Talk:Carved lacquer

A fact from Carved lacquer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1782, the Qianlong Emperor enquired "lacquer is cause for ten officials to protest; what if it is also carved?" (example pictured)

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carved lacquerware.

Wikipedia

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

No

Should be merged/redirected to Lacquerware#Chinese_lacquerware, which is much fuller. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey jackass-watch the edit summaries

@Johnbod: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) 14:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Policies aside, making accusations regarding civility have no traction when one reacts with your snide, condescending edit summaries and your bad attitude, edit summaries that drip sneering, snide, pompous, self-important and Sounds to me like you should have discussed rather than vomited. And the jackass thing. It's a good idea to walk all of that back. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: it's hard to take your argument seriously when you state things like "Sounds to me like you should have discussed rather than vomited." You can't accuse someone of breaking norms of civility by then promptly breaking those very same norms. See Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]