A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

no matter how lame somebody's comments are, lets refrain from using words like "fucking". [1] Good friend100 11:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that I've heard some "fucking outlandish stuff [on Wikipedia]" is not a personal attack, so don't falsely accuse me of that. Moreover, Wikipedia is not censored. Parsecboy 11:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Struck section name; as it's a false accusation. Parsecboy 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a helpful warning, as it seems that you are very angry about Ksyrie. What I'm doing is not even close to what Komdori/Lactose could do to me, so don't fire back at me that I'm accusing you, because I'm not. Good friend100 12:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Only popping in because my name was mentioned. Good friend100, please don't drag my name into your accusations on others. I don't really care much, but it is ironic that you (falsely) warn others of making personal attacks and do so while dragging other editor's names into the arena in a questionable way. You were warned and blocked repeatedly recently for breaking the rules and being disruptive. This has nothing to do with Parsecboy's comments, so leave my name out of it. --Cheers, Komdori 12:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you changed the leader oj Japan from Hirohito to Tôjô. I suggest you read articles on Imperial General Headquarters, on emperor Showa himself and the Tokyo tribunal about the propaganda work made by Douglas Mac Arthur. Furthermore, there is an entire chapter in Hirohito and War by Peter Wetzler that described the relationship between the to men and explain that Tôjô was entirely devoted to his emperor. Considering Tôjô, a prime minister between 1941 and 1944, the "leader" of Japan is a bit outdated. --Flying tiger 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the dispute on Talk:WWII, and saw that you posted a POV tag on the page as part of the dispute. This is disruptive editing; make sure you don't edit pages to prove a point. Thanks. Parsecboy 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I placed that tag there is pretty obvious: The infobox claims that Hirohito was in command in Japan during WWII, while any historian who has looked into the subject will tell you that that is a misrepresenation of facts. I changed it, but my change was reverted imediately by an other editor who doesn't tolerate any other POV. The way to resolve such a situation is to place a tag on the page, and open a discussion on the talk page, sothat other people can see that there is a disagreement, and can weigh in on the issue.
So please tell me what I do now: Historical accurate views are not tolerated, and we are not even allowed to discuss it. Is that the way Wikipedia works? Suppress views you don't like, even if those views happen to be correct? JdH 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the water is a bit muddy as to who was actually in charge of Japan during the war. Regardless, POV tags should not be used for a petty dispute in the infobox. Generally, it's better to use them for articles with repeated violations of NPOV throughout the article. Generally, just posting on the talk page should generate enough interest from the editors who watch the page. However, if that fails, you can always post an RfC at WP:RFC/HIST, to invite more people to comment. Parsecboy 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The water is not muddy at all: Just read a good book about the history of Japan (which I have done) and everything becomes crystal clear. The problem with Wikipedia is that people who scream the loudest always win; scholarship looses out JdH 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'll put it in now.Kfc1864 13:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please!Kfc1864 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you show your opinion on the MiszaBot discussion on the Talk page?Kfc1864 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

it automatically archives a page.--Kfc1864 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I only noticed now your reply, therefore did not answer in 3RR earlier. Are there more problems with the article? Assuming the whole thing was nothing more then a misunderstanding (was it?), how about this suggestion: Eurocopter can retain his belief that his edits were towards achieving a compromize (as opposed to a brake of 3RR rule), but would undertake to voluntarely abtain from editing for 24 hours. I'll give this suggestion to Eurocopter as well. Cheers.:Dc76\^talk 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is always possible to ask him, when he/she (I guess it's he, but i don't know for sure) comes back and starts editing, to abstain for 24 more hours. I read your comment on 3RR, and it contained a grain of truth, about which one can not go around: enforcement should not depend on whom it is applied to. So, I do support the 24 hours. But I suggested to make it in such a way as to result in zero hostility. That, imho, is possible if all parties are civilized, which seems to be the case. (I'm jumping a bit ahead assuming Eurocopter will agree to this... :-) ) :Dc76\^talk 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't edited for at least 200 hours, so the 24 hours passed. This masquerade should stop and constructive editing should begin. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Korean War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I've been watching from the sidelines I came in late on the Korean War controversy. Don't know if this link will help any (as if they would listen :-) but it could help the article as well. [[2]] --Xiahou 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't catch if you used this source. (alot to go through again :-) but [[3]] is a pretty good one breaks it down state by state names and all. *cough* doubt 'certain' sites based 'elsewhere' approach this. --Xiahou 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

another interesting tibit -[[4]] plus as if you watchlist hasn't told you there is poll and some kind of explination about it. I realize english is not their native language but I barely get the basics of it. And yes I am becoming a little more active in this. I have sat back and sadly almost enjoyed the back and forth banter. But its just hit a point where come on enough is enough. --Xiahou 00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'll put it on my watchlist in case it should happen again. the_undertow ^talk 19:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because our discussion is on page for deletion I have made transfer (copy/paste) of your last comment on discussion page of map (Image talk:Serbia1918.png). I will today or tomorow give offical demand for deletion on page Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because there is really no other neutral solution which can stop production of new interesting maps. ---Rjecina 1:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have time go please on commons for voting about deleting of Serbia1918 map. Link is [5] ---Rjecina 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that they have admitted that english is not their first language but what does "the poll was supposed to be nonbinding and served only to see if all the one agree or not,if not,we continue to other dispute procedure.It's clearly written and all the one understood" mean? If I am getting this right if the staw poll shows not everyone agrees with us or them that it should got to arbitration (which was already shot down a while back or not?) I am at a loss to why they would want this? ITs rather obvious which way arbitration would go isn't it? Multiple sourced credited vs usually censored estimation from source known to have huge differences in numbers during similar period. Like I said before if it wasn't so frustrating it's almost funny. --Xiahou 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's seriously not me Nate I've asked him to stop and you have a right to believe it's me and if I were you I would believe it was me I'll tell him not to again. --LtWinters 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding "primarily from SMS Moltke, who scored 13 of those 15 hits." to the page on HMS Tiger (1913). However what was the source for this?

There is a big problem with many of these pages containing unsourced material. This would gradually be fixed if when people made additions they footnoted them giving the source. <ref>Author, ''Name of Source'', page number</ref> --Toddy1 07:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If the offender tries that again, don't remove the copy-pasted content of your userpage from theirs: under Wikipedia rules that still may be considered vandalism, regardless of how morally justified. Just report such accounts to WP:UAA and they'll be banned in no time. --The Fifth Horseman 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If he does it again, I'll do as you suggest and just report him. I was waiting on him to do something clearly incivil or vandalistic before reporting him. Thanks for reporting him to WP:UAA. Parsecboy 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's real. It was an experimental rifle. The confusion lies, I believe, in the fact it was used in a video game once... Duke Nukem? Anyhow, it does not deserve mention, so I'm not about to revert your culling mention of it. Max Popenker is probably the best source of information. He's got the Original Research. Here's his take on it: [6].--Asams10 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A post in a fanboy forum by a user with the name Max Popenker isn't any reliable evidence at all. How do you know it actually is Max? And why can no reliable sources be found anywhere? Moreover, how does it work? As far as I can tell, there are no ejection ports, and how does the bolt cycle? The mags are at the rear of the weapon, the only thing behind them is the buttstock. Parsecboy 09:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC

Uh, I know it's Max because he (through the 'fanboy' forum as you call it) provided me with an advanced copy of his book, "Assault Rifle", for comment on the American weapons. Beyond that, I've read in at least two other places about the device. I'm not sure that "Pribor-3B" is the correct term as that is, loosely translated, "Device-3B" or "Device with 3 Barrels" as I would translate. That just requires a name change. I would not be against listing all of Korobov's work under one article as it doesn't appear he had a device that went into production. I realize you're bitter about this twit that you've been fighting with, but it was a real prototype whether you like it or not. Do you not find it intriguing? IIRC, the fired cases were ejected behind the magazines. The entire assembly recoiled as the barrels were fired either simultaneously or possibly staggered. At the end of the recoil cycle, the bolt was held captive and the rest of the rifle moved forward, extracting the cases. The spent casings dropped and the bolt was released to chamber three more rounds. Intriguing, but not practical.--Asams10 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add, this twit is also spamming the CRAP out of MilitaryImages.netunder the names Bashabasher, Braith-Wafer and Riddick at least.--Asams10 10:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy, regarding the "Grammy Award winning" info in the first sentence of System of a Down, it's not NPOV for several reasons. Awards are not the main focus of the article, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence. There's nothing wrong with it being in the intro, just not the first sentence. You wouldn't say "Carmen Electra is a Razzie award winning actress" in the first sentence, even if it's true (I'm sure you can see the POV in that). If I'm not mistaken, SOAD were nominated for four Grammys and have won one. So I added this in the intro: "Their works have earned them one Grammy Award amongst four nominations". Spellcast 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Wikiproject, I hereby present the Military History WikiChevrons to Parsecboy for outstanding work on it! K14 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an admirer that started a page on you for some reason: Parsecboy. Leibniz 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why I mention him to you. The edit pattern looks extremely similar and he already has a copyvio warning. BTW I think that the Seattle-based IP vandal is someone else. Leibniz 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's also re-added the Pribor 3B to the list of Russian weaponry article. Well, the IPs that use the "Jetwave Dave will kick your ass" edit summaries are clearly Jetwave, but some of them might be another "friend" I've made, User:Labyrinth13. Some of them follow Jet's edit pattern, some follow Laby's. The odd thing is, they both show up as Seattle-based IPs. Who knows? Parsecboy 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I'll remove it.K14 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You can find Max here. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I created a bot ruleset to identify new ship-related articles for tagging by WikiProject Ships. Today my bot search ran for the first time, and found no less than seven new ship articles by you in just the last 24 hours. Please come join us at WP:Ships, if you are so inclined. Maralia 03:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can throw a few more anecdotes or facts at the ship ramming pages. Maybe Ram (ship) and Naval ram should be merged. I know very little about ramming except that Japanese destroyers sometimes used it as an attack option against US submarines in WWII. Binksternet 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! You always have my full support in this kind of issues! Best, --Eurocopter tigre 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nate, I recommend that you should ask for semi-protection on those pages vandalised by that dynamic IP. If not, this reverts can be endless. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to send some serious warnings to all those IPs. --Eurocopter tigre 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, he stopped. Hope the warnings were helpfull! Best, --Eurocopter tigre 20:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To fit with policy, probably best if you add a proposed deletion tag to it - it's only existed for a few days, someone might try to expand it in the five days the PROD runs for. ELIMINATORJR 23:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind if I report your little stalker and his alteregos? Maralia 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Parsecboy.

I've seen that you're a damn fine editor, but could I ask that you have a little more patience and good faith regarding the WWII image? The thing's a bit of a powder-keg. Oberiko 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we could wish for a better compromise then that. I personaly belive it will be nice if that sticks as a constant solution. M.V.E.i. 16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully protected the Linkin Park article and blocked four of the fifteen accounts being used to engage in the revert war at Linkin Park, including your user account. A fifth user account was blocked by another admin. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Most of the editors knew when to stop, some did not. The 3RR vandalism exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. If you have a disagreement over content, discuss that disagreement on this talk page. When in doubt, do not revert. If discussion is not possible, ask for administrative assistance or engage in dispute resolution. For now, please take a break and enjoy the rest of the weekend. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously telling me that labeling Linkin Park as "Homocore" is not "simple and obvious vandalism"? Parsecboy 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note left for blocking admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Parsecboy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Jreferee blocked me for alleged WP:3RR violations on Linkin Park. The reverts in question were in response to blatant and obvious vandalism, therefore, 3RR does not apply. Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

I think the block is perhaps marginal and I was inclined towards an unblock but having seen the response of the blocking admin below and on their talk page, I'm afraid that you were not dealing with straightforward out and out vandalism and you have reverted 11 times in the past 24 hours. As such the block is well within policy and within the admins discretion. The unblock is therefore denied. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Although I know it doesn't work like this, I fully support the unblocking of this user; (s)he was clearly rectifying persistent vandalism. Oli Filth 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Genre Disputes have been going on a long time in that article. Archive 2 even is entitled "Earlier Genre Disputes" at Talk:Linkin_Park. The revert war was over the sentence "Linkin Park is recognized for adapting the nu metal and homocore genres" vs. "Linkin Park is recognized for adapting the nu metal genre." The 3RR vandalism exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism. the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. The addition of homocore genre is not the most simple and obvious vandalism and does not even appear to be vandalism. It seems more like a disagreement over what genre this band fits into, which is one of an ongoing disagreement over the genre issue. Parsecboy made at least 11 reverts within 24 hours. The revert war seem to me to be an WP:OWN effort through reverts. A cool down period seems appropriate. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is complete and total bullshit. This is not a "genre dispute". This is blatant vandalism. Are you seriously stating that "homocore" even somehow might, in some twisted universe, apply to Linkin Park? Have either of you even listened to anything by Linkin Park, or for that matter, anything homocore? This is the most ridiculous fucking shit I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I get banned for reverting vandalism. Good job, genius. Parsecboy 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Parsecboy. We haven't always agreed on everything but I just wanted to let you know I think that out of all the editors I've met on Wikipedia, you're one of the most committed to improving it. This block is, of course, unfair, and a clear instance of abuse of power. It's yet more proof that the admins are are killing Wikipedia, by driving away the people who care about it most. Haber 02:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Haber. You're right, this is a clear abuse of power. The blocking admin comletely ignored the email I sent to him, and wouldn't even consider the possibility that he overreacted. The admin who denied the unblock seemed to be more concerned with whether it was within policy than whether I was actually just reverting vandalism. Not to mention the fact that these admins have apparently never heard of an open proxy. I appreciate your support :) Parsecboy 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is why you haven't been around the Korean War page for a while. Hope this all gets cleared up soon. Best of luck with it. wbfergus ^Talk 16:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I followed up on Oysterguitarist's unblock request, and, after consulting with the blocking admin, lifted your block as well. For the record, I believe the block was within policy. I recognize that you felt what you were reverting was vandalism. However, you might consider going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if the vandalism wouldn't be clear to anyone without specific knowledge of the subject.--Kubigula (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I commend you on your attitude.--Kubigula (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just happened to be looking at a couple of your articles, and it occurred to me to ask: do you know about {{DEFAULTSORT}}? It can save you a fair amount of typing/potential errors. Rather than:

Category 1|world'slongestshipnameever

Category 2|world'slongestshipnameever

Category 3|world'slongestshipnameever

You can just use:

{{DEFAULTSORT:world'slongestshipnameever}}

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

It's also better because anyone adding categories down the road doesn't have to type it out again, either. Anyway, just wanted to point it out in case you hadn't come across it before. Maralia 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd come across it several times, but wasn't sure exactly what its purpose was. I'll update the articles I've created/edit with that template now. Thanks again. Parsecboy 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Many scientists at the time thought Jews were inferior for this reason Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews to prevent them from intermarring with the Germans see Scientific racism --Alpha166 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific racism is also the reason why millions of people from africa were enslaved --Alpha166 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I have no issues with your recent removal of images from Mumia Abu Jamal except for the fact that you marked both of your edits as minor edits, and I do not believe that they qualify as such. Lately I've noticed so many major edits being marked as minor that I've decided to start gently reminding people of what constitutes a minor edit:

   * Spelling corrections
   * Simple formatting (capitalization, et cetera)
   * Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page (e.g. adding horizontal
     lines, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)
   * Obvious factual errors (e.g. changing 1873 to 1973, where the event in question
     clearly took place in the XXth century.)
   * Fixing layout errors
   * Adding and correcting links
   * Removing vandalism

Also note:

   * Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially
     if the change involves the deletion of some text.
   * If you accidentally mark an edit as minor when it was in fact a major edit,
     you should make a second edit, or dummy edit, noting that
     "the previous edit was major" in the edit summary.

Thanks for your attention to this issue! --Melty girl 00:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)