Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:26, 30 August 2014

Hong Kong on lists of metro systems/tram and light rail transit systems

Hong Kong is not a country, which in the definition of these lists means sovereign nation. It is a part of the PRC whether you want it to be or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please not according to your political think. --LungZeno (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't push HK nationalism on the English Misplaced Pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and not a country, meaning sovereign nation. Do not modify List of tram and light rail transit systems to remove the statement that "Country" means "independent nation" or "sovereign state" or to change the entry on the Tramways and MTR Light Rail to be under "Hong Kong" instead of "China". Further disruption will result in a block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

All my text is not according to original research. But your reason is new political rule. --LungZeno (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to change the meaning of "Country" in these articles so you can include Hong Kong rather than have it included under the PRC. Do not make these changes, again. Do I make myself clear?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing of an article does not need consensus before. Or it is a new rule?--LungZeno (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You need consensus when someone disagrees with you, and if you look at the talk page a lot of people disagree with the change already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the topic already. Hong Kong SAR is a part of the PRC. It is not independent. It is not sovereign. It is only vaguely semi-autonomous. This does not make it a "country" which in English means "sovereign state".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the international common practice. The third party that implement this practice don't according to whether the word "Country" equal to "sovereign state" or not, equal to independent or not. The practice is used to resolve conflicts and inconvenience. --LungZeno (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this "international common practice" that you keep referring to? Is it the insistence that a bunch of governments treat Hong Kong differently because they have economic ties? That's not relevant here. This is a list of things organized by their nations and it doesn't matter that the USA and UK deal with Hong Kong separately from the mainland. These are lists of trains on a privately owned website that has its own rules and regulations. Drop the subject already before you end up being blocked for disrupting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I only describe the practice what I saw . I think I don't break any rules of wikipedia. This User talk page is for me. You have no right to order me. --LungZeno (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any arguments based in fact. Just your perceived "international common practice". It's just a list of train systems after all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I had quoted "If you read reputable news magazines, the Economist for instance, you can tell that it is a common practice." in that page. And that IP user also said that GMail account and OSes are also examples. --LungZeno (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

None of this matters when discussing where train systems are. The city is Hong Kong. The country is China. Drop the subject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had written that 'The "country" concept is not state or nation.' The wikipedia article "Country" has introduction. Repeating of your claim can not prove or disprove the knowledge I had written. This way is not the way of discussion.

A user in that talk page had also mentioned that there are multiple definition of country. I had also written that "This topic is about metro systems. If the list is according to rail system (metro system), it will be more suitable. Similarly, the Economist use economic system." Repeating of you claim is also not the way of resolving of conflict.

You can reply to it in that talk page. Your saying here is not easily known and read by other user reading or writing in that talk page.

--LungZeno (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles clearly state that when they say "Country" they mean "sovereign nation" and not the definition you want that makes it so "Hong Kong" is a "country". Hong Kong has never been a country and it meets no definition of "country" no matter how many times you repeat this. I am done talking to you. These circular arguments are getting tiresome because you won't own up to your own biases and the fact that this is not your first time at this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That talk page has three solutions at least. Two of them were written by me. That three solutions all meet what I say and what you say at the same time.

"circular argument" just says that the premises of an argument want to true before argument, but this type of arguments lack of this requirement, and the truth of the premises of that just come from reasoning of the truth of the conclusions of that, although reasoning in the argument is right at all. Because the reasoning in that is right, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is gotten. But when the premise is not true, the conclusion can be not gotten, and then the premise can also be not true. Later situation can be the case in the circular argument. The target of a proving is to get the conclusion. The circular argument is not the way of that.

The solutions I had written are not invented by me. The knowledge I had written comes from third party, are not invented by me in this discussion.

I had not proved nor disproved your claim. You just repeat your claim. I just point out that your sentences do not proved nor disproved what I had written. Whether your political claim is correct or not, can not make my written sentences correct or incorrect. Here are not relationship of proving or disproving.

In my memory, I should talk with you first time. This sentence is not provocation. I just do not extend your meaning.

You just assume what I think. That is not showed any reasoning.

As a Hong Kong people, I have my standpoint. From your claim, I know that you also have your standpoint. Rationality, logic and objectivity are not affected by standpoints. If rationality, logic and objectivity are understood, then consensus can be made by standpoints which conflict each other. This is the value of rationality, logic and objectivity.

--LungZeno (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

appealing unblock

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

Request reason:

I see the block: "Block evasion: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood".

He is not I. I am I. The block is a mistake.

In the page "Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments_17", the conclusion text is " Likely". I don't know what are concrete meaning and standard of "likely". Do I want to prove further that I am I? Some wikipedians know me.

In the page, I see that only User:Ryulong provided diff of edit and account creation year information.

The edit is just one times. The edit is too small and minor. The reason of that edit is because the old revision is not common that Hong Kong people see and know in living. It has no style. There is no vandal at all.

I don't know whether the account creation year can be the sole reason of sockpuppet block. Even though, I don't know whether it can be a evidence. I provide my cross wikipedia info. The registered date in zhwiki is missing, but I find the date of first edit in zhwiki.

I have join the discussion and decision of a dispute resolution in the Talk:List of metro systems. I wish to I can continue the discussion and decision during the unblocking process, although the discussion and decision unrelated to the block.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Thank for reply.

The sentence means that the edit is not vandal and is not a action of socking.

My expression may be not good. Later sentence means why I apply the process of unblocking.

I don't know what the "technically likely" depend on.

And I don't know he and how he is, I don't know how to appeal the block if I am felt that my behavior is similar to him.

I think that my behaviors are normal in the persons I know, except my bad ability of English.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter if "the edit was just one time" or how minor the edit was - socking is socking, and your behavior is sufficiently similar to make that "technically likely" into "confirmed", to the point where "I'm not him" is not going to cut it to get you unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 28 August 2014 (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.

Voice from a HongKonger

I'm a HongKonger and I heard the news from plurk. In fact it's so normal that HongKongers fill in HongKong as a country. Although it may be "political not correct", but it is necessary to distinguish HongKong and (mainland) China in the daily life. For example, if you fill in "China" but not "HongKong" at the "country" column on warranties, you may get poor service and simplified Chinese instruction guide. If you're a HongKonger, you should know that these are horriable things. So, maybe you think HongKonger should know that HongKong is not a country, but IN FACT, i mean in the NORMAL DAILY LIFE, we often say HongKong is our country. Thus, I don't think behavior of LungZeno "is sufficiently similar" to the other guy. I cannot believe Misplaced Pages guys use this point to ban a user. --Tvb10data (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, for every life not related for political issues, Hong Kong is often treated as a country, and Hong Kongers is independent from mainland China in many issues, even immigration control and customs. Actually, in the area of postal service, Hong Kong MUST be treated as country, otherwise the mail may be lost. As an evidence, The USPS international mailing manual explicitly says that you must address Hong Kong as a country. ("Although Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, senders should address their mail to Hong Kong directly."). Treating Hong Kong as a country is a norm in Hong Konger's life, therefore banning a user for sockpuppet activity solely because of the "Hong Kong is a country" edit is not a reason.

--Leeyc0 (Talk) 06:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)