User talk:Hardouin

Hello, we're working hard to add image copyright tags to every image so that the copyright status is not ambiguous. I'd appreciate it if you could add the appropriate copyright tag to these images:

• Image:DeGaulleRadio.jpg

Please let me know if you have any questions about this.

Jeff 09:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

The image can be found on on many websites online. I do not know the exact nature of copyright, but given the wide presence of this picture on the internet, you may assume it is public domain. My guess is the picture was taken 64 years ago by a British photographer in the UK. So you can put the tag that you find appropriate. When I uploaded the picture it asked nowhere for me to put a tag. Hardouin 10:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm going to put that info on the talk page for the image and leave it alone for now. --Jeff 10:28, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. You should probably be aware, with regard to Image:Jacobins.jpg that a copyright release for non-commerical use is not enough for Wikipedia. Our licensing says that Wikipedia can be used for commercial purposes, so we can't include any image that doesn't allow it. It should be GFDL. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you made the Thai script on several articles in a bigger font. I also have problems to recognize the characters in their normal height, but that's probably just because I am a very beginner with thai language, Thai webpages don't use such a big font. And using a different height makes the page look awful from a typographic point of view - the text jumps in the line, as well as the vertical space between the line changes. Or maybe it's just a font issue which makes Thai show up so small in your browser - in the editing mode they are way too small for me as well, but in the rendered version they show up fine. For the provinces it'd be possible to modify the infobox to be more like the country infobox, and add a bigger thai name that way, but inside the text I think we should avoid it. andy 18:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I answered on my talk - only the screenshots aren't online yet, I will do that tomorrow. andy 22:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry, but not only do I live in France, but I quintuple checked to make sure my edit was correct.

There are, in metropolitan France, 95 departments. The licence plates in metropolitan France go from 01 to 95. Departments 91 to 95 are all around Paris and do not belong to alphabetical order that is common from 01 to 90.

The DOM, Departements d'Outre-mer, may have contributed to an understandable confusion.

Do not take my word for it. Do a search on the internet.

I suggest

http://cbandiera.free.fr/depart.php

or the Official INSEE, look at the numbers going from 01 to 95 from Metropolitan France.

http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_legale/dep.asp

Not all of us live in France, or have the chance to visit it, so we have to work from books. I know I did a lot of preparation on Bureau du Roi, working from books printed in the 50s and 60s (as well as from the 1911 edition of the Britannica, and other encyclopedias I have access to) and I assume Wetman did a bit of work too, so we were not doing a slavish copy of the 1911 edition. Thanks for placing it in the right museum. AlainV 17:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I suppose you are as French as I am, I write in French...

Pas d'accord avec ton analyse sur la Polynésie, regarde la loi organique portant statut d'autonomie de la Polynésie française, et notamment le deuxième alinéa de l'article 1er : Pays d'outre-mer au sein de la République, la Polynésie française constitue une collectivité d'outre-mer dont l'autonomie est régie par l'article 74 de la Constitution.

Je comprends l'enchaînement des concepts comme suit : on appelle "collectivité d'outre-mer" un territoire régi par l'article 74 de la Constitution -et à ce titre la polynésie est une COM. Deux de ces COMs ont des titres un peu ronflants destinés à faire plaisir à leurs élus/habitants : la Polynésie pays d'outre-mer et Mayotte collectivité départementale, mais c'est plutôt une plaisanterie en l'absence de toute disposition légale s'appliquant à ces types de collectivité. Ma lecture est aussi celle de laDocumentation française.

Pour les TAAF, je concède que ce n'est tout simplement pas évident. La Documentation française pense, comme moi, que ce ne sont pas des COMs. Un argument prépondérant (selon moi) étant que le statut des COMs doit être fixé par loi organique, alors que celui des TAAF est du domaine de la loi simple. Mais je note que la ministre de l'outre-mer dans son sa page web programme range les TAAF parmi les COMs. Il me semble plus simple de les considérer comme catégorie sui generis comme la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Pas d'accord du tout par contre pour garder l'appelation "territoire d'outre-mer" pour eux : elle a été retirée de la Constitution, avec la volonté manifeste de la faire disparaître de l'ordre juridique français, et qualifier les TAAF de "TOM" me paraît un anachronisme.

Voilà c'est tout j'espère qu'on va arriver à un consensus, parce qu'on est à peu près les deux seuls éditeurs à nous intéresser à la structure administrative de l'outre-mer français. --French Tourist 12:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Un dernier détail sur les TAAF - je suis allé voir leur site web, et effectivement la page statut les qualifie de TOM, mais c'est une page datée de 2003, qui ne fait pas allusion à la nouvelle mention des TAAF dans la Constitution et qui enfin écrit de façon manifestement erronée que c'est le seul territoire d'outre-mer qui (...). Pour moi, elle ne suffit pas à faire autorité, d'autant qu'elle contredit les autres pages plus récentes que j'ai citées ci-dessus --French Tourist 12:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Je reviens sur le sujet après avoir lu ta réponse et traîné quelques jours à répondre en retour.

• Sur les TAAF, pas convaincu qu'il y ait _une_ réponse (il n'y a pas une personne qui s'est demandé "on les laisse TOM ou on les fait évoluer" ?) mais plusieurs lectures d'une situation pleine de contradictions. Aucune objection à la tienne (sous réserve, si la Wikipedia existe encore dans plusieurs années, de s'autoriser à faire évoluer ça en fonction de l'opinion qui sera devenu dominante dans les traités de droit).
• Sur la Polynésie française, je ne modifie pas mon opinion, en revanche. Tu écris dans ton intervention sur ma page de discussion Il me semble que si le Conseil Constitutionnel avait été consulté, il aurait sans doute censuré l'appellation "pays d'outre mer" comme contraire à la constitution. Mais le Conseil Constitutionnel _a_ été consulté : comme il s'agit d'une loi organique, il a eu à statuer et l'a fait par sa décision 2004-490. Comme tu pourras le vérifier (et comme je viens juste de le découvrir) mon interprétation est officiellement la sienne, cf. le considérant 13 : Considérant que l'article 1er de la loi organique, après avoir précisé la configuration territoriale de la Polynésie française, énonce les principes généraux applicables à la Polynésie française, collectivité d'outre-mer dont l'autonomie est régie par l'article 74 de la Constitution ; que, s'il désigne cette dernière comme " pays d'outre-mer ", cette dénomination n'emporte aucun effet de droit ; que, dans ces conditions, l'article 1er n'est pas contraire à la Constitution ; : la Polynésie reste bien une COM, et l'appelation de pays d'outre-mer est juste un gadget sans effet juridique pour faire plaisir à Gaston. Te convainc-je cette fois ? --French Tourist 21:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good job on improving and creating articles on various Chinese historical figures. Your edits on names are quite informative. I proposed here a template for the various emperor articles and tested it at Kangxi. Please help out or comment if your interested. Please also comment at Talk:1st Prince Chun. Cheers, Jiang 00:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think your rearrangement of the metropolitan disambiguation page was misleading. One writes "Alexius became Metropolitan of Kiev in 1354"; it would be quite unusual to write "Alexius became Metropolitan Bishop of Kiev in 1354". The word metropolitan used in that sense is a noun, not an adjective; if it were an adjective you would not see the plural form metropolitans, which in fact is a commonplace usage (e.g., see list of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow). Michael Hardy 01:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Metropolitan is BOTH a noum and an adjective. As an adjective it means "relating to, or designating an ecclesiastical metropolis". As a noun it means "a bishop with provincial powers". So both are true.

That's why I thought what you did was misleading; you made it appear that the word is used as a noun only when it refers to a car model. Michael Hardy 21:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trying to break lines within tables to limit their width is the idiotic way of doing things. It requires using the preview button a gazillion times. Please dont tell me this looks better:

File:Guangxu screen.JPG

We must keep tables 300px wide at most to accomodate those with smaller screens. Please dont mass revert my formatting either since the general rule is to link once per article and list Chinese only if the article does not exist. If you disagree, then explain. --Jiang 01:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to add line breaks within the 300px scheme by breaking earlier than usual. Or add &nbsp to prevent breakage. If there's a problem with rendering, I would like to see it. On my screen, all the dates fit to one line. The painfully designed tables were not screwed up once I removed all those br tags. Provide a screenshot to demonstrate that the automatic sizing is inferior because I cant see it on my computer.

I understand your position that we should accomodate those who cannot read unicode, but we also have interests of saving space. We already have characters there... I won't revert you at Mencius or Confucius, but I request an explanation of why you destroyed my link to Chinese philosophy and addition of alternative text for the image at Mencius.

As for not listing characters for articles that already exist, the guidelines are listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for China-related articles. I did not write them, but follow them for the sake of consistency. If you disagree with the rule then go ahead and argue against it at the relevant talk page.

Please do not tell me what not to edit. I'm afraid you don't understand the whole point of a wiki. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. As long as formatting changes are an improvement, no matter how trivial, they are welcome. And no, I won't be changing BE to AE. I read the fucking manual and follow it. If you're annoyed, even though I really am annoying, then I'm afraid this place is not for you.

The name of the Qing Dynasty in romanized Manchu is not relevant in an article on one of its Emperors. It is only relevant in the article on the Qing Dynasty itself. It's kind of for the same reason we dont flood the article with Chinese characters for every term or person mentioned. I have yet to hear a convincing argument at Wikipedia talk:History standards for China-related articles on why these tables should be an exception to the convention and why we need redundancy. Cheers, Jiang 03:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The date thing is a problem. The Kangxi article just didnt have its br tags removed yet. Try adding & nbsp ; (no spaces) to the spaces where the date is breaking off and see if that forces it to stay onto one line. I did that to keep the link to Posthumous name togethter.

If there's no article, then it's pefectly fine to add Chinese charcters. Again, if you disagree with the policy, don't just break it on your own - argue against it. I don't think its a bad idea for certain cases.

I've noticed that I keep getting cached version while trying to view page differences and revisions. The current version shows up fine for me though. Try pressing CTRL and F5 to refresh the page. Your edits at Mencius have apparently showed up. If it doesn't work, delete your cache.

Yes, there's a rule against switching AE to BE or vice versa on neutral topics (China-related topics count as neutral since the language is Chinese). There's no rule against formatting changes. I've been pressed with other things these past few weeks so I've tried to stay away from time-consuming edits. I'm mostly monitoring my watchlist nowadays. --Jiang 02:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I made comments on your edits about Manchus: Talk:Kangxi Emperor#Ethnicity of Kangxi's mother, Template talk:Qing namebox and Talk:Aisin Gioro#Aisin Jiaolue?. --Nanshu 07:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful work! Keep it up. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I study Manchu by myself using these textbooks:

• Kawachi Yoshihiro 河内良弘, Kiyose Gisaburō Norikura, Manshūgo bungo nyūmon 満洲語文語入門, Kyoto University Press, 2002.
• Li, Gertraude Roth, Manchu: A Textbook for Reading Documents, University of Hawaii Press, 2000.

I only read Manchu texts with the help of dictionaries. I don't write, speak, or listen to Manchu. Actually, official documents don't tell me how they said hello in Manchu :)

I took Manchu given names, era names and others from an appendix of 简明满汉辞典 which was compiled by 刘厚生 and others. I have a complete list of them though I haven't yet add it to Wikipedia. Note that Qing emperors did have full posthumous names in Manchu, but it's not easy to know them. Japanese researchers (and non-Japanese ones I think) who utilize Manchu literature mostly focus on early Manchu history, so the Toyo Bunko published 滿文老檔, 旧滿州檔 天聰九年, and 内國史院檔 天聰七年. I found Nurhaci's full posthumous name at Manchu archives which appeared at Shin taiso jitsuroku no kenkyū 清太祖實録の研究 by Matsumura Jun 松村潤, but as you know, it was modified by succeeding emperors. They also use Manchu literature for studies for Mongolian affairs and campaigns against the Oyirad, but not for Chinese history. If I coud fully access Manchu archives stored at 中国第一历史档案馆, I could find full posthumous names.

As I said above, Manchu studies specialize in early Qing history, and its campaign against and administration for Inner Asia. So currently I have no plan to engage in middle and late Qing articles.

As far as I know, the only way to display Unicode Manchu "properly" for Windows is to use the font named Code2000 with proper USP10.dll. Still, I think it exhibits too erroneous behavior for Wikipedia to adopt, possibly due to the incomplete specification. For more technical info, see [1] and [2]. --Nanshu 07:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Your works on those materials are truly impressive. Would you mind sharing how you collected those materials, for instance, the seal script of Empress Wu Zetian of China and the State of Qi ? Ktsquare (talk) 05:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ci'an is written with an amazing balance of the common ultra-nice view and the rarer crticisms. --Menchi 21:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you just did to Qin (state) was weird...

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

This concerns your edits to the Joan of Arc article.

I'm a historian who specializes in this subject, and I would point out that the "national consciousness" idea was popularized by authors such as Twain and Shaw, not by historians. During Joan's campaigns, the French were not even united into a single faction to begin with, and nationalism as we know it had not evolved yet. Moreover, Joan's stated motive was to place Charles VII on the throne since he had the better feudal claim: she never made any statements equating to "national sentiment", which is anachronistic when applied to this period. 

Joan's presence increased support for the Armagnac faction, but she did not unite the entire French populace (reconciliation with the Burgundian faction would not occur until 1435, and other nobles would similarly remain outside the Armagnac group for some time).

I have therefore changed the introduction again accordingly.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 05:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I was going by Wikipedia:History_standards_for_China-related_articles#Era_names in changing Julian dates to Gregorian dates. If you think the policy should be changed or clarified, please discuss. --Jiang 22:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please change the guideline and post on the relevant talk page. Your expertise is also requested regarding the naming convention of Yuan emperors. No, it is not obvious. I posted a note one and a half weeks ago and waited for a response. I still havent gotten one. --Jiang 14:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)