User talk:John Smith's/Archive 3

Template:JMSDF Combatant Ship

It is better solution to create ”current and future ship classes template”. See Template:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ship classes.--Open-box 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

FN Charles de Gaulle

Please help me with a WIKI arbitration on the India-Pakistan section of FN CHarles de Gaulle. There is a user who keep on reverting to claims that are (in my opinion) not WIKI rules. Please arbitrate. I do not know how to call for an arbitration. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.136.68.138 (talk • contribs).

Plagiarism stolen from the samurai archives

Thanks for taking notice of all of the problms with "Darin Fidika" stealing wholesale from the Samurai archives website. I have been making noise for three days ever since I saw user Nagaeyari post about it. But people keep flip flopping and waffling here. This is ridiculous. The articles are clear plagiarism. In many cases, the guy tried to hide his plagiarism by adding incorrect info, if you can believe the gall of the guy.

Since I usually am just a quiet contributor who doesn't get involved in this sort of thing, how do you think we should proceed? There are easily over 100 more articles to go. --Monkeyheadster 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Geisha of Gion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Geisha of Gion.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angel EOW 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mineko Iwasaki.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mineko Iwasaki.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angel EOW 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Flow M

Good to see he got blocked. Tiananmen Square protests of 1989‎ is always going to be a battleground article. Stay vigilant!! --Mattarata 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mao: The Unknown Story

Hi. Thanks for keeping this cordial and polite. (or as polite as we can manage. I understand feeling strongly about something can lead to somewhat heated moments.) I left a comment on the Mao: The Unknown Story discussion page. Your response would be valued. --Detruncate 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's Willy

Hi. Sorry about the page move, it was only intended as a friendly joke. A lot of my friends call John Smith's bitter "John Smith's Willy" so I couldn't resist it. Anyway, I won't be doing that again so don't worry. Nice to see myself in your "vandalism hall of fame" though!--Boris Allen 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Frank Hogan

Came across this through Gary123's berserker spree. Do you still want to delete this? I'm not sure which way I fall on it myself. If you do feel that Frank Hogan is non-notable, let's list it on WP:AfD. crazyeddie 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Hogan Go vote. crazyeddie 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: the PVA article. A merger is a possibility, but let's hold off. I haven't really done any research on it yet. I wasn't even aware that the Chinese force was volunteer until I came across that article. It's not something that gets taught in history courses in this country - even in such classes as the "American Diplomatic Experience." I'm taking Modern Korean History next semester, I'll have to mention this to the prof. crazyeddie 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Silivrenion speedy edits

Thanks for the insight. I'm just a little tired, and didn't fully check my edits before submitting. Again, thanks for the criticism, and I hope I didn't cause any big problems! Silivrenion 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mao Zedong

I'm not sure why you accused me of POV pushing, but that was a good faith attempt on my part to better organize the intro without changing the tilt in any way. It's not a content dispute or NPOV dispute. I've gone back to put some of the original wording back in, but if you're still not satisfied with it, please add what you think is still missing or remove what you think is inappropriate. -- ran (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding the reorganization, what I intended was for the praise to go together, and the criticisms to go together. Right now the paragraph swings from praise, to criticism, to misplaced topic sentence (Mao is controversial), to praise, and to criticism again.

Cheers,

-- ran (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan and Sir Edgar

Joe can you please DO something about Sir Edgar. He keeps arsing about with the Japan article imposing his views over everyone else. He's so petty he insists that it says "China and Korea" rather than mainland East Asia. We adopted the latter to stop loads of edits that were going on, but he had the gall to say he didn't care about having another vote - he has said he will keep editing whatever happens! This is ridiculous. As an admin can you please tell him to stop it. He's fueling an edit war because he will not back down under any circumstances. By the way please reply on my talk page. John Smith's 10:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like another admin is taking care of Sir Edgar. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need much, much care and love.--Sir Edgar 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mao Zedong's Intro

Hello John Smith's. Please read my comments in Talk:Mao Zedong. Sorry I have not figured out how to create the link to that page yet. wwoo22

I am happy with this version. Wwoo22 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello John Smith's, At this moment, I am satisfied with your new version. I also think Aranherunar contributed well. For record, I have put some statements in Talk:Mao Zedong (Intro changes). Wwoo22 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Disupte

User:Gary has requested AMA assistance over a content dispute involving yourself. I am currently trying to get as much information on the dispute (as it spans many articles) as possible. Could you please give me an account of your disputes/relations with User:Gary anyone also involved and the particular articles in question. Thanks. Culverin? ^Talk 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless a case has been filed, so to make things easier and to have your voice heard please discuss the case here Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Gary123. Culverin? ^Talk 10:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Japan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See the two edits I just made in the article about the portal.Sumoeagle179 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Civilization

John, can you take a look at Talk:Civilization#Korea (Gojoseon) date of 2333BC is disputed ?

Apparently, some people (including probable socks) are trying to say that the "Korean civilization" existed since 2333 BC. That places the "Korean civilization" BEFORE the "Chinese civilization" (in this article), which I believe is wrong. (I personally believe 400 BC would be more accurate).

Also, there is a slow revert war in the article page as well, with a few people trying to delete the "Korean civilization" section altogether. But the peculiar thing is, somebody keeps adding a version of the following phrase[1] into the Civilization article:

• The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BC marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism, and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from Korea.

This is eerily similar to what we had in the Japan article several months ago, intact with similar citations. It is difficult to prove anything now, but can you watch the Civilization page also for suspicious activity? Thanks for your help.--Endroit 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i concur

i concur with your use of bold instead of very large headings in the Yayoi article. Alternatively, we could use really small subheadings if anyone complains like this:

Mumun Pottery Period

Nice to meet you John Smith's. Mumun 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Yayoi" section in the Japan article

Happy New Year's!

John, will you please take a look at Talk:Japan?

HongQiGong and I have come to an agreement on the wording in the "Yayoi" section. (Perhaps some grammatical fixes are in order though). Please check if it's OK and comment in the talk page.

If nobody objects, the poll we had (on "continental East Asia") will be moot, so you probably need to declare it closed. Thank you.--Endroit 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

John, I believe HongQiGong, Jefu, and myself agree on the following version....

• The Yayoi period, starting around the 3rd century BC, marked the influx of new practices such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making, and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.

Will you be willing to support it also? I'm also asking LordAmeth the same question. Should we ask others also? What do you plan to do next?--Endroit 08:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, HongQiGong, Jefu, LordAmeth, and myself already support this version. Please see Talk:Japan#Discuss underneath where it's marked "New Consensus Version". Please find where Jefu and LordAmeth signed, and please sign your name there also. Thank you for your support.--Endroit 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

John, as you can see from the edit wars that have ensued since you removed the bias warning from the Japan article, that tag really needs to remain there. And, frankly, I don't foresee ever being able to remove it. Edit wars crop up constantly on that article and new people materialize nearly everyday with some political axe to grind. Nevermind warning editors and trying to resolve the edit wars themselves, readers need to be warned that the article is potentially biased at any given moment.-Jefu 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany FAC

John, on the Germany FAC page, you said that you opposed the article's promotion per me. I am a little confused though, considering that I am the nominator and am trying to get it approved. Do you have any specific concerns? TSO1D 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again, John. But could you please take another look at the article. If you based your objection on Peta's concerns, I am confident that most of them have been addressed already, but could you please specify what aspects of the article you still find unsatisfactory. TSO1D 16:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japan Needs You

Got your message, and I'll take a look - might not have a chance for a few days, but I should be able to get to it. I can also think of another wiki that "needs you" as well :P particularly because of your wiki experience. --Kuuzo 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just took a look at the talk page mess. I have a very limited knowledge, not enough to conclusively prove anything about the "early years" - but from some limited lectures and reading it seems to me that things are usually described as "chinese" influence, I'd advise reading up on "himiko" - she was supplied with valuable items from China to "bestow authority" to Japanese chieftans via things such as mirrors (I don't ever recall Korea mentioned specifically, just the Chinese), and at least in the 7th century or so, Japan assisted certain korean factions with military assistance, which shows that by that point Japan was essentially independent. I would go on to assume that since Japan was never officially colonized as a Chinese tributary, just influence through trade, negotiation, and immigration, it would be considered "influence" rather than anything more powerful than that. But don't take my word for any of that, it's just my understanding based on spotty reading and the occasional lecture. Nagaeyari is the expert, he should take a look at it. Korean and Chinese nationalists are pretty rabid and ubiquitous, and next to impossible to fight off, and so that's not a fight I'm interested in jumping into, but I'll take a look at the other sections as well. --Kuuzo 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Misora Hibari

Please read Japanse wiki about her ethnicity. Her father was drafted for WWII, in those days Koreans were exempted for draft. So it is sure that her ethnicity was Japanese. No one has doubt about it in Japanese wiki.Star80

Japan

Baekje people is one of ancestors of Korean people. But south korean peninsula before unification by Silla in 668 was mixture region of many ethnicity, and Baekje's ethnicity was mixture of them too. For instance, Baekje people had more than one langage.Star80

Thanks for your answer. But you know Korean usually thinks them a racially homogeneous nation? The korean nation is used to mean such a racially homogeneous nation. So it is different from Indea.Star80 09:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this?

On my talk page someone said, "Just quit you fag. Nigga Bitch." Seems very immature. Do you know anything about this?--Sir Edgar 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not mindlessly revert in Japan article.

At least make an effort to understand the argument of others. You appear to me to be very biased, but try to restrain yourself and think clearly.--Sir Edgar 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Yayoi" passage in Japan; see Talk:Japan#Suggesting "China and Korea"

Hello John Smith's

I've requested 4 users to join us at Talk:Japan#Suggesting "China and Korea": LordAmeth, Sekicho, WoodElf, and Nihonjoe. John, can you please comment there as well? The following message was sent to these 4 users....
________________________

Our current discussion is between the following 2 choices:

Option 1 — Most recent consensus (as of 3 January 2007)...

• The Yayoi period, starting around the third century BC, introduced new practices, such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged on the Japanese archipelago.

• The points that differ are: "from the Chinese mainland and the Korean peninsula" in the 1st sentence, and "on the Japanese archipelago" in the 2nd sentence.
• Pros: Some of us claim this is the more stable and accurate wording, using "Korean peninsula" instead of "Korea", and will prevent any potential revert-wars.
• Cons: Detractors claim it is "original research" to replace "China", "Korea", and "Japan" with "the Chinese mainland", "the Korean peninsula", and "the Japanese archipelago", based on wording used by the majority of sources.
• This wording was agreed upon (on 3 Jan.) by the 5 of us: Endroit, Jefu, HongQiGong, LordAmeth, and John Smith's.

Option 2 — Currently suggested wording...

• The Yayoi period, starting around the third century BC, introduced new practices, such as wet-rice farming, iron and bronze-making and a new style of pottery, brought by migrants from China and Korea. With the development of Yayoi culture, a predominantly agricultural society emerged in Japan.

• The points that differ are: "from China and Korea" in the 1st sentence, and "in Japan" in the 2nd sentence.
• Pros: Some of us claim this is the more accurate wording based on sources, the majority of which uses "China", "Korea", and "Japan" (instead of "Chinese mainland", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipelago").
• Cons: Detractors claim this wording is cause for content dispute, and the word "Korea" is particularly problematic because a "state of Korea" did not exist during the "Yayoi" times as claimed by Endroit in the discussions.
• This wording is currently being suggested by: Jefu, HongQiGong, and Sir Edgar.

FYI - Current Citations used for this passage...

1. "The Yayoi period (c. 250 BC–c. AD 250)". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-28.
   • Note: This source uses "from the Korean peninsula or China", uses "China" but never "Chinese mainland", uses both "Korea" and "Korean peninsula", uses "Japan" but never "Japanese archipelago".
2. Diamond, Jared. ""Japanese Roots", Discover Magazine Vol. 19 No. 6 (June 1998)". Retrieved 2006-12-28.
   • Note: This source uses "from the Asian mainland", uses "China" but never "Chinese mainland", uses "Korea" but never "Korean peninsula", uses both "Japan" and "Japanese archipelago", also mentions "Russia", "Russian mainland", "mainland Russia", and "Okinawa".
3. "Pottery". MSN Encarta. Retrieved 2006-12-28.
   • Note: This source says that Yayoi pottery were "made by a Mongol people who came from Korea to Kyūshū". This source uses only "China", "Korea", and "Japan".
4. De Bary, William Theodore (2005). Sources of Japanese Tradition. Columbia University Press. pp. p. 1304. ISBN 023112984X. Retrieved 2007-01-29. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
   • Note: This source uses "Chinese mainland", "Korean peninsula", and "Japanese archipelago".

Comment

We are trying to build a new consensus again, and your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much!--Endroit 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of a little club? Why are you so focused on consensus, Endroit? I'd like to ask John Smith's if consensus matters more or the truth.--Sir Edgar 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer is: Consensus is more important in Wikipedia. Please see my talk page for details.

Having said that, nobody is trying to hide the truth either. In our case, the "truth" emerged through the (heated) discussions. And eventually, the consensus came around to support that truth. It was a painful process, perhaps, but necessary. This "Yayoi" monster was finally subdued, with our joint efforts. It should be even harder for people to revert-war now, now that you've joined us, Sir Edgar, and we have a better consensus than ever before.--Endroit 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the truth matters more. Anyone can edit here and that includes trolls, vandals, sockpuppets... and me. Even if I'm outnumbered 1,000 to 1, I'll still do what I can do put the facts where they belong and express them appropriately. Whatever you and John Smith's decide to do, do it. I just hope one day, we'll all want the same thing for Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Geisha Featured Picture

Hi John. I regret having to reverse your edit twice of a FEATURED PICTURE of the geisha and client in the GEISHA article. This particular version of the photo was selected as a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article. Other versions of the image were rejected in favor of this one. This image is also prominently featured in its current form in the Japanese version of the article. It has further been picked up by a number of other foreign language versions as well as external web sites. I believe that individual members should refrain from changes that contradict the community consensus whenever possible. Again, this is a featured picture -- other versions of the image have not been recognized as such by community consensus and were in fact rejected in favor of this version during the selection process. Thanks very much for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.173.31 (talk • contribs)

Hi, anon. The picture you mention does have featured status, but that does not mean it must be used. I find that the client distracts the eye too much from the geisha. So I switched in the one where he has been cropped more. This means the focus goes on the little-lady, as it should do. The fact it does not have featured status does not mean it cannot be used, just as the fact a picture has featured status does not mean it must be used. John Smith's 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, John. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your motives, and your are obviously determined to stick to your guns. I understand not wanting to distract from the subject, but this picture depicts the geisha-client relationship, which is a central aspect of the geisha's professional life. As for its featured status, while it is true nothing is a MUST in Wikipedia, I think that a picture with featured status SHOULD be used in the article since "it has been found by community consensus to add significantly to the accompanying article." In this case your viewpoint strikes me as not giving enough weight to the consensus with respect to the value of the community selected version of the picture vis-a-vis the version you personally prefer. Respectfully, I really hope we can continue to use the community-selected version. Since I don't have the time and frankly I don't think it would be proper for us to engage eachother in competing efforts to revert this article back and forth over and over again, I would simply ask that you consider changing it back to the way before. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.173.31 (talk • contribs)

I understand where you're coming from, and maybe it would be best if we leave it for now. However I will say one more thing - the editors on the article seem to be quite happy with things the way they are at the moment. John Smith's 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has come a long way. The editors have done a fine job, and I'm happy to see people like you who are determined to invest their time to make it even better. I agree that we should put this matter to rest for the moment. I would just like to leave you with a few final thoughts in addition to what we've discussed in the hopes that you will mull it over in the coming days. First, I would point out that having a featured picture included in an article tends to draw attention to the article, for example, when featured on the Wikipedia top page as picture of the day. Also, because of it's special status, the featured version has been picked up internationally by a number of geisha-related websites, and these sites were essentially linked to the Wikipedia GEISHA article until the picture version was changed. Also worth mentioning, because of the rare glimpse at geisha/client social interaction during ozashiki, the featured version was at one point requested for a nationwide museum exhibit organized by Liza Dalby. Finally, I would just say in closing that while I agree with the logic that the cropped version places the geiko front and center, I personally think the artistic balance of the picture is adversely affected and the view of the geisha client interaction seems somewhat obstructed. I leave you with those final thoughts and with one last plea to reconsider! After all, putting out the best possible articles is all about critical thinking and having constructive discussions with one another. Thank you for your time and honest feedback, and be well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.173.31 (talk • contribs)

First, can you please sign your comments. Second it does you no favours to mention Liza Dalby - I don't think very much of her. John Smith's 10:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous on this topic, as I have friends in Gion and Pontocho, where it is considered taboo to discuss the work of geiko with outsiders. First, Liza Dalby is one of the sweetest and most genuine ladies you'd ever want to meet, and to this day she is highly regarded among the elders of Pontocho. I can't imagine why anyone seriously interested in the subject would not think fondly of her, as the geiko themselves do. Second, I hope you won't think for a moment that I am trying to win favours with anyone. Enjoy your weekend, John. No need to reply. Cheers. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.173.31 (talk • contribs)

I wanted you to sign your comments using the four "~" signs, not use your name - even making an account wouldn't give that away. I don't think Dalby is a "bad" person, but I get rather tired of her assertions that she was a geiko - a rather cheap attempt at increasing her circulation. John Smith's 10:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mao

This is in response to: Hi, you rejected a report of vandalism concerning an anon-IP here. This isn't a content dispute, because the book in question (Mao: The Unknown Story) DOES depict Mao as being like worse than Stalin. I don't know why he is doing it - maybe he is some Stalin-fanboy - but either way he is deliberately arsing about with the article. He keeps doing it, despite what anyone says. So how am I supposed to report him? It IS vandalism, even if it is minor. John Smith's 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a problem with the Stalin bit; it's the Hitler bit he keeps changing. Does the book say he was worse than Hitler? Does the book not say he was worse than Siderov? I don't know; I don't own the book.

While he's certainly going about it the wrong way, I still don't see it as actual vandalism. (I don't think a 3RR review would either, so be careful about edit warring on the page.) I'll keep an eye on it and try to discuss it with him. If he won't talk about it, then we may have a problem. In the meantime, you may want to add an inline citation to say exactly which page of the book supports the Hitler/Stalin statement. That will give you a better position as the dispute continues. Hope that helps. Kafziel ^Talk 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan and the UNCHR report

Will you please take a look at Talk:Japan#BBC interview with Doudou Diène, before he submitted the UNCHR report? The BBC quote is old and inaccurate, and does NOT represent Diène's official position. But HongQiGong is blindly trying to reinsert the passage, and resorting to revert-war again. Can you please take a look? Thank you.--Endroit 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You two are dear friends, aren't you? Lol. Seriously, I don't like the way you two are collaborating to whitewash text and delete important and relevant information in the Japan article. I hope you can both consider trying to create the best article possible by adding actual content, rather than trying to weasel them out.--Sir Edgar 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Edgar, it's hardly my problem if you're so unpleasant that you don't have a good rapport with anyone on wikipedia... John Smith's 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, but you don't know what the truth is anymore, do you? Anyhow, I don't care to be pleasant or make friends here. I'm only concerned about contributing to make articles more accurate and complete. I'm not sure what you're doing.--Sir Edgar 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I think you're just pushing your own agenda - whatever that may be. John Smith's 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we both don't know each other very well. Let's keep it like that, shall we?--Sir Edgar 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, what - you'd prefer to maintain a misunderstanding between us? Maybe you could do with seeing a psychiatrist. You obviously have issues that need to be addressed. John Smith's 11:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've crossed the line here. I've posted your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Sir Edgar 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm so scared. I think you've crossed the line one too many times yourself, being generally unpleasant and making accusations about people, while ignoring any pleas to cease or threats of involving admins. The idea you're now running to the very people you dismissed as not giving two hoots about is a big joke! Another thing for you to talk to a psychiatrist about, I think! John Smith's 13:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts on Mao Zedong

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Mao Zedong. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Need your advice on JSDF trivia list

Hi, as you've been pretty active on the Japan-related articles I'd like to get your input on Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The article is basically just a long laundry list of pretty much every tangential mention of the JSDF in pop culture originally added to the main JSDF article by various editors. I eventually stuck everything in a seperate article due to its length and because I thought they detracted from the primary focus of the article. At the moment I am seriously considering nominating the resulting article for deletion, as most of the content seems to me nothing more then glorified internal linkspamming. I'd appreciate it if you could provide your opinion on this, thanks. -Loren 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. -Loren 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-Pushing

Hi John... Never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded and blind some of these true-believers can be... I'm thinking of a certain one who edit-warred details of specific war crimes into the main country article on Japan, and called those who questioned whether this was pushing POV through undue emphasis "Japanese nationalists", yet now uses the classic Japanese nationalistic/Holocaust-denier ploy ( "OUR historicans don't say so!") when white-washing an article on Mao. I guess only some killing is objectionable in his eyes. I've never had the stomach to associate with such people-- and I've met some from all sides-- but I wish you the best of luck in at least slowing down the biased POV this particular one seeks to spread throughout Wikipedia. (Now watch him parrot back the words like some 5-year-old thinking he's making a real point...) Regards. Dekkappai 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Hey John Smith's, it looks like you've got an "ally" in a Japanese porn fanboy. That must make you feel great. And hey, Dekkappai, nice to know you're still thinking of me after all this time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, do you think there's something wrong with porn? Guess you have sex standing upright while singing the national anthem, huh? :D John Smith's 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently porn, like killing, is only wrong when OTHER people engage in it, John. Dekkappai 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Maybe you can help Dekky by researching Japanese porn stars and adding more articles about them. I'm sure he'd appreciate that and you'll probably find it rewarding, too. I can see a beautiful relationship forming between you two. And I'm kind of creeped out that you think about how I have sex. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now the schoolyard "duh, why don't you go do that" remark? Why am I not surprised you said that? What other witty rejoinders can I expect from you?

About the rest - "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". ;) John Smith's 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey John Smith's, why don't you go do that! LOL. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hong, I said other rejoinders. I.e. something new and different. Maybe if you're still confused you could invest in a dictionary or something..... John Smith's 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Know the great thing about these thugs, John? It's that they wind up being their own worst enemies. I really had no particular editing interest in the field of Japanese erotic cinema until I saw Hong making an obvious attempt to wipe the whole category off the face of Wikipedia. I'd like to think I played a part in seeing that that effort failed, and I'd like to dedicate all my efforts in this field to our friend Hong. I'm very happy to see he's been noticing them and enjoying them. Now, back to work on some more articles... Dekkappai 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not restore unwanted messages that a user has removed from his own talk page

Hi, please do not restore unwanted messages that a user has removed from his own talk page. Many admins, including myself, consider it to be harassment. The matter has often come up at admin noticeboards. I know nothing about your dispute with Giovanni, and I'm generally in dispute with him myself. But if someone removes a message, you know that he has seen it, and it will still be in the history if you subsequently need it for an RfC or RfAr. But don't keep replacing it — that's just hassling him. There's no rule against removing such messages. They're not meant to be kept as a black mark. Some admins do insist that a block notice be kept in place for the duration of a block, so that other admins can see it, but that's all. It's also not a good idea to use templace messages for an established user. Templates are for warning a user who may not be aware of the existence of a rule that he's in danger of violating. Thanks. Musical Linguist 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Great Leap Forward and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

That message on my talk page is unbelievable:

1. Because I haven't violated the 3RR.
2. Because the message says "discuss disputed changes on the talk page" when you too have failed to. At least I have provided full edit summaries for each edit and you haven't.
3. Given that you have been blocked for edit warring and I have never. Mark83 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think I needed to be reminded about Wikipedia policy, fair enough. However not only have I never been blocked, but I have showed sufficient knowledge of WP policy that I have passed a Request for adminship. Please stop your moral high ground position - eg. "That doesn't mean you can get away with it" - I'm sorry but your claiming a superiority that doesn't exist. I cannot replace the information into the intro for obvious reasons, however I would like to discuss the issue further. Best regards, Mark83 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if that came across as "snide" - that was not my intention. And of course previous mistakes don't mean that they can be extrapolated into current behaviour, so apologies again. However as I said I would like to discuss the issue further. Wikipedia:Lead section says that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". And if a possible export of 2 or 3 £0.6 billion warships is not a "most important point" I have no idea what is. Mark83 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's the problem, you qualified your position by saying "in my opinion". So you feel strongly that it shouldn't be in the intro and I feel it should be. We either have to expand our discussion or get a third opinion. You don't agree that it's a "most important point"? Mark83 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. That the lead should stay stable? No that's not what it means. If the PM was assasinated one night the lead should change ASAP. i.e. the lead should summarise the article as fully and as quickly as possible. Mark83 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I maintain that an export would be significant, however I concede your point about the possibility of a PM assasination/warship export not being analogous to an actual incident.

By the way, I've aplogised for my initial response and I stand by it. However might I suggest that your 3RR warning was overkill? My reverts weren't intransigent, the 1st was because you provided no edit summary and the 2nd (although you disagreed) was a genuine attempt at compromise. Mark83 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Mao

Yep, as you know I have the firm view, based on my own readings but also based on authoritative Chinese-language reviews and studies, that Chang and Halliday's book is historically unreliable and highly biased in many respects. That they are being referenced only for the most extreme statements in this article (red hot poker, "Mao himself said...") is, I think, telling.

That more respected and more reliable sources do not contain these claims suggests their unreliability. This is why these statements, previously presented as fact, need to be qualified by "blah and blah claim". I have no intention of doing that to the other sources, because there is not a significant debate as to their accuracy, as far as I know. If you would care to point me to a source that suggests their unreliability at the same level as Chang & Halliday, please do so and I will add in "blah claims..." for them as well. --Sumple (Talk) 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I don't mind using that. But why do you think that's preferrable? --Sumple (Talk) 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reverts

I wouldn't know about this apart from the fact that the contributions conflicted with mine. However why are you removing other user's comments from your talk page? Mark83 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Because he's an irritating troll, and I've been told one is allowed to remove "unwanted" posts from your talk page. John Smith's 00:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2003 Education figures

So are you going to update the 2003 figures or not? I will have a go if you don't, but then I wouldn't be sure of the accuracy. John Smith's 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John Smith's. I would appreciate if you could remain civil. No need to bully people around. Regarding the 2003 figures, I already explained that they are less pertinent as an International comparison, because most European countries did not participate to it. The only proper figures for an International comparison are the 1997 ones, until we have the results of the 2007 study. No big deal really. PHG 14:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC query - Japan

Hi, I've seen you vote on FAC candidates several times. Could you have a quick look at the Japan article and tell me whether you believe it is FA material? The biggest problem seemed to be over references, which have been added and properly formatted. As to stability, we've had problems with vandals - major problems between editors are resolved. John Smith's 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just gave it a cursory look-through, but the article seems pretty good The only section I find noticeably missing (compared to other nation-state FA's) is "Flora and fauna". You might also want to mention the whaling issue and the etymology of the word "Japan". There are a few citations preceding punctuation. ( Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags.) Personally I always take a page through the peer review process to get a page in the best shape before trying an FAC—it usually takes about a week or so.

Unfortunately vandals are a problem for nearly everybody; about I can do is keep checking my watch page for those articles in which I have an interest.

I hope this was of some small help. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe another peer review, then. But I don't think anyone knows much about flora and fauna, so maybe we'll leave it there. Cheers, John Smith's 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know you'd already had a PR—so it's probably not needed. But you may want to address the citation-before-puctuation issue. There are some nation-state articles that don't have a "Flora and fauna" section, so that probably isn't a show-stopping issue. — RJH (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Application filed - if you could leave your comments they would be much appreciated. John Smith's 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a deeper dive as time permits. Good luck with your FAC. — RJH (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan FAC, response from SG

Hi, Sandy. We tried to sort out those citation problems. Any thoughts to leave on a fresh nomination? John Smith's 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

even ones that Sandy threw in. Not sure what that means, but whatever. Anyway, good luck with; I have been traveling for two weeks, one week at home, and have to travel another two weeks, so can't really get involved in a new FAC. ( I see a note above about footnote placement; I'll run the script that fixes them, in case you haven't already. By the way, unless I'm reading the comments above incorrectly, the instructions at WP:PR specifically ask that articles that are placed at FAC be removed from PR; you're not supposed to do both at the same time, and the wisest course is always to get a thorough PR before going to FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi John, you have been reported for a 3RR violation, and I have blocked you for 48 hours. I notice you were blocked for the same offense only 6 days ago, with similar incidents in the past. Please take this time to carefully study the WP:3RR policy, and consider your future actions here. If you decide to play by the rules and contribute productively and collaboratively, you are more than welcome to stay and help us build this encyclopedia. On the other hand, if you keep breaking the rules, your blocks will only get longer. I very much hope you'll choose the first option. Many thanks, Crum375 21:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff

I had stopped visiting the Japan page because of the constant edit wars. Thanks for the info about the Japan FA nomination.--WoodElf 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Edit warring has mostly stopped, due to agreements over key issues. I recently cut down the history section, as you saw. John Smith's 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aikido

Hi John, I addresed the sub-sub-sub heading issue. I'm not sure it's a good change, however. Can you take a look? Many thanks in advance. Mike Searson 06:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike beat me to it. There is a lot of information and the original idea behind the subheadings was to help a non-aikido guy work through it - an organizational thing so to speak. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the changes so far and comment further. I admit its hard for those already involved in the work to take a step back and look objectively.Peter Rehse 06:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John.Peter Rehse 09:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan featured article question

Actually, I was talking about wanting a more balanced article. May be we can edit out different parts. Who ever wrote the article seems to have skipped the entire 3rd thru 8th centuries. The introduction of buddhism is important cause it is still the most popular national religion, the concept of writing being spread on a massive scale is important for any civilization. The sections on WWII need to be more balanced also, otherwise this article will just appear to be some sort of propaganda article, where parts of history that are not appealing to the Japanese are glanced over or completely just deleted. --Tyler 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can combine the Nara and Heian period and shorten it. This way we can bring in the introduction of buddhism to the article. Also, I believe comfort women is a euphemism for sex slaves not forced prostitution. --Tyler 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, eventhough the wests influence on Japan is important, their is way more paragraphs on those sections compared to the influence of Japans close neighbors thru out the millennias. We need to balance the times better, the 20th cent section is way too long when compared to the other centuries. It seems off balance as if Japan is OK with being influenced by the west in their history, but if Japan is influenced by a close neighbor it seems to get glanced over or not mentioned. This makes it too ethnocentric, I'm not saying it is ethnocentric on purpose, but it is odd that the 20th cent takes up so much space compared to the sections that laid the foundations for Japans becoming a high civilization. --Tyler 10:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How can it be decided already, their is only 3 votes, how long has this article been requesting to be a FA. By the way I wasn't ignoring your question, sorry, when I am writing you something, I think you are writing to me at the same time, I end up not seeing your comment until after I post a couple of comments to you. I don't feel comfortable changing my vote to neutral when I do slightly oppose it. I feel as if their is pressure to change my vote to neutral or comment. I will change it to comment temporarily because I don't know when you guys are going to be done deciding, but I will change it back to oppose in 24 hours. Have other people who opposed this article from becoming a FA been pressured in to changing their vote to neutral or comment in order to keep this FA quest alive indefinately? --Tyler 11:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to incorporate the introduction of buddhism to the article. A while back in the longer version, this section was available

"In the sixth century, Mahayana Buddhism was introduced to Japan through the kingdoms of Korea. Although there was some early resistance to its official adoption, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance throughout the Asuka and Nara periods. Prince Shōtoku, in particular, helped spread Buddhism and Chinese culture through an edict marking the first official recognition of Buddhism as a national religion in 593, the introduction of a Chinese-style cap and rank system of classifying bureaucrats in 603, and the drawing up of a Seventeen-article constitution that promoted Confucian morals and virtues in 604."

May be we can use just the first two sentences like this,

In the sixth century, Mahayana Buddhism was introduced to Japan through the kingdoms of Korea. Although there was some early resistance to its official adoption, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance throughout the Asuka and Nara periods, becoming a national religion in 593.

We should combine the Nara and Heian period to make it shorter if that is what other people want.

Also, think about this, why does the history section have 1/3 of its space dedicated to the 20th century when we are trying to shorten it for some reason. This is just 1/20th of Japan's history, but it takes up 1/3 of the space. Is it because most of us editors are from the West (USA) in the english version of wiki and we consider this to be more important while neglecting the other centuries. The influence from Japans close neighbors in the beginning of Japan as a civilization is just as important as the west's influence. We should correct the history section to reflect this and correlate it better with the actual amount of time 1/20th. I don't know why someone wanted it to be shorter anyway, I don't have a problem with adding a few more sentences. --Tyler 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In the much older versions their are multiple references to the intoduction of buddhism to Japan. I will get those references for you, now are we satisfied. Also, 1/3 is making the article ethnocentric, even if it is an accident, it makes it appear as if Japan is ok with history if the west influenced them, but if a close Asian neighbor influenced them, they seem to glance over it. Lets try to make it more balanced, especially now when in the news all you see are reports of Japan distorting their history re: WWII crimes. --Tyler 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro of buddhism to Japan.

Here are the references, now as far as my other comment on distortion, I wasn't talking about the emphasis on meiji vs other centuries but Japan's relationship to her neighbors. Japan seems to neglect its neighbors more than the west. You can see it in the way they handles the WWII crimes issue. This seems to be similar in the article, an influence from a Asian neighbor is neglected, but not incidents with the west. --Tyler 12:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"we"

I don't know, all I am asking is who is "we"? I don't mind you excluding journalist reviews, provided that it is supported by consensus, not unilateral action. --Sumple (Talk) 10:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to get the discussion going, then, on the talk page. I'd like to hear your reasons for excluding all newspaper reviews. Otherwise, I would have thought a better criterion is "include newspaper commentary if it is reliable and demonstrates a point not already included in the article". --Sumple (Talk) 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Japan

There are quite a lot of things still not resolved such as the lack of a political subdivision map, use of copyrighted images and unnecessary sections. For section length, take a look at India or Australia. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured material is supposed to exemplify what is best wikipedia has to offer. Each of the points I've raised can quite easily be solved and mapped to the relevant criteria on WP:WIAFA. So my objection, which is valid, remains for now. For the map, the section talks about the subdivisions, but instead there are photographs which are very unhelpful to a reader, and certainly not pertinent to the section. Lastly, copyrighted images are uploaded to wikipedia under the fair use clause. This allows it to only be displayed on the article about the subject, not anywhere else. Use here is a copyviolation. I'm sure ample free images can replace copyrighted images in wikipedia, in keeping with its goals of being a free encyclopedia. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In case the Japan article doesns't make FA this time, I'd like to offer some advice that has served me in the work I'm doing on another "large" subject- the Guadalcanal campaign. My advice is that it's easier to take articles on smaller subjects to FA than "large" subjects. For example, if you take each of the Japan article's sub-articles, (History of Japan, Politics of Japan, etc) to FA, then summarize each article's contents into the main Japan article and write a summary introduction at the top, the main Japan article should be FA-ready because it will basically be a summary of all its FA-approved sub-articles. Just a suggestion. Cla68 03:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

re: tracked down

The OED defines "track down" as "find someone or something after a thorough or difficult search." To me, that implies two elements: (1) to find, (2) after a thorough or difficult search.

Clearly, the SMH article talks about "finding". The question is, does the source (the article) support an inference of a "thorough or difficult search"? It's a matter of judgment I suppose. The article does not detail how thorough was their search. On the other hand, that they had gone to Luding and interviewed locals in order to find Jung Chang's alleged and probably made-up source, shows some degree of thoroughness or difficulty.

I still think "track down" is warranted. However, if you change to "find", I will not revert. --Sumple (Talk) 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 incident

Whats up with the selective quoting? You removed a source that was also from the associated press, yet decided to keep the one with the worse wording. The wording of the other selection sounded much more neutral by Wikipedia's standards.Azerbaijani 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the other source, which is also Associated Press, said this about the incident: They were released unharmed after they were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitting entering Iranian waters illegally. This statement is much more neutral, dont you think? The current one has very negative connotations.Azerbaijani 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they admitted fault under duress. Saying that they admitted something under duress without the evidence to back it up is POV. The other statement is far more neutral. Why so stubborn, its obvious, lets settle this logically. Please keep your neutrality here, you have already shown bias by using a source that you believe is better over another.Azerbaijani 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is all mere speculation on your part, which constitutes Original Research and is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. The fact of the matter is that the more neutral statement must be used. There is no evidence that the soldiers were under duress when they made their statements (if they were, the whole world would know about it, dont you think?). Again, be reasonable, one is more neutral than the other.

This is the statement we should be using: They were released unharmed after they were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitting entering Iranian waters illegally.

Here are the things that are wrong with the statement currently in the article: They were released unharmed, but only [1] after being paraded[2] blindfolded on Iranian TV and made to[3] apologise for their role in the incident.

[1] There is no indication that the soldiers would not have been released had they not confessed. Again, this implies that the only reason the soldiers were released unharmed was because they confessed. This statement is not neutral and violates Wikipedia's policies, as it is a weasel word (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words).

[2] Again, paraded is a word that has lots of negative connotations. It is also a weasel word.

[3] Again, made to implies that there was some type of duress involved, possibly even torture. This is also a weasel word.

This statement violates Wikipedia's policies. Come on, lets be sensible here, both come from the Associated Press, and both are recent. We must use the one that avoids weasel wording and the one that is most neutral.Azerbaijani 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you not know of Wikipedia's polcies of NPOV and OR? It doesnt appear so. Please inform me and I can give you the proper links.Azerbaijani 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been active since I left this message, which leads me to believe you are purposely ignoring this. You are in violation of Wikipedia's policies of NOR (no original research) and NPOV (neutral point of view).Azerbaijani 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy this debate to Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel .--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check whether I copied it correctly or not?

I will report you if you do not undo your edits. You do not use the talk page, and continuously remove dispute tags.Azerbaijani 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is not reliable nor is it neutral. And yes, you removing dispute tags without discussion, when there is obviously a dispute, whether you think there is or not, is disruptive editing.Azerbaijani 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia rules, if you have not done so already, regarding NPOV and OR.Azerbaijani 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment with other articles and other things, but you can be sure I will be on that discussion page sometime today or tomorrow.Azerbaijani 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan FA

Thanks for asking me to go through the citations. I dont think I can be of much help though. I know it sounds petty but my ISC economics exam is on wednesday. Something like the A-levels. I can start only on the next weekend.

Regards, --WoodElf 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ask about the FAC at User talk:Raul654. There were 5 opposes. I can't tell if the first one is resolved, but the second and third imply incompleteness, the referencing issues in the fourth seem addressed, and the fifth was likely ignored by Raul (gallery? FAs should almost never have a gallery...) Gimmetrow 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell

Nope, I don't. It's plain wrong - I have a duty to Wikipedia to correct inexactitudes. If you think it's right, state your case. Citations can be wrong too! This was a sneaky use of citations. MarkThomas 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan FAC

You might have a point there, that I was a bit too hasty when I failed the nom. I've gone ahead and put it back up on the FAC with a clean nomination. Raul654 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Jung Chang

It doesn't matter whether you think I have an anti-Chang bias. Even if I had an anti-Chang bias, that does not disqualify me from editing this page, or participating in discussions. If we are going to talk about bias and systematic campaigns, then we might raise your behaviour on Nanking Massacre in the past, but I won't go into that. I might also talk about your rather hypocritical userbox about the Chinese Communists.

Your accusations are grounded in nothing but your prejudices. You know as much as I do that my edits are intended to be within policy and in good faith.

I have my own opinions about certain matters, and I know you have yours. Feel free to disagree with me, but do not lecture me about my "bias" or the quality of my opinions. --Sumple (Talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gio33

I'm not a fan of Gio33, but this [2] looks insulting. I dunno - maybe you're bestest buddies.--Shtove 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gio's not stupid - you can see that from Talk:Adolf Hitler, where he's done the same kind of stuff you're complaining about. He's more like an atheist version of WP's original provocateur, The Cunctator.--Shtove 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't look right: "LOL, you really do lack wisdom."

Anyway, I see John Smith's Willy made you bitter.--Shtove 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Gio being that bad? No, of course I'm not saying that - I'd just looked at the rest of this page and thought the Boris Allen incident was funny. But judging by your vandals' hall of fame - including John Smith's Vandal - you're probably right to be at least suspicious of any comments that come out of the blue. Sorry I got your antennae twitching, because I hold no brief for Gio.--Shtove 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But it was him ... buh-wa-ha-haa!--Shtove 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hello. You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be mroe careful in the future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've undone this block, as the page is now protected. Blocking you would only serve to slow discussions on the talk page down. I make no statement on the validity of the block. Thanks. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: IP

I think we can manage that. I've protected for 3 weeks. – Steel 13:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran War

I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that your strong views regarding China would make you a strong supporter of the Sino-American War articles. Sorry I was wrong. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War --Lee1863 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sino-American War

I saw your vote at the Iran War page, would you be willing to help delete theSino-American War article? The decision to keep was a big mistake. --Westolly 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It would really be no more work than the commenting you did at the Iran page. Just suggest that the Afd vote was flawed and give a quick reason. Now that more people know about it, it should bne a more accurate vote. Like you pointed out we shouldn't have an article that doesn't belong on wikipedia just because not enough editors noticed. I'd do it myself but I don't think it would be best for someone whos never edited a wiki article to begin the process. Se here its not really much of a process:Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions--Westolly 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Its your call, I can't "force" you to take this cause up. Its just that nows probalya good opprotunity since the Iran War article has drawn attention once that debate is over its very likely that even if a new afd on the China War was started it could just slip under the editors noses again. Anyway if you take a look here: :Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions its actually simpler to restart a afd than it is to delete an article the 1st time. If you don't have the time thats fine but the time you spent answering me took about as much effort as it would to start this. But like I said it is in the end your call, I'm just unhappy that a fictional article can get "lucky" and make it in to wikipedia. --Westolly 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Thanks for your message. Despite our differences, I know you bring a very useful perspective to many articles, and I admire you for your principled stand on many issues. I know I'm sometimes immature when it comes to things I have strong views about, but I hope that does not impede constructive discussion and healthy editing in future. Happy editing, --Sumple (Talk) 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan promoted

Thanks to your efforts as well as to those of the Wikipedia community, Japan has been promoted to Featured Article status. Having tried to get it promoted (so long ago that it's not even archived), I thought it was near impossible, so all the more congratulations! Fg2 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

John, first and foremost, congratulations for the successful FA promotion of the Japan article, based largely on your unrelenting effort in fixing all its references and other minute details.

I listed the article in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, per your request. I'll stand by with what we have now, in the lead section. But I'll be ready to modify the lead section if any significant suggestion/objection is made.

Please continue to monitor the Japan article for any unusual activity, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for any further suggestions made. Thank you.--Endroit 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just minor details, but Constitution Memorial Day in Japan is "May 3". You wrote "May 5" in the request page. Also, let me know if I should move this request to any particular date within the "Date Requests" section, and I'll do it.--Endroit 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it to May 3. Stay tuned.--Endroit 18:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's done, the request is for "May 3" now.--Endroit 18:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You'd do well to not go around accusing Giovanni of things. I've seen you being incivil on both User talk:Dmcdevit and User talk:VietFire. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

It was  Inconclusive, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnsensu

		WikiProject Japan Barnsensu Award
		I hereby award this Barnsensu to you for your tireless work on getting the Japan article to Featured Article status. It's been a long, hard road, and your work is appreciated.

···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

John Smith's; I was hoping you might stop by the Port Hamilton page and make some comments on the naming issue there. Several authors seem to admit is the most standard name in English. Nonetheless, they are persisting in claims that "since Korea owns the islands, it should be named in Korean." Being from Korea myself, I know there are a lot of name issues that I really do care about, and I think it's important to stick to this "common usage" policy everywhere. I'd like to get some editors opinions who are interested in naming in general, but not necessarily that page. This island is a rather unnotable place that had a base on it, and always appears in that context. There are some ambiguity concerns, but these happen for several of the choices (the Korean name itself, for example) and does not currently conflict with any other articles.

I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this page if you have time. While I have one opinion on the name, I encourage you to read over the discussion so far and make up your mind. I want to leave this message because I think there are a few hawks who watch the article and try to "gang up" when the rest of the community might not otherwise notice a small article like this. Komdori 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

I have attempted to open an arbitation case that involves you, see [== Notification of arbitration case ==

I have attempted to open an arbitration case regarding User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33. This is relevant to this talk page as the two have been engaged in heated debate here. See this. Thanks. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that RfCs aren't typically held on article talk pages, but at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang

Perhaps you can explain to me what is the problem with the external link Xiaodingjin is adding? I haven't reviewed it yet, but I just want to know your reasoning first before I offer any advice. Nishkid64 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, I thought that you were also thinking that the link was not appropriate for the article. I have blocked Xiaodingjin indefinitely. If he returns under a new name or as an IP, please let me know. Nishkid64 21:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Adams FAC

How much trimming do you think is necessary? He did quite a lot over the course of his life, and I just roughly detailed his activities in the introduction. Just for comparison, would you want me to make the lead shorter like that of Charles Darwin? Thanks, Nishkid64 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what do you think about it now? I think I've summarized the main important points nicely now, and it looks like it conforms with WP:LEAD. Nishkid64 22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I think it looks better now as three medium-length paragraphs than two long ones. Thanks for your suggestions. =) Nishkid64 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User 144.138.*.*

Well done with your revisions of this users "contributions". I have found the user of this range of IPs has been a persistent, low-level troll for a long time, who tends to hang around pages to do with the modern Royal Navy and Royal Air Force putting forward their POV, inserting plenty of weasel words and blanking what they don't agree with. Always worth watching what other changes they've made when you spot one, although it's not easy as the IP is always changing. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On further investigations, their activities seem restricted to 144.138.25.x. I'd like to get something done about them as they have yet to make more than a handful of their many edits in good faith. As they don't use a static IP address it's quite hard. I notice that myself, yourself and User:Mark83 have been reverting this user's "contributions" over a common range of articles. It seems we need a history of warnings to take this forward, so I would like to let you know that any time this user makes a bad-faith contribution from now on will be met with a warning from myself if I happen to revert it. It's beginning to get tiresome, and if we can at least force them into registering it might get us somewhere. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S, I'm going to start a log of their IPs, here; User:Emoscopes/Play . Feel free to contribute if you feel so inclined. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33

(also sent to Giovanni) Okay, you both need to take a break from getting into these heated and unproductive "discussions". Mudslinging is not going to do anything, so I suggest you both ignore the Xiaodingjin matter for now, and just focus on the article. Remember, we're not here to get in arguments over useless matters. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have unblocked Xiaodingjin since he sent an email to Giovanni which was forwarded to me, in which he basically said he would clean up his act if he is unblocked. Please show Xiao what EL policy he was violating, and also continue to participate in the discussion regarding the EL at the article's talk page. From what I heard, there seems to be a consensus to include the link, and if that is the case, then you shouldn't prevent other users from adding that link in the future. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments

Hi, Mr. Smith, Thank you for welcoming me back (unblocked) to Wikipedia and request for a chat. I am sorry I do not know how to leave messages on your talk page. I look at your page, but cannot find any on going discussion. So I just put my reply here.

Before answering your questions, however, I would like to make clear that I have no desire to engage in a personal rivalry. I want to link my review to Jung Chang’s page in Wikipedia only for constructive communication.

Most westerners only read westerners’ opinions about Jung Chang’s book. I think it will be useful for open-minded westerners to know a Chinese opinion, which contrasts significantly to those in the west. No one so far has pointed out any factual distortions or logical problems in my review. I would be very pleased to see if any Wikipedia reader can do so. It is pity if a Chinese opinion has to be kept away from the western public.

Now I will answer each of your criticisms following your words. You wrote in the discussion page a few days ago about my review:

         I can see various points that could be considered "factually inaccurate material".

         ·	  "This claim was immediately accepted by the western media" No, it wasn't. Some publications loved it - others didn't. The Financial Times and 
         Independent on Sunday (as examples) had critical reviews. 

In my review, the phrase “this claim” clearly refers to, in the previous sentence, “the central theme of the book” i.e., “to condemn Mao as an evil monster.” I did not say that every detailed aspect of the book was accepted.

The Finacial Times and Independent on Sunday articles do not object “the central theme” (e.g., FT: “Chang and Halliday . . . bring the monster alive”; Independent: “Let me make it clear that I fully share the authors' view that Mao was a monster”.) They only question the way Jung Chang presents her materials and point out that China made some progress under Mao.

         ·	"Jung Chang has become the authority on the Chinese history." Really? Where has anyone said that? 

This statement is based on the fact that, no other single person has more direct influence on the British public regarding the Chinese history (related to Mao) at the moment of my writing (2005).

         ·	"A person, who asked challenging questions during one of her seminars, was deemed by others as “an obvious Maoist” and could not finish 
         his questions." Again, really? Where, when was this said, etc? 

This incident occurred in Glasgow, June 2005. I apologize for not providing full information on every detail which is unessential to my argument against Jung Chang’s claims. The review would be too long (as you already complained). If this is the reason not to link my review, I would be happy to take it away.

         ·	"In so doing, the review raises a further question: why did all media and experts in the UK fail to see these obvious inconsistencies and 
         contradictions in the book?" Again, not everyone loved it. The author is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the truth. 

Again, I did not say “everyone love” Jung Chang’s book. I said that no British media expert “see these obvious inconsistencies and contradictions” as listed in my review.

         ·	"If it cannot be excused by the ignorance of Chinese history, it has to be explained by the profound pride and prejudice towards China." 
         So basically, English people didn't criticise her books because they hate China. 

This sentence follows from the previous one, and clearly refers to “media and experts in the UK”. Apparently, you equate “media and experts” to “English people”, and further interprete “pride and prejuduce” as hatred. I respectively disagree, although I am not a native English speaker.

         ·	"Although this review met absolute silence in the west" Why would anyone have latched onto it? The author has no profile. Why would a critic 
         who properly understands the material quote some student from St Andrews? Part of the statements made in the article seem to be motivated because 
         he didn't get any attention in Europe/Americas. 

I simply do not understand why my statement of “this review met absolute silence in the west” "could be considered "factually inaccurate" by you.

In addition, you also wrote to me: “If you look here you'll see another user point that out - it's a conflict of interest.” I followed your instruction, and find the other user’s following writing:

        Conflict of interest was relevant, if the person posting it was the author. But since Giovanni33, who is not the author, is supporting its 
        placement, that is no longer relevant.

I cannot understand why you want me to look at a point which is considered “no longer relevant” by the user.

If you or any readers are not satisfied by my explanation. Please let me know and I would try my best to meet the demand of Wikepedia.

Sincerely yours, Jinxiaoding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaodingjin (talk • contribs)

Enough!

That's enough of the personal attacks/rebuttals/mudslinging against Giovanni33. If you make one more incivil remark to Giovanni, I will block you for incivility. This goes for Giovanni, too. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Hello! I'd like to ask for your opinion for my addition to the "Genocide/Massacre" discussion in the Nanking Massacre article. I'd like to hear/see what your think of my thoughts. Don't worry. I'm an extremely even-tempered person so I won't be offended by anything you say. I merely wish to hear someone else's opinions on the soundness of my logic. Thanks, Mr. John Smith's AkrobaticMonkey 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan

Good news! Raul654 is considering Japan to be used later on in May (tentatively May 15th, but the exact date is likely to be changed). I confirmed it directly on his talk page.

Also, please verify if recent edits by Azukimonaka and myself seem OK, and change them as you see fit. Thank you.--Endroit 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Good news again! We DID make it for May 15th.--Endroit 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Unfortunately, I lack the tools to determine what the user's IP address is. If the socks pop up one at a time and aren't extremely damaging, it's unlikely that a checkuser request would fly; instead, they can just be blocked one at a time. But if there is a long-term ongoing pattern, file something at suspected sockpuppets, and those tools might be used. I'll look into this particular user. Mangojuice^talk 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the time is right for a report. The sockpuppets are obvious ones: no need to confirm in order to block. And the pattern of abuse isn't bad enough to necessitate a rangeblock (which are really only for last resort). For now, just report new ones to WP:AIV but if this becomes a continuing problem, let me know. I can semi-protect some of the pages to prevent further abuse from new accounts. Things would have to get really bad before a rangeblock would be required. Mangojuice^talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall

I would be happy to do that. However, since I'm one of the involving parties of the arbitration case of TingMing, I am not allowed to make any political edit. I will try my best though. :-)--Jerrypp772000 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't move pages by copying and pasting. Use WP:RM. I gave my reasons for restoring the name on the talk page.--Jiang 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's just stop reverting, I mean, it'll be moved eventually. We don't have to rush.--Jerrypp772000 22:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss reasons for moving/not moving on the talk page of the article.--Jiang 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Would you guys please work it out somewhere other than the 3rr noticeboard? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Evilclown93 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a little reminder about that, don't take it hard. Evilclown93 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, I originally believed it to be vandalism (blanking), which is why I reverted at all. John Smith's 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Huan

Sorry to bother you, but would you mind taking a look at the article on Lee Huan? I've just written it, and I was hoping to have a bit of a peer review on it. Thanks very much! --Folic Acid 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Name Change in Dokdo

Hi John Smith's; I just leaving a note hoping you might be keeping an eye on how the move vote for Dokdo was unfolding. I saw you voted, but I didn't see if you were notified here (perhaps you had voted before Wikimachine had a chance).

Based on your reasons for your vote ("Per above.") I thought perhaps you had seen Wikimachine's comment and took it at face value. In fact, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the results recently (rather than year-old google searches to which he may have been looking). The new discussions were [Archive_9#Data_on_reliable_sources here] and here, in which he participated. There are some more google results discussed in the comments now. If you have time, you might want to read through the comments people have made on the requested move for their votes to see if any of them bring up interesting issues to you. Perhaps you are already doing so, I just didn't want you to be swayed by what (on the surface) seems like a good rationale, but was simply based in bad data. --Cheers, Komdori 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:AGK#Mediation

Just a note, I've replied at my talk page; specifically, at the above section. Don't hesitate to reply to me there, if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap

I am sick and tired of people using script/bot programs to undo my perfectly reasonable and correct edits. AND that includes you John smith. For Taiwan Province, I made a correct edit. Even Folic Acid understood what I meant. Now, you come along and undo my edits. What is wrong with you? Just stop it, Briton Thanks TingMing 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting, don't forget - assume good faith. As you stated, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I've found that engaging in reasonable and pleasant discussion, rather than accusing people of attacking you, is a much better way of trying to explain your point of view. --Folic Acid 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, John Smith's, if TingMing keeps resisting making NTDMH bold, then we should just stop. The name has changed, but it's still kinda controversial. I'm pretty sure the issue is gonna be solved in a week or so, then we'll change it back.--Jerry 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think you should consider putting this on the evidence page.--Jerry 22:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think TingMing himself knows that "Just stop it, Briton" contains some taste of hostility, as opposed to his theory on my talk page trying to make the phrase sound like a compliment/praise to you, which does not make sense at all with his preceding rant at you. Vic₂₂₆^說 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not mindlessly revert spelling changes made in good faith

"Proud to be British," you say. Indeed. That doesn't mean that Japan is part of the British Empire. I was trying to improve the article by making the spelling consistent. The article is primarily written in American English (and started out that way). I changed the few British spellings to American, following the Manual of Style. You mindlessly reverted me (my changes also included the correction of a typo). Please try to follow policy. Thanks for your cooperation. --Samuel Webster 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Revoke an award?

Wow - and I thought I'd seen it all. Nope - the award is yours.  :) Cheers, --Folic Acid 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you can add him to your Vandalism Hall of Fame.--Jerry 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhism

Your edit in the Japan article is a little odd. You do realize that Japan doesn't have much of an interaction with China until after the 8th cent. and even then the interaction for Japan to the outside world is a mix between Korea and China. In the 16th cent. Japan still considered Korea a good source of technology of the bigger world cause of Korea's proximity to Japan. It seems odd to keep excluding or negating Korea from existence when it comes to Japan's ancient history. I'm going to delete that entire sentence cause we can't seem to agree on whether Korea and China contributed to Japan's buddhism or ONLY China contributed to Japan's buddhism. Thanks --Tyler 10:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR again by TingMing

Hi, I added to a previous report for this user on the 3RR noticeboard. I added a note to the report here, as TingMing has started edit warring right after the block you imposed ended. Is that ok, or do I need to file a whole new report? Maybe if the latter you could "deal" with it, as I'm going offline now. Thanks, John Smith's 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for two weeks (albeit by someone else). -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I got fed up with it and did a new report on him. I think the 2 week thing is why he went berserk. Sheesh. --Folic Acid 03:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

It's been like three weeks and Giovanni's still not commented on the mediation page. I'll contact him and ask him if he can. If that fails, I think it's ArbCom time. --Deskana (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Folic Acid has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Naming conventions

Hello, can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)? It is now disputed again, see the talkpage, thanks.--Jerry 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

John - I replaced the NPOV tag with a comment - I hope you don't mind. I figured that since LionheartX is actually disputing something in the conventions, the tag serves as a sign that other interested parties should see the talk page to learn more. Hopefully, we can resolve the dispute quickly and remove the tag. (and don't ask me why we're just now bringing this stuff up - I haven't got a clue). Cheers! --Folic Acid 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I doubt they would have been deleted - I left a note saying they were cropped images. However it would have depended on the admin! I should have left a tag as the bot didn't pick up on this. Thanks Mark83 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jung Chang.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jung Chang.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mineko Iwasaki.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mineko Iwasaki.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Behead.jpg deletion discussion

I decline. I have amended my statement to include more reasoning, however. --tjstrf talk 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's rather immaterial to me. If you think I'm being less than forthright in some way, then feel free to believe what you like. I certainly don't control your thoughts. It might be amusing to see what ulterior motive you could come up with to suspect me of, though, so take a shot at it if you so desire. --tjstrf talk 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you said in your nomination was a reason for deletion, so I thought your complaint must be based on the image's content. I still think that.

If I'm wrong, then other people will agree with you and you have no worries. If I'm right, then other people will agree with me. I seek no further involvement in the debate. --tjstrf talk 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding the PLAAF HMS pic on google pictures

Please provide links on google images that provide pic for J-7E Helmet mounted sight. I just did a google image search & came up nothing.

As for different cockpit pics for Su-27/27S/27SM, cockpit layout is the major difference and when you claim there is no need to post very pic, I agree if it is for the same item, however, the different cockpit pics are used to illustrate the major difference between the different models of Flankers, and I do not see any violation of Wikipedia policy. The same thing applies for the different version of Shenyang J-11's, with one of the major difference is cockpit layout. As for N001 radar, there is only a single radar pic to respresent all different radars on Su-27 and I do not see any violation. Please provide more detailed explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.98.120 (talk • contribs)

Deleted pictures

It looks like the cited CSD criterion (I7) was right, but the deletion summary was a little inaccurate -- I7 says that images that fail any of the WP:NFCC can be deleted after 48 hours of having been tagged. I think both Image:Mineko_Iwasaki.jpg and Image:Jung Chang.jpg were processed as being replaceable non-free images. Regards, howcheng {chat} 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are replaceable. Maybe not by you, but if they are living people who make public appearances, then a free image can be created. If they are recluses like J.D. Salinger or Thomas Pynchon then you could make a case (citing sources that prove that they indeed shun the public). Otherwise, non-free images of living people and buildings are almost always deemed replaceable. howcheng {chat} 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't use unfree images of living people unless there are extreme circumstances. The fact that no free picture exists is irrelevant. Celebrities make public appearances, people bring cameras (try looking on Flickr. Example photos found on Flickr: Denise van Outen and Gong Li). Eventually an amateur photo of the person will be available under a free license. Also note many celebrities do performances with the USO and otherwise appear in US government photos (For example, Jimmy Buffett and Kelly Clarkson. Try defenselink.mil, whitehouse.gov, navy.mil etc for these photos. For older photos try nara.gov and loc.gov. All US government photos are public domain.) Also some celebrities have uploaded free pictures of themselves to Wikipedia (John Scalzi and Lydia Cornell come to mind). Other people can be convinced to release free pictures of themselves if asked, for example: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch government. Eventually a free photo will be found. And Wikipedia can wait for that time. Individual users must learn to think on project time, not personal time. -N 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iris pic2.jpg

Please note that Iris Chang is dead, and has been for three years. As clearly mentioned in WP:NFCC the replaceability rules mostly apply to LIVING people. Also, when you mark an image for deletion, please use an edit summary. Something like "replaceable fair use" or "marked for deletion" is sufficient. -N 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's rules are fairly convoluted, I agree. To use the Blair picture you will have to prove it is historic... I have looked at it and I think it will probably be deleted. There's not much that can be done about that. Try writing your dispute rationale a little clearer. As to the other picture, the one of the girl, you will have to find out who took it, when it was taken, etc etc before you can claim it is PD. It be may available under a non commercial license, which is fine for most people but which sadly Wikipedia does not accept. -N 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now see you have all kinds of problems there. Book covers are still unfree and generally should only be used when talking about the book. That pic isn't even the book cover. As you say, the image is a "higher resolution" version of the book cover image...which means it didn't come from the book. So you still don't know where it came from. We already have a nice unfree picture of the woman, taken from her website. Adding another one, especially one with sourcing problems, isn't going to help. -N 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry I thought it was a picture of Iris Chang. Who is it a picture of? -N 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't write the rules. Please read WP:NFCC to understand. Basically pictures of people who are still alive are considered replaceable. The fact that nobody has done it is irrelevant. You could travel to the person and take the picture if you wanted to. You could easily do it. Do you see the difference? -N 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Again that doesn't matter. Somebody knows them. And that somebody could take a picture of them. You can keep making objections but the policy isn't going to change. I tire of this discussion. -N 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Armour

Sure, I can fix that, give it a few days and we'll run a bot over it. >Radiant< 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, consistency is a good thing. There's a list now at WP:CFD/W; let me know if I missed any. >Radiant< 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BlairKoizumi.jpg

There are still some more outstanding issues on Image:BlairKoizumi.jpg. While I agree that the image isn't replaceable, there is no fair use rationale, nor is the image currently listed on any article that would meet WP:FUC. I removed the image from 2 articles because it was merely being used for decorative purposes (a violation of our non-free content policy). If there was an article specifically about Blair and Koizumi's meeting, or if the Anglo-Japanese article had a significant portion specifically about the event in the picture, then the image could probably be used here. But as it stands, as an orphaned non-free image, it will be deleted in 7 days. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Authorising use of pictures on wikipedia

Hi. I've got a problem. I've had a look here at the current system for getting authorisation to use pictures on wikipedia. However, the person in question is too confused by the page and I do not quite understand it myself. In addition the author said:

Hi. Sorry this has all got so complicated. I am happy for the photo to appear in Wikipedia. The following sentence from the form I cannot accept:

"I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs."

Is there any way a person can give permission to use the image in question without waiving this specific right? It seems very unfair to suggest an author must give up this right just to allow them to use the image on wikipedia.

Please respond on my talk page. John Smith's 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free content encyclopedia -- both goals (free content as well as encyclopedia) are equally important. Images must be licensed under a free license as defined at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition. Commercial reuse must specifically be allowed because: (1) Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 which is to be released on DVD-ROM and likely sold for a small profit for the manufacturer; and (2) Answers.com and some of our other mirror sites generate revenue from advertising on the articles. Derivative works must also be allowed because that is the nature of free content. Not surprisingly, this puts off many possible contributors, as you have so discovered. One possible alternative is to suggest that the person make a smaller version (say no larger than 800x600) of the photo available under a free license, but keep the larger version available only to those who are willing to pay for it (I've had pretty good success with this approach). Hope that helps. howcheng {chat} 20:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wild_Swans.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wild_Swans.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have addded one to Image:Wild Swans.jpg. Will you recind the red-template? If not, maybe you could word the fair-use rationale so that it is acceptable. Surely you would agree that a cover of any book has to be fair use because it is always copyrighted. John Smith's 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag, thanks for adding the rationale. I know that book covers normally always will fall under WP:NFCC, but they still require a detailed rationale per policy. Sometimes the book covers uploaded don't meet the criteria, but that one seems fine. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you prompted me to tag another book cover I uploaded the same way, so you've made me make sure both are ok now. :) John Smith's 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

Hi, John Smith's. I noticed you're fighting a losing battle over whether to characterise the Nanking Massacre as a "genocide". Frankly, I sympathise with you. Working on that page is like bashing your head against a brick wall. The word "genocide" is bandied around so much nowadays that it's lost its original meaning. All that's left is its huge emotional impact, and those who want to keep using it will do so because it feeds their sense of outrage.

I don't know if you've seen this page, but you might find it interesting: [3]. You can also read the Wikipedia page on democide, but this fails to do justice to Rummels' definition because it omits to mention that, under the legal definition of genocide, the "United States committed genocide against ethnic Hawaiians by forcing their children to study English and behave according to American norms and values". Perhaps uncharitably, I suspect there are Wikipedians who are loath to abandon the term "genocide" because they would lose a valuable stick for selectively beating people they don't like.

No doubt people who happen to read this comment will conclude that I want to whitewash the Nanking Massacre. That's not true. I'm just rather tired of people who want to use the Nanking Massacre as an opportunity to stoke ethnic hatred, outrage, and nationalism. Obsessing over whether or not to call the Nanking Massacre a genocide doesn't improve our understanding of what happened; it just tries to brand its perpetrators with the most evil terminology possible.

As an aside, I wonder if you've heard of the Yangzhou Massacre of 1646 by Manchu Prince Dodo. The article says 80,000 were killed. I find it interesting that nobody has bothered to write an article about it. I guess it's because the Chinese gave up hating the Manchus over a century ago.

Anyway, just thought I'd give you some moral support. I gave up on trying to talk sense on the Nanking Massacre page a long time ago.

Bathrobe 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanking Massacre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warning Messages (Re: 3RR - User talk:HongQiGong)

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

This case has been closed as unsuccessful. The closure was enacted on 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC) by AGK (talk · contribs); the reason given for this was: failure to participate by one of two parties.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you no longer want to mediate? I know I do.Giovanni33 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too late now - it was closed because you weren't participating properly. You had plenty of time to do what you needed to do - it's not as if you were taking a wikibreak. You kept having to be prompted to get involved, etc - it was just too much for AGK to do. His time is important to him. If you were serious about mediation you would have focused on it.

I've asked Deskana to file an arb request, because at least then if you get distracted by something it won't hold the process up. John Smith's 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How was I not participating properly? I was asked what to do, and was told I need to afirm first. I did that. Then I waited for the next step.Arbitration is only after mediation was tried. I don't even see it started yet, other than obtaining agreement to start, which I did. What else was I supposed to do? No one told me, or directed me to the procedure. Arbcom would be rejected for the same reasons as it was before. Its premature. It seems you are not interested in mediation, anymore? Because on my end, I am, however, I can't be expected to know how to properly proceed with it if I'm not given instructions. When I was asked what I needed to do to get it started, I was told to I needed to "affirm" it again, so they can determine if anything has changed since then. I did affirm and then waited for the next step.Giovanni33 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to make it sound like I'm not interested in mediation. I was, but you didn't treat the process with respect. I'll say it once more, as AGK said it wasn't up to him to run around prompting you to do something. All instructions were up on the pages in question. I worked it out, and I followed them. But you prefered to get involved with some other disputes, rather than finish an existing one off.

If AGK himself has closed the case, citing your lack of participation, it has nothing to do with me. I am only trying to explain what happened. I have nothing more to say on the matter. John Smith's 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)