Revision as of 18:56, 12 July 2005

Been off-wiki a lot, busy on projects, but I check in often.Pedant 04:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Archived Talk

Archive 1 2004-11-19

Archive 2 2004-11-24

Archive 3 2005-01-14

Archive 4 2005-02-27

For your reference

Hunter S. Thompson image discussion about the cannon explosion/supernova picture in case you wanted (or not) to weigh in. --Stbalbach 05:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome template

Yeah, someone already responded to my question. I know of this template, which I use to welcome new people with usernames, and now I use the {{anon}} template to welcome anons. Thanks anyway! user:Mathx314

Question

You had previously said you would be willing to nominate be as an admin. See my archieved talk. Is that still the case? Thanks EdwinHJ | Talk 20:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Lady of Shallott

I notice that you've marked this as being 'in use'; you may have noticed that it's been substantially rewritten lately; could you discuss your intended changes on the Talk page before you do anything drastic? Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite respect the recent work done to both articles. I merged The Lady of Shallott to The Lady of Shalott, and included all the information from both articles, including links. I'm done with it, feel free to put a nice polish on anything that the merge has besmirched. Pedant 23:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply — I've had enough bad experiences not to have become just a little little — well, not paranoid exactly, but jumpy. I just need to remember which Users can be trusted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:Ant.jpg, and thank you for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please leave a link on the image page to prove this. If the image is fair use, please provide justification. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TrangBang

Hey there, I have put Image:TrangBang.jpg on copyvio again. Might want to keep an eye out to chime in with what you found. I don't think there's a more blatant copyright vio out there. --Wgfinley 04:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar  ALKIVAR™ 05:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you are a successful editor for the "9/11 domestic conspiracy theory" page.

I have a page that is being voted on for deletion. My page has links that may be useful to your article.

However, I am not a successful editor. The users who are voting for deletion of my page are also reverting all minor edits or inserts that I make to other pages, in a tag-team fashion. Therefore I cannot try to edit the above mentioned article that you edit.

If you want more links to support your article, you are in a position to harvest them from my article prior to its deletion. My article is called "9/11 open questions".

Best of success with your article.

Bogusstory 20:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Pedant/911

I notice the page is in two categories; however, the categories were clearly intended to be links. I don't want to fix it since it's in your User: space, but could you please change the two instances of ] to ] (i.e., add a : in the front) to convert them into proper links? --cesarb 03:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sorry... go ahead and make whatever fixes you feel are suitable, regardless of it being in my namespace. I looked it over real fast and couldn't spot the links... I just got in from a 2 day shoot, and I'm too beat to do anything now. Pedant 02:09, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 02:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untagged images

Hello, could you add licence tag on pictures you uploaded to commons ? there are listed among Commons:Commons:Untagged images. Cheers —FoeNyx 15:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some people tagged some of the images the 10 Apr, but some are still untagged (they have mention of the public domain but should have a tag as {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{PD-USGov}} for the last one.)

• Commons:Image:NASA_FACTS_Volume_2_number_6_page_12_PROJECT_RANGER.jpg
• Commons:Image:NASA FACTS PROJECT RELAY G-12-62 page 01.jpg to
  • Commons:Image:NASA FACTS PROJECT RELAY G-12-62 page 08.jpg
• this one too
• Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume II Number 5 LAUNCH VEHICLES page 01.jpg to
  • Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume II Number 5 LAUNCH VEHICLES page 08.jpg
• Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume 2 number 6 PROJECT RANGER image 02.jpg to
  • Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume 2 number 6 PROJECT RANGER image 14.jpg
• Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume II Number 7 NIMBUS page 01.jpg to
  • Commons:Image:NASA FACTS Volume II Number 7 NIMBUS page 08.jpg
• Commons:Image:NASA FACTS cover letter James V Bernardo.jpg
• Commons:Image:NASA_FACTS_header.png
• Commons:Image:NASA logo bw.png
• Commons:Image:NASA logo bw 2.png
• Commons:Image:Savings Bonds Minuteman.png

--FoeNyx 12:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DONE, thanks for your help.Pedant 2005 June 28 07:09 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Juggling

Hi, I see we have the articles Juggling and Toss juggling, but it seems that the juggling article is about 10 larger than the toss juggling article and almost exclusively on toss juggling. You asked to not have the toss juggling article merged with the juggling article, do you still feel that way? Matt 01:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The Juggling article should eventually include examples of all types of juggling and juggling related arts, butToss juggling is a specific subset that, it seems to me, will tend to overwhelm the Juggling article and overshadow all of the many other types of juggling.

Juggling in my opinion should be used as a hub article to facilitate access to ALL of the Juggling Arts, since 'juggling' is obviously the most likely place for someone to start looking for info on juggling arts.

I feel that the fact that, as you pointed out "the juggling article is about 10 larger than the toss juggling article and almost exclusively on toss juggling" can best be remedied by adding information on juggling in general or on specific 'other forms besides Toss' juggling. Obviously you have an interest in the Juggling constellation, what is your opinion(s) regarding the article? Are you a juggler? Or is there a different reason you are interested? What direction would you like to take the 'juggling constellation'? I am interested any ideas or suggestions you have. You can answer here or on your page, I'll see it either way. Feel free to copy our discussion to any relevant discuss pages if appropriatePedant 22:06, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is fine to have an article for general juggling and a seperate one for toss juggling, though I don't know anything about other forms of juggling, so I wont be the one adding the information. As it stands now, we have two articles on toss juggling, and that creates a situation where people will be adding information to both articles that will later have to be merged. I am a bad amateur juggler, and I've been contributing to the siteswap article. I'm not so interested in the 'juggling constellation' but the odd thing (like siteswap) catches my interest and I contribute if I think I can. I don't particularly have any suggestion, I just thought that I'd point the situation out because maybe you forgot about the two juggling and hadn't noticed that most toss juggling information was being added to the juggling page. Matt 16:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Just to say Hi

Hi! I noticed your comment on blockmeandgetitoverwith's user page, and that you had been given 'my' barnstar on the same day. I just thought that means the universe wants me to say hello. Nice to meet you.Pedant 20:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Pleasure to meet you too. I hope I'm living up to your expectations. :) Kelly Martin 21:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I need help!

Hello, my name is Flowerofchivalry, I think you know who am I :) I have been working to resolve NPOV issues. As you found out from history and talkpage log, reverting was started always from the other side.

According to NPOV, we have to write all POVs that has credible and reliable sources. I cited those sources to support POVs, but Hmib and Mark have ignored these. Hmib stated that the Japanese historian sources Flower produced are all well-known crooks in terms of credibility. Most of them are the professors of Univ of Tokyo and equivalent. Univ of Tokyo is one of the highest ranked university in Japan.

It is clear that they do not agree anything they do not favor. I'm forced to conclude that those Chinese people just want to exclude all POVs they do not favor from the articles.

I'm tired but I have to keep fighting to protect our Misplaced Pages from their rule-breaking activities.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help part 1

OK.

I want to be impartial and not favor either side in this, and to do so I will not be researching the article or articles in question. I will merely attempt to help facilitate discussion. I might or might not also work with others in the dispute, anyone who asks for help, I will attempt to help.

I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved, to begin with, and I will not 'take sides' or judge who is wrong or right, merely make suggestions. If that works for you, I would be glad to help.

Also, our conversations on my talk page will be available for anyone to read, I see no need for secrecy... portions of our discussion might be copied to the appropriate article's talk page.

One issue that may be affecting communication is that at least one of you appear to not be a native speaker of English. If you have difficulty expressing your ideas, I would be happy to "translate your English into English" for you, and try to help you express precisely what it is you wish to express.

It would be helpful to me if you don't refer to other editors in our discussion, but merely the statements:

that are in the article, but are false, or untrue, or misleading;

that are in the article but are not neutral or are not 'encyclopedic;

that are not in the article but are important and must be included for completeness;

that contain Point of View problems, either:

expressing a strong point of view that is not neutral

or

omitting an opposing, valid point of view.

Just to begin. I'll check my messages tonight. I am in time zone GMT - 8 hours, West Coast of North America. Please continue this discussion on my talk page in the section you started.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Pedant 21:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

from Flowerofchivalry

I greatly appreciate your help. Yes, please do NOT favor my side...because I have to listen to the third parties' opinion.

I strongly believe... (deleted by Pedant) ...has made all the problems, but if you find my problem, please do not hesitate to tell me that. This is what I would like you to do it.

In addition, yes, my English sucks. This is a fact. However, I passed all university level English composition classes. It is clear for me that I have to keep improving my skill of English.

Again, thank you for your offer, and please don't hesitate to point my problem, if there is any. --Flowerofchivalry 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

my reply

OK, if you have a problem with understanding anything I say or ask, please tell me, and I'll say it differently - you seem to understand English fine, but if I am not being understood, tell me. question one: At this point, in the protected version of the article, what is wrong?

is anything in the article false, or untrue, or misleading;

is anything in the article not neutral or are 'unencyclopedic;

is anything not in the article that is important and must be included for completeness;

is anything in the article a Point of View problem, either:

expressing a strong point of view that is not neutral

or

omitting an opposing, valid point of view... ?

Remember, to maintain a distance from the issue, I am not going to familiarize myself with the topic, except the parts that you point out as problems.

question two: If the article were to be unprotected, what do you anticipate being added or removed that should not be added, or removed? (this is an optional question, I can work without an answer to this).Pedant 01:37, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

FoC's reply

I understand your point.

A1. The current Iris Chang has several problems as stated below.

1. The article lacks NPOV because the article omitted opposing POVs.

2. The article should have included another POV from credible scholors to resolve the issue.

3. The article emphasized her achievement and dwarfished the counterargument.

A2. I do not decide yet. This is because while the revert war was going on, the other editors ignored the talkpage, but now some discussion is going on. I will respect the agreement, if established; otherwise, I believe my edition is the best so I will revert to my edition.

--Flowerofchivalry 01:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that there is ongoing discussion. To avoid a continuation of the revert war, I advise not editing the article until consensus/agreement is reached, I'm sure that there is a solution available that will be acceptable for all concerned. I promise to stay with this issue until consensus is reached, including help during mediation process if necessary, I promise there is no risk in waiting for discussion to be finished.

OK, please state the opposing point of view (1) that you wish to include, and (2) suggest a source for citation.

Please explain

What achievement is emphasized? Is it fact, or opinion? Is there an available reference?

If so, do you recommend an alternate wording of the statement that "emphasized her achievement", that would render it more neutral?

What counterargument is needed? Is it fact or opinion? Is there an available reference?

Pedant 02:08, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I will not revert as long as appropriate discussion is going on (except for vandalism as stated in the official rules).

Q1. What achievement is emphasized.

A1. The second and third works. There are huge disputes going on about her second work. There are plenty of credible publicities from scholors. For the third work, there are also disputes going on. Some of them questions the work's credibility.

Q1.1. Alternative wording.

A1.1. Of course, why not??

Q2. What counterargument is needed?

A2. As same as A1, despite the fact that the credibility of Nanking Massacre is still in question, the original article assume that exists. Yes, this is one POV, but many scholors decline the existance. This is another POV and must be included. There are huge numbers of references available.

I will go out soon, but I will come back in a few hours. BTW, I live in CA. --Flowerofchivalry 02:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgor to cite. I'm working on right now. --Flowerofchivalry 02:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll be offline until tomorrow afternoon...

I have added the following text to the RfC: User:Flowerofchivalry has accepted my offer of assistance in resolving the edit war/protection issue on Iris Chang. I am currently in dialogue with Flowerofchivalry seeking to clarify the user's side of this issue. I am willing to act as advocate for Flowerofchivalry during any conflict resolution process regarding the articles mentioned in this RfC.

As of now, it seems that Flowerofchivalry is attempting to achieve a Neutral Point of View in the article, and believes that the article 'over-emphasizes' Iris Chang's 'accomplishments', and omits mention of opposing viewpoints.

I have not discussed etiquette issues yet with Flowerofchivalry yet.

A brief perusal of the discussion page seems to indicate a general breakdown of etiquette, and it seems to me that both 'sides' to this argument seem to feel as if they have a personal stake in the outcome, and have acted outside of wikipedia guidelines. I feel that this conflict is still resolvable by consensus process at this time.Pedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate that. --Flowerofchivalry 22:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, more questions...

(3)Do you believe that the opinion that the Nanking Massacre has been exaggerated or did not even happen needs to be more prominently placed, or expanded on? (It is at least mentioned in Nanking Massacre. There is also a mention that there are other names given to the incident, and that "The extent of the atrocities is debated".)

(4)Is more needed? What is missing, in your opinion? What should be removed?

(5)What are the disputes about the 2nd work? What facts, or whose opinions are missing from the articles?

(6)What are the disputes about the 3rd work? What facts, or whose opinions are missing from the articles?

(7)If your version of the article is better, what would need to be changed to make it neutral and acceptable to the other editors involved, without destroying the article?

(8)Do you, personally have an opinion that the Nanking Incident did not happen? or that it has been exaggerated? If so, do you feel this is based on facts? I know it's a wierd question -- but usually edit wars happen when someone has a strong sense that a deeply-held belief is being ignored or trivialised... I think probably 'both sides' have some strong feelings about this issue. (9)Does that seem correct to you?

I'll be unavailable for about 20 hours from nowPedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

A3. Yes, because there are huge, huge dispute is going on, and the Chinese Government claims that 300,000 or 400,000 people were kill in 4km area in less than 2 month, and there is only one witness, who testified that he saw one homicide case. A Chinese person tried to run away from a stop order, so the Japanese soldier shot him. This is not Japanese's fault at all. This claim is physically impossible.

And, this is an important thing, but I failed to find a proper counterargument for this point. I know everybody's watching here so if someone find some counterargument, please let me know.

Her second work is closely related to the incident, so this must be mentioned in the article Iris Chang. The argument of Nanking Massacre is also closely related to the argument of her second work.

A4. Iris Chang was a political activist. She was paid by the Chinese Government to write her book, the anti-Japanese organizations supported her, and her activities especially after the publishing of the second work.

A5. This is the same as A3.

A6. There is a dispute over her third work also. She distorted the history, and made her work like the Chinese mainland's history textbook. This is a comment from Time Asia, and the author support the second work but even such the author, accused her third work.

A7, Honestly, I believe my edition is neutral, because I believe so. But, needless to say, this might not be always true. That's the reason why I waited comment at talkpage, but my comment had been ignored long time. The discussion was restarted after Hmib posted RfC.

A8. I personally have opinion, which decline the existance of the incident. One of the good reason is A3. It is impossible to kill 300,000 people in such very small area. John Maggie stated that he saw one homicide case as I stated above.

However, my opinion is subject to change because I am a fact driven. When I find other evidence/witness/argument, my opinion may be changed. I can be a strong Japanese accuser.

A9. My job is to observe what is the fact and what is not. I ignore my opinion in terms of that.

I apoligy it takes so long time to reply. And I will be off for the rest of the day because my friend is leaving from the United States.

--Flowerofchivalry 22:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

citations

The third work has been accused by Time Asia. "Those Chinatown Blues." Aug 04, 2003. by Susan Jakes. The second work has been accused by Fujioka, a professor at the University of Tokyo. Fujioka accuses Chang's fabrication of facts and using fabricated and/or misattributed pictures. The other major credible work is "南京事件の総括―虐殺否定の論拠" by Masaaki Tanaka(田中正明). This book declines the existance of the incident by showing huge numbers of evidences. The book indicates mistakes and fabrications Chang made.

I also have to note that a major dispute is going on about Chang's neutrality. Some scholars state that she was paid by the Chinese Government. This also must be noted. --Flowerofchivalry 03:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) see the section above this section, (more questions there) we were editing my page at the same time. I'll be offline until Sunday afternoon or evening, so take your time.Pedant 03:13, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Re : Image:Glenn.jpg > Image:Glenn_Jahnke.jpg_Image:Glenn_Jahnke.jpg">

Hi Pedant,

Done upon request. If you need anything more, feel free to let me know at my talkpage! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry

Ah, IMO, FoC is something pretty close to a "Holocaust-denial neo-Nazi from Japan". Maybe he doesn't buy into all of the far-right-wing POV that's increasingly common in Japan (I haven't looked at all their edits), but this business of his edits about the Nanking Massacre is more than troubling.

This far-right-wing revisionist historianism in Japan, and its successes in things like getting changes in history books, is a real problem, and I'm very worried that the current Japanese government isn't taking major steps to deal with it, but is rather just appeasing them. Those with good knowledge of Japanese history will remember something very similar in the 1920's - not that I think we're likely to repeat the 1930's, but still... It's as if neo-Nazis in Germany were actually succeeding in writing the Holocaust out of German history books.

Which is not to say that the other parties in this (Hmib, I think is the user's ID) are acting properly, or that all they've said is acceptable, but FoC is a very, very, very long way from blameless here. Noel (talk) 17:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should make a minor correction here: it's possible that FoC is merely a hard nationalist, and not on the far-right; the two are of course not synonomous (although often found together). Noel (talk) 19:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly droll to read your comment about My only interest is in creating an unbiased factual encyclopedia.

Perhaps you ought to do a little investigation into FoC's views, and this topic, before commenting further. Let me point out to you FoC's comment on the Nanking Massacre:

I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened.

which you may find in this edit.

I can't list all the books in my extensive library which refer to Japanese military excesses against civilian populations in occupied areas during WWII, and Nanking in particular, but may I refer you to:

• Meiron Harries, Susan Harries, Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (Random House, New York, 1991), pp. 221-230, wherein you will find the action laid out in great detail. Their copious source notes indicate that their account is based primarily on British Foreign Office documents in the Public Record Office, Kew; these documents would be contemporary eye-witnessreports from diplomats. The book also includes data from German (i.e. Axis) diplomats.

• Haruko Taya Cook, Theodore F. Cook, Japan at War: An Oral History (New Press, New York, 1992) It doesn't cover it in depth (alas), but it does have a useful summary of the Nanking Massacre on pp 39-40; a few particularly on-point comments are: "The full extent of this atrocity can probably never be ascertained. ... how little those involved are, even today, willing to acknowledge responsibility for what happened during that war." (It's not just those who were involved who refuse to admit what happened, as we can see.)

• Herbert P. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (HarperCollins, New York, 2000) pp. 333-337 covers it briefly, but it does include a quotation from the diary of a high Japanese Foreign Office official, Ishigari Itaro: "A letter arrived .. reporting in detail on the atrocities of our army in Nanking. It describes a horrendous situation of pillage and rape."

I could go on for a long time, but you get the idea. In light of this, perhaps you can begin to conceive of my disgust as FoC's statement that "I personally believe did not happen".

You might also want to look at this paper, A Japanese Historiography of the Nanjing Massacre, by Takeshi Yoshida, which is a good overview of the ideological struggles over this issue.

There are certainly questions which could use debate, about the events at Nanking, and there are equally some problems with Iris Chang's Nanking Massacre book. She's a journalist, not a historian, and it shows in some ways; she also does appear to owe a lot to Bergamini, whom she does have the grace to mention as a source, although perhaps not as fully as she should. (Then again, a historian as well-reputed as Stephen Ambrose has failed on this front too - and Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, otherwise extremely well regarded, nowhere even mentions Edward Behr's Hirohito: Behind the Myth, which preceded his work by more than a decade in making a re-appraisal of the level of Hirohito's responsibility, the main point of Bix's work.)

However, her book is fairly copiously footnoted as to sources (including many to contemporary newspaper reports and reports from missionaries), and she also did an enormous amount of research for it, including talking to survivors. I believe the Timothy Kelly review is tendentious and focuses on nits, and does not represent a fair overview of the book, which I find to be broadly accurate, the errors not-withstanding, based on my knowledge of the events there from other sources (such as the ones I listed above). This review, which is certainly not gushing, provides, I think, a fairer take on it. Her book certainly is to be praised for rescuing this major tragedy from the "memory hole" for the average person in the West.

However, I have no more interest in debating this issue with FoC, and his "I personally believe it did not happen", than I have in debating whether or not the gas chambers existed with David Irving. Some things are just reprehensible and insufferable, and this wilful disregard for the facts of history is one of them. Noel (talk) 28 June 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Reply from User:Flowerofchivalry

Hello, Jnc,

First of all, what you wrote here (and everywhere) is your personal opinion (as you said so). I can't get your point, but what is your assertion? Some POVs not mentioned in the article must not be included because it is against your personal opinion?

Second, in my opinion, you seriously lack of history knowledge by confusing "holocaust in Germany" and "the Nanking Incident." If you seriously believe those are identical, prove it please.

Finally, reasoning "FoC is a very, very, very long way from blameless here." Is this because it against your personal POV? --Flowerofchivalry 21:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment from pedant, hey this is my page, I can use a level one header here

Both of you, please. This page is not a page for you to argue on.

Flowerofchivalry If I am to help you, it would be best to not edit the pages under discussion, or to engage in arguments with other editors while we work. I would like to have you explain to me your position, and I will do my best to represent you.

Noel, if you don't mind, could you just not add fuel to the fire? I'd like to resolve this quickly and amicably. If you would like to comment on this matter or on Flowerofchivalry please leave the labels out of it. If you'd really like to help, answer some of the same questions I asked Flowerofchivalry above... that will help me a lot. Thanks.Pedant 03:48, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

While I found problems at Iris Chang, there are also many biased sentences at Nanking Massacre. I started working which sentences need to be improved. I will post the result here instead of reflecting the result to the article.

I declare that I will follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines strictly as I have been doing. Also, while the dispute is not at my fault, I will do my best to resolve the dispute peacefully and amicably with your valuable cooperation.

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Thank you, please post right here anything you think needs to be changed in the article, and why, etc. explain as completely as you can. I've been reviewing the histories of the articles in question, but anything you can point out to me that will help explain, feel free to point it out. I wouldn't really worry about the RfC, it will just bring more editors to look at the articles. The more there are, the more likely that the article will become neutral, I'd think. I posted a response briefly summarising what I understand as your position, that's pretty much all that's required of you at this point. I advise letting the Request for Comments just run its course, and see what comments the community has, and go on from there. Let me know if there's more I need to help you with, if I miss something.Pedant

I seriously appreciate your help. I'm easily pissed, and always accept someone's challenge as long as I believe I can win. Instead of getting pissed, I will work on Nanking Massacre to make the article neutral as possible. I don't worry about RfC at all. I think that RfC proves his problems by itself. Yes, and we can get more editors and helps. I just made a fresh resolve to make the articles neutral. Yes, I will.

By the way, when I work on the scientific field, I can be relaxed because of NPOV :D

--Flowerofchivalry 29 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Comments about Flowerofchivalry 's RfC...

...and recent edit disputes on articles relating to events in China after the Battle of Nanking below:

Please address content issues rather than personal issues:

• Comments here, in this format please, please sign all comments Pedant 2005 June 29 04:11 (UTC)

Walmart / Please Explain

Hi Pedant. Regarding my removal of the Pyramid of the Moon image: The image and caption imply that the Wal-mart is directly next door to the pyramid. This is misleading. A better image would be an overhead view showing both the Wal-mart and the pyramid to give the reader some perspective. Monkeyman 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

FlowerofChivalry

Hi Pedant, in case you're still FoC's advocate, he's been reported for 3RR. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 08:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. FoC e-mailed me to say he has only editing used the FoC user account and that he's being set up, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and unblocked him. FoC's RfC shows evidence of IP sockpuppetry too, and the IPs used last night to violate 3RR resolve to the same part of the world. Also, after I blocked FoC, a new user account User:HarryWilson was set up to continue reverting to FoC's preferred version, which could have caused FoC's block to be extended to 48 hours for block evasion. Either FoC is a serial reverter and is not being honest with me, or else he is being set up good and proper. SlimVirgin 18:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)