Tibetsnow

Welcome!

Hello, Tibetsnow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Infrogmation (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the greetings. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here and here. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I attack other editors? You are kidding me. I was having a conversation with you and others by asking questions. Do you know what personal attack is? Instead of answering my question you are accusing me, again, of doing something wrong, ridiculous. Tibetsnow (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I am referring to when you said "I don't know why you are angry with freetibet.org" and "What is your motivation for including false information?", which impugned editors rather than content. Neither of these comments you made were in reply to me. Quigley (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I did ask you a similar question after pointing out the apparent mistake in the version you prefer. And you still haven't respond to it. In what way "I don't know why you are angry with freetibet.org" becomes a personal attack? Similarly, "What is your motivation for including false information?" is a fair question. None of the people I was talking to take it as a personal attack, so why are you concerned? Are you harassing me? I hope you don't misjudge these questions as personal attacks. Tibetsnow (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. It can still be a personal attack even if the attacked editor does not openly treat it that way. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just let you know, accusing someone is a form of personal attack. Tibetsnow (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Not on here is it. Read this for what is considered a personal attack. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, do you care to point out how exactly my statements violated the rules? Tibetsnow (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lhasa. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I was in an edit war. If you look at every version I post they are all different. I was working with others to try to find a version that works.Tibetsnow (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please desist from blanket-reverting almost every edit, often with substantial additions of new material reliably sources, which I have endeavoured to make to Tibetan articles. It makes editing in this difficult area almost insuperable, if each edit is not judged, point by point, on its specific merits.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." from WP:3RR, big blue box - you can't miss it. I'm going to ask you one last time to refrain from inserting text which is obviously against consensus on the article's talk page. Discuss controversial changes and get consensus for them instead disregarding consensus in hopes that your changes will eventually be accepted. Consider this your final warning. Make another revert/addition against consensus at Lhasa and I will not hesitate to block you from editing. -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FASTILY, you are making a mistake here. I am the one who started the discussion on the subject; it shows that I do want to reach a consensus with others. There is just me and one other editor interested in the subject. The whole paragraph in question is written by him, on July 3th, I tried to make two small changes here and here. At the moment we are still talking on the talk page to try to reach a consensus.

You said: “Make another revert/addition against consensus at Lhasa and I will not hesitate to block you from editing.” First of all there is no consensus to follow and secondly your threatening tone is disgusting. An admin is supposed to provide guidance to solve disputes. I will edit the Lhasa page and if you abuse that little power you have here I will report you. Tibetsnow (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you started the discussion is not proof for consensus-building. The proof for that lies in the thread that follows. There Quigley disagreed, as did HXL49 here, andΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ. Greg Pandatshang, after I made my edit, which you consistently revert, said of my version that he had no problem with it. With myself that makes 4 editors who cannot understand what you are doing with this persistent thing about Charles Bell and 650, and a fifth editor who intervened and accepted that the edit I made was not objectionable, despite your objections.

These are your successive statements.

• (a)The following statement is false:"It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet, that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650 A.D., the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa.

This was backed by 2 RS, one by a famous Tibetologist. You became to challenge the qualifications of Sir Charles Bell as a Tibetologist. I.e. you challenged an eminently good WP:RS source.

• (b)'This statement claims to be reporting what is recorded in the Tibetan tradition but the sources provided are Western. It is a gross manipulation, an outright lie.' (to Quigley)

When ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ cites a source from Hugh Edward Richardson) to show you are wrong,

• (c) you dismiss the evidence, coming from a ranking Tibetologist as self-published when it was not (Serindia Publications republished Richardson's academic articles and treatises).

You develop a theory that other Tibetologists just copied this from Charles Bell, who is for you not reliable because he was also a political officer for British interests in the region, and in an extraordinary WP:OR fantasy you asserted:

• (d)no history books (Tibetan, Chinese or Western) have reported this event.'(answered by another editor here, who reverts you)

At this point, I stepped in and showed that Tibetan, Chinese and Western scholars have all acknowledged that in the Tibetan records such a statement is recorded.

• (e)You answer: 'That (edit) sounds like POV. (It wasn't. I used new sources to underline every statement). You restore the WP:OR generalization several other editors challenge you to document, without providing the source they requested. The only concession you make to your generalization's falseness is that now you say 'no authoritative Western Chinese or Tibetan source exists'. I.e. once disproved, you change your original claim, and then sit as arbiter of what is 'authoritative' and what is not, on this article.
• (f)You also asked me 'find (me=you) a creditable source that calls (Charles Bell) a "Tibetologist."

I showed that(a) on all wiki articles on Bell, from Russian to Dutch he is called a Tibetologist (b)The Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford calls him a Tibetologist (c) The distinguished Tibetologist Derek Maher calls him a Tibetologist.

• (g)You give a non-answer: 'Charles Bell is called a Tibetologist by some; however he was a career political officer. To conceal this fact and call him a Tibetologist instead is disingenuous.'

I add that the Tibetan born scholar Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa records the event. I now have three sources a Tibetan scholar, a Chinese scholar, and an English Tibetologist recording the fact that Tibetan tradition registers such an event. Its veracity is unknown. I write therefore in my edit: 'Some Tibetan sources report' (sourcing this to Bell, Shakabpa and Li). What happens?

• (h)You interpret, unbelievably, my edit to mean that I am saying that Bell is a Tibetan source! Good grief man! It is obvious that I am saying that Bell, Shakabpa and Li concur that Tibetan (primary) sources do report this notion. You fail to distinguish my text edit and my notes. At this point, I must presume that English is not your first language.

Because it is now apparent that either this is a case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or you ingenuously misread what people say, and have only a very vague idea of what proper editing protocols require of editors, I suggest you pay more attention to what others write, instead of reading into innocent edits some POV that is not there. I'm willing to cut you some slack, but your behaviour so far on Lhasa and British Expedition to Tibet, as a brief glance at the edit history shows, is that your instinct is to blanket revert without evaluating the merits of what other editors like myself are doing there. When things are explained on the talk page, you appear singularly incapable of grasping what other people are arguing. The lead I copyedited and revised at British Expedition to Tibet because it had almost a dozen simple errors in standard English prose style was reverted by you. When I wrote an extensive list of the errors there, you gradually began to reintroduce them, but retained others. The impression is, editors like myself have to clear things with you before they can touch that page. If my edit had several strong self-evident points, why did you blanket-revert it? I gave up there because I haven't the time to negotiate on the nuances of English prose style if othe editors can't see it.

Fastily, I'm sorry for this long history, but it captures everything that is frustrating here. I'm happy to cut Tibetsnow some slack, but only if he or she undertakes to question an edit on the talk page before reverting it on the article page, at least where I happen to be working. I've written 7al kbs of material on many pages this week, all academically sourced, and Tibetsnow seems to be the only person who takes objection, and trashes any RS under academic imprint he or she dislikes.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, You gave many examples here regarding the discussions I had with others on Lhasa talk page, but many of them are misleading. I don’t want to respond point by point because this is not why I am here. You seem to suggest that I am pushing my POV on the article despite the fact that the current version is written by you, 99%. See here I have been challenging you on just this one point because I want the statement as accurate as possible. You said: “I stepped in and showed that Tibetan, Chinese and Western scholars have all acknowledged that in the Tibetan records such a statement is recorded. The fact is you have failed to show that. Li, Shakabpa and Bell have not pinpointed the “Tibetan records” that report this capture of Lhasa. Bell mentioned this capture in his book but failed to provide a source; Li and Shakabpa both pointed out that there is no record of such event in Tibetan records.

In my last communication to you on Lhasa talk page I asked you: “You inserted the following “burnt the Red Palace” and the source cited is Shakabpa’s book. Since Shakabpa did not witness the incident where did he get his information?” see here You wrote a length response to me but interestingly failed to respond to my question. Again, you fail to show that such event exists in Tibetan records.

On the 1904 expedition page, I did made the mistake of reverting all your input and I have been reintroducing some of the changes you made. I did that because you rewrote the whole thing without any discussion with others. Your most problematic change is the removal of the link to the 1904 Convention. You could have just added the other link. I don’t want to fight with you I just want you to slow down and talk about the changes on the talk page. Again the paragraph on the Lhasa page in question is written mostly by you. Are you sure that others cannot have any input on it? Tibetsnow (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This could be thought of as a content dispute and therefore inappropriate for an admin to care about. That's the way you spin it. It isn't. I documented that you came out with an extraordinary allegation:

The following statement is false:"It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet, that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650 A.D., the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa.

My answer: I wasn’t going to respond to your misleading accusations but now I feel like I have to, at least one. And I am placing my response under your accusation. Since you don’t provide a link to my statement so others can judge for themselves, I am providing it here. Anyone could see that it was a content dispute. I was arguing that since the sourced material is not Tibetan, thus it should not say “It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet;” instead it should say “As reported by Charles Bell, It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet that …..”Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You added:'It is a gross manipulation, an outright lie,' and 'that no history books (Tibetan, Chinese or Western) have reported this event.'

The following established editors all challenged you on this with strong arguments:Quigley, HXL49,and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ.

My answer: This statement “that no history books (Tibetan, Chinese or Western) have reported this event,” was my response to someone else. By placing it here you are trying to fool others into believing your point of view. The fact is, I was talking to Quigley and he never responded to my statement neither did HXL49,and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ. So your statement that “The following established editors all challenged you on this with strong arguments” is totally false. Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I eliminated any residual doubt there might be from the cavilling points you raised, and was supported in my edit by a fourth Greg Pandatshang. You kept reverting, and as I showed, your reverts or successive restorations of the words you want there are based on a complete misunderstanding of the straightforward meaning of English words.

From your edit history it appears you have done little other than haggle over this and my edits on the other page, for almost two weeks. You keep shifting the goalposts. Look at what you are doing, man.

(a) No Tibetan tradition says the Chinese captured Lhasa in 650.(disproven)

Change of tack.

(b) No history books (Chinese, Western, Tibetan) report this event.' (disproven)

Change of tack again.

(c) 'no authoritative Western Chinese or Tibetan source exists' (disproven)

Change of tack.

(d) Bell is not an authoritative source, he was not a Tibetologist (disproven)

Change of tack.

(e) Bell may be a Tibetologist, but he was political officer (disproven as appropriate. He wrote that as a scholar, on his retirement from government.)

change of tack. By this point I have provided proof that Chinese, Tibetan and Western RS scholars all confirm that this 'Tibetan tradition' exists. You now assert.

(f)'Li, Shakabpa and Bell have not pinpointed the “Tibetan records” that report this capture of Lhasa.'

Neither I nor any other wikipedia editor is obliged to respond to requests that we verify the truth (WP:V) or make checks on what RS by excellent scholars unanimously report. You are raising doubts about RS because they fail to identify the specific Tibetan source, chronicle, manuscript or histories, mentioning this fact. When I appeal to an admin to mediate, and advise you, your answer is that he is adopting 'a threatening tone' and that you will 'report him'. Admins are overworked people whose primary function is to ensure a fair and rule-regulated environment exist for people to build an encyclopedia rather than get bogged down in futile POV clashes or pettifogging disputes.

You admit now that your revert of my edit at British Expedition to Tibet (which took me an hour of checking sources) was 'a mistake'. You keep on insisting, however despite the massive evidence above, that somehow you are right on the Lhasa page, despite being forced to systematically backtrack on all of the very ambitious WP:OR assertions you have raised over the last two weeks. I'd like you to desist from this. The record is one that does not permit other editors to productively edit on pages where you work.

My answer: You said: “The record is one that does not permit other editors to productively edit on pages where you work.” This accusation is so ridiculous when you have done so much editing on the Lhasa page and the paragraph in question is 99% written by you. All I did on that page was took out the word “Tibetan” and changed the word “report” to “mentioned.” Your accusation is so … crazy.Tibetsnow (talk)

Since you are an old editor, could you tell me under what name you contributed before adopting this new monicker? Nishidani (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My answer: If I remember my old name, which was last used almost five years ago, I would not be using this one. I lost contact with lots of old friends I made on Wiki. Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For Fastly, the short version of above. Tibetsnow, this latest request shows you do not understand policy, and are in defiance of it, as I have noted here.

My answer: You are contradicting yourself, if I do not understand the policy like you said then how can I be “in defiance of it.” You are the one who wrote that Shakabpa provided the “burnt the Red Palace” detail. It is only natural for me to ask for more information since I am really interested in this issue. But instead of helping, you are throwing dirt all over me. This is not the conduct of a respectable editor. Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am here to help the growth of an encyclopedia, not to assist people in their personal enquiries about manuscripts, Tibetan, Greek, Latin, Chinese or otherwise. These pages must not become pretexts for roping in people to do WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is serious because you have now come up with (g) an 'ostensibly' new assertion I am supposed to answer, but which wiki regulations do not allow. In writing now

(g) 'The problem here is that the primary account does not exist.')

My answer: I said: “the primary account does not exist.” Providing the information, which you claim to have, would prove me wrong, but instead you chose to coming here to yell at me. You are a strange man. Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You, Tibetsnow have returned in a circular way to your first position (a), which has been comprehensively disproven. I.e.,

(a) 'The following statement is false:"It is recorded in the tradition of Tibet, that after Songtsen Gampo died in 650 A.D., the Chinese Tang dynasty attacked and captured Lhasa.'

This is all WP:OR, done in the face of 3 RS scholars on Tibetan issues who affirm the contrary. There is no way out of this discursive roundabout, if User:Tibetsnow persists in what appears to be an egregious example of WP:gaming that makes it difficult for other editors to continue to WP:AGF . Nishidani (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I now seriously think that you are not a stable person. This might sound like a personal attack but then you are on my talk page screaming your head off. It would be nice if you can keep the conversation short on the talk pages. Tibetsnow (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors as you did here, by calling someone "not a stable person" and implying that they have a mental disorder. You acknowledged in that comment that what you said "might sound like a personal attack", so you are aware of the policy on personal attacks. Also, this is your second warning on the same issue in the last two weeks. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, you have nothing to say about the edits, instead you have been trying to accuse of me engaging in personal attack. Earlier when a editor called the Freetibet.org people liars, I asked a fair question "why are you angry at Freetibet.org people?" This question according to you is a personal attack. Here I am being accused of violating rules, don't understand English etc, who in their right mind would leave such a lengthy rambling? In any case, this is my talk page, when people come here to throw dirt on me I will defend myself. So go away, you are not welcomed here. Tibetsnow (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Break. Reformulate

I don't notice personal attacks, and never report them. I do insist that editors build articles rather than waste time on talk pages with futile pettifogging. Let me just reduce this to one issue. I have the unfortunate habit of trying to analyse things exhaustively, and this makes for WP:TLDR, which is unfair on everyone. So

Tibetsnow. your latest assertion challenged Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa, Li Tiezheng and Sir Charles Bell's authority as WP:RS by asserting that 'the problem here is that the primary account does not exist.' You assert here that the unanimous recognition implicit in books by, respectively, a Tibetan, Chinese and Western scholar that a 'primary account' does exist, is 'problematical'. Give me the RS evidence on which you base your cunctatorial assertion that 'the the primary account does not exist.' ThanksNishidani (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Coal, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 04:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion (Opium Wars -> First Opium War)

I have motioned to merge Opium Wars into First Opium War with the posting Talk:First Opium War#Merge discussion, so I'd like you to vote/opine on this, and hopefully with consensus reached, I or someone else can perform the merger. There has already been discussion under Talk:Opium Wars#Disambiguation page thread, which I believe indicates developing consensus on merging. I have so far given notice only to respondents to that thread, but felt it only fair to alert you, since I have identified you and CWH (talk · contribs) as primary authors of the beginning part of the article (which I have since grouped into its own section: #Overview). Thx.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, I just added my opinion on the talk page.Tibetsnow (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)