User talk:Gun Powder Ma

• /User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 01
• /User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 02
• User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 03

Don't template the regulars. Woogee (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to tell that to Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) too, right? Nev1 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thanks, Nev1. Don't try to win arguments by templating talk pages. Childish this is. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave Gun Powder Ma! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.81.166 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gun,long time no see.I´m glad for the outcome of Jagged´s affair,but we still have a lot to do,cleaning up wikipedia.I was wondering if you could help me with the Inertia article.Islamic theories looks unbelievable.Regards.--Knight1993 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up the attempts to establish a nationalistic POV by the Chinese Teeninvenstor!

Given the impasse at Spherical Earth, I request this matter enter into mediation. However, before we impose on others, it is important to establish whether the process is likely to succeed.

• Are you willing to go into mediation?
• Are you willing to be responsive during mediation so that it can progress?
• Is there a good chance you will accept the recommendations of mediation?

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Strebe (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes to all three questions. Let me point out that this is nothing personal at all; we just have a disagreement as to how interpret the relevant guideline. As long as there will be enough user input from third parties as to establish beyond reasonable doubt a consensus (and, hopefully, reword the relevant guidelines in the process to make them more explicit), I will consider the matter settled. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gun Powder Ma. You commented at a previous FAC for this article, so I just wanted to let you know that it is at FAC again (here) if you are interested in commenting again. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I have responded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parthian Empire/archive1 and will probably head back to the library today to read the two sources I have mentioned (Downey's book in particular). I need to go back to the library anyway to use an excellent source which explains Trajan's possible motivations for invading Mesopotamia (other than the casus belli of the Armenian enthronement). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here because User:Teeninvestor has opened a Wikiquette Alert about some of your remarks, at [1] and elsewhere. I'm aware that there is a slow-burning content dispute behind this inter-personal issue, which has been providing both fuel and smoke (if you will allow the metaphor), and I do not want to get involved in making any judgments on that score - that's not what admins are for. Instead, I'm asking you to please avoid making any personal remarks about Teeninvestor in future.

Feel free to review our guidelines for a refresher on what constitutes a personal attack. In a nutshell, please continue to be passionate about writing articles - but not when discussing other editors. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gun! I hope you´re fine. Now, I´m going straight to the point. I was reading the history of education article, and I noticed the islamic world section has the same problem you have been fighting in the University and Madrasah articles. Given that you did such a great work, I was wondering if you could balance this article too. PS: Jagged has not appeared anymore. He had agreed to revert his bad quality workin the RfC, but he has done nothing since then. Do you think he has quit?--Knight1993 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence/reason to claim that the ancient Nanjing imperial school is a mythology? Do you know that Chinese history today still preserved have reliablely recorded for at least 3000 years? Please find the records on education in ancient China in Twenty-Four Histories. -Peducte (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)?[reply]

The burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, I am afraid. Your claim is extraordinarily strong and very hard to prove. You need to show with reliable scholarly sources that

• this institution founded in the 3rd century AD was indeed a centre of higher learning
• this institution remained in service for the next 1700 years

And even then, if you can prove these points, which you will most certainly fall far short of (I know a thing or two about Chinese history), you will still find that your claim is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who hold that the university originated in medieval Europe. And, to be honest, since this just reflects a basic historical fact, you can put to rest all hopes that a consensus to the contrary will ever emerge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The institutions of higher learning in ancient China, from the Taixue to the Guozijian, were not universities in the modern sense (and quite different from their Medieval European counterparts). The chief purpose of higher education in ancient China was to groom students—usually well-to-do members of the gentry class—for government service via a pragmatic civil-servant's education combined with Confucian indoctrination. The end result of this was for one to become a scholar-bureaucrat; if not, one could become a teacher or writer, but these were secondary goals. There was very little if any academic freedom in the government-run schools, which accepted students and taught curricula based on the incumbent emperor's views and policies. The higher-education facility in ancient China which comes the closest to a university is perhaps the privately-run academy, particularly those which developed in the Southern Song Dynasty as a grassroots gentry movement aimed at reforming society from the bottom up. They were not monitored or controlled by the government, yet the main goal of these private academies was still to prepare students for the civil service examinations.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insights. It should be stressed that - given that it is already difficult enough to prove the unbroken continuity of the medieval European universities - this task seems outright impossible for that 3rd century Chinese bureaucratic school. Frankly, I don't believe that Chinese sources will yield more than a few words for much of the alleged time period of its existence, but the burden of proof anyway rests on Peducte. For how a continuously-operating institution really looks like, look up cathedral school, madrasa and medieval university which are in that order the most ancient institutions of higher learning still existing anywhere in the world. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to Nanjing University, please see Talk:Nanjing University -Peducte (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the article Nanjing University and List of oldest universities in continuous operation. If you think it's not proper, plese tell and discuss it. -Peducte (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. However, I believe that all arguments have been exchanged, and you might have noticed that it was not only me who has been reverting your 258 AD claim. Perhaps you would like to ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanjing University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Plese see explanation on my talk page. -Peducte (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think query, debating and communication will help to ensure validity and proper way of description of contents, and finally improve article. Thank you for your participation! Let's continue to debate and communicate if needed. If we simply have different opinions, let's respect each other, and discuss in a friendly and constructive way. - Peducte (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I'm glad that you enjoyed reading my latest project on the Parthian Empire, which recently passed the FA nomination. While researching the subject, I naturally became very interested in the evolution of Rome's military from the late Republic onwards. I'm thinking about pursuing a new topic here at Wiki: the Marian reforms.

The article is ranked in the "start" class on its talk page, which seems very reasonable at present. I was wondering: in terms of a rewrite, would you agree that this article should be given priority over many others on Roman history? This subject just seems so incredibly important in regards to the military and society of ancient Rome, yet the article is quite undeveloped.

Or would you say another topic is more deserving? Given that it also has a start article which needs serious attention. In any case, I'd love to collaborate with you, since I believe you have access to both JSTOR and Project MUSE. Correct?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on PE. You are right, within the context of the late Republican Roman military the Marian reforms constitute most important change and there is more than a grain of truth in it that the reorganization of the army gave rise to military leaders which soon came to threaten the existence of the Republican order and ultimately toppled it. Mommsen would say that the concentration of military and political power first in a few hands (Marius, Sulla, Pompeius etc.), and then by the Principate in one hand, was the historical logical response to the challenge of space which came along with the rapid Roman expansion after the Hannibal Wars. So, yes, the interdependency of military reform, personal ambitions and the political order make it an interesting and challenging topic. You can contact me via email any time for literature, for special questions you can take also a look RAT here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. I regret to announce that I am no longer pursuing this topic. A trip to my university library yesterday was very disappointing and unfruitful; there was not one piece of literature focusing solely on the reforms, and the sources on Roman military history which described the Marian reforms were truly lacking. I was able to find only one book published by a university press which seemed promising, but it has been checked out by someone else UNTIL AUGUST! I'm not going to wait around for it. I might pursue another worthy topic, like Roman historiography, which surprisingly is given greater attention than Greek historiography here at English Wiki. On a final note, have you been watching the USA-Slovenian game? Pretty exciting! Although us Yanks don't care much for football...err...soccer, since we are infatuated with American football instead. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I'd have recommended Adrian's Goldworthy: The Roman Army at War, 100 BC to 200 AD, but even that is no monograph on the Marian reforms. I am sure you will find another topic soon, as there is no dearth on Roman subjects in need of expert attention. PS: the goals were pretty spectacular, too! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these sources! However, without a substantial amount of ready material available at my library, I do not feel confident in tackling such a complex subject. On the other hand, you are right that there is no dearth on Roman subjects; I will find another deserving topic. Perhaps Roman Greece? I've always found the relationship between Rome and her semi-independent Greek city-states to be a fascinating topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stone of the Pregnant Woman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rifa'a el-Tahtawi was amazed when he visited France for the first time to find out that in France, "scientist" referred to someone who actually engaged in science, and that "knowledge" referred to any knowledge, while a "scientist," ('alim," or "ulama") in his own country was strictly a religious scholar, and the only kind of "science" or "knowledge" recognized to exist was the study and knowledge of religion. I have more extensive quotes lying around somewhere that I can dig up if needed, but the battle to have anything but religion included in the idea of "science" or "knowledge" was won by the religious during the Middle Ages, and this kind of obviates any comparison of the madrasa to the university, making it really comparable only to a seminary. You might be able to clean out the whole thing.Jayzames (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For medieval Islam, a more appropriate analogue would be a cathedral or monastic school. In the West, however, these predominantly religious institutions also included some study of the liberal arts within their curricula.

I don't know if anyone has done a comparative study of the curricula of religious schools in the Islamic, Jewish, and Eastern and Western Christian traditions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now up. You should probably edit the signature to your comment so that it post-dates the initiation of the case. Given the changes I have made to the statement of the case you might also want to edit your comment as well.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here on Peducte (talk · contribs) - I remain neutral and just try to facilitate and advise; I just wanted to thank you for presenting the prior findings in a compact, rational, factual and calm manner. Chzz  ►  16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you've begun an article on the Roman economy. I've been working on an article on the Economy of the early Roman Empire in my userspace for some weeks now. I don't imagine you're aware of this, but overlapping efforts are somewhat wasteful. Can't think of any convenient means of integrating the whole at present, but I thought I should inform you. It seems we were both inspired by the weird phenomenon of GDP estimates for the empire ... G.W. (Talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your email. G.W. (Talk) 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that your latest amendment is correct? Are you really asserting that the Romans intentionally produced cast iron? If this is right, it is an astounding claim. I have not seen the book, so that I am not in a position to assess the validity of the claims. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figures and sources regarding Roman metallurgy (especially the 80k tons per year) are debatable. Intranetusa (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to see some more credible sources on Roman iron production rather than those with exaggerated data from the 1970s-1980s. Intranetusa (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Just because you say so? Don't make a fool of yourself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources that quote 30 year old outdated information directly contradicts other wiki articles on the Wealden industry and more contemporary information. Old, outdated, exaggerated information = not acceptable. Intranetusa (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gun_Powder_Ma_repeated_NPA. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a community review of Romano-Chinese relations, you need to follow the instructions at WP:GAR:

1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer.

I think the reason there's been no input so far is you didn't use the GAR template. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, there is such a page: Talk:Romano-Chinese relations/GA1. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think (not started a GAR myself) that it should be at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Romano-Chinese relations/1, for example the GAR for Winston Churchill was at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Winston Churchill/1. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know. It is my first GAR, either! I have notified the top contributors which hopefully will help me out there. Thanks for your care. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Pleaes do not question my neutrality, when I make an honest change conform general consensus within Wikipedia.

2) I do not waste peoples time. If I see something wrong, I change it and give good arguments.

3) History in Europe in that period is far from straightforward. One sentence from one article does not rule out every other option, as you obviously think it does. The Dutch Republic gained its indepence first and foremost from the Spanish Empire. Amsterdam in 1618 is by general consensus not referred to as part of the Holy Roman Empire, but as the Dutch Republic.

If you think the country column will generate the wrong message, improve the article with extra information.Joost 99 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post the same question to multiple forums, as you have done so here: [2],[3],[4],[5]. Doing so may be considered Forum shopping or Canvassing, and is considered disruptive. LK (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't know that. "Forum shopping"...funny term...actually never've liked online shopping! :-D Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement. Please join me in encouraging Nev1 to move what he wrote at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Criticism interpreted as attack. My guess is that Nev1's insights are likely to be undervalued as part of a talk page thread.

Nev1's step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain. The paragraphs illustrate effective writing. I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Statement of the dispute/View by certifier Nev1. This will give you and others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions.

Significantly, you will want to read the response drafted by Teeninvestor. The reaction shows that Teeninvestor also construes these words as a constructive investment of time and thought. Hopefully, the structure of this diff can be the catalyst for a few more steps in a productive process.

I wonder if Nev1's reasoning needs to be highlighted as a kind of template for use in other difficult contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here, please consider reviewing what I wrote at User talk:Athenean#The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. --Tenmei (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of newspapers by establishment date, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of newspapers by establishment date (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yougo1000 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Please let me point out that this is only the 1st nomination, you somehow duplicated the page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it started, but it seems that the relations between me and you have not been exactly cordial since our first encounters. I suspect it has something to do with Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, which you were partially correct about. It is also connected with our very different views on the level of Chinese development. Nevertheless, it is my belief (and I hope you will agree) that editing work is a much better way to spend our time then bickering, incessant opposition, edit warring, and reverting; with the way wikipedia works, and considering that both of our viewpoints have their backing in academia (though one have a majority in some cases), I believe the best way to resolve our current disputes is peaceful coexistence; instead of trying to override each other, we should work towards letting both views be expressed.

I have worked with editors with diametrically opposed views before; for example, with a socialist on the Chinese economy and also on Johnson South Reef Skirmish. In these articles, both views were represented, with each editor editing one section, allowing peace to reign. There's no reason a similar process can't be at work in the current articles that the dispute is going on. For example, on Great Divergence I had previously asked you to add sources that rival Pomeranz's claims in the possible factors section, a request that was seemingly ignored 1. I believe that some of your information can be of benefit in several articles I am editing; for example, reducing Great Divergence's current overreliance on Pomeranz by buttressing some of his opponents' arguments, adding how western military technology influenced Chinese gunpowder weapons during the Ming and Ch'ing eras, etc. Therefore, I think it's best if you can systematically review the three articles you are currently disputing, and add sourced info in cases where they are applicable and where both views are roughly equal in academia.

I have several other suggestions about our possible collaboration, if you take up this petition. Toning down of language, to exclude terms such as POV-pushing, edit warring, etc, can help make the editing atomsphere more cordial. Review of each other's sources can also be helpful; dubious sources such as the silver wages paper should be used at best limitingly, and it is best if you also have access to the sources I'm using, and vice versa. Much of Pomeranz's and Temple's work, along with the cambridge history of China is online; I hope your sources are similarly accessible.

Now, I don't believe that this petition can solve all our disputes. But I do hope that it can mark the beginning of a more cordial collaboration than which exists now. Rome was not built in a day, and acrimony does not dissipate that fast either. However, I hope that by collaborating, we can resolve our disputes and get the articles under dispute to the GA or FA status that they deserve.

Regards,Teeninvestor (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I have heard about an olive branch petition and I am impressed by how much you go out of your way to resolve the dispute. As you may have noticed I have entirely kept to the conditions of our WQA agreement and I have done so (still do) out of conviction that one needs to move on and not dwell on things of the past. Both of us, we are probably more of the emotional type who wear our hearts on the keyboard so to say, so here we are. In my experience, I've always found that there are not two opinions quite alike on this board, or RL for that matter, so respect for differing views is always an important thing. Personally, I consider our personal issues of the past now resolved with both our statements, and I am willing to reset our relationship in this respect to a new beginning.

However, the tone of our language etc. aside, I still feel that there is an ongoing disagreement about your adherence to WP guidelines such as laid out by user Nev1 in the RFC/U, particularly with regard to the selection and interpretation of references, and WP:Own. Nonetheless, I hope we can tackle these questions in a more constructive atmosphere in future, so that both of us can take away something positive from our rapprochement. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am encouraged by this positive response. What I hope can come from this is our collaboration on Great Divergence, Economic history of China (pre-1911), and other articles. I have replied on the latter article; it seems there has been a misunderstanding of Wagner's source by both of us; the 114,000 tons is the metric figure and 125,000 tons the English figure! Another estimate that has seemingly been misunderstood is the 0.1 tons per capita figure for the Han, which referred only to the government iron monopoly's figures (the true figures are much higher, considering illegal production). I have added Wagner's source on both of the relevant eras regarding Han and Song iron production. Regards. Oh ya, and on the Great Divergence article, I hope you can help boost the "effects" section by adding GDP per capita statistics, European industrial growth, etc, as well as boosting some of the alternate factors in the causes section.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you blame me out of the blue for "Hypocrisy", you can consider our successful settlement of personal differences null and void. And then you'll know at least how and who it started for the second time... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you would be so angry at an offhand remark in an edit summary, as I wasn't even aware it was you editing there in the first place. In any case, I have a second proposal. We renew this petition, and we'll try our best to respect it. If you feel that I'm violating it, contact me on my talk page, and vice versa.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Gun Powder Ma here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor caused me to draft this explanation. The edit was quickly undone by Gun Powder Ma here; but it may be productive to seize this trivial edit as an opportunity to underscore what I mean in using this curious phrase.

I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp. I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.

My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxical contradiction.

Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism. Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve? Who can say? In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that

In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor. More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.

Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.

Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?

Does this phrase help or hinder the "desired outcome"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I do not know if you are aware that comparing the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to the German invasion of Poland may have been more destructive than constructive ?

The Turkish intervention was allowed in clause IV of the treaty of guarantee [6]. I do not think that this is the same as the situation between Germany and Poland ??

I am only bringing this to your attention as you may not have been aware of these points and the possibilty that, had more people seen the comment, the problems this might have caused due to the edit warring and generally explosive nature of this and Cypriot-Greek-Turkish problems in general. This was highlighted by the 2 notices at the top of the page ({{controversial}} and {{Round In Circles}}) that you may have missed :¬)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First: I've responded to you at Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911). Second...[loud drumroll]...I've decided to pursue Marian reforms! My library has a better selection than I previously judged. Plus a Cambridge University Press source, which was checked out for the longest time, has at last been returned to the library. Expect to see Marian reforms on the featured article candidate page by late August, I'm hoping (fingers crossed). If you have any online PDF articles which could be useful, be generous and share links! Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun. Do you think it would be worthwhile to briefly summarize what is found in Weller's webpage about Roman harness systems in the "horse harness" entry of List of Chinese inventions? Particularly about Noëttes' (outdated) hypothesis about the throat-and-girth harness.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forum shop as you did here, here, here and here. Forum shopping is against wikipedia policy, as shown here 1.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the these posts comply to the definition of forum shopping. The only theoretically possible case (here) was a general inquiry, which only you then turned into an explicit discussion of your fringe ref. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the same issue at 4 different forums can be considered explicit forum shopping, not to mention edit warring against the consensus that Temple is an RS.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to Wikiquette for your persistent incivility to me and other editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic more of the same. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) is now subject to a voluntary interaction ban with you. That means s/he can't edit any articles that you have edited within a month of your editing. S/he also cannot talk to or about you. Given this, please show good faith and do not follow Teeninvestor. If this becomes a problem, her/his restriction may be lifted and other (perhaps bilateral) restrictions may be put in place. Unilateral interaction bans only work if both parties want it to. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit any other articles in the given time in which Teeninvestor has participated other than those which I have already edited before the voluntary interaction ban. I hope this is ok and conforms to WP practice in such cases. In other words, I won't follow him. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give some clarification on this interaction ban? Because Teeninvestor has been just editing several articles on economic history which have been central to our contents dispute and which I have been recently editing, too (including comprehensive edits on talk page):

• Economic history of China (pre-1911)
• Chinese economic reform
• Great Divergence

In my understanding, the user is not supposed to edit these articles in the agreed time span. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, read Dougweller's proposal more carefully. You're not being prevented from doing anything; certainly not from editing. Please take a deep breath, leave it a while, and reconsider. Haploidavey (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Dougweller's proposal won't work, specifically from my experience with TI this will be impossible: This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. I have anyway no intention of interacting with TI longer than absolutely necessary, and most certainly I consider all ANI action as a waste of time which I hate. But since he is a very active user (with a lot of time on his hands), the interaction ban would effectively mean that I am excluded for many articles on military, economic and technological history. This is unfair given that the RFC/U which was not even started by me has identified him to be the problematic user. I am also disappointed by you that you see it this way, too, although you have seen that my stance on the Roman total output was absolutely in order, while TI merely has construed something from thin air. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're disappointed; I wish you weren't. The previous proposal was seems to have been impracticable. This one isn't. Look, you do good work here. I'm acknowledging that. Aerated constructions have no value, and are easily dissipated. Sheesh... I'm no more comfortable with diplomacy that Cynwolfe (she admitted as much on the Roman metallurgy talk-page); but just as wikipedia needs capable and dispassionate editors, your editing needs dispassionate allies. You don't need a faction. Be patient, please. Haploidavey (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I do not want to come across as mortally offended, you are entitled to your opinion and I am glad about your firm analytic grasp of the iron figure dispute. As an aside, I wasn't aware Cynwolfe was a chica, I like bright girls immensely, maybe I should invite her any time soon. :-D ;-)) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my assurances I'm not trying to hinder your editing, You must know my opinion of Teeninvestor's editng and I've tried to make that clearer now. We do need some sort of solution though, and I'm sure you agree with that. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that and appreciate your efforts, but I am certain that it is outright impossible to work simultaneously, but strictly separately on an article and that sooner or later we would find ourselves, probably even through no fault of our own, in a confused and dangerous situation in which admin action could quickly destroy both our accounts. I am sorry I don't want to play pioneer and guinea pig for 'solutions' scheme which are totally unpractical and still far from established in Wikipedia. I hope you can understand my worries. I made an alternative proposal here and now on ANI, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GPM, I'm delighted to have you confirm my impression that you are a real guy, a designation I intend as a compliment. I usually storm into these situations sword drawn, and am sorry I irritated you when I tried to take a more, oh, Machiavellian approach. To be more direct: I don't know what to do about the WP problem of those who edit out of ignorance (for instance, how come they were still using wooden farm tools and reiterating Han China had widespread use of iron farm tools and Rome did not) and clinging to a position (aka a POV) while refusing to remediate that ignorance. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, but on WP you can insist on your right to edit an article anyway. In fact, I know of an editor haled into a civility tribunal in large part for suggesting that someone needed remedial education, which is nothing but a true statement if you care to read this dialogue (stay through the credits, when the aforementioned ignoram-, er, honorable soul reveals he didn't even know what we were talking about). You may not need a faction, but you're not alone in facing this problem.

Have you read the essay WP:CPUSH? If these editors want to argue on talk pages, they can be ignored; the danger is when they attract others at a similar level of subject-matter competence, and the mob rules through a claim of consensus (hence I'm not sure you don't need a faction — in an effort to bring in informed voices, however, you get accused of forum shopping). When they edit mainly or only through deletion and unjustified tags, you have a problem. Reverting the deletion of your sourced material gets you into 3RR trouble; it's a little like your younger sibling pestering you till you do something unfortunate, and then you're the one who gets told on. But here are my favorite tactics from these folks: when you present a great list of sources, you're accused of OR, as if the mere fact of researching a topic in depth is equivalent to foisting "original" research on WP. If you present a statement that you find simply generalizing, almost common knowledge, proof will be demanded; if you point out that you're summarizing a chapter, or whole volumes, or the work of multiple scholars, you will be accused of synthesis. I'm just saying, as ridiculous and unfair as it seems, you have to be aware that even justly expressed indignation can be used against you by CPUSHers. They will repeatedly "bring charges" against you for incivility and such, and then gleefully point to your repeat record as grounds for blocking you. The chilling effect of using WP:CIV as a club to beat opposing voices into submission was evident in the mealymouthed way I addressed your problem in the metallurgy article. As I said recently when I chose to take part in defending an editor I respect from this kind of crap, this is simply not good for WP. I respect Dougweller's efforts to find a way to deal with the situation, because I just don't see a way within the existing WP structure. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright indeed, and gutsy, and honest. GPM, I want to apologise for not offering your editing my unqualified support - all my wriggling around between WP:CIV and WP:AGF was utterly useless. Wikipedia's godawful politics, bloody hell. There's no point repeating anything here, so ditto to what Cynwolfe said. Haploidavey (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed, it would have taken you a day or two to wade through all the posts, and to miss out the latest episode of Two and a Half Men just for some dry diffs would be inexcusable. ;-) I fullheartedly agree with Ch...Cynwolfe ( :-p ) that it needs the strategic mind of one Hannibal, and twice his physical endurance, to cope with edit warriors who really can't let go. In my view, WP has not yet found the way to deal with these 'editors'; the current guidelines and procedures are immensely time-consuming and therefore systematically serve those people who have (too) much time on their hands: students, nerds and singles who flock WP anyway. And this is then when the social self-reproduction circle of Wikipedia begins. What we rather need are procedures which can also be handled by people with a job and a family. Then the general level of immaturity will, I hope, somewhat fall here, too, and we could bring on board many knowledgeable users who now still prefer to avoid WP for good reasons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This surprising comment at AN/I thread troubled me for the same reason it bothered you:

But you are his main opponent, your suggesting restrictions for him is clearly better avoided, also, teeninvestors restriction that was imposed by Todd has no value and should be removed and forgotten about. What you guys need to work on is getting on, you have what looks to me as a content dispute and you both seem to be intelligent just with opposite views, try to meet in the middle and add both sides to the articles. For the duration of the RFC simply avoid any further fall outs. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any explict response, I planned to ask Off2riorob to help me understand the point-of-view which is on display.

I should not have been surprised by what I found at Talk user:Off2riob#Response. I suspect that it was probably pointless to try to learn what Off2riorob was thinking; but, if not for that optimistic impulse, I would not have encountered Teeninvestor's words.

Teeninvestor proffers a link to where he had "outlined the case" here. You can decide for yourself what Teeninvestor's words mean.

I feel compelled to re-visit my recent decision-making:

• When I urged you to accept the 1st so-called "olive branch" here, I was wrong.
• When I wanted to believe the contrite message here posted by Patar knight, I was wrong.
• When I hoped the 2nd "olive branch" was genuine here, I was wrong.

We all learn from experience; and sometimes, I am very slow. This RfC has provided a number of teachable moments for me. Regardless of whatever Off2riorob chooses to believe or assert, you are not Teeninvestor opponent, nor am I

Even after Teeninvestor ceases to be an active thorny problem, we still need have to figure out how to deal with those whose indifference becomes support for Teeninvestor's toxic strategy and tactics. --Tenmei (talk)

I like the taste of olives, but I too don't see the point of exchanging withered branches if there is not a basis in one's actions. On ANI, there are a lot of good comments which show that even in such protracted confusing conflicts uninvolved editors can quickly gauge where the main trouble comes from. In this light, I could particularly identify with this observation:

To the contrary, it seems that Gun Powder Ma has spent a lot of their spare time to prevent damage to the project. A simplifying "it takes two to tango"-approach is likely to cause harm in the long run - we need editors who dispute problematic edits, and not let those wo introduce them have their way as everyone shys away in fear of sanctions just for that. If someone is disputing problematic edits and/or challenges problematic behavior, it is not the dispute (symptom) that needs to be remedied, but the problematic edits/behavior (cause).

I have to say to this view I subscribe, too. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article was nominated for GA and I volunteered to review it before noticing the wars/edits etc. Without mentioning any other editors, can you tell me what the current version of the article is lacking or if its biased (in your view) and if so, how? I didnt start checking references yet, I just want to know if there is a chance for some kind of a compromise here, since as on now, the article is unstable. Please share your views on the review page for the article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just reverted your comment on my userpage about Wikipedia email. Besides the obvious fact that I would have noticed it faster on my talk page, it's been working fine for me the last few days, certainly yesterday. It worked for you too I believe! Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, didn't realize that was your userpage! Sorry. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in a discussion of the name of the article Hims. You might be interested in a move proposal at Talk:Hims. — AjaxSmack 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've restored J8079s's section heading on "Islamic world" to the discussion, which was getting confused by comments on China, even after I had removed those sections and that topic had become moot. The section heading will help keep newcomers focused on the issue at hand.

On a related matter, could you comment on deleting Science in Medieval Western Europe? Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a bit confused. If Science in Medieval Western Europe is identical, really copy and paste stuff, then I am for delete, of course, since it is an unnecessary duplication. But I also think we first need to get to know what User:Mcorazao who started all this thinks about it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it if you don't like it - or even (shock horror) look for a reference yourself. Otherwise stop trolling. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know better. WP:Burden of proof is on you. And stop ad hominem when you run out of arguments. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That's far better now - although it is still not sure whether the text refers to cylinder seals or engraving gems. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NW (Talk) 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were the last on History of printing. I once read an very old article that cited Cicero. He suggested to use moveable letters of metal to print books. The same paper claimed a Roman find of stamps by moveable letters. Is this paper known? Shall I dig it? -- Farinol (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome at the discussion of the merger proposals involving Flat Earth, Spherical Earth, and Shape of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've seen this map of the Roman Empire before, right? It's in a bunch of different articles, but I've only paid close attention to it today. It's excellent! It's certainly one of the best maps I've seen on Wiki, and best yet, the labels for geographical features and settlements are all in Latin (no torturous Anglicization of place names to be found). Perfect.

Sorry for not seeing your message about Science in the Middle Ages; I never come on to Wikipedia anymore! Although I should continue with note-taking on the Marian reforms. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great map and no prob with the message. Is your work or your gf taking its toll? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on the Homs/Hims discussion, so I am notifying you of the current Category discussion at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 6#Category:Hims. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I would just like to know why you restored a lot of overliking I removed from this article. See diffs: [7]. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my understanding, there are no fix rules on linking which need to be followed; therefore, I restored the links in the captions where I feel that a duplication can't hurt. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was following the WP:OVERLINK policy, which states: "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid adding obvious or redundant links." I'm not going to fight tooth and nail for you to revert your changes, just make your best judgment. Wizard191 (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Template changed to handle centuries BC. GregorB (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I could not help noticing a discussion you had in the previous section. Your action was absolutely correct, there's nothing more stupid than finding an interesting subject in the image caption, and then being forced to look for a wikilinked instance to click on in the article text, as if everyone is obliged to read the entire article up to the image in question before looking at it and its caption. GregorB (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across this Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Recent_edits_by_Jagged_85. By no means am I familiar with this issue, so pardon me if I say something wrong.

I may be wrong, but it appears you favored wholscale deletion of Jagged85's edits. There's a couple of problems with this. The first is, obviously, that many of Jagged85's edits are good and properly sourced to reliable sources.

But secondly, and far more importantly, is that his/her edits are mixed in with the contributions of other editors, like myself. I recently discovered that an article I contributed to (Islamic ethics) was blanked without discussion. The blanker referred to the RfC on Jagged85 as a justification.

I think its deeply unfair that users who contribute to the same articles as Jagged85 have their contributions deleted because of Jagged85's behavior.Bless sins (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of ships of the Hanseatic League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced very short list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kugao (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of ships of the Hanseatic League, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ships of the Hanseatic League until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kugao (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amulet MS 5236, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Greek gold amulet MS 5236 was created by block printing as early as the 6th century BC? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just FYI, since you're a go-to man on this kind of subject matter.

In looking at the article on Vitruvius, I noticed two articles that seem closely related, each apparently unaware of the other's existence: Technological history of the Roman military and Roman military engineering. Not even a mutual "See also" (which I've now added). This seemed odd to me, but not something I'd explore further anytime soon; I saw your name in one edit history and not the other, so just thought I'd point it out. They don't overlap all that much, and the technology article properly focuses on techniques and materials, while the engineering article focuses on the human design and construction aspect. But just in case they start to devolve in unhelpful ways, I thought I'd try to see whether somebody with knowledge and interest was watching both. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. Both articles seem somewhat neglected and undeveloped. Roman military engineering strikes me as somewhat better defined article, while much of Technological history of the Roman military closely parallels Roman technology. It's a pity that Roman technological topics have enjoyed relatively little attention for quite a while now, there is so much to do but we are so few. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have this at GAN. My inclination would be to quickfail it, but I'm not going to do the full review, so thought I would bring a key issue to your attention. The article appears essentially to rely entirely on two references. Neither of those is published; neither is fully referenced, and the hyperlink to one actually takes the reader to the other one. Can you explain at the article talk page why these should be treated as reliable sources? Otherwise, not only would it not meet GAN, it might not even meet WP notability criteria. Hope this helps. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google on "Roman iron production per capita" and found besides your WP data this: "This indicates that in Roman times iron production was sufficient to even penetrate the consumer market to a level unreached until around 1850. In other words the civil (per capita) use of iron was unreached until the mid 19th century." I read you had some problems to convince people on the present scientific estimates. This supports it.

Btw, I miss the ice core data (Pb only?) related to the Roman economy. This core data are such a big thrill it should be somewhere on WP. A diagram may be copyrighted but not the data in it. -- Farinol (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page. But we have to be realistic, European per capita consumption must have been much higher by the start of the Industrial Revolution at the very latest. Insular Great Britain alone doubled its production from 200,000 to a staggering 400,000 t during the few years when Napoleon controlled the continent. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a mistake in the website. It always wrote "iron" but talked about steel. Iron could be cast iron or even gray iron too. Was the majority of this 200,000-400,000 tons cast iron? Then it would be no steel like be usefule for wheel bands. -- Farinol (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got a tip. Had Napoleon Roman legions at Waterloo, he would have won with ease. A rifle bullet this time could not penetrate Roman body armor and even shrapnel was limited. True? This was presented as argument that per capita steel was still lower in early 1800s. -- Farinol (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ricardo Duchesne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See full response at my talk page, but the article is improved enough that it is restored to Ricardo Duchesne in the mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gun. I remember this quite well. I suppose even the zaniest of tinfoil-hat wearing alien conspiracy theorists can have good summarizing skills (i.e. Temple summarizing Needham...with a fruity twist!). I'm sure you're aware that I'm semi-retired from Wiki, but all of that might change soon as I will be joining the United States Peace Corps next month and will be serving in one of those Central Asian countries unofficially ending in "stan". I'll let you guess which one! Hint: it shares a border with the PRC. Lol. I'll have lots of time on my hands when not volunteering (and an Amazon Kindle for buying online books at dirt cheap prices), so perhaps I'll pursue this then. It is, after all, a rather laborious task given the amount of material that will need new citations in articles such as List of Chinese inventions. Until then!

Tschüß,

Eric, aka --Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I recently came across this awesome 2nd century Roman relief over at Wikimedia Commons and just had to add it to the article Roman Empire. Have a look see:

• 
  Preparation of an animal sacrifice; marble, fragment of an architectural relief, first quarter of the 2nd century AD; from Rome, Italy

Jesus, don't tell me you are going to 'ghanistan?!? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank St. Peter, the Lord, and all his floating angles that I'm not going there! Lol. Notice how I said "unofficially" known as a "stan" -ending country; this is due to outdated colloquialism. It's the Kyrgyz Republic (which was renamed in 1993 from the Republic of Kyrgyzstan). Since I'm not an ethnic Uzbek-American, I don't think I'll have too many problems serving in the Kyrgyz Republic. Aside from the fact that my daily diet will be radically altered to accommodate mutton, horse meat, gallons of vodka, and milk products. Yummy! I won't know until orientation, but there is a good chance that I'll be learning Russian instead of Kyrgyz, considering the large Russian population in and around Bishkek.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• relief* Yeah, now I remember the renaming. You go to bed in Upper Volta and teh next morning...you wake up in Burkina Faso! LOL Take your camera with you and shoot a lot of pics of Tamerlane, I heard that steppe Hitler is experiencing a revival over there (although more in Uzbekistan actually). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I notice your Ricardo Duchesne deletion problem above. I recently read one of his articles, and it's rather good. Although I would like to see more about his ideas on Weber's Protestant ethic and its relation (or theoretical application) to Newtonian mechanics and the rise of the Industrial Revolution. That was perhaps the only point in the article which he did not expound on enough; a few concrete examples would have made a clearer picture.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just back from carnival and the partying gets harder every year. I need a day off *groan*. ;-) You know I wasn't aware at all about World History Connected until recently. Duchesne has just published his main work and I believe it will have an impact on the field. Do you know Weber's Politics as a Vocation? His distinction of the three types of leadership, the charismatic, the legal and the traditional leader is pretty good. He wrote the booklet in the midst of the German Revolution in 1919 (which turnt out to be during the 1920s a half measure), when the old safe and comfortable world of the monarchy went down the gutter. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kölle Alaaf! Lol. Having fun at the carnival, huh? There's only one celebration here in the good ole USA during March that's noteworthy, and that's St. Patrick's Day, when for one day out of the year everyone is an Irishman and just as drunk as one too! Kind of like: "I'm Spartacus!" "No, I'm Spartacus! Now hand me a goddamn beer!" As for the monarchy, it was certainly old (if you connect the Prussian line of rulers with those post 1871), but perhaps only safe and comfortable for a select few! ;-) I am familiar with Weber's Politics (along with his other works since I took sociology courses as an undergrad that I still consider formative to my character); his definition of the state therein is also hard to ignore considering its impact on the study of sociopolitical orders. The Revolution was a fitting time for Weber, who was keen on dissecting and diagnosing mass movements. Anyways, enjoy your day off if you have one. Auf Wiedersehen.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun Powder Ma, thanks for the heads up. What a pity after all that effort and discourse that the article is still lost in the woods. Editors such as yourself, SteveMcCluskey and others have shown remarkable resilience, enthusiasm and commitment to getting that article into a more balanced, accurate and informing state and all your efforts are highly commendable. Maybe one day the issue will get resolved, I certainly hope so. I thought that even if there was not consensus on all issues there certainly was an agreement that the article needed to have some serious issues addressed. My understanding at the outcome of the vote was that either the bulk of the Islamic content needed to be pared down and WP linked to articles giving fuller detail or the article needed to be renamed in such a way that it either precluded such a body of information or alternatively allowed the efforts in content editing to be contextually focused in a more useful and productive manner. I also feel concerned that the efforts of enthusiastic and informed editors may currently be unnecessarily dissipated dealing with such a large duplication of effort on the scientific achievements of the historic Islamic realm. I do not think that would be a desirable outcome for that important and very interesting aspect of the history of human and scientific endeavour. I have not been closely following recent editing on the article but I note that there have been no significant changes to the previous theme. If there is a further appeal for concensus I am happy to re-visit the whole thing again with an open mind and hopefully cast an informed and meaningful further vote, if that is where this is heading. The only other solution I can see to the problem is for someone to develop an off-line sandpit article outline and then for us to cast a simple yes of no on that outline. Any orphaned content of value could then be moved to appropriate articles. I am at a loss to think of any other way to move forward as to re-visit the outcome of tha vote may just get bogged down in the apparent complexity of interpretation. Sorry I hope this would just be a short note of encouragement and I seem to have started to discuss the detail of it. Cheers and keep up the good work. -- Felix (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please see my question at Talk:List of medieval bridges in France#Turning bridge at Porte-Joie. Peter Horn User talk 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, thanks anyway. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known! Only Jackie could get through the guard detail at Bastille with his bone-breaking stunts and kung fu moves. ;-) He never struck me too much as a Daoist hermit though, he doesn't seem humble enough! Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you following events in Japan? I am glued to the TV and it's scary. If the Japanese cannot control nuclear power, who can? Those 50 in the control room are doing the most gruesome job now, 50 to save an entire nation from nuclear fall-out. Did you know that the Ukraine stills spends 5% of its GNP for the after-effects of Chernobyl each year? Electricity from nuclear power comes at too high a price, even in strictly economic terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power might seem attractive to those concerned with the overall CO₂ emissions of coal power, but this does not take into account the regular tonnage of waste produced by nuclear facilities and, as you rightly point out, the catastrophic danger of it. Wall Street pretty much abandoned investment in droves after Three Mile Island. However, the horrific ongoing events in Japan have just recently reinvigorated debate about nuclear energy in the US which has slowly gained more traction in terms of government support and public support. I find the existence of nuclear plants in California of all places a scary situation, especially since they were not built to withstand anything approaching a 9.0, let alone even a 7.9 like the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I was not aware Ukraine still spends 5% GNP on Chernobyl, but I am not surprised! If only more people were truly aware of the consequences.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, I find this summary somewhat curious. I take it you are familiar with Islamic history in France, and stand behind this statement? Not that there were notable Islamic scholars there, that's not what the original claim was anyway. But there was nothing more than Islamic piracy influence on France? Piracy was its most notable contribution? -Aquib (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Come to think of it...there were also many marauding Islamic land armies invading France in the 8th century. As far as the direct Islamic impact on medieval France is concerned, this was pretty much everything. No schools, no hospitals, no paved roads, no new farming techniques, only death and destruction were brought to medieval France by Muslim warriors. While all the good things from Islam arrived in France via mediation through Christian translators from Spain mostly. I would have thought you knew that. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -Aquib (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is to notify you (as you are a participant in the above ANI) that I've made several restriction proposals at this discussion which you may wish to comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these edits, which were rejected on the talk page long ago. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between Tunisia and Egypt (=Africa) on the one hand and Europe on the other is so straightforward, clear and universally accepted that it cannot be subjected to a simple 2:1 vote or any vote for that matter. I rather side here with this authority (no.3). You may want to give your reasons on talk why some mosque in Kairouan is so important that it has to feature in an article on European art. But please with sources. And finally I'd like to see proof that 'Muslim lands were mostly wealthier than European countries'. Since you are stoutly defending the continued inclusion of all these assertions, one can expect reliable sources for all these claims from you. I accepted your removal at printing press, because I did not have the right sources at hand to prove my point. I'd appreciate if you could follow your own principles here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the painted tile became the predominant Islamic equivalent of wall-painting, and also spread to Europe in both figurative and ornamental designs. I will try to make the point clearer sometimes, but you are removing a whole paragraph which has been discussed, & relates to material later in thwe article. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, I am only removing, per WP:Scope, the first section which deals with architecture and events in Africa. If you can show some examples of Islamic influence on architecture and art in Europe, as the second untouched paragraph does, I am absolutely fine with it. But all material which pretends to discuss A (European architecture) when it in fact discussed B (Islamic architecture outside Europe) has to be removed not per one but several WP guidelines. What counts is only what actually reached and influenced medieval art, exemplified by architecture on European soil, the rest is irrelevant here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is far too much evidence to go into here, though if you insist on me adding all the material, for example pages 8-11 here, then I suppose I will have to. There is plenty more where that came from. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about the quantity of evidence, it is about the type of evidence and how it fails to address the subject by taking the wrong perspective. It is pretty much basic logic: What the article needs is a discussion of art in Europe as influenced by Islamic art. What the first part of the section, however, does is merely offering a disconnected discussion of Islamic art in Islamic countries. To give an analogy: if we were talking about the influence of ancient Egyptian art in American architecture, we would have to talk first and foremost of course about the Washington Obelisk and the Las Vegas Pyramid Casino, not about the obelisks of Karnak and the pyramids of Gizeh by which their were influenced. Their influence needs only to be mentioned as far as it relates directly to American monuments. if the influence is up to 100%, fine, mention it. But the focus has to be nonetheless on the American copies and not on the Egpytian originals. This, however, still is not the case in Medieval art. Therefore, I'll continue to oppose any separate discussion of North African or Near Eastern architecture as outside of WP:Scope until Islamically-influenced architecture in Europe becomes the rightful sole focus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new misapprehension! The article is not about architecture anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion on Talk: List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gun Powder Ma,

What do you think about the criteria "until 1600" for "medieval universities" in the List of medieval universities? Could you answer Talk:List of medieval universities ?

Thanks, --Anneyh (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anneyh. I am working on a list of all universities until 1800 which will settle all these questions. I'll use this periodization:

• medieval (-1500)
• early modern (1501-1800)
• 1801-1945
• 1945-present day

So you can remove all 16th century universities from the list now or wait until I'll have completey rewritten the list. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can share the work? I was thinking of making a sortable table out of the lists (instead of two lists) and adding the ref from Ridder-Symoens (I only have volume 1) and a paragraph about the difficulty of dates. --Anneyh (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma has embarked on a spree of censorship and selective deletion that amounts to academic vandalizing which can only be interpreted as bigotry. If users like these are not banned from Wikipedia, it will be the end for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.26.43 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you've crossed the line from "Jagged cleanup" into "reference unsourced articles properly". There are probably tens of thousands of examples of unsourced articles, and it is a legitimate question why Jagged articles (cleaned of Jagged influence) are being held to higher standards than other articles. Unless you, personally, in the near future, are going to put the hours in to make this article a similar size to that which it was before, I don't think stubbing can be justified as part of "Jagged cleanup". Apart from anything else, there does not appear to be anything approaching consensus for this approach; WMC and you are supporting stubbing; Rememberway is strongly opposed; I am not keen; others appear to be somewhat undecided as to the best approach, but I've not seen large amounts of support for stubbing. Normal Wikipedia practice would therefore be to discuss further. --Merlinme (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a discussion, so I was a bit irritated why you reverted in the midst of one — claiming that most agree to your viewpoint which, as you say yourself here, is not the case. Contrary to what you might think I have no fixed opinion on the matter (other than I made up my mind that I won't take part in any work on referencing the pre-Jagged stub). I am going to ask around on talk page what other users think and then we'll hopefully get a clearer picture, ok? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in terms of the Jagged cleanup, how was my version worse than yours? I specifically stated that I was making a bold edit, as no-one else seemed to have suggested going back to the pre-Jagged version. You then reverted to the stubbed version, wiping out a good edit to the Paleolithic section, with the comment "We should use the opportunity to begin from scratch." If you have quite specifically stated that "I won't take part in any work on referencing the pre-Jagged stub", who is this "We"?

I don't particularly wish to get into an argument about it, but I am concerned about mission creep, and I am concerned about you stubbing any more articles than absolutely necessary for the cleanup. --Merlinme (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say say your version was worse than mine? You are absolutely entitled to make a bold move, just as I am to revert it (-> Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Out of the four users who have yet given their view in a succinct style (Talk:Timeline of historic inventions#Your view), you seem to be currently the only one who favours the full restoration of unsourced, pre-Jagged material. Your hint to concentrate tightly on the cleanup did not went unnoticed by me so why don't we wait a few more days until a consensus or at least a majority opinion has emerged. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four editors who have currently given their opinion in a succinct style, three are only there because of the Jagged cleanup. It also seems pretty clear that two editors who haven't expressed their opinion in a succinct style (Rememberway and Don Siano) are opposed to stubbing.

My main point really is that the people who look at the article long-term should be making this sort of decision, and if possible we should avoid getting drawn into these sorts of battles as part of the cleanup; the easiest way to do that (it seems to me) is to make the minimal edits necessary to cleanse the Jagged material, and let other editors sort out other problems in the article.

Anyway, let's see what other editors think. I don't really want to be drawn into another article cleanup anyway, I'd really like to spending time finishing cleaning the article I'm currently working on. --Merlinme (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to let GPM know (in case it hasn't been noticed) that I have replied at User talk:Johnuniq#Technical question and I'm happy to do whatever is needed. However, I have to say that it is critical that we do not bicker among ourselves, and would hope that someone can agree to go along with the other side, even if disagreeing about the particular outcome. Thanks very much to both GPM and Merlinme for the excellent cleanup work done so far! Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is very important for us all to stay focused on the bigger picture. We are anyway short of manpower, and thus man hours, and there are quite a few users out there who have shown themselves to be pretty content with the biased crap Jagged had been putting up for years. I'll be even more careful in future to distinguish between the cleanup in the narrow sense and simultaneous improvements/alterations to the rest of the article, although I have to say "Timeline of historic inventions" has been anyway the only case where I removed sizable parts of non-Jagged unreferenced text. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can see on that page at all relevant to the subject is that Spain in 1000, mostly Muslim-ruled, shares with Italy the top Euro-figure, significantly above other areas. So if anything the page supports the statement. But really it has nothing to say on the subject, & the flood of luxury imports from the Islamic world into Europe (in exchange for timber, fur, iron and gold) tells its own story. I have reverted you. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see anything on that page because there isn't anything on that page to support the claim that "Islamic countries" were "more wealthier" than those of Europe at the time. I thus remove this unreferenced statement per WP:verifiability. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is that "for most of the period Islamic countries were generally wealthier than Christian ones", and the only Islamic, or largely so, country mentioned in the article is Spain in 1000 (also then said to Europe's most populous country), which ties with Italy as the wealthiest European nation. You introduced the page claiming it disproved the statement. It doesn't. Note the statement does not claim this was the case at the end of the MA, which it probably wasn't. Sadly we don't have any general articles on the medieval economies of anywhere except England & China. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Burden is yours, as an editor with your experience should fully well know. You need to give a WP:reliable source. And please spare me your friends showing up with reverts at convenient moments. Frankly, you have shown enough of an WP:Own attitude at the page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are way over the top...Modernist (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice....Modernist (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be way over the top but you are way too obviously doing a buddy of yours a small favour to be considered a neutral editor. I have widely read on scholarship on pre-modern GDP per capita and happened to create two of the most important WP articles on the subject. What you defend is an unreferenced, extraordinary and most sweeping claim open to not one but several strong objections. I'll present the whole matter to a wider audience. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot, as much as it is possible to avoid. As you can easily enough guess, I indeed am not new to editing Wikipedia (and hence am familiar with editing conventions, markup, and far too much with administravia also). For a number of years (since maybe 2003), I was one of the top some number of editors by contribution volume (like in the top couple thousand, not the top 100), and edited hundreds of articles, over tens of thousands of individual edits. Multiple featured articles, good articles, etc. were among those on which I was a major contributor.

Maybe a year and a half ago, I became so completely disgusted by Wikipedia's deletionist trend--both mass blanking like you performed on Alhazen and outright deletion of worthwhile content--that I stopped editing, except for an occasional anonymous fix to a typo or something similarly small. However, by chance, today I decided to look at this article on Alhazen, generally for my own enlightenment, and not because I am especially an expert on its subject (although I know a bit, and had read earlier versions of the article, in something like its longer/restored form).

I can see clicking around that you have some history of conflict with Jagged 85. And frankly, I really don't care one way or another about that history or that conflict. As far as I know, I have never seen either of your user names before, nor have I knowingly ever edited the same article as either of you before. It appears that you are both well-established editors with long edit histories, and more power to the both of you for that. At this point, I simply happen to want the Alhazen article to be of good quality rather than be a tiny stub of an article as it became within the last month. Reading its talk page, I am unable to see any specific reason for the recent deletions by you--other than this vague animosity towards that other editors, who apparently contributed much of the content to Alhazen.

I 100% agree that if any specific claim or section is poorly worded or poorly cited, it should be cleaned up. However, it is immediately evident upon reading that such is not generally the case. I find the language to be a little bit too much on the "exuberant" side, and just a little too breathless about how impressive Alhazen's work was. Nonetheless, other than a bit of criticism of the tone, the specific claims made all appear to be reasonably well cited and factual. I plan to go through the article and cleanup language, and to incrementally remove any parts that feel inadequately supported by citations. But blanking is simply the wrong approach to cleanup... here, and pretty much anywhere on WP. Moreover, I don't actually believe you believe it is correct, but rather that you've let your personal feelings about some other editor become more important than your own best judgement about this specific article. Yours, Memories of lost time (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Memories of lost time. I am glad to admit that my first impression of you was wrong, so sorry for any inconvenience, but these red-linked users or anonymous IPs have miracuously multiplied in recent days, so I thought you were one of those sleeper accounts which set out to torpedo the cleanup process. Personally, I would rather like to see the stub remaining, with verified contents bit by bit taken over from older versions. Jagged 85's material has to be treated with extreme caution as he misrepresented and fact-picked sources consistently, always with an eye to forward certain viewpoints (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85). But if you check the whole article, and this should also include the verification of every single source, then the final result of your approach should be the same. Take your time but please remember that if Jaggedisms are still to remain in the text a second stubbing might be considered the best option. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that I move the Request for Comment to "Art, architecture, literature, and media" instead of "History and geography" and that somebody else than Johnbod and yourself draws the conclusions of the request? --Anneyh (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anneyh. Agreed. Sounds like a fair proposal (if Johnbod stops edit-warring, that is constantly removing material of mine from the article in WP:Own manner). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff [8] you made the following edit:

The pointed arch originated in the late Roman and Sassanian realms, where it mostly appears in early Christian church buildings, although engineering works such as the Byzantine Karamagara Bridge also showed it fully developed at an early stage.

I just read through Warren and I could not find the word roman in it, nor mention of the Karamagara Bridge. So I'd rather write:

The pointed arch most probably originated in the Byzantine empire and Sassanian realms, where it appears in early Christian church buildings like the Qasr Ibn Wardan church, built in the mid-sixth century during the reign of Justinian I.

I also find that Warren is not the perfect reference, because Warren is mainly concerned with showing that Cresswell's theory of dating archs based on acuteness is not valid. I'd rather use Draper, Peter (2005). "Islam and the West: The Early Use of the Pointed Arch Revisited". Architectural History. 48. SAHGB Publications Limited: 1–20.. On the other hand I think it's worth mentioning earlier assumptions.

What do you think? --Anneyh (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ref, I'll look into it. Needless to say you are entitled to make necessary changes to my edit. Warren mentions the Karamagara Bridge on p. 61, last line. The Roman buildings (or, if you like Eastern Roman or Byzantine) are, e.g., the Qasr Ibn Wardan of the time of Justinian (p. 61). On p. 62 you find: "Had he been, he might have discovered some of the many other Sasanian and Byzantine examples which make the pre-Muslim origins of pointed architecture an unassailable contention. There survived among the pre-Muslim churches of Mesopotamia a series of important examples...", followed by some examples in Kirkuk. To all these examples my edit referred (as indicated by the page number). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into it and I found that Draper ignores most of the examples by Warren, including the all-important Karamagara Bridge, and also basically ignores the rivalling hypothesis that pointed arches were developed indigenously in Europe from a need to reduce the lateral thrust in Romanesque architecture. That Warren is mainly concerned with Cresswell's theory on Islamic pointed arches is true, but this is exactly what makes him place so great emphasis on the prior existence of pointed arches in Near Eastern Christian architecture as this brings Cresswell's neat order of a gradually rising acuteness into some disarray. As you can see from the pic of the bridge, the pointed arch was already fully developed in Roman/Byzantine times, both in terms of acuteness and span (17 m is at any rate considerable). This is worth mentioning in the article, but with emphasis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all sources agree on "pre-Muslim origins of pointed architecture". The Karamagara Bridge is amazing (though the devil may have helped as for the Pont du Diable (Céret)), but I could not find so many sources mentioning it. Do you have any?

Have you read Grabar, Oleg. "Islamic Architecture and the West: Influences and Parallels." In Islamic Visual Culture, 1100-1800, volume II, Constructing the Study of Islamic Art. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006. First published in Islam and the Medieval West, ed. Stanley Ferber (Binghamton, 1975), pp. 60-66. Maybe that's a good starting point. --Anneyh (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your changes, but I have one notice - Herodotus and hieroglyphs agree that canal was built in time of Darius, while Aristotle, Strabo and Pliny have lived centuries after. By the way, thank you for your article about ancient records, it's really GREAT. But, I haven't seen anything about Hadrian and Antonius wall, how so? (answer below, please) --94.253.250.166 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sentence needs to be phrased less absolutely. I did do quite a bit of reading about this a while ago, I'm not just commenting off the top of my head. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do restore aqueducts? If so, and you're willing, here's a crumbly one. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might like these long-haired young men, their sisters and their baby brother, who eventually cut off his golden locks once he had had married and fathered four children.

[9] Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got distracted by your front page.

There seems only one source to suggest all those trussed roofs in Sicily. I don't think that one person's conjecture, without the evidence, is solid enough. It is quite possible that the cellas of all these wide temples had rows of wooden columns, now gone, just as some of the larger temples had a hypostyle of stone columns which has survived. It would be interesting to examine the stylobate, where it has remained intact, for evidence of large flat, regularly spaced paving stones that might have supported wooden columns. Amandajm (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrazin dont attacked people who lived on welfare he critized that germanys welfare state have bad consequences for the society and economy. He said that many muslim immigrants, mostly from Turkey, only immigrated because in their own countries there isnt a so about ready welfare system like in germany.--Karadordevic (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete other people's contribution (with sufficient sourcing) without prior discusion --Gisling (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're skating along the edge of a 3RR vio there yourself. I'd suggest backing off for a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know and I will but do you know that when you don't consider 6 reverts sufficient for a block the effect is that you are making two users who do 3 three reverts or three users who do 2 reverts skate along this edge? I don't think that the function of 3RR was that it needs three or four users to undo the action of a single user which does not enjoy consensus just because the person exceeds the 3RR limit by far is not stopped from edit-warring. Then, obviously, 3RR cannot work as a policy. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk)

No, 6RR is plenty for a block, but without a very clear "stop it now or else" warning, we won't know if the warning would have been sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, although I do not approve of this. The effect has been that the edit-war continued, Gisling reverted three more times and drew in the process other users into the edit-war who had to undo his actions. If he would have been blocked after six reverts, there would have been no third revert on my part necessary. 3RR works only if consistently applied, not when one user is warned after 3 reverts, while another gets away with 6 reverts, thus being able to take on two or three users simultaneously. Then 3RR is only a farce of a policy you can wholeheartedly forget about. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make these changes please discuss them, rather that just removing content without any discussion. Its not acceptable to do this and I have no idea why you are doing so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have forgotten, you have been reverting to your version against four users, including Yopie, Athenian, William O'Connolly and me. Please don't play innocent just because you were clever enough to realize that an admin watchs my page which you may hope you can instigate. The discussion which you are habitually ignoring is here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been ignoring any discussions at all. The content explaining what a University is was only removed by Athenean, but I refuted his arguments on his talk page and I also invited him to propose something else instead if he wished. Given he's failed to do so and has made no further comment I presume he finds the new lead acceptable. I made a comment on the 5th June about having some description of a University in the article to avoid confusing our readership, which you have failed to reply to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Erasehead, since everybody has failed to convince you, you were right in reverting the article to the only true version. In fact, my change to your version is rather incremental. It is just that it is simple scientific method that first the topic is positively defined as what it is and only then possible exceptions, deviations, forerunners whatever are specified. However, your intense intention to show that Madrasas are "older" leads you to go like a bull at a gate and rant about these other institutions even before the university has been properly defined in its own article (in the first section). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move some of that description into the lead then, there is already some description in the lead - and the Madrasah's article is linked right at the top for exactly the same reason that the song dynasty ships are linked at the top from Ironclad the article you bought up as being good practice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The top link is normally for disambiguation, so misplaced by you. And this has been said to you by Athenean too, that normally lists don't offer any long-winded definitions which is the job of the main article, university. In the list you go by the definition of the main article, but you have never shown up at university, apparently because your pet theory that madrasas are allegedly older can be better demonstrated in a list of oldest universities. Why don't you stop with it now? Mosque schools and university are completely different institutions, Islamic mosque schools are rather comparable to Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to disambiguation, people are getting confused - including multiple reliable sources - so it seems perfectly sensible to include a link to the Madrasah's article at the top for disambiguation purposes.

And with regards to "long winded" definitions the point made by Athenean isn't correct, as you can see from the featured lists I pointed to on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued this discussion on the talk page which seems to make more sense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now taken to dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are way too late. See above the remark by SarekOfVulcan. Apart from that, I expect you to put the template twice on Gisling's page for making full six reverts. He has been reverting against four users, I was only one of them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article I follow - you were indicated at WP:RFPP - I declined the request.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There's a new article on the well-known paddle ship proposal from De Rebus Bellicis, copy-pasted from here. The author presents its existence as fact, whereas every book I've read says that this was a paper project along the lines of da Vinci's designs. Your expertise on ancient technology is needed! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your notification. Yes, I agree, no evidence of its actual use as yet: Talk:Rotaremis vehiculum#Roman paddle-wheel ships Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your list of universities seems to be incomplete as regards the Czech ones. You put there Prague (1347), Olomouc (1570, correct number would be either 1566 or 1573) and Brno 1919, but you are lacking other unis, see List of universities in the Czech Republic. I am not adding them since I am not sure whether they are omitted purposely due to their more specific nature (i.e. technical, etc.). Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the individual lists are sorted by epoch, that is the other Bohemian universities appear not to be in existence at the time. Or, alternatively, they did not offer academic degrees in more than one faculty as the lead defines and which appears to be the case for most technical centres of higher learning.

As for the foundation date, there are divergent interpretations what counts as date of establishment: recognition by the pope, by secular authorities (king etc.), the take-up of the first courses etc. That's why there are slight discrepancies. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize the sorting method. Please see List of universities in the Czech Republic. I am only asking, whether the other (1717 Prague, 1849 Příbram/Ostrava, 1899 Brno, 1919 Brno (different from the one in the list already)) are omitted as they are specialized and not "universal", or whether there is a different reason behind that. Thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of oldest universities in continuous operation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can either work with what I've done, or you we can escalate it yet again. At the dispute resolution noticeboard it was shown that your viewpoint was baseless against policy and you stopped talking. At this point you are just being highly disruptive. And if you're going to claim its "OR" almost all the text was already present. If you wish to make reasonable improvements, beyond throwing all the new text out go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take another read through the resolution noticeboard thread - specifically the last comment from Ocaasi which points out the policies that you are breaking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would do well to read through WP:GUIDES. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eraserhead, no offence intendend but I am sure I am not the first to tell you that you are an intransigent type. This Wikilawyering and claiming of consensus where in fact you are pretty much alone, I hope you are not serious. Let's do very quickly the math again: I wrote 5 articles on the subject, consulting scholarly sources in four different languages. You have read no scholarly work and your most substantial edit was adding a footnote, yet you have been editing the article for three months in a single-purposely manner to single out the unrelated madrasah. I am sure everybody at ANI will be big time impressed about your great and lasting contribution in improving WP's coverage of the history of the university.

Now check out Verger, Jacques: "Patterns", in: Ridder-Symoens, Hilde de (ed.): A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, p. 35, introductory remarks. It says all you need to know, yet refuse to acknowledge. I'll add another link, just for the sake of peace and harmony and just to show again that I am not tight-arsed about it, to the page to make the point that these institutions are not to be considered universities over-clear. But, hey, if you still want to escalate it again, to each his own, ANI will be a great place to expose your Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing that you have basically won the argument, and I have accepted your point of view with the exception of including some information on the lead to make the subject clear. I have been prepared to compromise significantly on the matter, and you haven't really been prepared to compromise at all. Changing the structure of the lead to make it clear what the article is about is clearly supported by policy, and was backed up at dispute resolution.

Understanding that the lead needs to explain the concept of the article doesn't need to involve reading scholarly sources in multiple languages. Additionally while reading sources in multiple languages might well make you more knowledgable about the subject it doesn't give you a right to shut other editors out from making any changes at all - especially when those changes are clearly backed up by policy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I have shut out you, your edits have only been re-arranged as been pointed out by others. And Ocaasi, for one, never agreed to putting the link to the madrasa list on top, merely listed this as one of several possible scenarios, the other being leaving it at under "see also". Right now university, medieval university and now the List of oldest universities in continuous operation link – each close to or right at the top of the respective article – to these other ancient centres with explanatory remarks, so you will concede that your view has been greatly accommodated by now. I don't understand why you keep on trying to single out the madrasa as the closest thing to a university. Clearly, if you share this view that all these centres were universities, then you'd need to toplink to them all, not just the mosque schools, so this stance of yours is not correct even within the parameters of your position. Again, I can only recommend reading Verger's superb history of the medieval university above, one cannot fully understand what the university is and where it comes from, without knowing how it evolved. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So lets not have the link at the top then. Ocaasi has specifically suggested including it in phrasing and that seems fine to me, you could have moved it from a hatnote to a sentence/link somewhere in the lead, or you could have removed it. You could have taken the "original research" sentence out as well. That didn't mean you had to revert the rest of my edit.

And while linking other articles is good, a summary of the content should be in the list article itself, people aren't necessarily going to read the other links.

PS Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll take a look :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why phrasing it in? This would mean we would end up once again singling out the madrasa from all these other centres of higher learning. Isn't it much more neutral and balanced to link, as it currently is, to the overview article Ancient higher-learning institutions which treats all these institutions on an equal footing, without any hierachy? The madrasa article enjoys already preferential treatment by having this extra link at the bottom. This is already pretty much given that in common English the madrasa is even verbally not considered a "mosque university", but merely a "mosque school". PS: The Verger article is as good as five other articles taken together and partly available at Google Books. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better. I do still feel that overall my version of the lead is clearer than the current one as it includes the content from the sections below and leaves most of the detail to the subpages while giving the reader some background. It also already had a link to the ancient higher-learning institutions article (though I have moved it). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can we move forward on this? If you want to add another paragraph in the middle about the medieval university feel free - I think that could be worthwhile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the oldest extant universities in the world. To be included in this table, an educational institution must satisfy the definition of a university at the time of its founding. It must have been founded before 1500 (invariably in Europe) or be the oldest university in a region. Universities were first founded in Europe as degree-granting institutions before 1500, after which time they were spread around the world first to places the Europeans ruled, and then to other countries in the 19th century.

The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars". The term was coined by the Italian University of Bologna, which, with a traditional founding date of 1088, is considered the first university.^[1][2] The origin of many medieval universities can be traced to the Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools which appear as early as the 6th century AD and were run for hundreds of years as such before their formal establishment as university in the high medieval period.^[3]

Although there were other institutions of higher learning, like those of ancient Greece, China and the Arab World, these aren't generally regarded as being universities as they largely didn't offer degrees or they were culturally dissimilar from the European universities where the ideas of the modern university came from. While some sources class some of those other institutions as Universities they aren't included in the list.

I am aware these are only excerpts from the current article but I am still not happy with them. They reflect the deficiencies from which the article suffers since too much time had to be allocated to the madrasa theory.

• It sounds as if the difference between universities and those other centres was only down to the issuing of degrees, but it was much more complex in fact.
• Although Bologna is sometimes called the first university, this is somewhat simplifying things.
• While many were, many other universities were not created out of monastic and cathedral schools
• the se sources don't class these other institutions as universities, they just use the name in a careless, unreflected manner. Big difference

All these things I am trying to address in a rewrite of the article, so I am really not having time to continue this debate as it is all preliminary anyway. Have you read Verger by now? I am going to make this the basis of the article. For now, we should leave it as it is, for the reasons I gave above and here again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read the book you suggested right now, I'll read it at a later point.

I think you should add the appropriate clarifying context into the above lead - and then let us get it into the article - we can easily add another paragraph if needed. You need to bear in mind WP:OWN and that this is inline with what Ocassi suggeste:d. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of note given it is a list you aren't going to be able to completely clarify the subject in the lead - it will always only be a summary and for the full details reading other articles is going to be needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume given the lack of further comments that I can implement this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[10].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop from saying, "Delete. It is the task of the (first) editors to show the notability of the topic". You have been saying this today for articles that were just barely created.

Please read WP:BEFORE: If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

From Yoon Kye-sang's AfD: It is the task of editors making comments at AfD to actually be bothered to click the wonderful "find sources" link above and see if there are any WP:RS available which can be used to improve the article. Even in English there are quite a few available. The point of AfD is to determine whether a topic is notable.

Please, we all must do research before commenting on AfDs. Please start doing it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoon Kye-sang and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher John Hall and the articles themselves to see that the nominator's concerns have been addressed. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that the administrator who closes the {{afd}} discount your "delete" because you weighed in before the article had been rewritten.

When you leave a "delete" shortly after a deletion discussion has been opened do you ever make a point to check back later, to see if the article had been improved in ways that addressed your concern(s)? Geo Swan (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not join the debate because when the article was launched it was a delete. I really don't check back again, because I consider it the job of people to provide refs for articles from the start and be so decent as to not not consume valuable time and energy of other users by bringing them forth only belatedly and bit by bit. And, in any case, WP is so hopeless inclusionist these days that usually enough keeps come in anyway. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you, out of respect for people who fix articles, to reverse your position, and make a point of revisiting afds and the nominated articles, six days later.

I didn`t start this article. But, before I weighed in I did a web search, and found that there were sufficient references to support an article on Mohammad Nasim Faqiri.

I think I fixed this article.

With regard to consuming the valuable time and energy of other contributors -- I agree, in principle, that no one should act in a way that wastes the time and energy of other contributors.

I am afraid however, in my opinion, responsible participation in afd requires all participants to do a basic web search prior to weighing in. Without regard to your impatience with those who don`t use a sandbox, and start to work on new articles, right in article space, our policies are clear. Weak articles on notable topics are not supposed to be deleted. They are supposed to be improved. If afd participants don`t perform their own web search how will they know the topic itself is a notable one? How will they know they aren`t wasting the time and energy of other contributors by arguing to delete articles that by a responsible interpretation of our policies merit being kept and improved?

IMO responsible participation requires revisiting the article and the discussion on the last or second last day, to check to see if comments left on the first day still apply. IMO anything less than this level of responsible participation consumes the valuable time and energy of other contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost as long as I have been, so there is no risk of biting you here. I also see you take an interest in inventions, especially ancient ones, which is great. You are especially interested in Chinese inventions and Chinese culture and take great pride in that (evident perhaps from your usename). Good for you. Now here is my problem with you: stop vandalizing the article. Sadly, Jagged's edits have done more damage than good, but you are riding the wave a bit too far. Stubbing the article was wrong, and leaving it in this state is painful. Now, what I am doing is taking an interest in this and slowly getting the list to grow. You can disagree and have your own personal biases, but let your sources do the talking for you. Second, I have been here longer than you have; for you to come and revert my edits without prior discussion or leaving a message on my talk is not respectful. You will be reported if you don't act in a civil manner. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Replied on talk page—along with the three other users who disagree with you and your tone... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for letting me know about this.

Second, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. You have to admit though that you would be equally annoyed had your sourced edits been reverted because you accidentally stepped into the minefield that is national invention lists without prior knowledge of the conflicts (I had to look up Jagged's edits to even understand what your revert* summary meant).

Third, I agree with you more than I disagree. I have been to other lists, and I would take similar stands to the Chinese list and the Indian list. In the case of the latter, I think "South Asian" is more accurate than Indian, but oh well; I missed that vote.

My only concern here is that I will work hard on having a decent list over there at the Muslim invention list, then come back later and see you axing 80% for whatever reason. I also plan to work on other lists since I believe all cultures had their contributions, but your sentiments worry me a bit. I don't mind taking national pride out of lists, but to unfairly target them will always get you people who attack you.

• revert used loosely here. You didn't literally revert me.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 09:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the jungle, these invention lists are all difficult ground. This "whatever reason" for which your edit was axed is that it has reestablished those of Jagged85 which have been proven to be a severe violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYN and WP:OR and have a done great damage to WP's reputation. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied to me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me. However, I am not sure that you actually received my message. I think DÜNGÁNÈ is supporting you, and has not made an attack! Please read my reply again and reconsider. To me, DÜNGÁNÈ's comment at User talk:Aua#Personal attacks looks like a rejection of Aua's comments regarding your edits. I am not very sensitive to cultural slights, so perhaps I am missing something. If so, please spell out exactly what text you consider to be an attack, with a brief explanation of why. I suspect you have misinterpreted what DÜNGÁNÈ said. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you there too, but to clarify:

DUNGANE was not supporting GPM. Rather, he was simply referring to my statement that the article is "national pride run amok" as an ad hominem attack on himself and other contributors to that list.

The second part deals with GPM with all those def's and what not.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the incunable table. Ecphora (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is an incident which you have been involved in- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

v/r - TP 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion concerning your possible COI on Ricardo Duchesne on WP:COIN#Ricardo Duchesne.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to notify the userpage author.--v/r - TP 10:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have an e/c with D over User:DÜNGÁNÈ/Off Wiki Forums? He blanked it, after I told him he should get it deleted (then erased my comment from his talk page; check the history). You seem to have restored the unblanked version William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E/c? In any case, rectified it. I did not interact with D recently, he has diarrhea as his talk page graciously tells us...Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted this listing twice without explanation. I was simply responding on the basis of WP:Red link. What one might think of the person is not relevant to wikipedia's policies about deletion of content. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Red link says: "Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles". Therefore, I have deleted the link. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. At last you explain, the article has been deleted. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd know that, just click on the link. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei.

As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.

• Tenmei and disputes

Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [11])

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:

• Tenmei advised

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

• Tenmei banned for one year

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:

A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?

B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?

C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?

D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?

E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?

F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2010, I had no words to express my frustrations about the second paragraph at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Regarding User:Gun Powder Ma,

My concern was underscored in a "restatement" here, but I had no ideas about to ameliorate or mitigate the problems.

In part, I was thinking of Teeninvestor and you when I drafted WP:Delegitimization as a tactic.

If someone had introduced the term "delegitimization", could it have made a difference? --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gun Powder Ma! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi. When you recently edited Parallel society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. Whenaxis about | talk 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again. If you are still interested in the case, it's still open here. So, when you are available feel free to take a look and leave a message. If not, please notify me on my talk page of your absteinance from the case. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed reliably sourced content: "It is considered the oldest university in the world by some scholars [two references]" and "although some dispute this claim.[one reference]"

Was there a particular reason for that? If so, do let me know. If not, I'll assume that was an honest error on your part. But in the future, please be a bit more careful when editing.VR _talk 04:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess the particular reason was that the edits wars you have started to push through the designation "university" for Muslim mosque school. Stopping edit-warring on your part might help a lot other users to not lose track of the article's contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You removed that exact same content (that I mentioned above) again. You also responded to my good faith suggestion by seemingly blaming me for your edits.

It is clear that we have disagreements, and we need to work them out. If it is alright with you, I'd like to go for dispute resolution, I want to have a mediation and Whenaxis has graciously offered help.VR _talk 02:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I removed these contents are given here: basically, you want to change a Wikipedia:List to an Wikipedia:Article and totally redefine its topic and scope. As for the article madrasah, I actually integrated all your substantial edits in the long-term stable version, while you today undid mine completely without a discussion.

What you want is redefining Islamic madrasahs as Christian universities because both happened to be centers of higher learning. This is equivalent to redefining Islamic mosques as Christian churches because both happen to be places of worship. You confuse the categories and I have a hard time seeing what a mediation could accomplish.

It is obvious that your ultimate goal is not only to redesignate Islamic mosque schools as "universities", but moreover as the first universities (which is Islamocentrism pure). But you should be aware that even if the community somehow decides to water down the definition of a university to a general term for about every kind of center of higher learning which has historically emerged around the globe – that is it follows not encyclopedic, but careless everyday usage –, then the Islamic madrasah still comes almost dead last, because such centers had appeared much earlier in Greece, Byzantium, Persia, India, China etc. I have scholarly sources here en masse which speak of these centers as "university" in the way you do, as an unspecific term in the sense of "institution of higher learning". What you fail to understand is that the medieval Christian university was a center of higher learning which later became so globally completely successful that it has become today a generic term which is used retrospectively for other centers of higher learning. Just like the term "general staff" is used today in conjunction with the war councils of all kinds of ancient and medieval armies, even though the proper military institution was only invented by the 19th century Prussians. I wish you could understand the meaning of anachronism, would save us all a lot of time. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are accusing me of holding views that I don't hold. In any case, would it be ok with you if I started a mediation to resolve these issues?VR _talk 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, In the List of Roman bridges created by you, it is claimed that there are two Göksu bridges on River Calycadnus one in Samsat and one in Silifke. I think the two Göksu rivers need to be disambiguated. Actually Göksu (Calycadnus) is in Silifke district of Mersin Province far from Samsat. Maybe you'll check the Roman name for the one in Samsat. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Gun Powder Ma. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.

Maybe you can include some information on other universities in the region? I have invted you, because I noticed that you have done some significant editing regarding university-related articles covering the region of Southeast Europe. --Comparativist1 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges completed in the 1560s, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed some material from this article, with the comment "rmv per WP:RS: main source is a master thesis; the other one does not give a page number". Have you actually read the Greene book? It talks about the unique situation of Cretan conversion in several places; I agree that a specific page reference is desirable, but that is not a reason to delete the content or the note. I think it would be more appropriate to tage with {{Template:Page needed}} unless you actually think the material is false, in which case the recommended solution is to "move those statements to the discussion page and ask for evidence", which you didn't do. I have in any case added a page reference. As for the Bayraktar thesis, I agree that an unpublished master's thesis is not a fully reliable source. Again, it would be better, I think, to tag with {{Template:Better source}} than to just delete, or at least to discuss on Talk.

As far as I know, there is no serious dispute about the claim that most Turkish Muslims were descendents of local (Christian) converts. If you have a source that claims the opposite, it would be helpful to contribute it.

Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection against readding the 2nd source, as soon as a page number or page range is provided. But it is not the job of the reader to sift through an entire book in order to identify which paragraph exactly may have been referred too. The first source, the master thesis, has no place here. We only cite from such low-level scholarly material in rare exceptional cases. If the conversion scenario is as much consensus as you say, I am sure you will find much better sources in no time. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the conversion claim is such a common standard view as you argue, you are better advised to find a scholarly source confirming it, which should not be difficult, instead of wasting time for an edit-war. A master thesis is clearly inadequate. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on the Talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 Jul 13:00, you said you "have no objection against readding the 2nd source, as soon as a page number or page range is provided". I had already added that on 13 July 10:02 (page = 39ff, passim), yet you deleted it on 14 July 06:07, where you also deleted the new source the Historical Atlas of Islam. I will be adding back my content unless you supply some reason I shouldn't on Talk:Cretan Turks. --Macrakis (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gun Powder Ma. See talk page regarding the redirecting of Lake Homs to Lake Qattinah. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is where this is headed in about 5 minutes. nableezy - 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gun_Powder_Ma_and_University_of_Al-Karaouine.E2.80.8E.E2.80.8E_and_associated_articles nableezy - 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that edit-warring rules apply to everybody other than yourself? And why do think that consensus does not apply to you? nableezy - 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your hypocrisy extends to accusations of hounding. Thanks for that, nice to know. Let me know if you want me to return the favor. nableezy - 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I "followed" you to the same exact dispute that you instigated on al-Karaouine? Are you really that daft? But I could start "following" you to any number of articles, such as ones dealing with your other crusade on behalf of the people of Western Sahara, or maybe I will develop a sudden interest in Chinese cities. My word, the possibilities are near endless. I will have to think long and hard about where I should show up next. Toodles, nableezy - 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is you need to check this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all you can say? You couldnt say, for example, that you are sorry for such a display of hypocrisy? Or maybe that it wont happen again? Those are things that could be said, but given your history of "do as I say, not as I do" I dont think it will happen. nableezy - 17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your highly combative attitude, it is extremely unlikely that you will ever receive any kind of apology from anyone on this encyclopedia. I suggest you dial down the aggro and shrillness. Just my 2 cents. Athenean (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that I wont be seeing an apology from people that call me disingenuous and dishonest without cause, and then have the gall to say that I am uncivil and combative and write with shrillness. But I dont think it is due to my highly combative attitude, but rather the hypocrisy of those that feel that they need not practice what they preach. I am perfectly willing to work with those who hold different views. I am not however willing to silently smile as others repeatedly edit-war while telling others not to, distort sources and act like they have read them, and continue, unabated, ignoring any source that they disagree with. If I encounter such people in this discussion you may see that my attitude is not always so highly combative. Ill let you know when I find those people. nableezy - 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that your attitude is highly combative. Going through your contribs, it seems that's pretty much par for the course, your attempts at justifying such behavior notwithstanding. Athenean (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully. I am combative with those that edit-war and lie about sources, and, now, with those that insert BLP violations into articles (thats you, to be clear). I give what I am given, and in this case GPM has been combative from the start. Edit-warring without end while telling other not to and straight up lying about sources. nableezy - 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question: Have you been edit-warring "without end"? You had better hope this never goes to arbitration. Athenean (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not without end. And I wouldnt mind it going to arbitration. A group of editors has repeatedly ignored the outcome of discussions at places such as NPOV/N to enforce their favored POV throughout a range of articles. That going to arbitration might clear the way for others who are less inclined than I am to deal with such obstructionist and disruptive tactics the room necessary to correct those blatant NPOV violations. nableezy - 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but I'm curious. I have a vague memory that Gun Powder Ma is a historical figure, but can't find anything on Wikipedia or even a Bing search. Could you refresh my memory? Or am I just imagining things?--Wikimedes (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, funny question. Gun Powder Ma is the name of a fictional (drug) warlord in Thailand in Year of the Dragon (film), a peripheral character, who IIRC does not even appear in person, but is only mentioned in passing. I liked the rhyme as much as I like Mickey Rourke's character in this movie. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I don't think I've seen the movie, so I guess I was just imagining things.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to discuss. You didn't. You just got rude in your edit summaries. That's not good behaviour. PLEASE look at what I have written on the Talk page. I have no objection to having something in the article about the policy of moving men away from kids. The problem is that 1. It's not Reverse discrimination (please read that article carefully), it's just discrimination, and 2. There's a lot more to the unaccompanied child policy than that. If we have a section with such a heading, it needs to contain a lot more than one recent problem with it. It needs to describe the whole policy. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlast (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to retract your report as he did exactly one revert in 24h.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some kind of reaction you should notify his current account I think --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you check the ISBN of the book please. It is not listed in Google Books. Thanks Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GPM, I dont know why it cannot find the book in Google Books but I am looking at the hard copy of the book right now and the number matches. Thanks --Iggydarsa (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, read again, I have not said Red links, but interwiki links. Osplace 01:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. Just curious where the guidelines discourage their use as you seem to maintain. My philosophy is better one link than none. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are way a lot much more important in WP, otherwise the article would be orphans. Osplace 14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could compile a list of the articles that have been translated? We can let the French Wikipedia know.

I already made a comment (with the help of a translator) on the talk page of the editor who tagged this article that you linked to. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best. Great from you to take care about it. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Sooner is better than later, since the person I contacted has brought it up on the French AN/I. (I also made a comment here). Arc de Ciel (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KONDA is the most prestigious public opinion survey / research institution n Turkey. It is known to have made the best pre-election election result guesses in the several very important Turkish elections and other general votes (referenda). I know your recent interest in Turkish affairs so this might be of use in your endevours... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is my interest in Turkish affairs is actually much older than yours. I wrote nearly all of the articles on ancient bridges in Turkey, albeit without the zeal evident in recent move discussions...You know I took a look around in these recent endless discussions about minor issues and I did not see one of those verbose defenders of mother Turkey who has actually done half the job I have done for WP Project Turkey...Just wanted to brief you on who does the work and who stands increasingly in the way of it...

So why don't you first go to the talk page, present a fully cited source and explain why we should prefer this institute's findings over the CIA World Factbook? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making bridges... --E4024 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me, use one to reach out to those who disagree with you... :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was mistake I just pressed a wrong button.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council on American–Islamic Relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a real problem identifying reliable sources, at least where your bias against Muslims is concerned. I strongly recommend that you stay out of this topic area until you learn how to edit in compliance with WP policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are also clearly edit warring. You should know better than this, and you know the boards where you can ask others if they think you are using reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, the fact that you chunked out large quantities of referenced material at the article made me wary in the first place. The fact that you now try to downplay the view of the New York Times and many other reliable sources as "personal opinions" further increases my suspicions. The fact that you now have started to follow me to other articles where you have already been blocked for edit-warring finally confirms my suspicions about your leftist agenda.

Dougweller, with all respect, but until now you have not provided the least evidence for your position other than saying you "second" this or that. You know consensus is not established by driving by and simply weighing in on one side, but by providing arguments and evidence–which you haven't. I have given you now multiple sources which prove the reliability of this site, why don't you address them or at least try to explain them away as Roscelese does? Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL forever at the idea I followed you to the SIOA article. I created that article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, this has got to stop. Leave your anti-Muslim bias at the door when you edit here - the addition of sources like this is unacceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(In the event that you do come to your senses and realize that we are here to build an encyclopedia through reliable sourcing and collaboration, not to make sure our own personal political feelings are broadcast to the 'net, I'm sure we would all appreciate if you would take the initiative and help with the cleanup of your extremely poor edit history, rather than making everyone else go through it for you.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a crowd clamoring for a topic ban for you on ANI. Nobody Ent 19:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The witch-burners are now at Wikipedia:AN#Gun_Powder_Ma William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tenedos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. E4024 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip. WP:Place is concerned with current name usage. This means that consensus is that the island is still today most commonly referred to as Tenedos. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gun Powder Ma. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Glaucus (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate some help in adding medieval content to the Sapping page, as the only pre-gunpowder reference is by me. Anything you can provide would be great; thanks! MarkoPolo56 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have something about the Persian sapping operations against Roman-held Dura Europos in 256 AD. Drop me an email if you are interested in this early period. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year! May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Hope you're not mad at me. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you had a question as to were a conversation took place pls see Talk:Germans#Article scope. You are right on the fact we will need to work on expanding the articles scope as per the new discussion and as you pointout .. fix cats etc...Moxy (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems that this - arbitrary - definition is pushed through by a couple of users maintaining that there were a broad consensus. But how can be there a consensus if they cannot even cite a single source to support their view? Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as per Talk:Germans#Article scope next reversal of consensus text with ref will be reported WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you did not read the ref i just added - I guess all we can do is report this behavior. Will inform you of were the report will be. Thank you.Moxy (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, mate. As long as the admin can read, which he will, he will quickly figure out that you only brought forward a reliable source which backs up your claim AFTER I almost begged for one for like 3 days on talk page. If you want to waste your time by offending other people's intelligence or reading abilities, go ahead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so now that your aware of the laws on the topic will you be reverting the edit or shall we bring this to ANI ? The rest of us would like to move on.Moxy (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on talk page. The article is about ethnicity and not so much about the laws which are covered by a separate article German nationality law as the disambiguation clearly says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law.). First you had no definition, now you have provided a definition which applies to another topic/article. I would appreciate a coherent answer on talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so to be clear you not willing to comply with the consensus on the matter?Moxy (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a factual answer on talk page, I am waiting for a factual answer there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The article Örjan Wikander has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 09:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Der Schlern, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Der Schlern" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know whether you watch that article, but there's a move proposal, and I wonder whether you have any ideas for a more specific title other than the wordy one proposed. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me, replied there. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but especially if editing articles abou topics that seem to be controversial, we have to stick strictly to what the sources say. We may not freely interpret them. Please read the cited sources again: you will see that my version is supported by them. --RJFF (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you would invest half the time in explaining on talk page what your enigmatic edits actually mean, instead of trying to revert me wherever you can, I am positive we could make some progress. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Workers' Youth League (Norway). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

as both gained from cooperation and exploitation of the indigenous Spanish Christian population (Especially after 912, during the reign of [[Abd-ar-Rahman III]] and his son, [[Al-Hakam II]], the [[jizya]] has been viewed variously as a head tax, as payment for non-conscription in the military (as non-Muslims were normally prohibited from bearing arms or receiving martial training, or as a toll was higher than in the much publicized Christian pogromes in the [[Rhineland]] slightly later.<<ref name="Fernández-Morera, 2006, 29">Darío Fernández-Morera: [http://www.mmisi.org/ir/41_02/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is an ongoing discussion about your contributions to the "Themes" section of the Elysium article. --Mox La Push (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear if you think that the original use of BC/AD or BCE/CE establishes future use, but that isn't what WP:ERA says. I wish it were more specific about how to determine the established usage, but if, for instance, an article started at BCE in 2002 and someone changed it to BC in 2006 and it had stayed that way since, reverting to BCE would be inappropriate. Sorry if you realise all this, but some editors think that the original usage rules. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this comment of yours. I agree that WP:Era could be still clearer in this respect, I don't see however your interpretation as "inappropiate" supported by WP:Era. The key word in the bold part is "do not change the established era style" without prior discussion. If the notation is changed nonetheless and covert at that, that is without discussion on the talk page, then it is clear that the change violates WP:Era and can be undone. Also note that the majority of these changes seem to be done by IPs who either do not know about this rule or are sometimes socketpuppet pursuing a mission exactly in this respect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree with GPM here, though it might depend on the precise circumstances, such as when the bulk of the content was added. Also on the last point- thankfully I see few cases where it comes to a real "discussion" at talk. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not think that 'established' necessarily means discussed. If an article starts in 2002 as AD and in 2004 is changed without discussion and that change exists until 11 years later, CE is clearly 'established', discussion or not. And it appears to me that you, GPM, are only searching for AD to CE changes which I find hard to see as an NPOV attempt to make articles meet WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to your personal definition of WP:ERA. But please don't try to enforce your individual views on others. If there has never been a discussion on talk page, the change cannot be called "established" in any way. Your interpretation would only embolden guerilla tactics, very often by anonymous IPS, who can hope to get away with clandestine notation changes. This is as much against the spirit as the wording of WP:ERA. EOD here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet master Paul Bedson added that - he commonly misrepresented sources. I'm sure if all his and his socks' edits were removed Wikipedia would be the better for it. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He cited an English quote for a French-language article, that made me wary. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of sheer curiosity, why do you think it is that the ancient Romans needed to produce so much more iron per annum than the contemporaneous Chinese of the Han Dynasty?

Was it because the Roman system had a free market conducting iron manufacturing, whereas for much of the Han Dynasty (minus periods during the Eastern Han) there was a government monopoly on iron manufacturing that could have stifled its growth in the crib? I'm suddenly reminded of the modern planned economy attempted by the PRC and the disastrous results they saw during the so-called Great Leap Forward, which (ironically) included iron manufacturing.

Were the Romans using far more iron kitchenware on average (versus Chinese lacquerware, lol), or was all of this largely because of the demands of their respective militaries?

As you probably already know, the regular foot soldiers of Han armies usually wore lacquered leather armor, while they also had iron scale mail (which I'm guessing wasn't available for the poorly trained mass of conscripts as opposed to the professional Northern Army). They were also equipped with standard iron weaponry, as bronze swords were used only for ceremonial purposes.

On the other hand, I can only imagine the amount of armor the Roman army would have needed when equipping virtually each of its legionaries. Each of them basically needed a coat of lorica hamata chain mail or lorica squamata scale mail (and perhaps even lorica segmentata in the 1st-2nd century AD), a gladius sword (and later the spatha), a pugio as a secondary weapon, a pilum to throw at the enemy, and finally their helmets. The latter, if I'm not mistaken, were almost universally made of bronze even during the late Republic (Coolus helmet, Montefortino helmet), but as the age of the Roman Empire progressed iron helmets became much more common (Imperial helmet). Correct?

By the way, you'll be surprised to learn I am currently in an EU country at the moment (UK, Northern Ireland), getting a master's degree in Medieval and Early Modern History (with a dissertation topic on medieval chronicles).Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still alive, bro? Lol. I'm going to Munich by the way, in early August. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the article on the printing press. It seems you still are alive and well! Wasn't it China History Forum where I first met you online, anyways? Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EoRdE6 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gun Powder Ma,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Printing Revolution for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, History of printing.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —swpb^T 20:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Robert K. G. Temple where I've added some material from 2 reviews of his book on China. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be happy to know that I've rewritten Sino-Roman relations, which you delisted as a good article. You'll probably like it now. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at what I've done to Sogdia. Albert von Le Coq was an interesting guy (lol, a German brewer turned archaeologist). The German Turfan expeditions and Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves are rather fascinating and neglected topics, especially when considering the Indo-European and Eastern-Iranian presence in northwest China from antiquity onwards. Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ironclad warship has been quiet for a few years but anon IP editors in favor of adding Korean turtle ships are active again. I see you have commented on this in the past and have some knowledge of the subject.Dialectric (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a warning you gave someone: " Please "do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." The article was created February 2005 with no date. BC was added in June. Just over 5 years later the article was changed to BCE and has lasted as BCE for 10 years, which makes that the established style. You've violated WP:ERA. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have not despaired of wiki entirely and fled the scene! Thanks for excellent links, but even more for your unique take on important issues. Nuff said.

Ragity (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman bridges has been nominated for merging with Template:Roman roads. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman bridges has been nominated for merging with Template:Ancient Tiber bridges. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of sourced content using false and misrepresentation of sources without proper attribution has been noted. In fact you merely delete entire summaries based on ONE source you have a problem with, yet also several other sources as well. Please provide the quoted content for all sources you have a problem with in the talk page of the respective articles. You did not provide a "true quote" in any of your summaries. You merely put "disputable" in brackets and called it a day. Consider this the last warning.Qiushufang (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputable" is actually a direct quotation of Gabor. He called all those references from before 1442 "disputable". That means I have read the sources, while I suspect you don't even know the references you edit war over. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately things got to a point where I felt like I had to report you for edit warring. No hard feelings intended, I think this is for the best at this point ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have reported me and there is still currently an ongoing discussion on the report page. You have also been reported by ArchimedesTheInventor, so the least you could do is first resolve those cases and respond appropriately before continuing to edit. It's good manners don't you agree? Qiushufang (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the edit-war please. You are clearly hounding me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if you are aware that Qiufushang has likely instigated meatpuppetry regarding a dispute you were involved with, via the Asian nationalist forum "Asian Identity"... ?

The case is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang#11_April_2020 - Hunan201p (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. Keen eye. I commented over there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to notify that you have been reported again. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this article. I notice that you got Gunpowder Empires stubbed, however they seem to have basically taken all the dubious material from Gunpowder Empires and put it into Age of the Islamic Gunpowders instead. Because clearly that's how to solve the problems of original research!
I can't remember nominating an article for deletion before, but this one surely has to go. Thoughts? Merlinme (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got a ping that you sent me an email. However, I have not yet resolved the fact that I no longer get emails though Wikipedia. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I had to take some time to consult with the other OTRS admins to make sure I was right. If you no longer want the URL included in the attribution template, then the text must also be removed. Since I am not an enwiki admin, you might want to reach out to one to revdel all of the revisions with your text in it. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 22:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewrbowker, This is interesting. I reached out to OTRS admins to discuss this issue, partly because I was concerned that changing the template as requested would require removal and RevDel of the content. However, I thin talked myself into the position that this conclusion did not follow. Should we talk further, either on the OTRS wiki or via email? As the post above notes, I am not currently receiving emails though the wikipedia option, and I haven't found the time to sort out the problem. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick Apologies for the delay, the ping got archived for some reason. I did bring this up to the OTRS admin list, but if you want to send an email there I'm OK continuing to discuss this. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gun Powder Ma. If none of the other closers get around to your FLRC by the weekend, I'll have a look at it as part of my usual Sunday closures. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 22:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. That is reliable enough to appear on talk page, while I agree that it is not appropriate for the article yet. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, especially when two of the people have been murdered and presumably have family who are still grieving for them. BLP content must be verifiable in reliable sources, not Twitter posts of screen shots. - MrX 🖋 22:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide newspaper sources in a minute. If you are going to remove this too, I am going to report you, buddy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol—buddy? Anyway, I have no objection to you posting something that is reliably sourced. I urge you to proceed with caution. - MrX 🖋 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm User:Barkeep49, an administrator on Wikipedia. When there are RS reporting the facts from that Twitter thread it would be appropriate to have a discussion about if/how to include them in the article. However, the people mentioned in that Twitter thread are covered under BLP, which includes the recently deceased. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am going to add a few other sources instead over there, local news outlets. I wanted to post them first only on talk page because I feel we can afford the time it takes until bigger media have picked them up. But I consider them sufficiently reliable to be posted on talk already now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49, you are invited to take part in this discussion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an annual reminder it seems:

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• EvergreenFir, Barkeep49, I just scrubbed their post on WP:RSN. Please check to see if you agree and if anything should come of them having posted it. Gun Powder Ma, I consider that post a serious BLP violation, and the website of course completely unacceptable for use here. I've scrubbed some material from this talk page also (and BTW, your edit to Lewis Hamilton is quite insightful); please consider this a warning, and err on the side of caution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information you scrubbed is already posted on local news and listed in reliable databases, even state-owned ones. I will remind you that you don't appear very neutral on the subject when it is on national news too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then link to reliable national news sources. As I think you realize you're going to likely need consensus to include the information in the article. So it will need discussion. However, you're not able to have that discussion, yet, because the sources used so far have not been of the standard necessary given the gravity of the situation and the strength of the policy (BLP) at play. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a quote in 2010 with a reference. I believe the reference is false and explained why. Could you explain where you got this quote from? Veverve (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gun Powder Ma,

I see you are interested in technical subjects and you contributed to Concrete.

Would you maybe be inclined to contribute to the discussions concerning the arrangement of the categories on concrete on Wikimedia Commons which JopkeB lists on my talk page.

We are in need of a native speaker with some insight into the matter as currently me as a German, JopkeB from the Netherlands and a Portugese user are struggling with the correct terminology.

thank you very much for you attention,

KaiKemmann (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a shithole and will only get even worse. There're "no borders" and anyone can enter, take over and ruin years, centuries, even millennia. In 15 years it will be already totally over, it will be 95% propaganda, spam and nonsense. All your present, past and future efforts will die in vain like tears in the rain.

When you're ready for a better place, let me know. Enable email so I can contact you, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. I often log to remove ubiquitous Jagged 85 spam and check stuff, so it may take several months for me to read the notification. See you. Wikain (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]