Talk:Gunpowder/Archive 12

Recent Edits
Vtria I invite you to discuss any changes that are clearly against the grain of the rest of the article before you make any further revisions, regardless of your claimed source. Meatwaggon (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded, some of the statements are just plain wrong. Either they have been misread or the reference "Explosives", which does not correctly display itself in the citations, is providing false information.Pyrotec (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pyrotech,
 * I've supplied the quotations here and in the article (for the Europe section).
 * Meatwaggon's manner of talking is clarly unfriendly and he has been dormant for a long time, only to have come out when someone edited on the 'gunpowder' article. His actions also follow an IP, which may have been him.
 * Vtria 08 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]
 * Unlike some people, I have ever only had one IP address and one name here the entire time I have edited with Wikipedia. Unlike some people, I do not and have never used sockpuppets or hidden behind different usernames.  My credibility here is not under question.  Who are you, may I ask?  Care to answer honestly as to whether this is your first time and first username editing with Wikipedia?  My "actions" certainly did follow an IP, which was indeed me, only I had not remembered to log into that time.  I make my identity consistent and well known.  Again, you are the one whose identity is uncertain.  A new editor.  Or are you?  Meatwaggon (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

From:.

- Vtria 08 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Thanks for adding the reference to go with your recent edits on the European section. The problem, and I can sympathise with the view expressed by Meatwaggon, can be seen by comparing the revisions before and after your recent edit. The "before" edit, which I marked as dubious, said that Roger Bacon gave explicit instructions for the manufacture of blackpowder - that is true as far as it goes. The quoted reference now states that the instructions were given in a code that was difficult to encipher - this is a much more accurate statement. However, that must be one of the few references that claims that gunpowder might have been discovered in Europe. Most credible sources (including those already in the article) conclude that gunpowder came to Europe via China and India.


 * Not to mention the author of this article he's quoting from is an "industry manager" in the explosives department of DuPont, a person I would trust to impart iron-clad historical wisdom and to have plumbed the depths of academic consensus as I would trust a lumbermill owner to give me an accurate description of the diversification of angiosperms during the Carboniferous. Based on what "Vtria" quoted already, he seems to be doing a bang-up job so far. Meatwaggon (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have chosen to edit an article which was the subject of a number of serious edit wars, which can be summarised (somewhat imprecisely) as to whether gunpowder was invented in China and then came via India, was invented in China and India independently, and what was the precise contribution of the Islamic world, etc. Your edits appeared to be biased to me and possibly more so to Meatwaggon. Unfortunately, the Gunpowder article also suffers from vandalism. These comments also apply to the History of gunpowder.Pyrotec (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia Britannica article clearly mentions: "It may never be known with certainty who invented the first explosive, black powder, which is a mixture of saltpetre (potassium nitrate), sulfur, and charcoal (carbon). The consensus is that it originated in China in the 10th century, but that its use there was almost exclusively in fireworks and signals."


 * I would be well within my rights to put those lines in the article. However, our energies are best used improving the lackluster Europe, Islam and South Asia sections. That's why I can't see what Meatwaggon's problem is. [sock]


 * You would certainly not be well within your rights to put those lines in the article. Besides the fact that the statements you quoted are in serious contradistinction to the evidence and sources presented in the rest of the article, they without a doubt represent a miniscule minority of the weight of the mainstream academic community, if they are represented at all.  What you are effectively doing (and of course this is your clear and obvious intention) is to cast significant doubt on the origins of gunpowder as if this is even a topic that is seriously debated anymore in academic circles.  You would also be contributing to serious misinformation by putting in those lines from Britannica which were clearly dubious and poorly researched (assuming they came from Britannic), especially in regard to the claim that the use of gunpowder in China was almost exclusively in fireworks and signals, which may be your intent as well.  As presented in this article as well as in the history of gunpowder section, China found many uses for gunpowder which are copiously documented and referenced.  If you didn't know that already, you don't deserve to edit here.  If you knew that already, you deserve even less to edit here.  As I said, your edits clearly go against the overwhelming weight of the rest of the evidence presented in this article and do not deserve the kind of place here that you are trying to insinuate in, your feeble attempt to sound ecumenical notwithstanding, as if that was somehow going to fool anybody. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * His method of promoting a certain part of the world apparently includes attacking other countries which he sees as competition. My editing pattern, on the other hand, has been keeping myself to Europe, Islam and India. [sock]


 * Coming from someone who has made it a point to deliberately minimize the contributions that certain parts of the world have made, I find your statement simply laughable. I also find ludicrous your attempt to spindoctor my actions as "attacking other countries", when this is exactly what you are doing, and have been doing. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also can't see the way in which the lines: "The Arabs had developed a bamboo tube reinforced with iron, effectively the first gun, which used a charge of black powder to fire an arrow" or "Medieval scholar Roger Bacon had written explicit instructions for the preparation of black powder by 1242" hurt his agenda of promoting a certain part of the world (clear by his contributions). [sock]


 * Because this is also in contradiction to the already presented (and referenced) sources in the cannon/gun articles that Chinese fire lances (what you're describing) was invented soon after the invention of gunpowder. And again, your contributions now and in the past have clearly spelled out your agenda for everyone very plainly: using poorly researched, essentially non-representative (academically) viewpoints in an attempt to cast significant doubt on the origins of gunpowder where there is no significant doubt. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The line "Most sources credit the discovery of gunpowder to Chinese alchemists in the 9th century searching for an elixir of immortality." is already in the article.


 * Best of luck in keeping this place sane,


 * Vtria 08 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * It was quite sane before you started an edit war, and it will be sane again when the page is restored to what it was before you tried to bias it toward your non-existent viewpoint. Meatwaggon (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to accept "It may never be known with certainty who invented the first explosive, black powder, which is a mixture of saltpetre (potassium nitrate), sulfur, and charcoal (carbon). The consensus is that it originated in China in the 10th century, but that its use there was almost exclusively in fireworks and signals." - but is it accurately summarised as "gunpowder may have originated in Europe"?. Wars have been started over smaller things. We had a war over an apparent quote from Partington, I could not find it in my (borrowed) copy of Partington (1960) and said so. The author who added it was called to account; the quote came from Bert Hall's introduction to the 1999 edition. My interest is Europe and I have most of the references on my bookshelf, so I'm fairly neutral. Care is certainly needed when discussing pre-European events: I just thought that you should know. I also would like to expand the European section (and the USA - du Pont in particular as I have material to hand).Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that you are neutral and that you have been taking care of this article for some time now. During the next couple of days I might be able to collect a few quotations on Europe and the USA from the sources I have at hand.


 * You're right when you say that 'Care is certainly needed when discussing pre-European events.' In here that probably means that Islamic technological advances cannot be stated using even the most reliable sources because someone might delete them first and then 'call you out' to 'discuss'. What editors like 'Meatwaggon' should realize is that deleting content written by others (using both id and ip) and 'calling them out' without meaning well can lead to no good.


 * Vtria 08 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * "Care", as I used it, was intended to mean one of the OCD definitions of "careful" - done with or showing thought and attention.Pyrotec (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement. What do you mean by "without meaning well"?  That is your POV, whereas my intent was and is to prevent random editors like yourself from introducting misrepresentative or sometimes even downright untruthful statements into an article which has been the subject of edit wars in the past over precisely the same points you are bringing up now/again.  Meatwaggon (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Meatwaggon, I urge you to write a separate reply at the bottom of the section instead of inserting lines at the bottom of every paragraph. It's confusing.

In reply to this:


 * I'm not a new user and neither have I never claimed to be one. Care to see what I have been up to in March and April? [sock]


 * I looked over your profile already, long before tonight. How about before March, under a different username?  Your editing preferences, spelling preferences, and topic choices waft a strong scent of familiarity (and I'm not the only one who thinks so). Meatwaggon (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to learn more about Encyclopedia Britannica articles. The reason why I wikilinked that text is so that you can read the Wikipedia article on Encyclopedia Britannica and acquaint yourself to some extent. [sock]


 * I am suggesting, as you know and have coveniently chosen to ignore, that your Online Britannica article is written by someone who is not considered a historical expert in gunpowder and has already displayed evidence of historical inaccuracy when measured against actual legitimate sources (like Needham). BTW, your haughty air of condescension is amusing as well, as if reading a piss-poor article somehow gives you more legitimacy.  I need to "acquaint myself to some extent"?  Funny, I already feel I know you so well. Meatwaggon (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As for that edit war you seem to find 'simply laughable':
 * IP deletes Europe and Islam.
 * You delete Islam and Europe.
 * You delete Islam.
 * Something tells me that you're going to delete again and write something like: 'Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement' (copy/paste from your last post). [sock]


 * Please don't ever again cut and splice different statements I've made into a new pseudo-statement of your own authorship. It is a testament to your level of credibility and intellectual integrity.  I don't find the edit war that you've started any laughing matter at all.  These edits I made are all to undo YOUR ill-supported and misrepresentative statements.  I could also easily make an idiotic parade of your own recent diarrhea of edits to this page, but what would that prove that we don't already know about you? Meatwaggon (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And then, for reasons best known to you, you write this this bizzare post. Is this how you normally talk? [sock]


 * I have a feeling you know exactly the reasons I wrote those words to you. Meatwaggon (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good day Meatwaggon, Try not to delete again and lighten up, ok?

Vtria 08 (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Not while you're around these parts again, my friend. Vigilance is the eternal price of Wikipedia, and I've been monitoring this thread for a long time, waiting for you to pop up again, and lo and behold, here you are again. Meatwaggon (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Meatwaggon, You have to stop writing bizarre replies such as this.


 * You obviously have no idea of good scholarship as you delete portions of the article sourced by Encyclopedia Britannica first and then go on to write: "BTW, your haughty air of condescension is amusing as well, as if reading a piss-poor article somehow gives you more legitimacy." [sock]


 * Ahem, YOU obviously have no idea of good scholarship, as was already pointed out that this online article was written this year by a non-historian white collar business worker in the employ of DuPont, who has already written pointed inaccuracies as compared to the established legitimate sources on gunpowder, and who above all goes against the overwhelming consensus of academia that gunpowder was not either invented in the Islamic world or in Europe, or that China certainly did not use gunpowder "almost exclusively" for fireworks and such, which in and of itself is a clear testament to the credibility of the authorship of the source that you cite. I note that you prefer to reference it as a Britannica source rather than under its direct author, as if doing so will give your posting more credibility.  It doesn't.  Meatwaggon (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're also beginning to scare me a little now. I have been here long enough to know that you are in violation of WP:civil, WP:troll and WP:battle. I chose to talk you even as you are constantly attacking me both by deleting my edits and by hurling profane insults. Now I'm convinced that you are here to troll and intimidate others and for no other reason. [sock]


 * You have been here long indeed. Your preferences for topics to edit, your manner of discussion and writing, your tendency to misspell the same words, your intimate knowledge of the wiki style of editing though you've only (supposedly) been here for less than two months), your familiar inclination to cite 'wiki violations', all point to you being here in the past (way before your current incarnation/username) and repeating the same behaviors now that made you distinguishable to us before.  "Profane insults", eh?  You need to consult a dictionary and look up the definition of "profanity", I wager.  And you know as well as I do that the words I speak to you are definitely not for "no other reason" than to intimidate you.  They are meant as a warning to you: you've been banned here before, and if your behavior continues in its old ways, you will eventually get banned again.  It's only a matter of time (and personal habit). Meatwaggon (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I may consider other options. Bizarre attacks such as these can simply not be allowed to continue. [sock]


 * What is that, some kind of threat? I would welcome the opportunity for administrators to come here and sort things out.  They will likely be able to cast light on your identity, and I'm willing to bet real money on who you really are.  Or have you learned more effective ways of thwarting Checkuser this time?  Either way, if you would like to bring in an administator into this discussion, by all means. Meatwaggon (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vtria 08 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Both Bhattacharya and Khan, Chapters 2 & 3 in Buchanan (2006), provide a discussion from an Indian perspective and they are interesting to read, as is Elliott (1875), but I don't wish to contribute to that area of history, at the present time. If you have a lot of time, read the archives above. There is a lot of information there as well as detailed discussions of whether an author (of a book - not a wikipedia editor) is a reliable source. Editing the pre-history is not high on my list of things to do; but the last 300 years or so is.Pyrotec (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll check the sources out. The last 300 years is when some of the real developments were made and it has to be less ridden with problems than editing 'pre-history'. Vtria 08 (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]

Encyclopedia Britannica
Here is the quote Meatwaggon keeps deleting:

Meatwaggon, if you have any problems with using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source then you take it to Reliable sources. Tell them that you want Wikipedia to change its policies on citing Encyclopedia Britannica. Scare them till it works.

And if you do something like that stalker from When a stranger calls again then I'm warning you that I'll take it to Personal attack intervention noticeboard and request them for a ban. You clearly need to be put away from sane people.

Good Day, Vtria 08 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]
 * Hmm, so ignoring your idiotic attempts at caricaturization (which I find hard to say is anything other than a personal attack), I will have to say that the wiki policy on sourcing is pretty explicit: "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views". This is repeated several times in the Reliable sources section.  Your view (and the views/claims made by the author) is NOT a significant minority, it may not even be a miniscule minority.  It represents the view of one author that Britannica somehow temporarily lost its marbles in choosing to write an online article on gunpowder, who as I said before is not even a historian, but an employee of DuPont in the explosives department.  Apparently that was somehow enough to convince some pencil pusher at Britannica that he was qualified to write this article.  Secondly, his statements to the effect that the Chinese application of gunpowder was "almost exclusively" in fireworks and signals, are directly contrary to all the evidence THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE GUNPOWDER ARTICLE HERE.  This shows at the least poor intellectual rigor and at the worst, deliberate bias.  Thirdly, his other statements on the origins of gunpowder, the invention of the first gun, etc. are also directly contrary to the evidence presented here.  In any case, his work does not belong here, and unless you can find additional ACADEMIC sources which agree with the statements made by this author, inserting his section into this article misrepresents what the academic community (as laid out in the article) thinks of the origins of gunpowder and gives weight to a view which is essentially non-existent, and therefore does not represent any semblance of a "significant-minority" view.  Your section is being deleted. Meatwaggon (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Day, Vtria 08 (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]
 * Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source.
 * Your attempts at revert warring with other editors convince me that you are not acting in good faith.
 * I plan to compile a list of your personal attacks and submit it to an administrator. I'll let you know when it happens.


 * Be sure to include your own personal attacks in your "compilation". It's getting rather tiring listening to your mantra of "Britannica is a reliable source" instead of responding to my points directly with anything meaningful.  Britannica is generally a reliable source.  It doesn't mean it always is, or that all its authors are reliable, or that it accurately represents academic opinion.  In this case, none of the above is true.  And until you can show that the claims made by your touted author represent even a _minority_ view of academic opinion regarding gunpowder and its particulars, you've got nothing and you know it, no matter how many times you recite "Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source".  You're back to your same old bag of tricks again, Moerou, just like last year when you tried to edit war this article to death.  It took a good number of knowledgeable people to take it apart piece by piece and reconstruct it to its present form in the aftermath of that debacle.  I'd like to not see that kind of mess happen to this article yet another time by you coming back here and trying the same things all over again.  So you go ahead and make your submission, no need to let me know, as I don't actually care.  Let's see what happens, shall we?  Meatwaggon (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Meatwaggon says: "Britannica is generally a reliable source. It doesn't mean it always is, or that all its authors are reliable, or that it accurately represents academic opinion.  In this case, none of the above is true."


 * Do you decide which Encyclopedia Britannica article is reliable and which one is not? If an article merits inclusion into Britannica then its surely worth adding here.


 * It would be best if you addressed a reply to me and someone else in two different posts. I have added your "sock puppet" allegations to my submission. Not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person, Meatwaggon. The quotation that I use is from 2008, which contradicts your "just like last year" claims.


 * Good Day, Vtria 08 (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * It's true. Not everyone who disagrees with me is the same person.  But you have a very distinctive style, and after several months of interaction last year, well let's just say I got to know you.  Perhaps you can say the same about me.  On the other hand I am the same user as I was last year.  I also find it quite impressive that after apparently less than two months of being a brand new Wikipedia editor, you have already developed an old hander's grasp of how to effortlessly cite, link and quote various Wiki rules.  Not to mention the Personal attack intervention noticeboard was closed down last year.  Being 'new', how would you have known of this board, unless you knew about it before last year?  But fine, have it your way, we'll play as if neither of us know who you are.  Regarding Britannica articles, as in any other article, most normal people use the same criteria of judging an article's merit:  WHAT DOES IT SAY?  The fact that you consistently refuse to apply this criterion to your article even after having it repeatedly pointed out to you, leads me to believe that you are the one who is not acting in good faith.  I have brought up several points which suggest this author is neither reliable nor representative, and which are clearly contradictory to what we already have copiously documented in the rest of the article, but all you can reply with is "Britannica is reliable" over and over again while pointedly avoiding the details and threatening to submit "compilations" of my posts.  Well the Devil is in the details as they say, and your details don't pan out.  Try not to repeat your mantra yet again and actually respond to the details of the criticism with some intellectual rigor instead of giving a blind pass to the article because it's "Britannica". Meatwaggon (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not everyone who disagrees with me is the same person. But you have a very distinctive style, and after several months of interaction last year, well let's just say I got to know you. "?


 * God, Meatwaggon. What exactly is your problem?


 * Listen, You have creeped me out for the final time and I'm going to bring that up in my complaint to an administrator. I'm not going to stand here and let you play the creepy stalker when you have yet to do anything remotely useful around here. Vtria 08 (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * No problem, just be sure to let them know how you as a 'new' editor were threatening to report me to a board that was discontinued last year. By the way, try looking up wikilawyering before you cite reliable source again. Meatwaggon (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I would have been here last year then I would have known that the board closed down. I may have picked up a link to a closed board from discussion pages while looking for information on Wiki policies but it still links me up with Administrators' noticeboard and Wikiquette alerts.
 * Vtria 08 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Or how about you didn't realize it had closed down since you were booted from Wiki last year. And regardless of what it "links" up to, if you were new, you would certainly have viewed that page before threatening me with it and seen that it was closed down.  An older editor who already knew that page wouldn't have bothered to check it before he linked it. Meatwaggon (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah Right, It links to Administrators' noticeboard and Wikiquette alerts. Older editors know that it was closed down. Vtria 08 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * Yes, you've already said it links you up to those sites. On the other hand, pointing that out does what for you?  Nothing.  This sounds more like desperate handwaving.  You threatened to report me directly to that board, not direct me to those two links on that board or help yourself out to those links.  As a new user, you wouldn't have known about this board, and as an older user you would not have bothered checking this board.  Your claim that you "may" have picked up the link on a discussion board without checking it out at all smells like fish.  Which board was that, BTW?  In terms of older editors knowing about it closing down, some may, some may not.  Especially people who were banned from Wikipedia for much of the year last year and wouldn't have edited or gotten into disputes such that they may have considered using this board.  Meatwaggon (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not that person whether you believe it or not. Devising new ways of calling me an 'expert' in a short time or someone who mistakingly linked to a closed board makes no difference. Blatant abuse at the hands of a long-distance internet user I put with and nobody interfered when they should clearly have stopped your accusation spree. But revert warring is another thing and you have done it too many times. I'm asking you to cease and desist. Content disputes are in no way an excuse to scare other editors out of here.


 * P.S.: Give me the exact user id of the internet user you think I'm impersonating. I'll message them and will stop this through the most appropriate channels.


 * Good Day,
 * Vtria 08 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * I think that this whole 'thinking of another person' thing is farcical. You want the content published in Encyclopedia Britannica to be withheld at any cost. You still will go on edit-warring and undoing Encyclopedia Britannica. Vtria 08 (talk) [sock]


 * You are that person, indeed, whether you admit it or not. Your 'mistake' has surely given you away, along with many other clues, and now you are left with being unable to defend yourself in regards to how you somehow got access to that page and somehow failed to check it out before threatening me with it.  As you claim, you "may" have come across it perusing another discussion.  Please link to that discussion, if such a discussion even exists.  It must have been recently since we haven't been disputing for more than a week or two.  You also tried to put up a smoke screen about the links it provided, but that only makes you look worse, because you'd have to have already viewed that page to know those links were there.  I suspect what probably happened was that you got a small shock after I told you the site was closed, you then looked at it yourself to confirm, and tried to come up with some excuses about why that page was still useful in this context and how you as a supposedly 'new' user knew about a page that was no longer in use.  You still have to explain how someone of your exact mannerism, style of editing, tendency to gravitate towards certain articles to edit, and numerous other quirks, someone just like Moerou Toukon who was banned last year for edit warring and sockpuppetry, is not in fact this same person returning to your same old haunts after a hiatus/ban to start the same trouble all over again.  I think that other editors of this page have not chimed in because they don't wish to stick their necks out and point, but I will.  On the other hand, based on what a few of them have already posted, they don't agree with your insertions either, as you have noticed.  Also, I already told you several times that the username was banned, but instead you choose to conveniently ignore that and instead put up this little charade about writing an email to clear things up, as if that is going to fool anyone.


 * Regarding the details of the Britannica piece, you once again fail to respond directly to criticism of your article and authorship (as I predicted), and once again can only repeat your mantra that Britannica is a reliable source and therefore this article should be included regardless of its legitimacy. Again, that only makes you look worse, and every time you decline to respond directly is yet another sign that you are not acting here in good faith.  I told you to go check out wikilawyering.  If you had actually bothered to check the link out, it clearly applies to someone like you who is trying to strongarm an otherwise academically illegitimate section into this article using the letter of the guideline, but ignoring the spirit of it.  And I'm not trying to scare you out of here at all, I'm asking you to stand up like a man and respond directly to criticisms both about your article and about yourself, because I'd really like to hear your answers.  Seriously, stop the mantra and respond with some intellectual rigor, if you are capable of it.  In either case you need to stop your blatant edit warring until you can do so.  Cheers.  Meatwaggon (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked you politely to cease and desist but you clearly have another agenda in mind. You requested me for 'intellectual rigor' and I have obliged. You now have the complete quote from Encyclopedia Britannica.


 * How is that for 'intellectual rigor'?


 * Cheers, Vtria 08 (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [sock]


 * I removed some of it. Read the section below and cease edit-waring.Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vtria, you have NO intellectual rigor and you once again demonstrate this to the whole world by simply pasting the same quote once again and calling it intellectual rigor, even though I wrote a lengthy exhortation for you to stand up like a man and directly discuss with me some of the issues I raised about your quote and about yourself. You have pointedly refused to do either.  I think that this speaks loud and clear about you and your agenda here at Wikipedia generally and in the Gunpowder section specifically.  As I said before, you are back to your same old edit-warring behaviors once again, and it’s only a matter of time before someone comes down here with the big stick and bans you again, just like last year. Meatwaggon (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)