Talk:Lacquerware

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lacquerware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930005757/http://www.artfromburma.com/cat.cfm?cat=2 to http://www.artfromburma.com/cat.cfm?cat=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: just doing light driveby copy-edit. Leaving this alone (lede) because for all I know it's exactly right, but fyi to any subject matter experts passing through here, those of us that aren't are a little curious about that. Should this read lacquered wood maybe. Elinruby (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do you carve lacquer? 

message: I followed the link to Japanese Wikipedia, translated it into English.
The Japanese article gives two instances of Japanese Lacquerware with dates earlier than the "earliest" Chinese discoveries to date in the English version!
-AnnaComnemna (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Actually, the Kakinoshima-B lacquerware (~7000 BC) is also mentioned in the Japanese lacquerware subtopic article on the English wiki but not here in the main article for some reason. It was discovered fairly recently so what we have here is probably citing books that did not take it into account. Books written in the last few years are more likely to mention the new information (e.g. here). This article should be updated to reflect the most recent archaeological findings. --diff (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese priority. 

message: FYI "sneaky" and "nuisance" violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, not to mention WP:OWN, which you seem to have issues with. Ever heard of using the talkpages to discuss things you have an issue with? That's what these are for. I am severely tired of your snide, condescending edit summaries and your bad attitude. You do not own this or any article, and you need to read Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. There is no suitable infobox for these articles. You have not made any attempt to justify your tag. As I'm sure you know, arbcom has pronounced on these matters, but of course you ignore all that.  I'll send you  WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN back.  And of course your perennial refusal to ever use edit summaries, flagrantly ignoring whatever policy that is, is bound to irritate; "I am severely tired of" that, as is half the community. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From you, I will take that as a compliment, and I would rather leave them off than have edit summaries that drip sneering, snide, pompous, self-important... I'll leave those to you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: PS-I checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes again just to make sure I read it right, and I did. "2) The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Sounds to me like you should have discussed rather than vomited.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm out of my element and coming late to the party, but what the hell are you guys even talking about? I've checked the history tab for this article going back an entire year and I haven't seen any evidence of you two engaging in an edit war of any kind for that entire period. Are you suddenly bringing up something that took place years ago or is this spillover from another article's talk page? In either case you do need to provide edit summaries for your posts, especially important edits, but also sometimes for your minor edits if it's more consequential than simply fixing grammar or typos. Also, John, try not to bite this guy's head off. Lol. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a fork of Talk:Carved lacquer. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

text: No, you raised the matter by adding the tag without discussion, or even an edit summary, and reverted me to keep without discussion (other than abuse). Nor have you you actually ever edited the article. There is no suitable infobox to add here, as I've already said. You have not responded to that. Read the bit you quoted again. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey jackass-watch the edit summaries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lacquerware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404024334/http://www.fathom.com/feature/190126/index.html to http://www.fathom.com/feature/190126/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811123843/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14946 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14946
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified