Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 28 August 2007

Archives

User talk:John Smith's/Archive 1 User talk:John Smith's/Archive 2 User talk:John Smith's/Archive 3

Inuse

Yes, Des Browne to make an announcement. I didn't realise there was another debate in between - I thought it would be 10 mins at the most. The template isn't binding, if you want to make changes feel free. Mark83 12:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

It depends what Giovanni's said. Assuming you're still willing to participate in mediation: If Giovanni will too, then try that. If not, then maybe another request for arbitration is in order. --Deskana (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category: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) 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

If you and HongQiGong edit war on one more page, I'm blocking you both. I'm not protecting three pages because of the same dispute. Two is stupid already. --Deskana (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

John, FYI, I've left a comment. Regards, --Folic Acid 18:59, 26 July 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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 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.

Hello John Smith's, I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee user to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to Tariqabjotu's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Further elaboration is provided at that link. Cheers, Daniel 08:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre 2. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: your 3RR warning on 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 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japan Self-Defense Forces

Thanks for catching that. Lothar of the Hill People 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

BCE/CE

Hi John, until a new decision is reached on BCE/CE, the rule it to maintain coherence within an article. The current rule has to be respected, not an hypothetical future one. Regards. PHG

Hence the revert. Trying to impose BC/AD in that article goes against current Misplaced Pages rules and therefore consists in date-warring, however good your intentions may be. Regards PHG

Template:History by time period

I assume the above would apply to the Template:History by time period. Hyacinth 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If every article that the template is used on and will plausibly be used on uses BC and AD then the template could be changed, though I would prefer that the articles be changed. Does Misplaced Pages or a WikiProject have a policy or guideline on this issue? Hyacinth 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Happy? Told you so. Btw, you were right, it only took 2 mins (but I just copied your format).Giovanni33 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Please use them. El_C 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

No prob. Personally, I prefer BCE/CE but whatever is chosen its better not to be schizophrenic - nice edit and thanks for leaving a note. --sony-youth 08:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Han Dynasty. 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) 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aikido

Hi I just resubmitted the Aikido article for Featured article status. Appreciate it, based on your previous help, if you could take a look.Peter Rehse 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣 08:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on a Whim

Sir, despite your valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, you are someone who at times does not respect the views of others, nor in some cases do you even respect community consensus. You revert edits that are neither vandalism nor inaccuracy time and time again simply because what is posted does not strike your fancy. For example, you have repeatedly removed a wonderful Featured Picture from the geisha article and replaced it with a less revealing, cropped version of the same picture -- a version that was rejected by community consensus in favor of the original, and for good reasons. The original shows the full scope of a very important part of the daily work of geiko -- the geiko client relationship. It has been featured in articles throughout the web and even selected by scholars for college text books for this reason. Why should Misplaced Pages, the place where the Featured Picture originated, be left out of the loop because of one user's opinion? The only reasoning you provide for dumping the Featured Picture over and over in favor of your cropped version -- which essentially shows the geiko alone with a cigar sticking out of mid air -- is that YOU think "the little lady should be the center of attention." Not only is that patronizing the profession, but respectfully, what YOU think is not a good enough reason to overrule what the community thinks. The best version of the picture was already selected by Misplaced Pages community consensus, and your single-handed overruling of that community determination undermines the core principles that make Misplaced Pages great. Don't abuse the freedom to edit. The time that YOU have invested in Misplaced Pages, while I am grateful for it, does not make you the defacto Editor in Chief. Leave some room for others and don't revert what other contributors post unless the post is certifiably inaccurate, please!!! I will leave it to YOU to put the Featured Picture back where it rightfully belongs, since I do not engage in edit wars. Thank you. 69.120.163.18 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus archives

You said to Sophia Thanks for getting around to that - I don't see why it took so long to get a simple request like that actioned, given I asked several times. This statement confuses me because I'd like to point out that on August 3rd (the 5th message in this thread, mind you) that I pointed out 2 places in the archives where CE vs. AD was discussed. Please see this diff. Maybe that message got lost, but to answer you regarding why it took so long to get a simple request like that answered... well, I thought I answered it a week ago :) -Andrew c  17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your work on ROC military related articles. --Ideogram 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aikido FAC

Thanks for your input. All your citation requests were filled. Cheers.Peter Rehse 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Japan. 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. PHG 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I provided my view on the issue. Personally, I think ROC on Taiwan sounds like it's only part of the history of the ROC. But it's actually a big part of the history of Taiwan too, so I think it should be renamed.--Jerry 10:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that'll be good enough, but I don't know what the others think.--Jerry 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BCE/BC

Hi, I've noticed that you've been systematically reverting stable articles which had BCE/CE to BC/AD. It is disruptive and creates needless drama when these aren't articles directly about Christianity such as articles about popes. Please stop. JoshuaZ 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Which articles would that have been? If anything it is other users who have been systematically reverting stable articles which had BC/AD to BCE/CE - are you going to ask them to stop as well? In the recent edits I made I was merely making articles consistent. Please tell me where I am not allowed to do that. John Smith's 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the impression I get. For example, Indus Valley Civilization went from having everything at BCE except a single BC to BC everywhere but the templates which were all BCE. This makes less consistency not more. . JoshuaZ 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for that. I just saw the top-line, so I self-reverted. I'll have a quick look at the others. John Smith's 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well on Xia Dynasty I was just reverting Hong's unilateral change and on Chola Dynasty I was making the article consistent by changing just one term. On Sino-Roman relations the terms were heavily mixed already so again I was only making them consistent, but I won't revert that again because PHG used BCE/CE at the start so I should have used that. On History of the Americas I was again making terms consistent using the first major contibrution (ref WP:MOS) as a basis. Were there any other articles you were thinking of where I changed more than half the date terms over? John Smith's 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, KillerChihuahua did exactly what you accused me of - changing all bar one term in an article:

• South Asian Stone Age

This seems to imply that there's one rule for administrators and another for ordinary users. Joshua, what is your position on that? John Smith's 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You are violating WP:3RR on a number of articles, and may be blocked. KillerChihuahua 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Horizon

Had a look at DCNS website, it says max is 29 knots - I don't think anyone could argue if you cite the builder! By the way, your query brought me to the Horizon class frigate article for the first time in a while - it's the first time I've seen the new pic and have you noticed how much it looks like a Type 45? There are subtle differences but in general they look very similar. Mark83 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, DCNS ref is Mark83 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Forbin's main mast is just plain ugly, the engine exhaust looks strange, and the twin guns? I would love to know the rationale for that eyesore. Also Daring's angles make it look sleek, the French ships, even though they're angled, still look boxy.

31.5? Corruption allegations aside BAE seems to be on a roll lately! Mark83 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why? Going by the respective WP articles the WR-21 is actually less powerful. So maybe its because of effeciency (with the WR-21's recuperator)? Or maybe its a hull form/propeller issue?

As for not sticking with Horizon -- France has got to be the most intransigent nation regarding collaboration/workshare etc. Suprised and delighted by the fact that the UK Gov decided to tell them to..... Mark83 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure about the carriers. The way I read it (though it's not a fully informed judgement) is we've said we're doing it this way, take it or leave it. Which, given past experience, is an excellent decision. The fact that France, as stubborn as it has been in past defence projects, is willing to take a UK carrier design only slightly modified is a major departure as far as I can see!

As for a real package. Yes, undoubtledly the Type 45 is a remarkable achievement. However it will still need a Type 23 alongside to protect it from subs will it not? And a cruise capability isn't essential given the deloyment of Tomahawks on RN subs, but a wasted opportunity (so far). And as for speed, does it need it. The carriers it will protect cant to 30+ knots. Mark83 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an issue I know about anyway. Mark83 10:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of comment

Sorry for the deletion, it was not intentional. I actually thought I had mis-manipulated something so that my template doubled. Actually it was just that you were parroting me. It seems however that you did delete my original post. PHG 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it was incorrect. However as you wanted it up so much I put my own up. I was not removing your comment when I put mine up subsequently. John Smith's 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Japan, AD/BC

I just added a comment because I'm sick and tired of hearing the nonsense that CE/BCE is somehow more neutral, if the non-Christian world uses the western year numbering system, let's be honest and state clearly where it comes from, and not pretend that it's "common" to all cultures as if it's some natural order of the world. I've added a support to help your cause :-) LDHan 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report

Hi John Smith's, I wouldn't worry about the delay in dealing with the sockpuppet report very much--I realize that it can be frustrating having this accusation hanging over your head, but outside of the people directly involved in the cases, no one pays much attention to the SSP page. It will be dealt with in due order; just edit normally until it's resolved. By the way, the 10-day period mentioned in the page's instructions is never followed, so don't worry about that either. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

John - I'm sorry to hear about the accusations of sockpuppetry. I know you to be an honorable guy, so I've thrown in my two cents in support. Cheers, --Folic Acid 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

EBot2

Hi John Smith's. I will look into making the bot check every 5 minutes, rather than every 15. — E _bots 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent T45 edit.

Hi. I am no expert regarding T45 helicopter capability - but the RN website says "The Type 45 will also have a comprehensive suite of other weapons and equipment that will ensure that it can be deployed on a wide range of military tasks. Equipment selected already for the class will includes a main gun for shore bombardment - currently the 4.5" Mark 8 Mod 1 weapon - and either the Merlin HM Mark1 anti-submarine helicopter or the Lynx HMA Mark 8 helicopter." I take your point about potential - but then the Type 45 only has the potential to fire an Aster missile so far - as I understand it there aren't any Asters in Daring yet. Mark83 01:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Mark83 11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation reminder

I'm just issuing a reminder that the Mao: The Unknown Story 2 RfM is still underway. If you are still interested in mediation, feel free to add to the discussion as soon as you're available. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mao: The Unknown Story

The page was unlocked, so I assumed I could make edits again. If I've broken any rules regarding mediation I must apologise, but I wasn't informed of any that apply here. John Smith's 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The unprotection, of course, allows you (or anyone else) to edit the article, but it would be better if you waited until the conclusion of the mediation before you began to make changes involving the four issues. -- tariqabjotu 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. In the past Giovanni has claimed that my lack of editing a point after the page being unlocked was sufficient reason to revert my changes because my silence had made it "consensus" or some such. John Smith's 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He has not raised that point in the mediation yet. However, if he has indeed said that, he's not correct; prolonging a discussion ought to be sufficient to show continued interest in a dispute and clearly there is ongoing discussion (i.e. the mediation). There's no reason to start reverting again. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also if HongQiGong insists on reverting the edits in question that I made, can you please insist he not remove the other changes I made - his last revert was technically vandalism. Thanks. John Smith's 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

His last revert was not vandalism, but a revert based on a content dispute. You would be best served talking to him about parts unrelated to the RfM (while refraining from calling his edit "vandalism") and letting the mediation play out on matters related to the RfM. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Jesus, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I added your name to the party list because you contributed substantially to recent discussion on the date topics at Talk:Jesus. As I noted here, if I misjudged your involvement in this content dispute, please feel free to remove your name from the list. If you are involved substantially however do not wish to agree to mediation, feel free to follow the normal course of action and note your disagreement in the relevant section of Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Jesus. Cheers, Daniel 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Han Dynasty. 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) 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shang Dynasty. 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) 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xia Dynasty. 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) 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)