Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryulong (talk | contribs) at 17:35, 1 September 2014 (→Voice from a HongKonger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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.

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)

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 everyday life not related for political issues, Hong Kong is often treated as a country, and Hong Kong 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)

LungZeno, it is against the rules to request assistance from your friends on Plurk, as both Tv10data and Leecy0 are here just to support you for that reason. You need to realize that while it is sometimes useful to list Hong Kong amongst the various countries of the world, you were pushing for this on an article on train systems. There is nothing unique about Hong Kong's public transportation that means it should be listed separately from other cities in China. Misplaced Pages seeks to be a neutrally written and free to access encyclopedia. That means you have to leave your ideas on politics and other social issues out of Misplaced Pages when you edit here.

Now for Leecy0, Tvb10data, and any other people who may come here in an attempt to support LungZeno's side: Because LungZeno performed edits that were inherently indistinguishable from edits perfomed by a banned user, LungZeno is considered to be that banned user. The behavioral evidence of jumping right into the debate on the train lists, and apparently acting exactly the same as a user who was previously banned for making similar edits, which includes the manner of argument and the refusal to listen to other users, means that for all intents and purposes LungZeno is this banned editor. And the fact that he is also asking for people to help him now via an external website, that means that all users who come to help him are now considered meatpuppets, that is users whose behavior advocates for another user even if they are not the same person.

Misplaced Pages does not work on democracy to make decisions, so no number of people coming here saying "Unblock LungZeno and also change the articles on the metro systems to have Hong Kong as a country" will change how things are being dealt with here on Misplaced Pages. LungZeno is free to request an unblock, again, and try to address the reasons for why he was blocked instead of being defensive, but further abuse of this talk page, and further interuptions by other friends of his trying to help him, will result in no one being able to edit this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to work on democracy to make decisions on Misplaced Pages, but just saying the reason of Ryulong that says LungZero, I and Leecy0 are "meatpuppets" is incredible, ridiculous, peculiar and unreasonable. Ryulong is trying to use a normal thing in the daily life of HongKongers, to say it is a particular characteristic for a "meatpuppet". Besides, I just HEAR THIS UNBELIEVABLE NEWS on the plurk, thus wanna see if the English Misplaced Pages is so ridiculous really or not. If i "against the rules" since I hear a news from plurk, why don't Ryulong ask plurk, and twitter, fb, instagram, weibo etc. as well, to block any news about wikipedia? Do we have the freedom of hearing a news through social network?? I don't know Ryulong's answer on this question, but maybe Ryulong thinks I haven't the right of speech. He reverted my speech at "17:38, 29 August 2014‎" & "17:38, 29 August 2014" directly without any reason!! Is this a normal thing on English Misplaced Pages?? Does English Misplaced Pages work on censoring of free speech like the Chinese Communist Party??? --Tvb10data (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no "news" on Plurk. It was postings made by LungZeno. And no, you do not have any right to free speech on Misplaced Pages. No one does. Misplaced Pages is a privately owned website where there are rules on what people are and are not allowed to say and you are only given the privilege to edit here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

what I do

1. I just request witness.

From the texts above of Leecy0 and Tvb10data, they act as witness for me.

From the text of Tvb10data in the talk page of that article, that text explains why I am not the socksuppet of the banned user, he said what he see objectively, and his conclusion is for the banning for me.

From the text above, what we said bases on what we see objectively and the reasoning, we have not edit the article to become non-neutral.

2. I had reply to other people who participate in the talk page of the articles and reply and reply to the user Ryulong. I also provide solutions and join the process of resolving of dispute already.

3. I just had not disproved (nor proved) the political claiming which the user Ryulong repeat and repeat. But the solutions meet what I say and what the user Ryulong claim at both.

--LungZeno (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "acting as witness" on Misplaced Pages. The solution you want is to include Hong Kong as a country in these tables which no one on the article wants. Stop asking for your friends to come to your aid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

1. They said what they see objectively about what I had said what I see and know, and their conclusion is for the banning to me. Therefore, by understanding normally, their behavior are the behavior of witnesses for the sentences I had said in the process of unblocking.

2. This second paragraph does not relate to my request already. I had said that according to rail system be just like the common way which third party use. Being true of the common way does not make your early political claim true nor untrue. By what I point out at the talk page of that article, other editors had used the common way. And there are second solution and third solution. The second solution is provided by me. The third solution is provided by other Wikipedian on the talk page of that article. The second solution is the common way which some new third party websites use. That solution meets also what you do not want in your comment this times. The third solution is even simpler. In that solution, no column will attract conflict. I join also the discussion of the third solution. That three solutions are the resolving of conflict.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not addressing your first point. Second point, for the umpteenth time the discussion was soured by actual sockpuppets of a banned editor in which you are sort of collateral damage but close enough that the Misplaced Pages community is at this point better off without you.

There is a consensus there that the MTR is listed as being in China for its country. You have not given any proof that when it comes to metro systems it is necessary to list the MTR as being in Hong Kong as a country. You just keep going on and on about how it's "common way", "international common sense", "international convention", "common knowledge", and the like. You've not given one reason as to why when it comes to just the topic of metro systems Hong Kong should be listed as both city and country for the MTR. All we see is "Hongkongers know" and "it should be separate because Hong Kong is sometimes treated as separate".

So explain to me in 50 words or less what makes the MTR so special that  Hong Kong should be used over  China in the country column. Do not try to explain to me that the table should be changed to "Region", that the "Country" column should be removed, or that the definition of "Country" includes Hong Kong. Just explain why for this particular topic and no other that the MTR being in Hong Kong is more important than it being in the PRC.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The second solution is the common way that the legend is "country/region". My edit and my grounds are the common way, not the important way. I know edits of two articles from public forum. And I saw that talk page of the later article, I replied to explain why the article attract conflict. And then I am pulled into the conflict of you and I because of the non-discussion skills. And then I provide the solutions to resolving the conflict of the article. Although my ability of English is bad, I think that the meaning of early texts is clear. I think there are no result endlessly. The original intention of this section is to write about my request and my applying of unblocking. --LungZeno (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is more than 50 words and does not answer my question. Stop saying "common way". And there's already a decision not to expand the column to be "country/region". Simply explain to me what makes Hong Kong special when it comes to metro systems that requires the MTR to not be listed as in China.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The common way is also for differences of economic systems, tax systems, law systems, character systems, culture systems, education systems, exam systems, nationality systems, financial systems, postal systems, vehicular systems, public transport systems etc. The common way is also used by third party websites commonly. This talk page is for me. You haven't any right to order me to not do normal behavior. Your behavior is so rude. The meaning of early texts has described clearly. I will not repeat same information endlessly. As far as I know, the changing of a article is normal and common. When I saw that non Hong Kong people in that talk page of the article have not sufficient knowledge of Hong Kong, I contributed my knowledge of Hong Kong to there and Misplaced Pages. The ideological system of Hong Kong is also different. In Hong Kong's traditional folk stories generally known by Hong Kong people, Hong Kong society is formed by people loving freedom. I think that freedom is a spirit of Hong Kong people. We believe that that people have differences is natural and normal. We believe that people can kept what they love, what religion they believe, what they self-identify and what life-style they yearn, and people should refuse to yield that that differences are changed by power. We believe that collaboration has no need that people are mold out by a same mold. I think the texts should be clear enough already. Tangling with it has no result endlessly.

The original intention of this section is to write about my request and my applying of unblocking. And this talk page is for me. Because of politeness, any more harassing should be stopped.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking you a question and you have not answered. Clearly answering this question might have resulted in me seeking that you be unblocked because you are just someone who was bycatch. But all you've one is expound the individuality of Hong Kong instead of addressing the question I asked you. For the intents of describing train systems, Hong Kong's ethnocentrism does not belong.

Editors at Misplaced Pages understand that in some instances listing Hong Kong as separate is important, but you have not explained to me or anyone in the past several days why this is necessary at List of metro systems. If you sincerely acknowledge the viewpoints of the other people who have been discussing this with you (people who do not live in China or Hong Kong), that in the discussion of public transportation listing Hong Kong as a country is unnecessary I will try to get you unblocked and your name cleared. But if you continue to insist that Hong Kong is special and deserves separate treatment everywhere, then I will request that this talk page be locked because it is not yours, it is Misplaced Pages's.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If a result of a discussion is accepted by every participator of the discussion, a consensus of the discussion is made. To make a result of a discussion, it is unnecessary that every participator all has same viewpoints or all is changed to have same viewpoints. That ideology I mentioned meet these truths. I do not seek to change your heart.

"common" means that there are many cases which are not different from each other. "special" means that there is a only or few case when there are many cases different from it. According to system meets the difference of metro(rail) systems not only, meets the difference of economic systems not only. The way meets also the differences of the tax systems, law systems, character systems, culture systems, education systems, exam systems, nationality systems, financial systems, postal systems, vehicular systems, public transport systems, etc. These differences are factual knowledge, not a point of view. This factual knowledge is not made by me, by you nor by other editors. (I guess this factual knowledge is not made by you nor by other editors.) These sentences themselves are not the seeking of a action. And I have not written any sentences which seek any other action until now.

"unnecessary" means that it can be or can be not. I had read what sentences other editors reply to me.

I has not written any sentences or any arguments which a action of the article is necessary at that discussion. I just wrote solutions, unknown knowledge, unconsidered knowledge, processes of reasoning, premises of reasoning, conclusions of reasoning, what is not fact, what meaning the sentences are. Until now, no sentences I wrote expresses that I will reject a result of the process of resolving conflict. After adding a few unknown/unconsidered knowledge, the knowledge and the reasonings will be written enough in the process. If a similar conflict happen in future, other editors already can know why it happen from the knowledge and the reasonings. I accept this type of result.

Only you, no other editors insist to reply frequently to me for that conflict edit of that page, and even go to this talk page which is for me to tangle with that. Only you, no other editors accuse me many times without showing any evidence or proof. And only you, no other editors request me to trade.

The applying of the unblocking of sockpeppet bases on that I am not him, my account is not his sockpeppet. Any unblocking should be because I am not him, my account is not a sockpeppet of a banned user, and I has no vandal action. Basing on yielding or trading is meaningless to me. I have no need to be distorted by power, by harassing nor by interest.

--LungZeno (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was an established consensus on the metro system page to use "China" and not "Hong Kong". However, there was also one user ("Instantnood") who has been disrupting the page to insist that "Hong Kong" be used. Because you also began to argue this, you were blocked.

Just because Hong Kong is considered separate from mainland China in those topics does not mean it should be considered separate from China in all topics.

The solutions you suggested had been already declined by editors of the articles in the past because the only proponents are Hong Kong nationalists who want to be considered separate. Hong Kong has been a part of China since 200 BC and was only under British rule for 150 years. We get that you want to be considered separate, but the solutions are only there to favor Hong Kong and Hongkongers, rather than people interested in the topic of trains.

And fine. I am no longer discussing any matters with you. I will not advocate for your unblocking either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

LungZeno: Did you want to talk about the sockpuppet issue? I was reviewing your edits and I see why other editors may be convinced you are a sockpuppet.--Nowa (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I want. The experience of being wronged is so bad.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I see is that your edits to en.wikipedia began 12 April 2007. This is only 6 days after Instantnood was blocked (6 April 2007). That makes you look like him.--Nowa (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing. This just is coincidence. I only use one account name in any language of Misplaced Pages. In the contributions, many differences between I and him. --LungZeno (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Your edits were primarily related to computer programming and Instantnood's were primarily related to Chinese financial, political and geographic issues.--Nowa (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowa, you're forgetting he also began pushing a POV on List of metro systems identical to other sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that can certainly raise suspicion, but it can also be misleading. I was trying to see what the other evidence might be.--Nowa (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your effort. --LungZeno (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)