User talk:John Smith's/Archive 2

New format - can't have your cake and eat it
The new format is not good, because it is repeating content. There are two options:

1. Go back to the original format 2. Remove the bottom section and put them all into the relevant categories

Which do you want? John Smith&#39;s 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets discuss this under the "New Format" section for the page. Dirtymentality 06:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands
It looks like USer:HongQiGong is continuing his struggle. I've gone ahead and left a note on his talk page and in the edit summary suggesting he take the issue to the talk page, hopefully he'll take my advice and we can actually work this out. As things stand I must confess to being somewhat baffled as to what his objection is. -- Daduzi  talk  05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Baoshan1937-Asahi-01.jpg
First of all, if you continue to revert, update the date of the "unknown" tag. Otherwise, a sysop may accidentally delete that page.

As for the Japanese copyright law, there is no problem. According to the current copyright law, a photograpgh enters the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator. But pre-1956 photographs are not affected by the current law because they had already entered the public domain before the current law became effective (see 著作権の保護期間). FYI, the old copyright law states:
 * 写真著作権ハ十年間継続ス (Article 23 Section 1).

I don't think we should provide detailed explanations about the pre-1971 copyright law on every individual page though I think it should be presented somewhere on the Wikipedia, Category or Template namespace.

As for Chinese copyright laws, I only consulted Template:PD-China. --Nanshu 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan poll
Hi, there.

I placed a notice regarding your poll in Current surveys. Also, I asked User Nihonjoe to place a similar message in the Japan and the Korea "notice boards" pages. Please check them for accuracy. Thanks.--Endroit 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't hear from Nihonjoe, so I went ahead and posted the messages myself at:
 * Wikipedia talk:Korea-related topics notice board
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
 * Again, please check them for accuracy. Thanks.--Endroit 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image
Hi John, I can't give an opinion without knowing what the image is (and even then I might not be able to, as I'm not an image expert by any means). I saw from your contribs that there was a query about but I see it does have a source, so I'm not sure what the problem is. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say they're fine to keep, because they're of historical importance, he has provided a source for them, and one of the sites says they are public domain, though it doesn't say how it knows that. Another tag that can be used is (at least I think that's it), which is fair use, but regarded as the kind of fair use that is particularly safe to use for a variety of reasons, none of which I'm in a position to judge. A good person to speak to about images is User:Jkelly, who is very knowledgeable. As for how to nominate them for deletion, see Images for deletion. SlimVirgin (talk)  10:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's for everyone. See Images_for_deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop listing stuff for speedy deletion. Immediately.
Please stop listing images for speedy deletion either here or on Commons, and start discussing the status of images instead of tagging them for speedy. I do not care if you really have a case or not with any of these images, but you are being incredibly disruptive by reverting speedy tags over and over and over and over again, and you look like a good candidate for a block right now.

The proper place to list possibly unfree images on Wikipedia is Possibly unfree images; on Commons, use and then list the image on Commons:Deletion requests.

Lastly, under the Berne convention which China and the U.S. are signatory to, copyright over the content of a web site exists automatically upon creation; no copyright notice is needed. If an external web site does not mention its copyright terms anywhere, it is assumed that all content of the site is copyrighted by its creators. Kimchi.sg 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what you did prior to my protection of the Image:Body everywhere.jpg. That's what I was referrring to. Also, your recent activities on Commons. Don't force a sysop to fiddle with your editing priviledges there as well. Kimchi.sg 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No no no, you've misunderstood the terms of the convention. Under the Berne convention, everything is already "properly copyrighted" once it is created. Kimchi.sg 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I suspect that you are right, insofar as these images could only very generously described as being sourced.  Nevertheless, there seems to be resistance to speedy deleting (above).  On en:, the way to handle this is through Possibly unfree images, where parties have more than a week to try to work out the copyright status of images (if we're sure somehow that they are licensed appropriately, and I don't believe that is true, Images and media for deletion is your alternative).  On Commons, it is commons:Template:Deletion requests.  My advice is to use the slowest and most discussion-filled methods possible; even if you're absolutely sure that you're right, less acrimony will be generated that way.  I don't think that we should be hosting them while this discussion takes place, but, oddly enough, that is the standard way of doing things.  Jkelly 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I commented at Commons. I also note below that significant concerns about these photographs continue to be raised.  Surely there must be a standard text on this particular episode that could be consulted.  Jkelly 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is renamed, surely there will be substantially less resistance to removing it from the article. You may also want to consider trying an article request for comments.  This is a verifiability problem as well as a licensing/sourcing of image problem.  I believe that there are editors at WikiProject China and WikiProject Japan who may have more background, and be able to help clear the matter up.  Jkelly 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is unfree, and fails to Fair use criteria, then it will be deleted within forty-eight hours. If it doesn't fail those criteria, and it still needs deleting for some reason, it would go to WP:IFD, which is faster than WP:PUI.  Jkelly 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch
The photo is not taken in the area or time period recognised by historians (Japanese, Chinese and the Westerners) to fall into the definition of Nanking Massacre. It's a photo from the battle of Huschow. So it't can't be a photo of TTCD. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Esus/crime%81@q.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nanking_Massacre#.22Ten_Thousand_Corpse_Ditch.22_attribution Some still objected to deletion because, they argue that, it is still somewhere "around" the time and area of Nanking Massacre, I call it an "episode" theory. That's their personal POV and hence being an original research. They have to show from verified source that battle of Huschow is a part of Nanking Massacre. As far as I know, two battle are treated separatedly. If there is a historian who include battle of Huschow to be part of Nanking, then NPOV demands that clear POV attribution is made. Anyway, that's still doesn't justify labbeling the photo as TTCD. I don't object to the presentation Japanese militarly atrocities, but "massacre" side tend to treat historical material too carelessly. This photo is a good example. If it is from proper historical work, each photo would have source citation. None of photos from the Princeton Galley have one. It's a amature's work without verified reliable source, hence it fail wikipedia criteria. I got tired of debating with people who see wikipedia policy as a mean rather than the end. So I left the debate. I was FWBOarticle, btw. Vapour
 * Let me know when the arbitration process or VforD start. Vapour
 * If there is a photo of a chimp and it is described as a photo of a gorilla, it is "categorically" wrong. "It's still a related primate (i.e. massacre) so gorilla description should stay" isn't a workable argument. It's just show that how a partisanship could defie common sence and logic.  Another related issue is whether the photo should remain in the Nanking Massacre article. Verification criteria demand reilable source(s) which designate Battle of Huschow as part of Nanking Massacre. War Crime Tribunal certainly didn't. In that instance, Nanking is defined as the city and it's suburb. Even if one apply a broader area definiton of Nanking Massacre, which is Nanking special municipality area, Battle of Huschow fall outside of it. So far, their personal POV that it does fall into Nanking massacre doesn't count because it is an original research. Stick to Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research and you should be fine. Vapour
 * Hmmm, it's bit confusing because you made delete application of so many photos. I don't think you need my help in Ten thousand corpose ditch. The original source is verified and demonstrated so the photo just have to be renamed. You don't need my help in regard to copyright violation. Fairuse, in my opinion, doesn't apply in this instance considering that the copyright holder can expect to gain monetary gain by licencing such photo. On the other hand, those photos whose original source are unknown but still pop up in the like of Alice Chang's book is a bit of grey in term of wikipedia policy. It is sort of "unverified published" material, which is a bit of contradiction in term of verification policy. In my opinion, photos without original source, require POV attributio. That is it should be shown as, for example, "Alice Chang claim this photo represent such and such atrocities" rather than presenting Chang's POV as a truth. Vapour

Image:Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle.jpg
see my response on my talk page.

For images with sources that are an Internet link - do expect that link to last forever?

--Duk 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gaule96.jpg
Hi John. I had my "sorry but it wasn't me" response all ready when I read the image title, but it was indeed me who uploaded the image (a long time ago). I can't honestly remember were the image came from. Given the large amount of free alternatives I agree it should be deleted. Let me know if you'd like me to list it for deletion or let the 7 day tags run their course. Sorry for your trouble, this was back in my very early days – if you take a quick look through my recent image uploads you will see no such mistakes. Regards, Mark83 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Mark83 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look.
I'm tired of this. Some say these images are authentic. Some say these images are faked. Both sides have their own list of evidence. Both sides discredit the other. What's POV here is to take either side's views entirely, like you are doing by trying to delete these images based on a single chapter in a Japanese book. I have included the Japanese revisionists' claims that these images are fake. Happy now? I have taken the first step. Will you? --  Миборовский  18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Fake: not real; false, fraudulent. Your sites are claiming these pictures were used in the context of civilian deaths in Nanking when they were not, therefore they are fradulent, and therefore fake.
 * 2) See #1.
 * 3) A revisionist is someone whose theories goes counter to currently-accepted conventional wisdom. One does not have to claim the Massacre never happened to be a revisionist. For example, the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers now centre around the theory that AH was not aware of the Holocaust/Jews are using the Holocaust as the "Holocaust Industry" instead of refuting that Jews were killed. Same thing here.
 * --  Миборовский  18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Revisionists claim that this photo was used fradulently by those who used it as evidence of the massacre. Happy?
 * As above.
 * Support/Oppose??? Of what? Of the Armenian Genocide??? Entirely wrong and inappropriate word choice. No wonder they didn't take your suggestion.
 * --  Миборовский  19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1&2. What current edits? I added in those sentences. You mean YOUR edits? Because they're POV. To those who believe these images to show Chinese civilians in Nanking, it is "known" whether these images represent them. By saying "it's unknown" you're taking the side of the revisionists, who are the ones doubting the attribution of these images. Now it's my turn to ask: Why not just leave the current edits? Is there a factual mistake you spot in the sentence?
 * 3. Okay so they're not your suggestions, but still bad suggestions which you supported. A heading like that really makes no sense, see?
 * --  Миборовский  22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FFS, read Avoid weasel words and find out why clauses like "Some academics claim" are not to be used. -- Миборо в ский 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly is wrong with "revisionist" and "fake"? -- Миборо в ский 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Revisionism is not necessarily a negative term. Read historical revisionism. I'm not using "fake" in the sentence. -- Миборо в ский 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes
Per Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, a good way to spot PRODable articles is to see who is linking to it. Note here that about 10 users are linked to it. For what? User:Bourquie seems to have contributed to the article. Hence, he will vote for it. User_talk:Miorea also seems to have made contributions.

So what is the strategy to delete? Perhaps label it contraversial. Template_messages/Disputes. You tell me. I will vote for removal, but I think there are too many people with an interest in this. meatclerk 04:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai pictures
those pictures were scanned from photobooks regarding the second sino-japanese war. They are all fair use. Based on your previous conduct I don't really understand your quest to tag perfectly fine pictures. They don't even have anything to do with the nanking massacre. BlueShirts 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hsuchow/Xuzhou/Suzhou
Hi there, just wanted to leave a note that Hsuchow = Xuzhou because the sound romanised as "Hs" in W-G is the sound romanised as "X". If I'm not mistaken, the old name of Suzhou used to be Soochow or Suchow. Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Images for User:Jessemonroy650
Thanks for your note on my images. I've unorphaned those I could leaving one (1) still orphan. That image is awaiting the completion of an article on Monterey Clipper. You can see my progress on my website. Thanks again meatclerk 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan page edits
Hi. You recently wrote me the message: "Your edits to the Japan page Hi. Can I ask that you please stop contributing to this page. We don't need more information, but similarly it isn't appropriate to delete random text - especially when they have helpful links. Major reductions and summarisations are already underway. Please leave it to the rest of us to sort out, unless you want to help actually do what is required (look at the tags on the sections). John Smith's 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)"

Hi. I do have a lot to contribute to this page. I am a Japan scholar. The edits I've made have been important though small, like changing conditional to unconditional surrender. I deleted that other sentence for a specific reason, and in an effort to shorten the article. I don't want to get into it here as to why, it would take awhile to explain. I've been reading over what y'all need in editing the page, and I am committed to helping, but that will take more of my time to write and research so I'm still working on it so haven't made the changes yet. QuizzicalBee 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR
Please find Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, in case you wish to explain. --Vsion 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre
Your edit summary at Nanking Massacre (quote: "rv; it's also refered to as a fake event - should we have that in as well?") is very revealing. If you think it is a fake event, I would be happy to take an opposite view to that. --Vsion 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR Violation
 You have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR on Nanking Massacre. The length of this block is 12 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. alpha Chimp laudare 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid a revert war
Try using the talk page, or at least the Edit Summary to explain why you remove copyright information on a photograph and insist it be deleted. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "You need the source where the picture itself was got from.", no, you really don't. You need to say where it's from, you don't need to have a url for it.You can say "Image is from the Holocaust Museum's central collection" or "Image is from 1894 newspaper clipping" without having a url - as long as there isn't evidence to greatly suspect fraud. I found an online reference to the video that it comes from, but no, I can't mail you the video itself, that doesn't mean I don't list the source. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration info
In my opinion it is better to go to dispute resolution earlier rather than later. We cannot address pure content issues, but there are always behavioral and policy issues. Fred Bauder 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Japanese war crimes
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. RevolverOcelotX

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes
Hi,

Thanks for your message. I do think that someone will improve the page. In fact, I'm willing to work on it if no-one else will. I think that a bit of editing can make a difference. For example, see before and after I re-wrote the article. I think the page has a valid right to exist. Acegikmo1 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I seem to have missed your original message on my talk. I'll take a look at the AfD discussion.  Jkelly 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, instead of closing it I commented on it. I feel strongly that we shouldn't have an article with this title, so it made more sense for me to express that rather than take on trying to interpret "consensus".  Frankly, it may make sense to leave it open a while longer to get more input.  Jkelly 23:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Reading and deciding how to close an afd that long took some time, so glad it was a satisfactory outcome! Petros471 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Japan page (minor point)
Hi,

I tried to disambiguate the link to Chinese in the "Law" section, but your revert of apparent vandalism also reverted my (very minor) editing. After the impending revert war calms down, if you have a moment, could you please disambiguate Chinese again? Tks Ling.Nut 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jung Chang
The tone problem of the article is clearly seen - the use of strong words without any source. I have given two examples, both of which you have failed to correct. For the first one, if a culture is not more diversed than other cultures, then why mention its diversity? Why not France, German, Spain, Italy? Why not just say that she can freely read whatever she wants, which she could not in China? As for the Chinese word, it is a common and general word - forgive my French - only novices in Chinese would call it an old word, simply because they have not seen it before. Moreover, please do not remove the tone tag everytime you make a change - the two examples are not the only ones I referred to, and many problems are obvious without the need to mention. If you cannot spot them, then clearly you do not know Wikipedia MoS well, and other appropriate editors can come along and help out the article when the article is tagged. Aran|heru|nar 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My concerns can be spotted by experienced users themselves when the article is tagged, but if you really need a few, here:

"Chang had unquestionably supported Mao like most Chinese." "and she travelled all over Britain, Europe, America and the rest of the world" "They were targeted as most high-ranking officials were" "At the time of printing little was known in the wider world about 20th century China, especially its Communist years. Thus the personal description of the life of three generations of Chinese women helped fill this void in accessible international literature."
 * Moreover, large parts of the article remains unsourced. Aran|heru|nar 12:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the tone tag to the source tag - but some of the examples I gave could not actually be verified and are rather problems of tone, e.g. "But the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution was not something they could avoid. They were targeted as most high-ranking officials were".  How do you find a source stating that "Jung Chang does not have the ability or luck to avoid the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution"? Aran|heru|nar 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jung Chang - the West versus the Wider World
It's quite POV to assume that the West equals the Wider World. In fact it's an instance of argumentum ad ignorantiam - "I (here in the West) don't know anything about 20th century China. Hence, no-one else in the world knows anything about 20th century China". I agree absolutely that the success of Jung Chang's book was because of the target market's ignorance of, and thus curiosity about, the relevant part of modern Chiense history concerned. But let us not forget that the target market is the English speaking world.

In fact, her books regularly enjoy muted or incredulous reception in Asia (by which I mean East Asia ex-Japan, and South East Asia), where people are much more aware of the history concerned. This is also why Mao received bad reviews almost everywhere in Asia, even in pro-democracy magazines in Hong Kong, simply because most people who are familiar with 20th century Chinese history could spot the obvious factual and historiographical falws in the book. --Sumple (Talk) 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, outside Asia I can live with. But what difference does that make as against "in the West"? --Sumple (Talk) 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "The West" is much more suitable than "Outside Asia" - the book is not targetted to Africans or South Americans, rather to Westerners. Aran|heru|nar 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagee. The book is enjoyed by people around the world - it doesn't matter who Chang originally thought would buy it. People outside of "The West" were just as clueless as those inside, so the statement is fair. John Smith&#39;s 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That (Aranherunar's post) was what I was going to say. If we divide the other continents (namely Africa, South America, and Antarctica) into two sections, then the more affluent or at least Anglophone sections of those continents (South Africa, Argentina, and Amundsen-Scott Station) would arguably fall within "the West". As to the rest, it was not the market towards which the book was marketed, and whether they understood China better than someone in "the West" is irrelevant to this section. Anyway, since all of us here are either from the West or from Asia, and live in either of those two bits, we really should not presume things on behalf of everyone in Eastern Europe, Africa, or South America. For one thing, China had much closer ties with the nations of the non-aligned movement than the West, from which it was separated for a long time by the Iron Curtain.
 * Let me declare at this point that I am not arguing for this edit because of my internal biases against Jung Chang (which I freely admit), but because of a concern for accuracy in the use of the term.
 * In any case, as I said I can live with "outside Asia", but I would prefer "in the West".
 * Finally (puts on anti-Jung Chang hat), what do you mean "enjoyed"? Surely you mean suffered? Just kidding.
 * One more thing (for the avoidance of a misunderstanding) my caps in the edit summary was to catch your (and Aranherunar's) attention, not shouting. --Sumple (Talk) 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Copied onto your talk page) Just because you want to talk about Europe and North America does not mean the term "the West" should be used. It is lazy and subjective. Be accurate and say "North America and Europe" if that is what you want to say.
 * The thing is that it isn't just "Anglophone" countries that read the book - it has been translated a lot. So that statement is not appropriate. By the way, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling you've tried to make a similar change before. If you don't mind then just leave it - you've already clarified that East Asians had a different view of China.
 * By the way, I don't see how saying British culture is torture would be anti-JC. That would be anti-British! John Smith&#39;s 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol.
 * I need to clarify: my view is that the West in general (including English speaking countries outside of Europe and N.A. as well as other more affluent, less "third-world" countries) should be what this sentence refers to.
 * I don't remember making a similar change before, but I could have done. No idea. --Sumple (Talk) 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Jung Chang
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, John Smith's. Just thought I'd warn you. Before entering any time-wasting, circular argument with this editor, you might want to note the brief discussion with Niohe a couple entries above yours on the editor's talk page. He apparently shows open contempt for the 3-revert rule (among others), and considers it a weapon to use against other editors, but to ignore himself. Dekkappai 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, John. I'll keep it in mind. Regards. Dekkappai 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like another nonsensical argument. I'd try to avoid this altogether, since the endless, circular arguing seems to be the goal. And, though he shows contempt for the rules himself, if he can tempt you into violating a rule, he'll report that. Dekkappai 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dekkappai, please WP:AGF. Comment on the content, not the user. John Smith's edits could in no way be justified in this case. He has made 7 edits relating to the same thing, against users Sumple (3 edits) and HongQiGong (4 edits) respectively. Whether or not he changed a word each time, according to WP:3RR, he is still repeatedly undoing the edit of another user.
 * I have nothing against you, John Smith. I am very much surprised by your willingness to discuss and edit the concerns I made at Jung Chang, most of which are useful. However, reverting 7 times (even if they are slightly different) against two users respectively is never a wise thing to do.
 * Another thing: Please do not resort to personal attacks and incivility. We're all trying to contribute to Wikipedia here - attacking another user is a serious violation of our principle. I would suggest you to apologize to HongQiGong per these comments  , and then start discussing helpfully in the article. Aran|heru|nar 02:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of the situation between John Smith's and HongQiGong. John Smith's asked me to look at the on-going argument they were having. The style of arguing looked very familiar to me, and I made my comment based on the editing- and arguing-styles I have encountered with Hong. Regards. Dekkappai 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've always maintained, but I know you disagree, my edits which you've "encountered" are perfectly in good faith, in-line with notability tests and criteria for speedy deletes. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on September 8 2006 to Jung Chang
Please see the 3RR page for more

William M. Connolley 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility and revert warring
I have decided to stay out of the Jung Chang discussion myself, but there's something which I wish you to take note of. How do you justify mocking another person's block when you were personally blocked for the same violation yourself? And could you please, well, stop edit warring in the page Jung Chang? I hate to talk about psychology, but when you make an edit yourself it automatically gives the circumstance for another user to revert that. Moreover, from the look of the history it is not one person you are reverting against for a single matter, rather five: HongQiGong, Sumple , Niohe , Vsion , and me - and yet you complain that HongQiGong is "playing around the page" ? I hate to break it to you, but it has been you who have been violating most of the rules so far, not HongQiGong. Aran|heru|nar 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Image Removals
Hi. Can you please revert back the two images you removed? They are properly licenced. They were tagged for consideration for removal under an old licence but are now properly licenced. I also understand that editors should not interfere with images that are tagged as these are dealt with by admin. The error is understandable. Thanks Des Desk1 09:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Hi John, I don't have access to check user. You can either leave a request on WP:RFCU or contact one of the people with access. There's a list here. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Well, crap.
They changed the wording of WP:CSD again. At any rate, the article asserted the importance of the subject in saying that he was famous as being a prosecutor in a famous case. I don't know that he warrants an entire encyclopedia entry, but the article at least explains why the person is important. At any rate, it would be helpful to administrators if you could tag articles like that with db-bio. That tag specifically references the criterion invoked, and will be updated to reflect the current language of the criterion. Anyway, good catch, and keep up the good work! -- Merope Talk 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution
I think if you look at the history of the page you will see it is you who has repeatedly been reverting other people's edits. So, bear in mind the 3R rule, thanks. Cripipper 22:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Sea of Japan
Hello; thank you. I know and understand -- I have no intention of breaking the three-revert rule. There seems to be a number of versions for the article lead, the 'authority' of which are difficult to gauge. My point is that neither you nor User:Endroit have demonstrated that the prior version is rooted in consensus -- common publications deal with it any number of ways (and, IMO, not bolding East Sea in the lead looks stylistically odd), and if you're still debating about whether it should be in the lead at all, there's a problem. I would appreciate responses to the points I've made on the talk page instead of cryptic edit summaries; otherwise, I'll be back later. Thanks! Quizimodo 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Another map up for deletion
John, I found another overexaggerated map Image:Baekje power.jpg, and it's up for deletion. This map shows overexaggerated borders for Baekje, similar to the one we saw before. Please comment or vote for/against deletion there. Thank you.--Endroit 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)