User talk:Gun Powder Ma/User talk:Gun Powder Ma/Archive 02

Please don't keep on moving Spread of the printing press
Please don't keep on moving Spread of the printing press. As can be seen from the talk page, you are the only editor who feels that it should be called spread of printing, at least 3 other editors feel that this would be an inaccurate name. You have been moving it unilaterally without even disussing on the talk page. I'm going to move it back, if you feel strongly about it, try for concensus on the talk page first. Don't move it back unilaterally, otherwise you would be break the 3 reverts rule.lk (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chain drive
When you wrote this:

"However, Soedel and Foley disagree by pointing out that 'no earlier instance of such a cam is known, and none as complex is known until the 16th century. It is here that the flat-link chain, often attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, actually made its first appearance.'"

As a rebuttal to this:

"However, Needham points out that this device did not transmit power continuously since the chains 'did not transmit power from shaft to shaft, and hence they were not in the direct line of ancestry of the chain-drive proper.'"

How does that even make sense? How is that a rebuttal? Needham states that the chain drive of Philon did not endlessly and continuously transmit power from shaft to shaft, like Su Song's chain drive. So how is Soedel and Foley's statement above a coherent rebuttal to this specific point? Your use of "however" and "disagree" simply doesn't make sense in this context.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it a rebuttal to Needham's "ancestor" comment. Needham isn't saying that Philon's device didn't incorporate a flat-link chain, he is saying that Philon's flat-link chain did not transmit power continuously. I think you're confusing the two.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe when Needham says "chain-drive proper" he is referring to a chain drive that acts continuously and endlessly (without having to manually work sinews like in Philon's repeating crossbow), which is what Su Song's chain drive was capable of doing since it was powered by hydraulics.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is why is it relevant at all that power was transmitted not continously? The chain drives powered a reloading mechanism, which - very much like guns - always involves a back and forth movement. This does not make it any less than a chain drive, fitting perfectly with the definition given in the article. Your definition of "not in the direct line of ancestry of the chain-drive proper" runs contrary to the articles definition (apart from Soedel and Foley), and therefore Needhmas comment may have little place there. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventions
You do realize that if there are earlier Greek calipers than the Chinese ones, then the caliper passage in List of Chinese inventions may be struck from the roster? See the first introductory paragraph of the article.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not quite understand. First you complain about me - cautiously - crossing out, now you call on me on removing complete passages? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ballista vs bow in the crossbow article
A ballista is not a bow because it uses torsion springs. There is consensus on this. An arrow shooting catapult can be a torsion or tension powered machine and it can have one or two arms. A bow and a crossbow is tension powered and has two arms. The material you inserted didn't evidently show that it concerned such machines and was for this reason removed from the crossbow article. While it is thoroughly refernced, you should use ancient Greek warfare for it. There the ambiguity of catapults is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I see. But you agree that there is place also for bow machines in the crossbow article, don't you? Because the early history of the hand-held and the tripod version is anyway closely interlinked. I would have only wished that you would have moved the - well-sourced - material to a more fitting place instead of merely deleting it which is a bit Rambo-style. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Peronsal attack vs. Your Vandalism
You know what, usually I would apologize to someone for being rude and calling them a "dork" (wow, what a "personal attack"!), but since you maliciously removed cited material in an extreme POV fashion (if not considered outright vandalism and without any explanation), you don't deserve my apology. Cheers!-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are losing it, the plot...Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Gun Powder Ma, I am considering this is somesort of misundertsanding, forget it, I meant the two of you OK, we should get to the talk page at the article. Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica
Hello, Gun Powder Ma I had found a link to the source you provided. So could you express yourself at the talks page? Thank you Anpersonalaccount (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New response on talk page
Hey, Gun Powder Ma, I had response your discussion over the talk page, you might want to further express yourself at there. Take a look! Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Check the whole thing carefully. I undid the reverts of Anpersonalaccount only three times (14:53, 15:07, 15:11), then I actually progressed to add new material. The block is thus unjustified and has to be lifted. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you fully realized that my edits have been now regularly removed for more than a week by the same two collaborating editors, one of whom extra registered for that purpose. I have discussed the matter with the PI already from 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC), but that Pericles simply gave an OR definition, while Anpersonalaccount merely said "I am thinking it is fine to include it to the bullet". Is that the 'contribution' to which I should have reacted...? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR block
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 48 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=231242498&oldid=231240674 (removal of Pi) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=231243314&oldid=231243081 (removal of Pi) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=231243782&oldid=231243562 (removal of Pi) 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=231246210&oldid=231245404 (the crossbow references were the subject of an edit war on 7 August; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_inventions&diff=230436246&oldid=230436019) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

...From the 7th August....4 days ago...fine. And did you then also trace how many more times my additions were removed by Pericles and Anpersonalaccount in the last week...?! Actually, most of my contents has been removed by these two users, so for many days are you planning to block them? Look, the crossbow reference has a factual mistake. Page 6 does not say such a thing. I know because I happened to have the book here before me, and I also happened to know Mr Campbell personally: Shall I send you the page to look for yourself? I also gave an explicit online source which proves the existence of European crossbow BEFORE the 10th century, and which has been removed by the two many times now: Le Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines Did I need the consent of the two to include factual material which is correct to everyone? No, obviously I did not, and therefore the fourth edit cannot count as a revert, which makes your decision wrong to block me, doesn't it?

It is nothing against you, but I am a bit disappointed because your blocking action shows that at Wikipedia two users will always make look a single user as the one who disturbs the peace, irrespective of the sourced material he adds. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you know this, but I blocked Anpersonalaccount for violating WP:3RR as well. I'll look into the Campbell reference and get back to you. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can send you the page 6 along, in case you do not find it elsewhere. Mr. Campbell actually was not concerned at all with the medieval crossbow, but only with ancient mechanical weapons, as already the NAME of his Osprey book explicitly states. I wanted merely to correct that and add more equally sourced material which shows crossbow-like weapons already in antiquity (see dictionaire source above). Do I really need for adding crystal clear facts like that the consent of other editors? ditors who have shown themselves to be principally anti to every addition which does not come from their pen?


 * Please also see the from the impermissible change of MY userpage by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ below, to see how some people are trying to push here a (sinocentristic) agenda. Does ㄏㄨㄤㄉ get away with such a disruptive behaviour? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anpersonalaccount reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: )

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

Time reported: 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

The user has reverted five edits of mine and this disruptive behaviour has now been going on for more than a week. When you look at the talk page, you see he first anonymously tried to harrass me (going by 116.15.95.30 or 70.24.168.124), and he specifically registered only to undo my contributions to the article. My contributions to this article rest on the claim made in the introduction which - this is the important point - states that the 'inventions' described below were the world's first ones. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

Gun Powder, you are making unfounded accusations. Just because everyone disagrees with your anti-China POV and your disruptive edits on the article, you do not need to accuse us as being "sockpuppets". Please be rational. 70.24.143.65 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Register like everyone does and I might take you serious. Your constant removal of my material from an anonymous IP is against WPs spirit, as you well know. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Response on talk page
Hello Gun Powder Ma, I am thinking there must be a misundertsanding, therefore I had added a response over the talk page. Take a look at it! Thanks Anpersonalaccount (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)