Flowerofchivalry

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

I note that you have already reverted Iris Chang 4 times today, but as you have not previously been warned I am not blocking you this time. I will block you if you make 1 more revert, or break the 3 revert rule in future. Thryduulf 10:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not explaining it so you could understand last time, I'll try again below.

• The Three Revert Rule (3RR) means that you can be blocked if you revert any page more than three times in any 24 period.
• user:Markalexander100 (who signs himself as just Mark) reported on the 3RR violations page - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR - that you had reverted the Iris Chang article 4 times between 06:45 and 15:41 (both times UTC) yesterday (3 June).
• Normally this would mean that you would be blocked from editing for 24 hours. However, as you had not been warned about the rule I used my discretion and did not block you (obviously), but chose to warn you instead.
• When I wrote the warning method, what I meant was that if you made one more revert before 09:24 today (one 24 hours and 1 minute after the second revert), then I would block you for violating the rule. The second part means that as you have been warned, any time in the future you make 4 or more reverts in any 24 period you will be blocked.
• You can read the report Mark made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Flowerofchivalry, which details all the individual reverts.
• You can revert Iris Chang in the future, as long as you don't break the 3RR. That said, continutally reverting is not acceptable. If there are any disputes as to the content of an article the first step is to discuss in on the talk page - in this case talk:Iris Chang.

I hope this helps. Thryduulf 07:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flowerofchivalry. After much deliberation we have decided to bring RfC into play, and we have submitted a request for comment here. Please respond to it under the "response" heading. Thanks. -Hmib 11:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me a funny commedy story. I'm sure this does not work because the person must be accused is you. Don't you remember? Mark told you to stick to the facts. If you sticked to the fact, you can't accuse me. Don't waste your time while complaining you have the final exam. --Flowerofchivalry 12:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide an example where I did not state a fact. -Hmib 12:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to start a RfC against me. -Hmib 12:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All. Oh wait, it is a fact that my English sucks. So what? You can fix my English if you can. Why not??

RfC against you? I think I don't need it because you did by yourself. I told you you shouldn't do it but you don't listen. --Flowerofchivalry 12:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please direct all further RfC-related issues to its own talkpage, and/or write a response. -Hmib 12:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Flower, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that Japan did lots of really evil things in Asia in the 1930's and 1940's. I don't blame most contemporary Japanese for what their ancestors did - but those like you, who aren't strong enough to face the truth and admit it, well, them I consider to be voluntarily taking a share of the guilt for those heinous acts. Noel (talk) 21:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Noel or Jnc, thank you for your comment. I have one question. Why you assume "Japan did lots of really evil things in Asia in the 1930's and 1940's." There are many sources that support your assuming while there are many sources that decline your assuming. --Flowerofchivalry 21:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what the Japs did in China are all 'assumptions'? And there's alot of 'evidence' from nwo-Nazis on that the Holocaust never happened. Why don't you include them as well?

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 21:33, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

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 Hmib 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)

more on my talk page Pedant 02:09, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

even more on my page, glad we are making some fast progress, thanks for your quick replies. I'll be offline until tomorrow afternoon or evening.Pedant 03:16, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Just checking in with you, glad you are not stressed by recent events. Yes the RfC can take good care of itself, and will only serve to help bring attention to the problems you were having with the article. Just remember to be polite to anyone, especially someone who isn't polite at all, and you will have almost no problems at all. Please let me know if you need more help with anything, or advice. Or if there is an interesting article growing somewhere, I edit almost any subject. Pedant 2005 June 30 23:32 (UTC)

I understand. I even appreciate Hmib to post the RfC so many people are now paying attention to us. I'm extremely busy these days, but I still pay attention to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Flowerofchivalry 1 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Hi Flower, can you supply a link to where s/he said "a fucking jap neo-nazi holocaust denier." Thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

here or here or here or here or here if not more. Sorry for lacking the information.

--Flowerofchivalry 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

or this. There are many. --Flowerofchivalry 10:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the links. I've left a warning on his talk page. If he does it again, let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I hope it works. --Flowerofchivalry 10:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flower, thanks for reverting those edits/articles of mine that person kept editing for criticism of the CCP/Mao/etc. John Smith's 16:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. --Flowerofchivalry 21:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Godammit, that person is at it again. Can you help me by reverting articles when you can? I'll be doing it 3 times in 24hrs at this rate. Cheers! John Smith's 28 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)

Next time, please do not forget to sign your comment. I will do my best, but I have a broken heart right now, and almost start crying because my friend left the US. I'm busy with planing to go and see her ;) Anyhow, I have never overlooked vandalism and not going to. If I can help you more, don't hesitate to tell me ok?

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Flower, I don't see the example you gave as being a personal or racist attack. What you have with the anon is a content dispute, so the way to deal with it is to stick closely to our policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Write in an encyclopedic style, and cite reputable sources for any contentious points you make. I can't get involved in the details of the dispute because I'm not familiar with the issues. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 06:13 (UTC)

Please make yourself aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR). Any violation is likely to result in a 24-hour block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 16:00 (UTC)

He has been warned at least 3 times already. The usefulness of those warnings, I shall let you decide for yourself. -Hmib 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Hi, flower. As someone who can (OBVIOUSLY) read Japanese, I was wondering if might like to help me on a project. I see that the Japanese Self-Defence forces have a page on wiki, but only a general one. There are no sub-pages for the JGSDF, JMSDF or JASDF. I could certainly get started, but as I can't read Japanese I wouldn't be able to supply the most up-to-date information. So I was wondering if we could try to work together, or you could ask some other Japanese people you know to help out if they're more interested in the military than you. Otherwise I can do my best by myself and just ask if you could find specific information.

Cheers John Smith's 2 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Why not??? I'm glad to work with you. Yes, there are three forces, army(JGSDF), navy(JSMDF), and air force(JASDF). The Japanese people are trying to change their name to the Japanese Army, Navy, and Air Force. I'm extremely busy these days, but still I'm interested in. Do you have a specific plan?

--Flowerofchivalry 2 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure :) To be honest what I need is someone who is willing to "find" me information - i.e go onto whatever website and translate the necessary info. So if I get stuck, then perhaps I could drop you a line. Otherwise feel free to either complete what you're working on now - or of course drop in if you have some suggestions. I'll get started on the Navy first.

Look, tell you what, perhaps you could do me a small favour. If you go to the Globalsecurity website, could you try to find out the latest information on the "DDH-X" and "DDG-X" projects? Also anything that Globalsecurity hasn't mentioned. That would be the best way to ensure anything I put up there is up-to-date. Cheers John Smith's 3 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Query for you here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi FoC, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Nanjing Safety Zone, and having looked at the evidence, and taking into account the previous warnings, I've blocked you for 24 hours. If you feel this is unfair, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I replied the all of your e-mails. Please take a look at.--Flowerofchivalry 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

FlowerOfChivalry, have you edited Nanjing Safety Zone using anonymous IP addresses?

No. I said this more than ten times.

If so was this done to circumvent enforcement of the 3 revert rule? If not, is it actually your belief that another user did this to 'frame' you?

I don't know. I don't accuse anyone without evidence like Hmib and Mark did. One thing I can say it those anon IPs and any username are not mine.

If you do believe that, do you have any evidence? Anything else I should know?

Mark, Hmib, and (probably Jnc) are pro-Chinese extremists who strongly push their twisted view (without any proofs) and censor any ideas the Chinese don't like. For example, please take a look at Nanjing Safety Zone. Hmib is trying to entrap the scholars he does not favor.

Really, it's inappropriate to revert an article 3 times in 24 hours, if you feel the need to do so, it is probably better to negotiate the article's content on the discussion page.

I did. Hmib ignored. I answered every single questions he asked, and he didn't say anything.

If that fails, and you feel the need, you can request comments from other editors, and if you can explain the problem you see with the article to the other editors, then the content can be adjusted to satisfy encyclopedic standards of accuracy. (this is the part I would help with best, I simply can't do much to help you if you try to force your point of view -- and if you can't explain it to me, as patient as I am, it's going to be really hard for you to continue editing articles) I think most editors are committed to accurate articles, accuracy insures neutrality. Anyone who consistently edits inaccuracies into an article can be blocked.

That's good news for me and the most people on the earth. Please gather as many as third party people, and ask them to take a look at. I don't care their political standpoint as long as they are fact-driven.

Here's an example: Say there's an article about the Pope, the head of the Catholic church. Assume I am a Catholic and believe that the pope is 100% infallible, that he is always right. Assume someone else has edited the Pope article to include a statement that says something like "because the Pope made the wrong decision, 1,000 people were put to death." I as a Catholic would maybe insist that that isn't true, I know the Pope is always right because he's the Pope.

In this case, I would be wrong to insist on editing out the part that said the Pope was wrong, (if there werew references supporting that he was wrong) however, I might be able to negotiate with the editors for a better wording, that doesn't offend my religious beliefs but it would be even better to put aside my personal belief, and investigate the evidence on all sides, and to add information about the evidence and include references to sources I used to obtain the information. Information, including references, is much more convincing than personal opinion, or unsupported facts. Even true facts, without references, are weaker than those supported by evidence.

I agree with you completely. Hmib and Mark entrap some scholors while they write what they want without evidence.

It also might be worthwhile to examine your own feelings, and to open-mindedly try to see if you are editing from personal belief or from well-researched and substantiated factual data. Sometimes it can be better to just not edit the articles you feel strongly about, but to only add discussion on the article's talk page. That's what the talk page is for, to help to improve the article, not argue with people who have a different opinion, but to cite specific corrections that you feel need to be made to the article, and the reasons why. If you have to revert the same edit or similar edits, more than once, that's a good indication that some activity needs to occur on the talk page, and that's the best place to change a controversial article or one that involves anything you think might be personal opinion, either your opinion or that of another editor.

In my opinion, talk pages don't work for those "activists." People like Mandel, who has the similar view to them, can talk and discuss, but Hmib and Mark ignores anything they don't favor, and then start labeling. Don't say that's because Hmib is a small kid, Jnc, who claims himself as elderly, did the same kind of labelings.

Let me know if you'd like me to comment on the 3 revert rule charges or your ban. Pedant 18:52, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

Fortunately, I am unblocked, but I should not be blocked from the beginning. Hmib and Mark conspired with each other to evade 3RR. According to the rule, they violated 3RR. I appreciate your comment if you believe it helps resolving the issue.

Finally, let me say this; Hmib and Mark are liars. I have been trying to solve the conflict through talkings but it doesn't work. Because, again, they are liars.

--Flowerofchivalry 06:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're better off consulting WP:NOR than asking me. However I will answer as best as I can.

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

For the validity of interwiki versions, no they are not always correct. However there is nothing wrong with translating them to the English version. The accuracy of the translated version is to be discussed in en.wikipedia, with references back to the original verion when appropriate. -Hmib 20:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

You wrote you "created the article based on the zh version and my own research" How did you do the research? Please cite everything come from other than zh.wikipedia.org. Besides, I can translate Iris Chang and Nanking Massacre from ja.wikipedia.org. My version is way milder than the Japanese version. I translated many articles from en to ja such as lithium and other chemistry stuffs, but the topics like history is not very appropriate to translate, especially from the country involved. I could agreed the articles I translated, and there are very few disputes over science topics, but there are many over history topics. --Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

From WP:NOR: It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere. Read it. It helps. -Hmib 08:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Flower, regarding the e-mail you mentioned, I don't recall receiving anything. Let me know if it's something still current. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've traced the origin of one of the disputed sentences myself. It seems the problem stems from multiple users whose first language is not English, who don't understand the need for sources, and who can't edit in accordance with WP:NPOV.

• At 20:18 July 23 Flowerofchivalry (talk · contribs) adds: "Ishihara stated he respects the French culture but he just pointed out the problem of French language." POV, poor English, unsourced, and meaningless: what's the problem with the French language that causes problems for mathematicians? (Some of the world's best mathematicians are French.)
• At 19:45, August 2, Pixeltoo (talk · contribs), who seems to be French, changes it to: "Ishihara stated he respects the French culture but he just pointed out his ignorance about french mathematicians and his stupidity." POV, poor English, unencyclopedic, insulting, unsourced.
• At 00:02, August 11, 213.22.56.123 (talk · contribs) changes it to: "Ishihara then apologized by stating his apreciation for the French culture." Unsourced and contains a spelling mistake (possibly just a typo).
• At 02:15, August 17, User:Hmib reverts to: "Ishihara stated he respects the French culture but he just pointed out his ignorance about french mathematicians and his stupidity." See above.

Perhaps the dispute between FoC and Hmib could be reduced if you were both to supply sources for every edit that's likely to be challenged. Also, please bear in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, and edits must conform to a minimal standard of English. This is especially true when the edits are contentious and are leading to weeks-long edit wars. I'm leaving this on Hmib's page too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sources must be in English, must be credible, and must be cited properly in the article and linked to after the edit or sentence if offline. If you want me to look at the 3RR violation, you must supply the correct diffs. The ones you supplied don't match the times. See [1], and please respond there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please supply all the diffs as requested several times, and as the instructions make clear are needed, [2] and reply there please, not on my talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You've changed the diff back to the current version. You're very close to being blocked for disruption, so I'd quit while I was ahead in your shoes. Either supply a diff showing a version he reverted to before 03:19, 21 August, or withdraw the report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! How do you say "running fridges rule" in Japanese? Runningfridgesrule (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply