User talk:John Smith's/Archive 6

Your Courteous Actions
Thank you for letting me know of your recent editing (for format) of my comments. Usually people do things of that nature without even thinking of the possible reaction by the original poster. Thanks again! Beam 17:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Curtesy on AfD
While a nominator often has a strong opinion on the outcome of an AfD, it leads to disruption and unnecessary conflict for that editor to try to "shepherd" the result. Adding a "refutation" quip next to each editor's comment is merely petty, and fails to WP:AGF. Editor's are well able to express their own opinions and give the reasons for them. Other editors and the closing admin are perfectly well able to weigh the value or merit of each comment/argument, based on the actual words of each voter. LotLE × talk 21:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

British India
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:British Raj. Xn4 ( talk ) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I love you!
nm :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing flags
Hello. It was my mistake. It wasn't a convention. It was part of the manual of style, as follows:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(flags)#Avoiding_flag_problems--pyl (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I found the following passages in the Manual of Style:-

Avoiding icons problems
Help the reader rather than decorate


 * Icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting

Appropriate use
Flag icons may be helpful in certain situations:


 * They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags. However, since not all readers can do this, the flags should be accompanied with country names (see #Accompany flags with country names).

Inappropriate use
Do not use flags in general article prose


 * The flag icons were created for use in lists and tables (especially of sporting and other statistics), and have subsequently found widespread usage in infoboxes.

and also


 * If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

I remove these flags because:-
 * 1) The fact that the flags aren't there actually makes the tables easier to read as there are no visual distractions. National flags aren't needed for talking about the origins of items, as they don't provide "additional encyclopedic information". They are just decorations.
 * 2) The tables are not "long lists or tables of countries". They are rather short and they don't aid readers to quickly scan a series of flag icons.
 * 3) Also, the flag is the national "Flag of the Republic of China" not "Flag of Taiwan". Using the national flag in that context makes the article "unclear, ambiguous or controversial" and they are inconsistent with infobox and the article inself in general.

What are your views on this please? I am happy with discuss this with you, should there be any further issues.--pyl (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're listening. I'll say again, quite clearly, that in lots of other articles you will find tables of equipment with flags of origin. For example, do you object to flags on the PLAAF page? Do you understand this very simple point? I'm not talking about the whole article so most of what you wrote on my talk page is irrelevant. John Smith's (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you can be civil.


 * I think I was listening and that's why I cited the manual of style as well as the relevant provisions. Please respond to the 3 reasons I cited above.


 * In respect of the PLAAF page, you can apply the rules in the manual of style and come to a conclusion if they should stay. You might want to let me know if the use of flags in that article comply with the manual.--pyl (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wan Chien
I created the article on Wan Chien, I was hoping you'd take a look and see what needs improving. Thanks. kliu1 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Too hasty in my article creation, its under testing so I changed some parts of the article. kliu1 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story
Hi, can you please explain your last edit on the page? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads like a spam addition, but if you want it, you can put it back.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 07:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

nice edits, Sir
While I tend to have a touch less tact in regard to my editing style - we may be on the same page regarding certain issues.

If you have a moment, take a look at the following two articles - in my opinion, they require attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

If you have any issues on any articles with content dispute, feel free to let me know - I will be happy to give them my unbiased attention. Sometimes it is useful to have someone confirm that what you are doing is correct, and it can be equally useful to have someone point out when you are going a little too far.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yakiniku&diff=250197125&oldid=250182864

Sorry, but whole revert is nothing but a bad faith edit. please don't delete sourced material. Masonfamily (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yamato_period&diff=250196610&oldid=250183499

You don't know what is the "archaeological" records mean?

archaeological :The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence

In your edit, what is the archaeological records? huh? sorry there is no archaeological" records that wa military were strong. Masonfamily (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumdo&diff=250197327&oldid=250179032

Please see discussion first.

KKA state that Kumdo Originated from China. (not Korea or Japan)

also The name means "the way of the sword". The origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonfamily (talk • contribs) 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

history of Japan
I am discussing the history of Japan as Korean. Please let me hear your opinion. --Pkakita (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mao The Unknown Story
Hi John --

I'm not sure I understand the need for removing the links from Mao: The Unknown Story lead, which have been there for a while -- was that what you intended? Nor why we should not have the reference to the Benton collection of reviews -- did you mean to remove that as well? I thought the George Bush reference was relevant to showing the reception, which seemed more useful than some of the quotes from less influential sources. Glad to hear your thoughts. ch (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then is it ok if I revert? ch (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear: you removed links from the lead, saying "moved citations from the lead down, which is what we need." So if this is not what you intended, why would it not be ok to put them back where they were?

Then you also removed the Bush quote and the reference to the book, without an explanation. I'll put this on the discussion page even though it is not my understanding of general practice that we need permission to make changes. ch (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please see my minor changes. It seems some of them may be similar to what CWH mentions above, but are actually quite essential to capturing the incredible response surrounding this book. Please consult my post in the discussion section if you have any questions. Dio free (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

By78
Thanks for you help and info I have nominated all 100+ at Files for deletion/2009 May 28. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet censorship in the PRC
FYI, Buster7 reverted your edit. I have left a WP:3RR warning on his talk page as well as some more argument on the article talk. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I am generally in agreement with you that the notice from the censors about Green Dam should not be included in the article, I do not endorse the edit war you seem to be engaged in. There is a discussion on the article talk page. Buster remains apparently obstinate, but at least he seems to be willing to discuss. Nevertheless, Buster reached his third edit/revert last night, and I see now that you have also reached it. I hope you will engage in discussion instead of warring, for I will have you both blocked if this continues. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of The Rape of Nanking (book)
I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found one minor issue which needs addressing, you can see the review page at Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
I've replied to your question on my talk page. Shereth 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Japan
I noticed you brought Japan to featured status.

Would you mind looking over Outline of Japan?

I'm not seeking featured status for it or anything. I'd simply like to know your opinion of how representative it is of Japan as a subject. Do you notice any glaring inaccuracies, and is the structure correct?

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ROCAF talk page
You're asking me to make an edit that I do not agree with and that I will immediately begin trying to revert. For some reason that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't think you need to worry about anyone trying to accuse of you a slow motion edit war since you have the discussion to point to. Readin (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't meant that I would immediately hit the "revert" link. I meant that I would do as I described on the discussion page, I would post notes on the Taiwan and Republic of China pages to solicit opinions from other editors familiar with the topic. Readin (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Daring
Dear John Smith I'm afraid Daring, while accepted at AOC and commissioned into the Royal Navy, is not yet "in service", nor will she be until December 2009 at the earliest. She is not in service until she is handed over from DE&S to Fleet, and that will happen at Fleet Date - which is yet to be agreed. She cannot be accepted by Fleet until she has completed all of her Sea Acceptance Trials (SATs). I've put a new reference (Royal Navy website) that states quite clearly that she is not "in service" until 2010. Daring is currently engaged in Stage 2 trials (what used to be Part IV Trials in old money). Yours, Shem (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm getting slightly confused here - at |your recent undo of my edit you stated in the edit summary "not right - HMS Daring has been formally commissioned". In fact both are correct - she is conducting trials until Fleet Date and has been formally commissioned.  I think it was the fact that I had changed the incorrect "In Service" to "Trials" that got me!  So what should it read?  I don't think that the status for a commissioned warship should read "commissioned"!  That applies to every ship called HMS Nonsuch.  It's a bit odd, for example, to say that the status of HMS Ark Royal is "commissioned".  Shem (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Hello John, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I much appreciate the constructive criticism received in connection with this article, and have now made a number of changes to the article which hopefully addresses the concerns expressed here. Please let me know if they are still not yet addressed. In the interests of keeping all FAC related discussions in one place, I would ask interested editors to kindly list in bullet point any remaining concerns about the article at the nominations page, so that they may be dealt with, and for the evaluation/nomination to proceed. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Hall of Fame
Hello. I'm here to say a few things about your "Vandalism Hall of Fame" on your userpage (as you may have gathered from the header). It's just, there's those Wikipedia:Revert, Block, Ignore and WP:Deny recognition things (NOTE:You may want to have a quick glance at those pages now, because the rest of what I'm about to say won't make sense without it). Of course, sometimes giving them attention is unavoidable with SPIs etc., but I think your hall of fame is giving vandals attention that only serves to encourage them. I'm not telling you to remove it or anything, I can't make you do that. It's up to you whether you think it's really helping or worsening the vandal situation. Don't take this the wrong way, - I've had much worse stuff on my userpage (and some pretty dodgy stuff as it is) - if you don't want to remove it I'm not going to report you to AN/I or anything. Thanks anyway, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just occured to me that the above treats you like you're a newbie, which you really aren't. Sorry about that, I really didn't intend it to be like that. Sorry, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's been years since the page was last vandalised, so I'm sure it isn't encouraging anyone. But thanks for your concerns. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't mean your page in particular, I just mean putting vandals in a "Hall of Fame" is giving them undue attention. Agh, never mind. It probably isn't, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mao
Regarding the edit warring on this page: the IP is technically in the wrong as far as 3RR goes, but you should also refrain from reverting at this point. I see that the IP has come to the talk page now, which is good. I have restored the earlier version of the article and will leave a message telling no one to change it until consensus is reached; hopefully no blocks will be necessary for anyone. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just about to go close the report anyway, so the end result is the same. Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:note you left
hey -- I'm not even sure that whoever left me that message is actually the same person I sent encouragement to... that's why people need to create accounts. I told him/her that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Astute submarines
You said (on my talk page):
 * "Hi. I've noticed speculated names being added for the last couple of boats, which you've done just now. Can you supply some confirmed sources? Otherwise your changes should be reverted, it's not final until confirmed."

... but did you look at the reference (from the RN website) which I quoted in my edit? David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I missed that as I was just looking at the info box. Interesting that I (still) can't find an official press release on that, but I won't dispute it as it's on the RN website. John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

POV editing and attacks against Gavin Menzies
Hi John Smith! It is good that you are conducting good faith warnings to users, but please be aware that I am not the culprit of POV vandalism on the Gavin Menzie pages. Various authors ranging from Clovispt and Gunpowderma have repeated inserted one-sided POV edits as well as personal attacks against the author Gavin Menzies regarding his two history books. They have repeated violated the official policy of Wikipedia on maintaining academic neutrality on all articles by having both pro and con opposing viewpoints presented on all pages. Please help maintain this policy of academic neutrality and non-point of view.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.236.154 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Geisha and Japanese Women
You redirected Geisha and Japanese Women and then removed the merge template from Geisha with the edit summary, "discussion lasted for three months with clear preference to merge". Yet you did not merge any content from the former page to the latter. Was that your intention, or was it an error? Given that there have been some arguments on both sides, and that both you and I argued in favor of merging the pages, it may be best to allow some editor not involved in the merger discussion to close that discussion before performing any merger. I you do not object, I will undo both of these edits. Cnilep (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Your edits are restored and I merged some material, thanks to a quick opinion from User:Bradv. Cnilep (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Slander and spinning my words
To this user:

No one is threatening an IP war. If you would read clearly, our statement said "reasoning is the best course of action" which is what everyone in the civilized world should do unlike you spinning my words in a derogatory context and threatening hostilities towards us. You will also be blocked if you do not act in a civilized good faith manner. Please stop your false slandering and work together with everyone else to make a constructive improvement to the articles. Administrative action will be taken against you if attack us again, so please stop!

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And 'we' or 'us' are? How do you plan to block anyone? Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like to know as well. Also, how will you block me - are you an admin using a sockpuppet account, or a hacker intent prepared to do something nasty to my computer? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help
Hi John. I guess I finally reach the point that many others in the Wikipedia already did before me, I decided to leave Wikipedia due to what happen at the U-2 page, which I withdrew all my inputs from last 8 months or so. After I did that, I noticed number of references from the U-2 article dropped from 53 down to only 32. Didn't know I worked so hard on that article and cited so many sources/references. Well, all that efforts were wasted, not to mention the time I spent. Not the way I expected what Wikipedia would work, but thanks for everything you did for me. Best wishes.Bryan TMF (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in the People's Republic of China
Hi - thanks for the help here. This "Splittist" editor is going to cause some headaches. Bertport (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is: What this invitation is not:
 * You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
 * This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
 * This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands
Winston, please use the talk page and stop reverting my changes to the lead of the article. There is no consensus to change the article title, so you should not change the lead to place Pinnacle Islands to the front and Senkaku Islands to the back of the first sentence. Similarly you should not rename the infobox. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * hi smith, it sounds interesting to hear this. In recent days there were a batch of anonymous IP edits that contribute nothing but keep changing the name ordering in the article. In a talk page, we actually communicated well about those reverts and semi-protect, unfortunately you didn't read it. Anyway, aside coming to the article to vote, changing name order and doing reverts, the article needs more citations and proof reading. Hope you can help. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, i agreed, but look at the second revert, did you see what else has been revived? And within 15 seconds, what else has been added?
 * Sorry that I didn't realize that you've also changed the name ordering in infobox otherwise I would patch this change to the existing edition too. Anyway, as your name ordering issue is fixed, I suggest that you can further help improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job in keeping the NPOV/peace on this article John - thank you. Can I suggest that in the same way there is a Spratly Islands Dispute article, a new article Senkaku Islands Dispute is created? This will take the politics out of the geography/history if you see what I mean. Sadly, I will most likely be unable to contribute as I am behind the GFC and the article will be blocked in due course as was the aforementioned one. Best Philg88 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. San9663 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More efforts are needed
Hi John, in Diaoyu Islands, while you removed parts of sentence, you've asked "why is the fact that Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire relevant? I don't see how it is."

In the dispute, whether diaoyu island belongs to Taiwan or Okinawa is one of the most important subject of concern. The main purpose of the letter is to prove that Chinese saw the islands were under the administration of Okinawa in 1920, not Taiwan. However, this statement is partially factual if not misleading. We need to tell readers that Taiwan was also a part of Japan Empire at the time.

I lean to believe it's a very basic background about the dispute. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, can you tell me why you removed the population value (0) in infobox? I think this is one of the very first questions people ask about this island. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
Your attempt to change the name ordering in the article senkaku islands have never gained any consensus. The name ordering in this article is touchy that potentially stirs up an edit warring. I think i've told you enough of time that if you want to change it, get consensus first.

Also, the removal of a background information about Japanese's defeat in the second world war and nullification of treaties have been disputed by a few editors in talk page and ONLY you believe that this content is irrelevant and has to be removed. You better explain first before destroying the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like his rationale for a recent deletion he did as well. If he doesn't provide an adequate explanation here, I will revert his deletion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Analysis and restatement
I want to endorse your informed analysis and restatement here, but I cannot accept one word &mdash; "ridiculous". You were too kind when you wrote: "It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer." What you identify is trivial evidence of a persistent, pernicious, insidious metastasis; and I anticipate that Wikipedia will confront similar situations across a wider range of articles in future. Please strike the word " ridiculous " and replace it with "unhelpful" or something equally non-controversial. After you have made this small change, I can endorse your edited diff as I have already endorsed your neutral analysis here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Credible "Storm in a teacup"?
 * I referenced your words and Qwyrxian's words here.
 * Qwyrxian construed this as misrepresentation here.
 * I responded here.
 * If this also causes distress for you, please explain so that I can respond appropriately.
 * If you can offer constructive comments or criticism, I would appreciate it. --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I am wrapping up a few issues for Senkaku Islands dispute. Since you are a regular participant of the page in the recent times, it would be appropriate to notify you of the discussion I started. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again
Please have a look at Talk:Boxer Rebellion if you are interested in that subject.  Arilang   talk  02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

merger
John, I appreciate the effort to get the articles merged. But editor emotion is running high right now with the Shelling incident. Too many people want these incidents to be part of the Korean War, and when there are different articles for each aspect of the confrontations between nK & sK, it serves to increase the importance of each incident and their overall position. Let's let these events grow old -- and the emotions over them will die down. --S. Rich (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands
The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution? In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging Articles without consultation
I see you've deleted my article "Seymour Expedition, China 1900" to "merge" it with one called "Seymour Expedition." May I suggest you take anther look at the two competing articles. My article is, or rather was, authoritative, well-sourced, impartial, and accurate. The other one is not. Perhaps before you merge articles you should consult people who had a hand in drafting the articles? Or undertake a qualitative review of the two articles? If you had taken the time to read the two articles I believe you would not have deleted mine. User:Smallchief 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point of Wikipedia. You do not file an article like a newspaper report, you add to existing ones. You cannot have two articles on the same matter, that is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy.
 * Your article has not been deleted, it has been redirected. You're more than welcome to add to the other one. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One would hope that the cornerstone of Wikipedia would be to provide accurate and impartial information to the public. My article did that. The other one does not. If you will look at nearly all the articles regarding the Boxer Rebellion, and the discussion pages, you will detect a pattern of serious bias in the articles. I've tried to correct that bias. Several others have worked harder at it than I have. We've been unsuccessful. The article you kept is an example of that bias. I was trying to rectify the situation by writing an alternative article with the expectation that an editor considering a merge would take the relative quality of the two articles into account. In the 100 plus articles I have written or edited for Wikipedia I've never had anybody reject, or even seriously criticize, my work. Edit, yes. Improve, yes. Delete, no.
 * If my article has not been deleted, where is it? How can I recover it with all the Wiki-code intact so that I don't have to re-write it completely. User:Smallchief


 * First of all, I suggest you have a root around the "help" section on the main page. That will help you understand better how to use Wikipedia. I know there's lots of bias on Wikipedia, but the best way is to improve existing ones. Otherwise you will have articles fully deleted.
 * When an article is redicted its history is kept intact. Your article history is here. The code is available here, but as I mentioned earlier please do not copy and paste. Even if it takes you a while, please improve the existing article. That does not mean you cannot make substantial changes to content, layout, style, etc. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Japan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands
I'm not sure that I understood and answered your questions well enough at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Naming section. Please note that I have changed the section heading from "Names" to "Early historical context" which better identifies the function of this section in our article. This section establishes a 19th century foundation of non-controversial references to the islands which stand outside (a) any discussion of 15th century Chinese literature; and/or (b) the sino-centric foreign policy of the Qing dynasty; and/or (c) 20th century international relations. In the early 19th century, the West was engaged in a process of mapping the geography of the East China Sea. This becomes a commonly understood background in which subsequent disputes develop. In the same way, the function of this section aims to establish a non-controversial context for the disputes which are likely to persist in the foreseeable future. --Tenmei (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit here is consistent with proposed changes you suggested in October 2010. Perhaps you will find time to review what I have done -- see also Talk:Senkaku Islands. See also Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute --Tenmei (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please compare tables at
 * Senkaku Islands dispute
 * Senkaku Islands
 * Also, please take note of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Qwyrxian's comment --Tenmei (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Illustrative stale edit summary
This is a moot point (UK?/US? usage): Do you accept and adopt the unstated premise of the edit summary here. If so, please parse why this seems reasonable to you. As you know, the names of these islands and rocks have become the subject of an unresolved controversy; and "the struggle among various countries to name the islands is an attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and paradigm for vested property interest or ownership of the islands" &mdash; see Saleem, O. (2000). "The Spratly Islands Dispute: China Defines the New Millennium," American University International Law Review,'' Vol. 15, p. 530. You may construe this no-longer topical edit summary as arguably valid. I do not. Perhaps you would be willing to try to help me understand a POV I don't share. May I suggest an e-mail response might be less likely to cause an unwanted problem or mis-perception? --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * diff 21:31, 4 October 2010 Bobthefish2 (54,925 bytes) (→Geography: Edited figure captions to remove the Japanese bias and yield an equal representation of both Chinese and Japanese names of isles)
 * Compare similar issue in Korean teachable moment &mdash; "Bush Orders Review on US’s Dokdo Stance," Korea Times (ROK). July 31, 2008; excerpt, "...  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to review South Korea’s concerns about the United States Board of Geographic Names labeling of Dokdo’s status as being disputed ... amid rising anxiety among some Koreans who perceived the move as Washington favoring Tokyo, which has persistently laid claims to Korea’s easternmost islets situated in the East Sea ...."]