User talk:Arilang1234

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

Please be aware that the edits you are currently making to the Boxer Rebellion article look very bad, especially in light of your history, and this is coming from someone who is unfamiliar with and not at all passionate about the Boxers one way or another. Edits like this, this and this betray an extreme anti-Boxer bias, while edits like this, this, and this do not juxtapose well against your expressed anti-Manchu and anti-Qing sentiments. I recommend that you solicit feedback from the talk page before making such changes, so as to avoid conflict with users who would surely challenge edits like these and possibly turn their scrutiny towards you for making them. Quigley (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is wrong to call my edits "betray an extreme anti-Boxer bias", however, if you have read historical books by Tong Tekong, Hou Yijie, Wang Shuzhen and Jin Manluo, you may change your mind.

Also, if you look at this:[1], which was posted on 24 June 2011, yet no editor care to post any response. It is wrong to label me as a anti-Manchu editors, if I was one, I would not bother to do all these translation of the Imperial Decrees on Wikisource:[2], beside, the creation of Wuwei Troop should be seen as as putting a positive light on the Manchu Empire. Arilang ^talk 06:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of the authors whose opinions you wanted included was deceptively bland and flattering, not once mentioning their strong anti-Boxer viewpoint. That might have been of interest to the users watching that page, who you gave less than a week to review four authors (who write exclusively in the Chinese language) for whom you gave almost no clues as to their slant on their English Wikipedia articles. That talk page notice was at best irresponsible. By the way, your insistence on "Manchu Empire" even in this discussion, and refusal to call the Qing "Chinese", does not show abandonment of the fringe theory that the Qing was not China. Not that you can't maintain this as a personal belief, but it should not spill onto article space. Quigley (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how it is fringe theory to say that that the Qing was not China. I don't believe there is any doubt that the China is Han; Qing were Manchu who occupied China and thus de facto became imperial rulers of China. You could only say Qing was China by applying the Louisian maxim "L'état, c'est moi". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the fringe theory is that China ceased to exist, and so every reference to "China" in the Qing's time period should be excised for "Qing", "Manchu", or some variant thereof. Characterized by an obsession with the ethnicity of the ruling family, it is most clearly expressed in disruptive edits like this, to which Arilang's creeping replacement of "Chinese" with "Imperial" comes dangerously close. Quigley (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If user Quigley is so passionate about Chinese Dynasty, he should begin working on Qing Dynasty with his POV, instead of spamming my talkpage with irrelevant and off topic diff like obsession and this, both are Korean topics, and of no interest to me, whatsoever. Arilang ^talk 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If university lecturer Tong Tekong had an anti-Boxer view point, and he even wrote a book about it, shouldn't we at least have a look at the book, and see what he is talking about the Yihetuan boxers?

Also, if you read the lead section of Qing Dynasty carefully, the official name of the Manchu Empire is Daicing Gurun(Manchu name), or 大清國, Dà Qīng Guó, or 大清帝國 Dà Qīng Dì Guó, without any hint of anything "Chinese " in it. Also, do you have source showing that the Aisin Gioro clan, and the Genghis Khan clan, were "Chinese" ? Arilang ^talk 07:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing the intricacies of Chinese dynastic succession. It's common knowledge that China did not disappear from the map in the years 1644–1912, despite the claims of some fanatical nationalists. And I told you already that my interest is not in whether or not the Boxers were "animalistic" "gangs of bandits". It's in your pattern of POV editing, which users regularly complain about, spanning multiple topics; your recent foray into Boxer history not exempted. I'm starting to hear those promises of change you made (including your latest about "enforcing neutrality on all the articles") ring hollow. A step of good faith that you could take right now would be to revert the edits you made on the Boxer Rebellion article and bring them to the talk page for review. If you want to continue cultivating conflict, then that's your choice. Quigley (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

User Quigley, the above quotation is what I see as Neutrality at Wikipedia, and, to revert my edits, you have to show me that Tong Tekong viewpoints are not significant mainstream viewpoints. Arilang ^talk 08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion concerning you at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Quigley (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and POV pushing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion it is clear that you have engaged in disruptive editing and POV pushing while making personal attacks on other editors over the Boxer Rebellion article and related articles. This problem, and other problems with your conduct, have been going on for a long time (as demonstrated by the multiple reports raised at WP:ANI and WP:AN: [3]) and the comments in your talk page archives), and previous warnings do not seem to have had any effect. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arilang1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I fully agree with User Nick-D decision, all I am asking is, can you give me one more chance to improve myself? Arilang talk 03:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If this were an isolated incident I would be inclined to give you that chance right now, but it is clear this is a long-term problem that has been discussed at length already. I suggest you consider the terms of the standard offer to blocked users as your best way forward at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Yeah I see that you've been block from editing but I made a change to commons:File:1917 Graduation photo at Wesleyan College.jpg and when I logged in I noticed that I had a ton of stuff posted on my talk page from a very long time ago that I hadn't seen. You aren't blocked over there but if I post on you talk page there I'm not confident you'll ever see it, so I post here.

• I've nominated the above mentioned image for deletion because I think its a copyright violation, please look at the deletion request and dispute it if you have any evidence it isn't a copyvio.
• commons:File:1927 Chiang Soong wedding photo1.jpg is way better in its original form. Even though its a little dark it has way more detail and contrast. The newest version is blurry and washed-out by comparison. Please consider reverting it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have shown in the past an interest in this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qing conquest theory. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jin Manluo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mark^Dask 12:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:WW2 Documentary 二戰紀錄片Part 1 of 7.ogg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:盧溝橋 淞滬上海保衛戰 抗戰真實紀錄影片.ogg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:The defense of Chungking 四川重慶保衛戰 抗戰真實紀錄影片.ogg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Knifeman's name will live forever.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Baixing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DICDEF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob Sinden (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Struggle session against class enemy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Main source requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Juncosob bom.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crown Prince Party, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GZWDer (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sun Dongdong has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage seems to be WP:BLP1E and does not pass WP:BASIC , in my view

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary films about the Republic of China has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chen Xiaonan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Xiaonan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]