User talk:Winstonlighter

3D Express Coach for WP:DYK
Hi, I have nominated 3D Express Coach and article which you created for DYK. You may view the information for the nomination here. Thanks for your work! Derild 49  21  ☼  15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I'm also going to try and get Pure blood theory in Korea to DYK as well. Thanks for the interesting articles! Derild  49  21  ☼  18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In order for the article to be a DYK, the working section needs to either be deleted or have information. As the one who created the section, can you do either one please? Thanks. Derild  49  21  ☼  13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude this isn't instant chat
I'm getting the AFD ready so I'd appreciate it if you would do something else in the mean time. Akkies (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm.. Winstonlighter the tags recommend others to visit the talk page because it might have more information. It was right to delete them, but your reason was wrong. Also, it seems that you are edit warring, read WP:3RR for more. Derild  49  21  ☼  20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I'm counting the number of reverts cautiously (=P) to avoid breaking the rules and i also open the discussion on the talk page. The article in question has numerous references to the topic and Kuebier (Akkies) seems to be busy at giving more details. If he refuses to discuss, we'll be going nowhere. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contributions to the article dog meat. Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Award :)

 * hehe, thanks for the award on my first article in english wiki. i'm not really a new comer. :P  I joined wikipedia in 2006 under the name of badge to make a revamp on zh:六四事件 in 2008 and maintained several wikipedia mirror sites long time ago when wiki was blocked by Great firewall of china.--Winstonlighter (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that can be the exceptional English Wikipedia newcomer award then. :p Derild  49  21  ☼  17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Need some trimming
It's great that you are also contributing in Korean nationalism article, but large amounts of information you've put there are "copied" directly from Pure blood theory in Korea. It would be very nice if you can trim the amount of information in [here], a shorter summary perhaps and hopefully differentiate a bit on the wording between the two.--LLTimes (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Purity
If you are writting about Koreans believing they are the chosen pure race, then they will not believe they are subordinate. You should edit my additions instead of just deleting for censoring it. Please edit, knowing that the article is about Koreans believing they are the superior chosen race (please keep that in mind). I have not seen this before but if they do believe they are the superior chosen race you will not have subordinate concept in the article, That is contradictory. if you want you can change your vote or edit my addition but please do not delete references and censor my additions, thanks. --Objectiveye (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't make the 2 separate, because it is a continuation from WWII Japanese Occupation and their 20th century idea. While Japan believe they were pure by changing the date of Jingu from the Korean line of 4 or 5th century to 1st or 2nd century. In addition to moving the monument in Manchuria to Korea and changing Gojoseon to myth (which is also debated). If you are to believe this article that Koreans believe they are the pure superior race, then they would use all the archeological evidence pointing out Korean links with ancient Japan. Koreans would point out their superiority (If that is what they believe) That would be the only way for this theory to make sense. If Koreans do not clarify why they are superior to Japan this article is just some anti-Korean POV article made by a Japanophile. It wouldn't even make sense. No superior race would beleive they were subordinate to someone else with out clarifying the issue. And if you look at the article Gojoseon history is stated to be a myth (Which is not true and is debated). You want to take out the section about Koreans bloodlines for Japan's Royal family because it is debated, but you want to leave in the other debated information. That would be censoring certain information to make a POV article. You just can't have one withouut the other. Koreans cannot believe they are superior without justifying the Japanese occupation with evidence of Korean superiority. You can find article which state that Koreans never had a war with Japan in 1910 and it was a cowardly con job, in occupying and annexing Korea and that is why Koreans still believe they are superior or something like that or you can find articles about Western weapons which the west only traded with Japan and that is why they cause so much Damage in NE Asia, but without these weapons the Koreans believe Japan is still the Wokou and inferior with these archeological evidence etc or how ever you want to word it. You cannot have one without the other, they cannot be separated because you would be contradicting yourself in the article. If Koreans truly believed they were superior, Japan's introduction of this concept in the 20th century to this pure superior race bloodline would have to be explained and why Koreans still believe they are a superior pure race. I say delete the article,but if it is kept, this has to stay to make sense. --Objectiveye (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with you guys editing my stuff. I just wanted to correct the contradictory POV tone of the original article. And if Jingu is from the 4th, 5th century there are a bunch of Koguryeo text which lead to Jingu being Korean. In Japan I believe the 1st or 2nd century is believed, so the Koguryeo stuff is pointless. This article will cause too much of a mess. When you edit please keep in mind you are in an article stating the Koreans superior pure bloodline is believed, so they would never be subordinate to anyone else without an explanation, and that is when all that Jingu from 4 or 5th century will start to come in and not knowing why Japan limits the access of their Royal tombs, etc. Cannot have one without the explanation. Try rewording it in a way that makes sense to why Koreans are superior pure race etc. Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great work! Koreans are far superior people than Chinese/Japanese due to they're least mixed and purer than any other East Asian.--KSentry(talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FUCKING SAVED! :D:D:D Now I am going to use this argument every time I end up with a dispute against you. That was a really bad move on your behalf. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 3D Express Coach
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese input methods
Hi there! You're right about Sogou and Google Pinyin, of course. I don't know why I took them out – Perhaps it was confusion stemming from all the chaos further down in the section? I'll try to put them back in in some form or another now. Rōnin (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pure blood theory in Korea
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A book recommendation
I don't know if you're still working on the "Pure blood theory in Korea" article but if you are still researching, then i have a book to recommend to you. It's called "Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy" by Gi-Wook Shin. General summary is here and a preview of the book is here. Well good luck ;) --LLTimes (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan-Korea treaties
In light of your scrupulously balanced comment here, I'm encouraged to invite you to watchlist two articles and one discussion thread: Your point-of-view may prove to be helpful in both near-term developments and in the long-game which unfolds across a span of years. --Tenmei (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unequal treaties
 * Eulsa Treaty (Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905)
 * Talk:Eulsa Treaty


 * Hi tenmei, I'll not familiar with those issues but it's an interesting read. I've added them to my watchlist. Thanks. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I sought assistance here &mdash; Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands edits
Winston, please use the talk page and stop reverting my changes to the lead of the article. There is no consensus to change the article title, so you should not change the lead to place Pinnacle Islands to the front and Senkaku Islands to the back of the first sentence. Similarly you should not rename the infobox. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * hi smith, it sounds interesting to hear this. In recent days there were a batch of anonymous IP edits that contribute nothing but keep changing the name ordering in the article. In a talk page, we actually communicated well about those reverts and semi-protect, unfortunately you didn't read it. Anyway, aside coming to the article to vote, change name order and do some reverts, the article needs more citations and proof reading. Hope you can help. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. I changed the article's lead section and infobox title to how it had been before the disputes started. You changed it back twice without explanation. The article's lead and infobox must reflect the article's title. The title is currently Senkaku Islands, so that is what should be reflected in the lead and infobox.
 * However, you seem to be indicating that you do not dispute my changes. Therefore I will restore the lead and infobox to how it had been, unless you give me a reason (use the article talk page) why it should not happen. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, i agreed, but look at the second revert, did you see what else has been revived? And within 15 seconds, what else has been added?
 * Sorry that I didn't realize that you've also changed the name ordering in infobox otherwise I would patch this change to the existing edition too. Anyway, as your name ordering issue is fixed, I suggest that you can further help improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cache error: The solution---> Press Ctrl, click Reload button. :> Glad that you finally see my real edit. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In the dispute, whether diaoyu island belongs to Taiwan or Okinawa is one of the most important subject of concern. - That has no relevance as to whether the Chinese warlord government saw the Senkakus as being part of Japan or not. It is more appropriate to discuss that in the "Chinese claims" section.

Btw, can you tell me why you removed the population value (0) in infobox? - Look at the lead section. Uninhabited islands have zero population, there's no reason to have a redundant line in the infobox. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, there was no edit-warring on the page. Everyone was happy. I challenge you to leave the current format as it is and see who, if anyone, starts edit-warring because of it. As things stand you're causing the edit-conflict. And please, use the talk page instead of reverting and then disappearing. Stop edit-warring, please, you don't have a veto on establishing consensus - especially after everyone present on the talk page at the time either agreed with the changes or didn't have a problem with it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not rhetorical questions
Winstonlighter -- Please restate your views in different words. I don't understand your sentences here .This stub is scrupulously neutral and supported by citations with embedded hyperlinks. In this context, I don't understand your two sentences:
 * Re Senkaku Islands dispute
 * I do not recognize the distinction between "a split of Senkaku islands rather than a new article." Where is the explanatory text which will help me grasp your intended meaning?
 * I do not appreciate the distinction between "a proper way to discuss a split" and something which you identify as somehow improper? Where is the explanatory text which will clarify what you seem to believe I should have known?

Yes, this is intended as a sub-article of Senkaku Islands &mdash; addressing issues relating to the territorial dispute in detail while leaving the main article to develop in a non-controversial context.

This stub was explicitly created as a constructive response to Nihonjoe's comment here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan and in the context of Talk:Senkaku Islands.

In corollary discussion threads, DXDanl suggested something promising. One phrase particularly deserves emphasis. The words imply a neutral tactic which can be adapted for use in other disputes which have not yet arisen:
 * "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."

DXDanl identifies a step in a constructive direction; and I responded by posting this headnote hyperlink in the territorial dispute section of the article.

Perhaps something useful can be achieved by shifting the focus of attention in a process of parsing conflated issues? I can't be alone in wondering if important elements of this dispute and others like it tend to be sidetracked into a classical format. Any and all discussion threads devolve into a kind of circular argument -- like xiangsheng or when a white horse is not a horse? It seems to me that this article offers a plausible escape from something like the American Who's on first? scenario. In addition, I see that this tactic has been used at Liancourt Rocks dispute and Spratly Islands dispute. Bottom line: There is no obvious impropriety in the creation of this straightforward and scrupulously neutral stub. In language you yourself used here, this article is merited as a plausible tactic for diffusing "nationalistic-driven warring" and for averting the harm caused by discussion threads which only "end up in a dead loop."--22:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Senkaku islands
I saw your comments on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and just wanted to recommend that you take another look at WP:VANDALISM. The edits you reverted are a content dispute, one which it appears may have had consensus from other editors. Content disputes are never vandalism, and cannot be treated as such. While the policy page has more details, vandalism, by definition, only covers edits whose intention is to harm the encyclopedia. While you may disagree with the desired edits of others at Senkaku Islands, you cannot call them vandalism and use that as a justification for 3RR. Please note that I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to offer a little friendly advice so that you don't mistakenly think that your edit warring is justified by policy when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your attention. It doesn't seem there's any edit warring on merely content dispute. I've made a few reverts on the articles and some of my reverts were disputed by other editors who said that I made a mistake by canceling their efforts on improving the article, but they never said that the cancellation of vanadlism was wrong. In response to it, I've spent some time on figuring out what they've done and those new reverts aims at keeping all recent changes while removing vandalism. I rarely made countless reverts within 24 hours (Wp:ew) and always made it with discussions.  --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, so if I understand you, you're saying that in the middle of the content dispute, someone also vandalized the article, and thus one of your reverts doesn't count. Well, if that's the case, then you've got the policy correct.  Do still know, however that edit warring can occur regardless of the exact number of edits you make--3 reverts in 24 hours is an absolute maximum, not an entitlement.  I was just worried that you were misinterpreting policy, which would be an unfortunate reason to be blocked.  I've watchlisted the article, but I won't have time to look at it in detail for probably a few days at best.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding. The name ordering in this article has caused many troubles for a long time and probably gets more attention after Japanese arrested Chinese fishermen. What administrators have done so far is to see those changes as vandalism and revert all those changes, no matter it's pro-Japan or pro-China. I'm disappointed that John Smith's who spend tremendous efforts in reading Wikipedia guidelines ignores the discussion and other adminstrators' actions and keep pushing forward his unconsensus change on name ordering.
 * As I told John Smith's, ScorchingPhoenix or Phoenix777 (I don't remember who is who, they look the same to me in terms of tones, use of grammar, writing and editing styles), when there was a pro-China changes on name ordering, I was in fact the first one to revert. When the pro-China change happened again, I was also the first one to ask administrators to revert. If John Smith's see the revert on his futile changes are not "pro-China" or breaking the consensus (with who?), he simply overlooks what has happened in this article in the whole month. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

liu xiaobo
nice work Decora (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

please join the discussion there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senkaku_Islands#Controversy_and_Request_for_change_of_name San9663 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Phoenix7777
If my memory serves, you've had issues with User:Phoenix7777 sabotaging your edits in Senkaku Islands dispute. I've filed a complaint about him to User:Magog_the_Ogre for his recent edit-warring. If you have anything to add, please post in that thread. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy
In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?
 * The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words. Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Hong Kong
What was that all about? It was reverted, but it didn't look like vandalism. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * the link of source is extraordinarily long but if you click on it, you will know what it is. By the way, your revert on the article did nothing except removing three sources from the CIA Factbook, IMF and World Bank, so your revert was removed. From your talk page, it seems that you've watched economy of hong kong but your edits have raised some concerns. Please refrain from any reverts unless you really know what it is about. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but you will probably agree that the source looks like vandalism when viewed via the history button. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands
The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution? In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check recent discussions
Before you go and make a contentious change to an article like you just did on Senkaku Islands, claiming that you're trying to preserve consensus, you should look and see if perhaps consensus has changed in the several months since you have edited the article (and it has). You can't just act like the version you remember from before is automatically the current consensus version. If you want to discuss the issue further because you weren't here then, you can, although you're going to need new evidence to persuade other editors that consensus should change to your preferred version. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I don't remember there was ever a consensus on changing the name-ordering of the tables. Since I don't really keep tabs on name-ordering issues, I can be wrong (in which case, please point me to the appropriate threads). While I personally don't care about issue myself, others do not necessarily share the same sentiment. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china too.

Those pages are too koreancentric. And Buyeo isnt even korean as they are manchurian. And the kingdom of Buyeo should be listed as history of china and Balhae should be listed as history of china and korea.

I think its best wiki China project should be involved in those pages. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Request Lock on Balhae/Bohai page
I saw recent vandalism by Ecthelion on the Balhae page. I think its best to lock the page immidiately until further notice.

What do you think?

Request Lock on Balhae/Bohai page
I saw recent vandalism by Ecthelion on the Balhae page. I think its best to lock the page immidiately until further notice.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk
Please read Talk:Pure blood theory in Korea. I am waiting for your reply. --Ykhwong (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2014
Your addition to Rising Sun Flag has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The original source didn't mention "strong ant-japanese" which is, however, added to the wiki page. I think there's a very obvious difference between the meaning of "victims of Japanese aggression" (original source)  and "strong anti-japan sentiment" (a made-up quote from the source). Rephrasing is needed to avoid copyright issue, but if you really quote this, don't go too far by putting the words into the author's mouth and added something he didn't say. The case that a Japanese supermarket owner who burned the flag faced death threat is not included in this edition because I'm quite curious what you really refer to when you talked about the copyright issue. You talked about the supermarket case, or the article of columbiatribune.com?  --Winstonlighter (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standard language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)