Page:Matchlock (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Qiushufang (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[32]

The user is editing warring over the same thing over a range of articles, includingMatchlock,Arquebus,History of the firearm,Handgun,History of gunpowder and others. The subject of the dispute is a claim that rests on a source that I removed because it was quoted falsely. I gave in the edit summary the correct wording of the source plus page title (here, for example). Could someone please tell the user that he has to provide the full source on talk page if he wants to keep it? IMO the burden of proof is now on him.Gun Powder Ma (talk)00:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhilehe has done so.Gun Powder Ma (talk)00:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

After engaging in the talk page,User:Gun Powder Ma has not responded to any of the issues I have brought up and has instead engaged in non sequitur attacks that bear no relevance to the subject at hand. It seems given his history of edits that he is engaged in some form of sophisticated editing war, not with my specific users, but with any article that he deems not Western oriented enough or misleading in that they do not credit the West, or more specifically Greco-Roman culture with inventing x thing first. In argument, he is facetious, and in response, he provides non sequiturs. Notice inTalk:History of gunpowder, he never once addresses the subject of misrepresentation, and switches to attacking me on sources with claims that I never made. I merely indicated that he when deleted the content, he used a single word quotation "disputable" from another source as justification for other cited content. Furthermore, I proved he was in fact misrepresenting the source he quoted, to which he did not respond. He deleted the content even though his issue, that it was "disputable", had already been addressed through the second sentence noting that the arquebuses in question may have been small cannons instead.

He has since reported me for supposed sock puppeteering usingUser:ArchimedesTheInventor, despite the fact that he engaged both of us at different times on different subjects, and I did not engage withUser:ArchimedesTheInventor's issues prior toUser:Gun Powder Ma's own fight with me.User:ArchimedesTheInventor first started his edits in2018 and had no connection to me prior to the previous day and I fail to see our connection other than our problems with Gun Powder Ma. To have used this supposed sock puppet, I would have had to create it years prior, used it specifically to make edits to a single subject, that isTrip hammer, and then guessed that someone would two years later pick a beef with both that subject and an entirely unrelated in subject (Ottoman usage of the arquebus). With that kind of foresight, I should just get into stocks and options for I should be a billionaire by now. Which is more likely? That there is more than one editors who contribute articles about Chinese history or inventions, or that a user who makes it his agenda to prove that x thing was invented in Europe first has run afoul of those he ticked off? Note that his beef with me didn't even concern Chinese inventions but the usage of arquebuses (a gunpowder weapon) by the Ottomans and their dating.

Here are a list of pagesUser:Gun Powder Ma modified specifically to prove that x thing was done in Europe first:

Water wheel: Before:[33] After:[34]

Trip hammer: Before[35] After:[36]

Crank (mechanism): Before:[37] After:[38] - ironic considering his reason for the edit includes "restore chronology" even though he did not do that

Crankshaft: Before:[39] After:[40] - says he restored content from mass deletion but really just reorganized it so that Europe is before China - also notice that he deleted nearly all content for the Middle East and China sections while combining both into a truncated smaller section with material specifically to denigrate both

Handgun: Before:[41] After:[42] - interestingly here he just removed my addition of citation unclear with the reason "Go to talk and cite your references in full. You are misrepresenting them." in edit summary, showing that he didn't even read what I had added, only that he was mass reverting all my changes

Rammed earth: Before:[43] After:[44] - only change was that he removed a picture of Chinese rammed earth and said it was invented in the near east instead

Wheelbarrow: Before[45] After:[46]

He also has a habit of listing any articles that do not match up to his expectations in terms of content for deletion:[47],[48]: reasons being it sucks and doesn't have enough content about the West, which is ironic considering when Archimedes and I had a problem with his own sources and reasons for deletion, he either outright ignored us or committed to non sequiturs.Qiushufang (talk)01:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

More evidence ofUser:Gun Powder Ma's behavior of the similar type can be found[49], stretching back over a decade. Evidently this is not new to him.05:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Gun Powder Ma: What does the source actually say? The reference in the article provides a direct and straightforward quote that "In the first half of the 15th century, they began to use matchlock arquebuses". You seem to be alleging that this quote is out of context and thus false. What is the additional context that is being left out?~Swarm~^{sting}18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm:The source was only half-quoted, likely willfully so. The full sentence is: "Initially the Janissaries were equipped with bows, crossbows, and javelins. In the first half of the 15th century, they began to use matchlock arquebuses,although the first references to the Ottomans’ use of tüfek or hand firearms of the arquebus type (1394, 1402, 1421, 1430, 1440, 1442) are disputable." Disputable they are and I wrote thatin the edit summaries from the start but Qiushufang still edit-warred over them for days until he bothered to look up the source himself. That is disruptive behaviour IMO.Gun Powder Ma (talk)18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Which was in fact already noted in the original content you deleted, which stated that they may have in fact been just small cannons. In fact, you would know this if in you read the original source, or even the talk page where I provided the entire paragraph. I then improved on the original content to make it clearer and you did not respond to that. You just attacked me on claims which I did not make about other sources.Qiushufang (talk)18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop lying. You reverted me across the board and restored the false quote at a number of articles even though I provided in the edit summary the full rationale:

• Matchlock
• History of the firearm
• Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire
• Musket
• Arquebus
• History of gunpowder

For the removals of other false quotes I also provided my reasons on talkSaidel andNicolle. Stillwaiting for your reply there why you want to keep them....Gun Powder Ma (talk)21:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you only respond when coerced with extreme pressure, and badly at that. InMatchlock you used Agoston's source as justification for deleting other sources, which I restored because you made no mention of them at all. I did not say anything about Saidel or Nicolle other than you made no mentioin of them in the edit summary or justify their deletion. Of course that is until I proved you were misrepresenting Agoston inTalk:History of gunpowder, at which point you switched tact and attacked me over sources I made no claims about. The same thing occurred inHIstory of the firearm, where you took the single word "disputable" as justification for deletion, whereas Agoston says they appeared in the first half of the 15th century, and the dating is simply a range. The content I deleted inMusket was irrelevant to the article and already covered inArquebus. In fact the content didn't even concern you since it wasn't an edit you made. InArquebus, I reverted the change because your concern was already addressed by the statement that they may have just been small cannons, as I have statedover and over and over again. Same withHistory of gunpowder.Qiushufang (talk)21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Notice howUser:Gun Powder Ma no longer responds after being called out? He has since continued to edit other pages in the same pattern as before without first resolving the current issue, nor has he responded to my comments orUser:ArchimedesTheInventor's on his accusation of me supposedly sock puppeting:[50]. I would gladly make a truce with him to both stop editing until both his report of me and Archimedes' of him are resolved.Qiushufang (talk)20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Page:Crank (mechanism) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gun Powder Ma (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[51]

The user is ignoring sourcing or preventing the updating of articles by using old sources while not understanding what those same old sources are saying. This includes dismissing a source for being "out of its depth" on the basis that it's not written by an archaeologist[52]. And when mentioned that the source is in fact written by an archaeologist named Burnham (and specialized in the subject, I might add), he ignores the response and still deleted relevant quotes from Burnham from the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trip_hammer&diff=949560207&oldid=949500696). User also tries to paint his own sources as "more recent scholarship"here even though they were published in 1997 and 2002 whereas the sources provided to him which says contrary was published as recently as 2017. Look atCrank (mechanism),Crankshaft,Trip hammer. For example, the user keeps deleting Chinese applications for the usage of the crank-and-connecting rod in the pagesCrank (mechanism) andCrankshaft, and justifies this by repeatedly quoting Lynn White about how he knew examples about the Chinese 'crank', which is not the same as the crank-and-connecting rod. This author had only 1 example for the Chinese application of the crank and connecting rod in which I quoted to him in the talk page. I showed him a more recent source which provided 21 examples spread over 5 different applications for the Chinese crank-and-connecting-rod, making Lynn Whites statement debunked. Despite this, I offered to keep White's quote in the article as long as I get to add in examples for Chinese usage of the crank-and-connecting rod as the article makes it sound like they made no applications for it (even Lynn White would disagree with that). Instead Gun Powder Ma added in my examples as Chinese usage for the 'crank', which is not the same as crank-and-connecting-rods, and used those examples to quote Lynn White again about how the Chinese didn't covert reciprocal motion to rotary motion (in other words, what a crank and connecting rod does, for a crank by itself only converts rotary motion to rotary motion)here, ignoring that those very examples he put in are examples about Chinese applications for the crank-and-connecting rod, not just the crank as he painted. They would contradict Lynn White's quote if he put them in correctly. Although told that the 'crank' is not the same as the 'crank and connecting rod' repeatedlyhere, I don't think Gun Powder Ma understandshere. I would like to see that more updated sourcing be provided for these articles, in areas that updates the old sourcing. Lastly, I am a newcomer to wikipedia and am only recently aware of the 3RR rule. Please note that every mistake I made regarding the 3RR rule has to do with me being unfamiliar with wiki editing (such as editing a page over and over again to make sure that the source is correctly referenced as I did not know how to reference them correctly previously, though I thought I did), and have nothing to do with edit warring (repeatedly changing other people's edits over the 3 times per day limit).ArchimedesTheInventor 2:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Note that the reported user also reported me for edit warring. He told me to take it to the talk page, yet he himself did not wait for consensus or respond appropriately in the above articles' talk pages before continuing to revert and change the articles.Qiushufang (talk)09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ArchimedesTheInventor andQiushufang have been tagteaming to revert me and the solid scholarly sources I provided. I suspectWikipedia:Sock puppetry and will soon file a report that I can link here if need arises.Gun Powder Ma (talk)10:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Report.Gun Powder Ma (talk)11:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that both accounts are edit-warring against me andUser:William M. Connolley atCrankshaft (1) and trip hammer (2). In the latter example Qiushufang violates 3RR.Gun Powder Ma (talk)10:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

1st revert,2nd revert,3rd revert.Gun Powder Ma (talk)10:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is 'tag-teaming' you, Gun Powder Ma. You decided to change what I edited in February 2018 before I had any prior interactions with you [[53]]. And from reading your edit history, you decided to change Qiushufang's edits before he had any prior interactions with you. Being stubborn with Qiushufang meant you pushed Qiushufang to venture into our own little tango, ergo this is completely self inflicted. I didn't tell Qiushufang to do anything, nor did I change a word in the Trip Hammer article when Qiushufang joined in. So it's funny considering all of that, that you would accuse us as the same person now: [[54]]ArchimedesTheInventor (talk)06:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

When one engages in dishonest and facetious arguments likeUser:Gun Powder Ma, you don't need sock puppets. I believe this was coming to him no matter what given his editing history and agenda to prove that all things first originated in Europe and the West. He makes fine arguments when it suits him but when confronted, breaks down to non sequiturs and ignores the arguments made by others. SeeTalk:Trip hammer andTalk:History of gunpowder.Qiushufang (talk)23:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Plus it's very misleading for Gun Powder Ma to claim I'm "reverting" the "scholarly sources" already provided. I didn't delete sourcing that already existed, I merely said that there was no academic consensus and gave the viewpoints from other historians which says contrary to the ones already presented. Claims without scholarly consensus should be presented as still up-in-the-air rather than matters of fact. I still left the viewpoints from the old sourcing in the article. The sole exception is Lynn White's claim about the lack of the crank-and-connecting rod in Chinese history, which is outdated and more recent research can just prove such notions as plain out incorrect. Yet even for Lynn White, in the talk page I agreed to allow Lynn White's incorrect statement to remain the article, so long as the more up-to-date evidence are also in the article. Instead Gun Powder Ma completely distorted the sourcing from Needham, presenting Needham's identification of various Chinese crank-and-connecting rod applications as simply examples for applications of the crank (not the same thing), and then putting Lynn White's quote at the end to make it seem as if White's statement is still correct about the lack of Chinese applications for the crank-and-connecting rods([55] here). Also for those who are checking, Needham's examples for the crank-and-connecting rod are from pages 116-118, not just page 118 (do note that Needham calls the crank as an "eccentric lug" though).

On the other hand, Gun Powder Ma had wholesale edited out sourcing from the article to make it sound as if certain claims either have a scholarly consensus, or reached a scholarly consensus, when he knew they did not as shown in the talk page (here). Yet I have to argue with him tooth-and-nail just to add information not present in the article, despite giving relevant quotes and sourcing, yet despite all this he hasn't given an inch for the article is still presenting claims without scholarly consensus as matters of fact. Because when all else fails, he claims "I am still skeptical" as justification (here), rather than sourcing. In which case all he has to say is "I am still skeptical" for everything I say and it'll shut down the addition of anything he don't like. Obviously Gun Powder Ma have a problem when articles display "conjectures as fact" for non-Western achievements, such as here (here), so why is it that when it's the other way around he's deleting sources that shows there's no scholarly consensus for certain claims? Or simply deleting/preventing edits that would show certain outdated 56 year old claims to be factually wrong?ArchimedesTheInventor12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly.User:Gun Powder Ma has a habit of treating speculation as fact for the Western origin of things but does not accept the same or better for a non-Western origin. He reverts others' reversions or changes with the excuse of taking it to the talk page, where he utilizes wilful ignorance and non sequiturs to prevent honest discussion, and proceeds to deadlock the article in whatever he state he wants.Qiushufang (talk)19:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Example: Here he describes the use of natural fuel by the Chinese as "may" or "possible":[56] but refuses to accept that Lewis himself admits that the Greek wheelbarrow's transfer is "pure speculation" or that he himself notes that he is a minority in the discussion of the wheelbarrow's origin:[57]. As seen here:[58], so he does even read the source correctly. He just cherry picks whatever suits him, even when his own source contradicts him.Qiushufang (talk)20:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Page:Trip hammer (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Qiushufang (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[66]

Comments:
Seeabove for further details.Gun Powder Ma (talk)20:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The users has started to go aftermy edits elsewhere,2. Note that hehas never edited this article before, so clearly he is in ahound mood.Gun Powder Ma (talk)09:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You deleted sourced content in your changes to the article here:[67] using "cleanup" as justification. Clearly anybody with two eyes can see that this is not cleanup but deletion and modification of content to suit your own POV. You were also part of a talk page discussion 9 whole years ago regarding the same subject:[68], so you very well knew what you were doing when you decided to change the overtone tone and content of the article without giving proper notice. Once again you used misleading language to push your agenda that "x was invented in Europe first" no matter what the source actually says. As for your revert, your pattern of not addressing the core issue while resorting to non sequiturs remains unchanged. There was nothing wrong with the sources, as you claimed here:[69]. I had no contention with the sources but rather your deletion of any content which did not suit your own bias.All of which are from the same source.Qiushufang (talk)09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You remove contents you do not understand. The long-standing version I defend does not say that the Greeks invented the wheelbarrow. It says, based on a fully scholarly source with page reference, they "may" have invented it and that it "might" have transmitted to China later. This version has been mostly stable for at least nine yearsuntil you came today. You are showing a pattern of edit-warring over reliably sourced contents that you have not even read (also here andhere). This is not acceptable editing behaviour.Gun Powder Ma (talk)10:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. The stable version you linked to that was immediately reverted by someone else a day later:[70]. Fascinating definition you have of stable.Qiushufang (talk)10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I said "at least". The sourced contents you are now trying to alter beyond recognitionactually goes back as far as 2008.Gun Powder Ma (talk)18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, you do not even quote yourself properly, you said "at least nine years". Upon further delving into the stable version provided, it was reverted immediately the day after, and then was the subject of an edit war betweenUser:Gun Powder Ma and two other user:@GwydionM:,@Rurik the Varangian: starting here:[71], who along with@PericlesofAthens: engaged in a talk section with Gun Powder Ma:[72] on the same subject Gun Powder Ma has decided to unilaterally change once again under the edit summary of "clean up":[73]. Note thatUser:Khirurg has removed my improvements to the article including giving proper attribution to a blockquote without proper references, the addition of two relevant images, as well as the inclusion of proper quotes and references:[74]. Somewhat ironically, Khirug is convinced I am a sock puppet and has reverted some of my changes on those grounds, despite that I have never proven to be one, or am one. It is ironic because he has a long history of siding with Gun Powder Ma, such as on the above talk section, where he was once known asUser:Athenean, 9 years ago.Qiushufang (talk)18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

At this point I am only amazed that you even seem to get away with your confrontative behaviour. I think it is pretty obvious to most that you and this otherother red link are the one being disruptive here over multiple pages and these walls of texts with accusations are intended to cover that up.Gun Powder Ma (talk)19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If by confrontative you mean not standing for your nonsensical disingenuous behavior and outright lies then yes, I agree. You change a slew of pages so that western or greek or roman content appears first, regardless of what the source actually says. When confronted, you revert others' edits under the guideline of taking it to the talk page, where you either outright dismiss other opinions or ignore them entirely, and then proceed to continue with your editing. So what is the point of communicating with you in talk when you yourself do not wait for consensus? You take the most minor of sources consisting of speculation such as MJT Lewis and take that for scholarly consensus over several other historians, so long as it fits your bias. Then you attack sources for content of non-western history with gusto and remove them with the exact same double standard you use to keep western sections at the forefront.Qiushufang (talk)19:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)