks for fixing my last edit/addition to the 'Beats' section on "Kenneth Rexroth". I sort of rushed the line, whch accounts for my having left out the correct linkage and punctuations. I understand now that one must post with a clear head, haha. I just saw red when I realised that the user "RepublicanJacobite" had removed it and also sent me a terse vandalism warning. You know, every now and then, one runs into a half-wit like "RepublicanJacobite", who feel and treat the Wiki entry as their own personal fiefdom, to add and subtract information, FACTUAL information when it doesnt jibe with their distorted world view.Its like trying to edit , say, the "American Muslim" page, where those with dogmatic agendas immediately erase any facual or historical additions. I'm a little worried this joker might try and block my usage...is there any chance for this? How does one block another user? How do I report this guy? Its obvious from his Wik-history that this fellow is short on academics and long on fawning and/or speculative puffery. Any help would be appreciated....you can even email me at, garagehero@yahoo.com Thanks. Garagehero (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

How's it going these days. I see you're still trying to work out the POV mess that is Serfdom in Tibet, although I have to say, the article looks like it has seen some significant progress. I've been working on List of Chinese inventions lately; go have a look and tell me what you think. Cheers!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pericles. Yeah, I've been trying to exert some influence on Serfdom in Tibet, but I have the feeling there are other editors around who know a lot more about the topic already than I do, so I've kinda been waiting to see if they will step in. List of Chinese inventions is looking like another fine PoA product. Some 500 edits or so in the past week. Bertport (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I noticed you redirected the Tai chi article and cut and pasted the content into the Taijiquan article. This is in no way a comment on the merits of the rename, but rather the cut and paste. When material is cut and pasted over, it loses the edit history. This breaks the GFDL licensing (all contributors must be credited for their contributions). In future, if there is already a redirect at the title you would like to move an article to, you can request speedy deletion using {{db-move}}. You can then move the article to the deleted title. Happy editing! Seraphim♥Whipp 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for the tip. Bertport (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Individuals aren't conquered, except romantically." Hee! Longchenpa (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bertport; Glad you enjoyed the treaty text. It is by no means the whole text - but I do agree with you it is pretty long and perhaps could be summarised here. (I am just recovering at the moment from a nasty illness and don't feel up to attempting it - but by all means please feel free to do so if you wish. I just copied it from where I inserted it some time ago in the article on Batang.

The "nephew" and "uncle" bit is a politeness which referred to the marriages of the Tibetan emperors Songtsän Gampo and Mes-ag-tshoms to Chinese "princesses" and that, therefore, there was a familial relationship between the two royal families.

I have just added some later material (also from the additions I made to the Batang article some time ago) on more recent border demarcations between Tibet and China. I think it is particularly telling of the de facto independent status of Tibet at the beginning of the 20th century that they had 400 troops in 1904 on one border point with China "to protect the frontier". Any comments you might have would be more than welcome. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I consider myself a freedom on free speech. I myself am not afraid of being blocked by a western instition which prizes itself on systematically blaming China on everything from pollution to dafur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalope (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just heard about a new history of Tibet that discusses the propaganda war, "China's Tibet? Autonomy or Assimilation" by Warren W. Smith Jr. Jamyang Norbu has an interesting review of it up on his blog. Perhaps this would be an asset to Serfdom in Tibet controversy and provide a balancing source to Grunfeld and Goldstein in other history articles. I thought I'd bring this to your attention since I'm in the middle of nowhere and probably won't be able to get my hands on the book for a few months. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, GD. Looks relevant. However, I never really intended to get this involved in the topic, anyway, and the $45 price on this book is somewhat daunting, too. Maybe I'll ask my library to stock it. Bertport (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to drop off a reminder to stay cool when the editing gets hot, especially with this mutating IP on Tibet-related talk pages. Thank you for all your excellent work. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello-- I strongly hold that one should use one or the other, but not how it is, all mixed up, except perhaps, names such as Cheng's which are commonly WG in America/European English usage.

I with no doubt reverted your removal. Whether you like it or not in order to reach balance, viewpoints from both sides (Power and Goldstein) shall be presented equally.

Accounts from America's top university Tibetologist (who even once first-hand interviewed Sambo and Ngabo, two of the Tibetan negotiators) seem unquestionably much more authoritative than those unsourced Wikipedia content inserted by Dharamsala propagandists.

116.48.63.112 (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What? I'd say that had a lot to do with the article, for the reason (most of) it was discussing article POV. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you figure that? It starts with "warning! some other article just got created and it's POV!" and then goes into "what does 'pro-Tibet' mean?" Note the term 'pro-Tibet' does not appear in the article. Then it's "is lamaist a derogatory term?" which is another term not even used in the article. Then it's "what about the term 'papist'?" which is even further from the realm of the article. In the midst are a couple "this chat is out of scope" entries which are never refuted. I'm trying to clean out some of the old pointless (as in, irrelevant to article content) forum-talk, to reduce the impetus for newcomers to want to chime in their own two cents on off-topic comments. Bertport (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although some of it may have been forum talk, some of it was discussing POV of the article. I just think you should try to be more careful in what you revert. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

What did I miss? I didn't see anything relevant in the entire section. Bertport (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Most people (including myself) own the revised expanded edition, (since that is the only ed. available to purchase) so I'm wondering how helpful it is to cite a 1967 edition in the article. Was it first published in 1965? Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Which edition to cite? It's not a big deal to me. I just referenced what was available to me. I suppose there may be a WP policy guideline, but if so, I'm not acquainted with it. Feel free to change it to another edition. Bertport (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's fine. I just want to update the sources at some point with the pub dates. Thanks for putting in the work required to cite it. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just started a discussion of if Tibet is part of Central or East Asia here. Thought you might want to comment. --Keithonearth (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your note regarding parentheses and em-dashes — on the Tibet talk page — made me smile. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Bertport, I have watchlisted this article and would like to applaud you for reverting section blanking such as this. I am unsure why or who this person is, but it seems they would like to remove this particular incident. If you would like I can also step in, but it seems you're doing a fine job. Bravo! Basket of Puppies 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haha! Look at his contributions page; he hasn't edited Wiki since May 2008, and what is the first thing he comes back to almost a year later? Tibet during the Ming Dynasty. Classy. His edit seemed pretty inconsequential, but he did add a useless red link ("Tibet during the Yuan Dynasty") that pretty much gave you the best excuse to revert his edit. I still have the article on my watchlist, so sooner or later I would have noticed his tinkering, but nonetheless, thanks to bringing this to light immediately. I'm busy with other things, but if he's here to goof around again, I'm here to keep things in order. Cheers, old friend.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, he introduced unnecessary ALL CAPS words, and moved to obscure the official nature of a reference, and made an argumentative insert - all without any explanation. Bertport (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, what's with the ALL CAPS thing and LaGrandefr? I noticed a long time ago that he did that only with surnames. Very strange (and just begging to be reverted).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You make me sick! Pauvres cons...下三濫的伎倆而已。 --LaGrandefr (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bertport, I would like to ask your advice about how to select material to add to Tibet when I find new information, I left the question at Talk:Tibet, where we were talking about ROC in Lhasa. Please take a look. Thanks. --Chadsnook (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chadsnook. There are plenty of other, more experienced editors than me watching Tibet. But I'd say, work yourself into it gradually, explain your intent in the edit summary, and when you're doubtful about whether something will be too intrusive or controversial, bring it up specifically on the talk page. These things are judgement calls. Bertport (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bertport, thanks for the advice. In the past, editing Geography and many other things were quite easy for me as there are not really many different sides of views or they are inclusive with each other. History part seem to be a lot harder. That one paragraph I added "ROC in Lhasa" was an example. Thanks for verifying it from different perspectives. --Chadsnook (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please do not remove entire chunks of paragraphs from the Tibet article. Yes the article needs condensing but not by removing sections. The article must be summarised not devoid of a summary. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You act like you didn't see my note on the edit: a step towards breaking this out into a series of manageable articles. We should have a paragraph or so here in addition to "see...". Bertport (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi bertport, please see the discussion page for the india-china war. thanks  :)Zoomzoom316 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've started a section on the talk page to discuss the controversial text. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bertport, I saw and appreciate your work on Tibet, for instance the article History of Tibet 1912-1949. I'm working mainly in Dutch language (nl.) on Tibet and I'm working on an article now on Human Rights in Tibet. Now I was wondering whether this source is the original one of the US State Dept.? I ask since the colors appear a bit cheap to me and you, as an American, might be familiar with ibiblio. If so it might be a hint for an article in English too? Thanks for your answer. Regards, Davin (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Davin. You're right, that's not a government site, but if you follow the links, you wind up at [1], which is the real deal. Bertport (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. This one look much better :-) Davin (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please dont Put vandalism on Mahabharat holy scripture.Cited Sources are unreliable .Nehru Discovery of India is more reliable source.So please dont put citation from vandalised sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.61.184 (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You obviously don't understand what vandalism is, or what reliable sources are. You need to step back and get more familiar with Wikipedia policies and culture, and stop pushing your personal point of view as if it were the only legitimate one. Bertport (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope you will not be put off by my recent edits. I thought that a lot of the material was overly subjective, and I aimed for a more neutral presentation. Haiduc (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I think those are reasonable. That material did need approximately what you just did to it. Bertport (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope I have not tried your patience too much. And I too was struck by that mention of samaya. I can not speak as an expert on that, so I left it alone (I agree with your fact tag though). If I was going to venture a guess I would say that the statement both is and is not true, but let's what comes out. Haiduc (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate Wikipedia for the structure it provides for working through different points of view. And I appreciate other editors who respect WP policies in form and spirit. You're one of them. Carry on, dude. Bertport (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have been looking for corroborating evidence of this. Most of the material I have found indicates he blacked out before the accident. One piece says he took up hard drinking after the accident. Another mentions having a girl in the car but nothing about alcohol. There is one single paranoid piece by Eve Mullen, that attacks everything having to do with the Shambhala people, gets her names wrong, and also looks askance at meditation instruction rooms(!). At best they will have to be integrated into the piece. At worst the drunk driving charge will have to relegated to a footnote, or deleted. It does not seem to be the general understanding, but simply a fringe view. Haiduc (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I must disagree. You can't have looked very hard. We already see an established pattern in the Shambhala community of admitting but downplaying the alcohol, and of obscuring uncomfortable particulars with generalities. Katy Butler's chapter in Zweig's Meeting the Shadow is a careful piece. She relied on solid evidence to attribute his death to alcohol. Nevertheless, many fought against this, insisting upon the official "heart failure". Only recently did the attending physician publicly acknowledge that alcohol killed Trungpa, laying that bone of contention to rest. Saying he "blacked out" is similar to saying he died of "heart failure" - it's true, but not the full truth. Yes, his heart stopped, but why? Yes, he blacked out, but why? It is widely understood, but seldom spoken, that he blacked out because he was drunk. Besides Butler/Zweig, we also have Bhagavan Das, who is freewheeling, outspoken, and frank, and harbors no hostile agenda towards Trungpa or any of the people involved in his life and legacy. Bertport (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I searched for Trungpa + joke shop. Das and Zweig could be right. Anyway, we have a number of voices represented now. I do find it very curious that his girlfriend was almost unscathed. That suggests that the accident was not grave, you did not walk away from a major crash in those primitive 1960s English cars. Yet he sustained serious brain damage. From the impact alone?! Who knows? Haiduc (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you did a good job summing up the various versions of the incident. Bertport (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Useful info, thank you. Haiduc (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Out of the politeness, I give some explanation of my edits on Tibet.

• According to demographics of Tibet, Tibetans occupy 92.8% of Tibetan population(TAR). This is an absolute majority, so I think the word "considerable" is more suitable to describe Han Chinese population in Tibet than "large numbers".
• If you look at Grunfeld, A. Tom, "The Making of Modern Tibet", p65, you'll find almost the same sentence as I edited - the 13th Dalai Lama never accepted that treaty.
• I note the 14th Dalai Lama was Vice Chairman of 1st National People's Congress because this means he accepted the fait accompli of CCP's government, which is very important for the article.

I request you to exercise extreme care before a slight edit, for respecting everyone's contributions and also following the rules of Wikiepdia. Thank you!--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I cannot find any printed words like "Royaume de Thibet" (Kingdom of Tibet) in the map "la Chine, la Tartarie Chinoise, et le Thibet". Please remove Template:where in no time when you see those words anywhere.--LaGrandefr (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's right there on the map, plain to see; open it up to full size. The "R" in "ROYAUME" is above and to the right of the man wearing blue and yellow, and the "E" of "ROYAUME" is above the smoke coming out of the hut. The first "T" of "THIBET" is above the missionaries wearing black. The last "T" of "THIBET" is above the red-orange border line. Bertport (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Holy Shit! Who can recognize these words? OK, you win! Nevertheless I insist "China" of my another edit should be replaced by "Chinese government" because a country cannot refuse, but a government YES.--LaGrandefr (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you are doing, nothing has been removed from the article. Haiduc (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Glad you are back, two heads are always better than one. Haiduc (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I had not picked up on that distinction. Steinbeck thought he was too drunk to give a coherent talk, and that "they let him" stay there until he recovered and gave a lucid talk? I think this one is a bit over the top. So the man gave a lucid talk after all? How does Steinbeck know why he sat there? He apparently often let his students sit for hours before he showed up for a talk. This could be part and parcel of that method. I think this needs to be prefaced that it was Steinbeck's opinion that he was too drunk to give a coherent talk, if the man delivered a coherent talk after all. And that too would have to be added in. I am sorry, maybe I misunderstand you, I did not read the Steinbeck book. Haiduc (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uh, no, Steinbeck and others reported occasions when he had to be carried on and off stage because he was too drunk to walk. They do not report that on all those occasions, he was too drunk to talk. Steinbeck also reports at least two occasions when he sat there and attempted to talk, but was incoherent or unintelligible. She does not report that they carried him off stage because he was unintelligible. Bertport (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message relative to Serfs Emancipation Day. I have then transalted your last contribution on this article on the french wiki. All the best wishes ... including for 2010. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that POJO thing Mr. Bert, people are strange, aren't they... --AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Global cooling, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you adding this message to every user who makes any contribution whatsoever to Talk:Global cooling ? Or was there something about my edit that prompted some concern on your part? Bertport (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, ideally everyone who edits in the probation area will be notified. Your comments have been quite productive. If you see anyone who is missing from the list at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log, please feel free to add them. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please note that AfD is for deletion discussions of articles only. I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese restoration of Tibet as a procedural close and copied your original rationale to a new RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 15. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just really irritates me the fuss some people cause over the TIbet article and their hidden propoganda and POV while people like I am working hard on on developing related articles and trying to keep it neutral that's all. I have no time for people like that... Regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I find it highly irritating, too. His propagandistic POV is not the least bit "hidden". I appreciate your stepping into the fray - one cannot win disputes with unreasonable users one-on-one. Bertport (talk)

When reverting a whole article or passages of the article "Tibet" in order to eliminate unreasonable edits or vandalism you should make sure that along with the reversion useful edits do not get lost. This, unfortunately, has happened with the article "Tibet". Clemensmarabu (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the inconvenience. But I'm surprised you didn't catch that misspelling even the second time around. Bertport (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, he'll be blocked indefinately soon enough.... How he thinks he won't be blocked is silliness... He has no power... Why can't these editors be helping write nice related articles about TIbet instead....All those vmonasteries and villages. I;m currently working on a full article of Sera at the moment actually with Nvvchar you'll see it on the front page as a DYK in a few weeks... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created that article, you may be interested. I've started with only a small introduction and a lot of references on the discussion page. It would be good to get more people helping to construct it. Zujine (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. I put some links to it in a few likely articles. It will be noticed. Bertport (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Bertport, I have added an information relative to Warren W. Smith reaction [2] in the article, but another contributor suppressed the info and made important changes in the article. As you contacted me before about this article, I think you might be intrested to have a look. Thanks in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rédacteur Tibet. I agree that Splittist's edits are problematic. I have reverted them, but that will not be the end of it. Bertport (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A few months ago, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks — Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

In other words, I concur in your reasoning in your corollary edit here.

This topic is a difficult one, but it is also one I expect to encounter again and again in the future. I think it is crucial that I work out some kind of strategy for dealing with circumstances in which someone insists on using a source in Chinese despite the attempt to engage a discussion based on the WP:Use English policy. I don't know how to handle this in a more constructive manner.

Please give some thought to what I've written at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you offer any suggestions about an alternate approach I might have tried? --Tenmei (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re this, 'order of the Dalai Lama' according to whom? Yaan (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Smith pg 118, as cited. Bertport (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

How old were these orders? Yaan (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you're thinking of the fact that the DL was dead. The orders were actually from the regent, in the DL's name. As far as Galdan was concerned, they were from the DL. I can introduce an parenthetical comment to eliminate confusion. Bertport (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would probably be better, esp. if supported by your source. Yaan (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but the name of the article was too long. It would be better to divide the article into two, one for pre-Kublai relations and one for Tibet under the Yuan Dynasty, which would reduce the length of the original title. It's a lot less wordier than "in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries".--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Take it to the article talk page and get community buy-in. Bertport (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Started a topic in the talk. Awaiting your input.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do I have your consensus to move the article to the Mongol invasion of Tibet? I've moved the other article to Yuan Tibet, so the title should not be a problem anymore.--SakyaTrizin (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I said on the article talk page, it's best to wait about a week, so other editors can be included in the decision. Article moves are major changes that often involve making an official proposal and waiting at least a week for feedback. Bertport (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bertport. You've helped with the Tib Bsm article in the past. If you have a moment, would you like to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism.

I've proposed something there that would involve work for me but would improve the Tib Bsm article immensely in my opinion. It's turned out to be contentious. I have something coming up in the new year that would make it hard for me to devote the time to this then, so it is now or never. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Moonsell (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you have a spare moment, can I draw your attention to the "Bon" and "RfC" sections on the Tib Bsm talk page of WP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism). There's been a hassle going on there for over a month.

               Moonsell (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Osel Tendzin controversy Hi Bertport, I would very much appreciate your help in straightening out the ever-recurring controversy on Osel Tendzin. One of Tendzin's followers, Twinecoff, recently removed many paragraphs from the Controversy section that are substantiated by footnotes, which refer to published books and articles. Winecoff replaced them by a paragraph from something he wrote, which cannot be found on the net, claiming Tendzin had done no wrong by knowingly passing the AIDS virus on to his students, one of which died from the sexual encounter.

Winecoff then removed all the footnotes referencing books and articles, except for one which is biased toward Tendzin's innocence. I tried to replace those footnotes, but I do not know the proper format. I did replace the paragraphs that Winecoff edited out to suit his revisionist history.

This morning, my edits were undone. I then asked for a cease fire until I could contact you.

WikiWhip (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)WikiwhipReply

I reverted the recent edits. There may be some escalation (sigh) on the part of the other user. Bertport (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Bert, for always being the voice of reason. WikiWhip (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)WikiwhipReply

Have you seen this new requested move?A ri gi bod (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bertport. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Bertport. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Bertport,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bertport, I've been editing climate since 2011 and your name doesn't look familiar. May I move you to the "inactive" status at the task force? You can always move back to "active" whenever you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. I reckon that's fine. I do seem to be inactive. I'm not sure if having that status at the task force makes any difference in what I am able to do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertport (talk • contribs)

Ok I'll relist you ask "inactive" and you can change anytime you like. To answer your implied question, task forces and projects both are just for networking and making the editing community function efficiently. There is a common assumption but false that they magically give greater powers or restrictions to editing abilities, or give greater clout to one cabal's desires for consensus over another, but that's all hogwash. It's just a way to organize our networking, nothing more or less. So anytime you like, you're unaffiliated or "inactive" contribs at the climate pages are always welcome! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply