User talk:69.194.137.183

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~. Jacqui ★ 22:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Tom Harrison Talk 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To say that the Chinese, or anyone else, invented gunpowder is opinion. To say, "Historian X says gunpowder was invented in China in the year Y; Historian W says gunpowder was invented in Syria in the year Z" is to neutrally present verifiable and cited facts. Basically, Wikipedia does not say who invented gunpowder, or the crossbow. We just record what scholars say. I urge you to find citations from prominent historians to support anything you want to add to either article. I will leave your changes for at least a day to see what other editors think of them, but ultimately, everything in the article must be supported by verifiable citations of reliable sources. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the trouble to look that up. I had not seen Needham's book before, and I look forward to browsing through it. I will add this to Crossbow:

According to Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 6, Military Technology, page Page xxvii, the crossbow was probably invented in China and was from there introduced to Europe.

Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a quote from the book you cited. I wrote 'probably' because Needham wrote 'probably', as you can see here [1] "For the bow, the crossbow (probably invented in the Chinese culture-area and introduced to Europe twice) and pre-gunpowder artillery, I have had the benefit of the collaboration of..." Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it's just the two of us, I have asked for a third opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- to reiterate what User:Tom harrison says above, it's not in keeping with Wikipedia editing policy to state something as established fact when it isn't. Where gunpowder was first invented, and whether it was independently in different places are considered by most historians to be open questions. You are welcome to quote some scholar, with citation, who voices the opinion that it was solely and definitely a Chinese invention. Simply stating that opinion as if it was established fact isn't accurate. Also, even if you do quote one scholar who favors the purely-Chinese opinion, you'll need to quote other scholars who voice opposing opinions, in order to accurately represent the current balance of opinion among historians. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. KarlBunker 12:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. It should be clear to you by now that your attempts at making the change you want to Gunpowder are not going to succeed. There are several editors who see this particular edit as being inaccurate and unacceptable. If you were to engage in a dialog with other editors, you might be able to make some changes to the article which would bring it closer to what you want. But as if you just keep blindly inserting the same edit, you're only wasting your own time and effort. KarlBunker 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

As soon as your block expired you are back with the same reverts. You are not entitled to three reverts per day, and your persistent reversion to a known contentious version of the article, against consensus, constitutes disruption. I have blocked you for 48 hours. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And again

Sockpuppeteering to evade 3RR is also not allowed. Blocked for a week this time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • And making legal threats too? [2] is enough to get you banned for good. Bye. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.194.137.183.html"