User talk:John Smith's/Archive 4

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

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

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Your RfC
John, FYI, I've left a comment. Regards, --Folic Acid 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC).


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

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Re: your 3RR warning on User talk:HongQiGong
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Nat Tang ta 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japan Self-Defense Forces
Thanks for catching that. Lothar of the Hill People 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on History of Japan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. PHG 12:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Which articles would that have been? If anything it is other users who have been systematically reverting stable articles which had BC/AD to BCE/CE - are you going to ask them to stop as well? In the recent edits I made I was merely making articles consistent. Please tell me where I am not allowed to do that. John Smith&#39;s 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the impression I get. For example, Indus Valley Civilization went from having everything at BCE except a single BC to BC everywhere but the templates which were all BCE. This makes less consistency not more. . JoshuaZ 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for that. I just saw the top-line, so I self-reverted. I'll have a quick look at the others. John Smith&#39;s 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well on Xia Dynasty I was just reverting Hong's unilateral change and on Chola Dynasty I was making the article consistent by changing just one term. On Sino-Roman relations the terms were heavily mixed already so again I was only making them consistent, but I won't revert that again because PHG used BCE/CE at the start so I should have used that. On History of the Americas I was again making terms consistent using the first major contibrution (ref WP:MOS) as a basis. Were there any other articles you were thinking of where I changed more than half the date terms over? John Smith&#39;s 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * South Asian Stone Age

This seems to imply that there's one rule for administrators and another for ordinary users. Joshua, what is your position on that? John Smith&#39;s 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Horizon
Had a look at DCNS website, it says max is 29 knots - I don't think anyone could argue if you cite the builder! By the way, your query brought me to the Horizon class frigate article for the first time in a while - it's the first time I've seen the new pic and have you noticed how much it looks like a Type 45? There are subtle differences but in general they look very similar. Mark83 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, DCNS ref is Mark83 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Forbin's main mast is just plain ugly, the engine exhaust looks strange, and the twin guns? I would love to know the rationale for that eyesore. Also Daring's angles make it look sleek, the French ships, even though they're angled, still look boxy.
 * 31.5? Corruption allegations aside BAE seems to be on a roll lately! Mark83 23:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any idea why? Going by the respective WP articles the WR-21 is actually less powerful. So maybe its because of effeciency (with the WR-21's recuperator)? Or maybe its a hull form/propeller issue?
 * As for not sticking with Horizon -- France has got to be the most intransigent nation regarding collaboration/workshare etc. Suprised and delighted by the fact that the UK Gov decided to tell them to..... Mark83 23:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about the carriers. The way I read it (though it's not a fully informed judgement) is we've said we're doing it this way, take it or leave it. Which, given past experience, is an excellent decision. The fact that France, as stubborn as it has been in past defence projects, is willing to take a UK carrier design only slightly modified is a major departure as far as I can see!
 * As for a real package. Yes, undoubtledly the Type 45 is a remarkable achievement. However it will still need a Type 23 alongside to protect it from subs will it not? And a cruise capability isn't essential given the deloyment of Tomahawks on RN subs, but a wasted opportunity (so far). And as for speed, does it need it. The carriers it will protect cant to 30+ knots. Mark83 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not an issue I know about anyway. Mark83 10:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of comment
Sorry for the deletion, it was not intentional. I actually thought I had mis-manipulated something so that my template doubled. Actually it was just that you were parroting me. It seems however that you did delete my original post. PHG 15:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it was incorrect. However as you wanted it up so much I put my own up. I was not removing your comment when I put mine up subsequently. John Smith&#39;s 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet report
Hi John Smith's, I wouldn't worry about the delay in dealing with the sockpuppet report very much--I realize that it can be frustrating having this accusation hanging over your head, but outside of the people directly involved in the cases, no one pays much attention to the SSP page. It will be dealt with in due order; just edit normally until it's resolved. By the way, the 10-day period mentioned in the page's instructions is never followed, so don't worry about that either. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * John - I'm sorry to hear about the accusations of sockpuppetry. I know you to be an honorable guy, so I've thrown in my two cents in support.  Cheers, --Folic Acid 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

EBot2
Hi John Smith's. I will look into making the bot check every 5 minutes, rather than every 15. &mdash; E  talkbots 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent T45 edit.
Hi. I am no expert regarding T45 helicopter capability - but the RN website says "The Type 45 will also have a comprehensive suite of other weapons and equipment that will ensure that it can be deployed on a wide range of military tasks. Equipment selected already for the class will includes a main gun for shore bombardment - currently the 4.5" Mark 8 Mod 1 weapon - and either the Merlin HM Mark1 anti-submarine helicopter or the Lynx HMA Mark 8 helicopter." I take your point about potential - but then the Type 45 only has the potential to fire an Aster missile so far - as I understand it there aren't any Asters in Daring yet. Mark83 01:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. Mark83 11:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Re: Mao: The Unknown Story
The page was unlocked, so I assumed I could make edits again. If I've broken any rules regarding mediation I must apologise, but I wasn't informed of any that apply here. John Smith&#39;s 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Ok, I understand. In the past Giovanni has claimed that my lack of editing a point after the page being unlocked was sufficient reason to revert my changes because my silence had made it "consensus" or some such. John Smith&#39;s 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He has not raised that point in the mediation yet. However, if he has indeed said that, he's not correct; prolonging a discussion ought to be sufficient to show continued interest in a dispute and clearly there is ongoing discussion (i.e. the mediation). There's no reason to start reverting again. --  tariq abjotu  00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if HongQiGong insists on reverting the edits in question that I made, can you please insist he not remove the other changes I made - his last revert was technically vandalism. Thanks. John Smith&#39;s 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * His last revert was not vandalism, but a revert based on a content dispute. You would be best served talking to him about parts unrelated to the RfM (while refraining from calling his edit "vandalism") and letting the mediation play out on matters related to the RfM. --  tariq abjotu  00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm here again just finding out if there is still interest in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2. I cannot tell whether you have lost interest, have not noticed new developments, or have just been busy. --  tariq abjotu  05:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Jesus, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I added your name to the party list because you contributed substantially to recent discussion on the date topics at Talk:Jesus. As I noted here, if I misjudged your involvement in this content dispute, please feel free to remove your name from the list. If you are involved substantially however do not wish to agree to mediation, feel free to follow the normal course of action and note your disagreement in the relevant section of Requests for mediation/Jesus. Cheers,  Daniel  07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Britishism
What, exactly, is the "taxi-rank" approach? I think we have a dialectical barrier here. siafu 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Redoing of banned user's edits
Regarding your reversion of admin Grandmasterka's reversion of Chekmay here: He and I have been working to reverts edits done by sockpuppets of a particularly malicious long-term puppeteer. See Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The conditions of his community ban are clear. No edits may stand. If you want to discuss it, discuss it at ANI here. [EDIT:] Let me clarify that. If you want to independently veryify what he says, rewrit his stuff, and claim it as your own, that's fine. Just don't revert the article back to his version. --Dynaflow  babble  16:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry you had to be caught up in all this.  This is more a matter of not rewarding SummerThunder's behavior, rather than stamping out any (sometimes useful) information he may want to insert into articles.  --Dynaflow   babble  16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jōmon period
I think it fairly takes air that the first Jomon ware extends back over 16500 years. See this book, Habu Jinko, "Ancient Jomon of Japan", Cambridge Press, 2004, as well as these pages and. So it should be rewrited as I wrote, shouldn't it? Zone101 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwanese military history
Hi John Smith's, I was wondering if you are interested in joining the Taiwanese military history task force. A discussion on whether the TF should exist or not is being held here, would you please give an opinion or a suggestion on the issue? Thank you.-- Jerry 13:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Korean War
Hey John, I wanted to ask you about your recent edit to the Korean War article. You deleted a line that was "unreferenced" but it looks like it was only unreferenced because you had previously deleted the reference. Was this an error, or is there something I don't understand here? Aelffin 22:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 48 hours for repeated edit warring across several articles, including Mao: The Unknown Story, Bruce Cumings, Great Leap Forward. You have several previous blocks for edit warring, including one at one of the articles I just mentioned, and you certainly know by now that edit warring is not permitted. Please use negotiation to resolve conflicts when you return from your block. Dmcdevit·t 07:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve the Giovanni33 matter
Having read all the comments on WP:ANI, WP:CSN and elsewhere regarding this issue, I thought I would throw in my own thoughts for good measure.

First of all it is clear to anyone that I have been blocked in the past in regards to edit-warring. However, unlike Giovanni I have never used socks, nor have I been up in front of the community/admin board about my behaviour. Additionally, bar a few incidents quite a while ago, most of my disputes have involved Giovanni - whereas he gets involved on so many different articles with so many different wikipedians.

As Endroit pointed out, Giovanni has wikistalked me. He will dispute this, but I think it's quite clear. For example:

After my edit:
 * 19:09, 6 March 2007
 * 19:38, 6 March 2007
 * 19:13, 5 March 2007

He has even got involved in other disputes I had (such as on Type 45 destroyer) on articles that he had never edited or shown any sort of interest in before, merely to cause distress.


 * 10:39, 10 March 2007
 * 20:42, 10 March 2007

This was after I had a dispute with User:Mark83 over the same matter just a few hours earlier.

If people have a problem with how I act, I am always willing to discuss things and have my actions reviewed. However, to imply that I am no different from Giovanni is quite obviously not true. He has had many reprieves and last chances, whereas I have never had such feedback. For me to be put under the same controls/restrictions as him would be far from equitable. It would also be rather unnecessary, as if he is restrained and/or his behaviour changes then I won't be edit-warring. On the other hand he does need some sort of control placed on him as he does get have problems with so many different people. John Smith&#39;s 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your block log is not so hot, either. &larr;Ben B4 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I say that it was? John Smith&#39;s 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "He has had many reprieves and last chances, whereas I have never had such feedback." &larr;Ben B4 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feedback in terms of discussion on WP:ANI, admins saying they thought I needed to change else they wanted to impose harsher sanctions, etc. I've only ever had short blocks and people saying "just talk it over". John Smith&#39;s 06:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted, but the comparison over the past year is not as favorable. You have been editing since 2005, and involved in two formal mediations, so you should have known about 3RR a while ago. I strongly encourage you to try to reach a compromise with Giovani and Durova to avoid arbitration.  The way the record stands now, in arbitration you both are likely to end up with the same penalty. &larr;Ben B4  07:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion
In some respects I feel an indefinite ban is warranted given that he has been let off on the promise to reform in the past. I don't see a move from sockpuppetry to serious edit-warring and gaming the system to be a real improvement. I am not suggesting that he should be banned now because he should have been last year, but that because he got a very lucky break he couldn't expect any more chances, especially after the previous ban where he promised to change his ways. If were to be let off again, this would send the wrong message to other users that they could pretend to change just to avoid a serious restriction but if they carried on they could keep asking for "one last chance".

If this is not possible then I have another idea. Durova's suggestion of WP:CEM was very kind, but I don't see how it could really work in this case in an equitable fashion, unless Giovanni agreed to stricter controls on him than myself.

Having read Endroit's suggestion, I thought of the following. First in order to consider how better to interact with others on Wikipedia, Giovanni would receive a block for a matter of several weeks or a number of months. I've noted some odd reactions from him when he gets into disputes, often suggesting he's being persecuted by people of a particular political group even when they've never been involved with him before or show any real leanings one way or the other - he suggested the indef block was motivated by politics, even though Durova is (from what I can see) maybe one of the most non-partisan admins out there. That he threatened some sort of e-mail campaign if the indef block was not lifted is another example of his attitude needing to change, even if it may have been made in anger.

I think Giovanni sees the world too politically and categorises people as being "with him", "against him" or "not involved". He also has trouble accepting that others may have a valid point and trying to find compromise that maybe he doesn't agree with but is a "halfway house" that can move things on. So whilst he was blocked, I would suggest we get a mediator (maybe 2-3) to chat things over with him every so often to see how he was feeling. I think he could do with a sort of "behavioural mentor", someone (or some people) to try to get him to be more flexible and less prone to just want to get what he initially thinks is right. If for some reason they thought he hadn't changed they could recommend he stay blocked, but generally they would be there to help him out.

After the X weeks/months were up, Giovanni would be allowed back. He would be put on 1-revert parole (either per article per week or week) for 6 months/1 year. If he started breaking the terms he would be indef blocked. Also if he was referred again by wikipedians for repeated disruptive behaviour even after the parole was up he might be indef blocked, though that would depend on how people felt at the time.

As for myself, I would re-assure Giovanni I wouldn't game his parole by agreeing not to get involved in articles he has edited and/or still edits which I have not edited. He would draw up a list of articles he is interested in that he thinks apply and we could agree them with someone like Durova. If I started reverting his changes on those articles we had agreed on, I would get a 72-hour ban.

In regards to the points we had been mediating, I would agree not to use my revert "advantage" to change them. In return he would agree to med-arb with three administrators who have not been involved in blocking/unblocking us, editing in our favours/against us, etc. I would suggest Durova (again as a very non-partisan admin) be chair admin, and if we couldn't agree on the other two she would find them herself. As a sign of good faith I would ask that Giovanni not try to change the recent edits I proposed to the lead of the Mao: The Unknown Story article - if he was not happy with them after he returned from his block he could ask they be included in the med-arb.

Some wikipedians sympathetic to Giovanni may think this proposal unfair, but I would point out that if we can't agree to a resolution the matter will go to arbitration, which will be long-winded and probably eventually ban Giovanni or otherwise censor him more severely. There is no reason why we can't get to the position where Giovanni never edit-wars again, but I think a bit of "tough love" is is required here to do that. John Smith&#39;s 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to El_C
It's basically a rant

Sigh. Why am I not surprised........ Maybe you could explain how it is a rant when most of my message was in regards to a step-by-step means as to what to do next? You're not being logical.

devoid of any introspection

When was the last time you criticised Giovanni for a lack of introspection?

John Smith doesn't acknowledge his pov pushing of Changism for years

"Changism"? El_C, this rather shows your lack of neutrality. More than anything this matter is about how people go about resolving matters, rather than what they may want from the article.

The proposal, if I could parse it, involves himself having some sort of revert advantage, that he promises not to use to his advantage.

No, it involves Giovanni being placed on revert-parole. But because people have questioned whether that's a good idea due to gaming, I indicated I would give him space, which would be backed up by penalties if I didn't. What exactly is wrong with that? Compare this to Giovanni's previous promise that he would stick to 2RR - where did he suggest that being backed up by instant penalties?

As a sign of good faith, he asks that his version in the dispute be retained.

You fail to note that the points disputed until recently on the article were already stacked in Giovanni's favour - I indicated I would not change those, which was my own sign of good faith towards him. John Smith&#39;s 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're unwilling, or unable, to reach parity, which thus far seems to be the case, perhaps arbitration would be the best recourse.

I'm not sure why I should be sanctioned to the same extent as Giovanni when I have never faced a community ban or any sort of community discussion. He has had plenty of chances to reform when put in situations like this - this is the first time any such action against me has even been discussed.

I wonder whether you really want to resolve this, or just want to punish me for Giovanni getting in trouble again. John Smith&#39;s 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have opened Requests_for_arbitration where you are a named party and will be unblocking you for the limited purpose of arbitration. You may post to WP:RFAR, but please wait out the duration of your current block before posting elsewhere. Durova Charge! 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Legislators
There are 225 seats but there are only 217 members currently. I got that from the Chinese Wikipedia.-- Jerry 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The below information is updated on 7/21/2007:


 * Pan-Blue Coalition (KMT, PFP, CNP): 111
 * Pan-Green Coalition (DPP, TSU): 96
 * Non-Partisan Solidarity Union: 8
 * Non-partisans: 2 Lee Ao and Lin Wei-Chou
 * Total: 217

Translated from the Chinese Wiki. (Hope I did the math right...:))-- Jerry 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing tip
Hey, just a suggestion: when you edit, type in a longer edit summary (not just rv vandalism) and it'll help you a lot.-- Jerry 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:596_nuclear_test.jpg
Updated Source: August I film studio

"Secret Thoughts of Chairman Mao", declassified Chinese nuclear testing film available via VCE.

The same photo, albeit with different saturation and dimensions can be found here. It gives the above film as its source and references the above VCE website.


 * Hello. This is the best I can find in the way of sourcing. If this isn't enough, then I suppose the photo should be put up for deletion (I haven't really done any formatting for picture info and sourcing before, so I tried, it also required quite a bit of searching).


 * Just letting you know, as per your request. :) - Imperator Talk 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) See you around some other time. - Imperator Talk 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead Chinese Body in Korea War Article with Clear Face
Hi John Smith's, the picture is really offensive and I am honest about it. It is not only myself, all most all Chinese feel same way. If a certain group of people all feel the same way, doesn't it indicate at least something to you? I wish you can understand. Peace.Dongwenliang 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Also so many people are offended by different things. If we tried to accomodate everyone's views then a huge number of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted or at least severely reduced. You can't please everyone.". But it so unfair that a dead US soldier even can not be identified his race, and a Chinese one with so clear face. Something you never understand if you are not one of them, that is why I don't make decision for others, assuming feelings of others. Canada forced many native Children to go to Catherlic school and grabbed them from their parents 50 years ago, but now in 2007, the government appoligized to Natives and compensate them for that. I wish you can understand. We don't need to be pleased, we only request to be treated equally. Dongwenliang 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's closed
The above-linked arbitration case has closed. Giovanni33 and you are subject to identical editing restrictions for one year. You are both limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should either of you exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, you may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)