User talk:Miracle dream/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia from The Interior

Hi, Miracle dream. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The Interior (Talk) 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Saint Seiya

Hi there! I know that it was true, but the article is just for summerizing the character in general. Not to go in depth about the Hades barrier for example, or list every single small fight. --Refuteku (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wang Xuwen (professional gamer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shangxi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join MILHIST

Hello, Miracle dream, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nov 28 Edits

If there is a problem with Suncheon and the 50,000 - then we should delete that section or correct it (if better info can be found).

My concern was with repeating the same information about the three battles in the "Death of... " section, so I have reworded just to leave it as context of what the situation was at the time of his death, but not repeat troop numbers and other details (because those area already included above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.26.14 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted it now - I think that is best.159.18.26.14 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Death of..." section is too important to delete completely. It would be nice to add some solid references, but it would be a big problem for the article to completely remove it because then there is no explanation how/when/why the war ended. I've made some minor edits to it; I think we can just leave it. 159.18.26.14 (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The change in range is not just conjecture; I simply rounded-up to the nearest hundred-thousand (i.e. 300K), which is still accurate. I did this because 1) we know 260K is wrong for military + civilian (unless civilians = 0, which we know is not true), and 2) the range is both very wide (unprecise) and unsourced, so it's actually more accurate to say 300K-1M, than to specify 260K-1M, knowing that the very specific 260K is wrong.

As for the "soldiers" issue, I think it's just a misunderstanding. I simply removed it to stay consistent with the other casualty figure "Joseon: 260,000+ killed or wounded". I just didn't think it was necessary to say "soldiers"; all the Wikipedia articles by default show military casualties, unless otherwise specified for civilians. I agree, of course, that there were 0 or very minimal Japanese civilian casualties in this war (maybe some workers, merchant sailors?).159.18.26.14 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

SPA

I apologize if you took offense to the SPA term, its not meant to be an insult. I merely looked at your last 150 contributions and 99% were all centered around Luo. Anyways, as I said at the discussion, in case you had already left:

SPA is not an attack or an insult. It just means "single purpose account". As in, every single edit in like the last 100 or 200 edits you've made to the project has been related to Luo Feichi. (Or at least 99% of them.) Its just a description. The prospect is usually just mentioned to note that a user is probably more concerned with the topic of the article than building an encyclopedia. Your arguments have been more about the defense of e-sports and Luo rather than Wikipedia policy, correct? Which is fine, you're new here, and that appears to be your personal interest. But its not supposed to be what deletion stances are supposed to be centered around. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Death Toll Estimates

Hi! I just wanted to talk to you about the technicalities involving numbers in the Nanking Massacre. In all honesty I'm ethnic Chinese as well, but do believe that impartial information is key to an unbiased and progressive discussion. You seem very intelligent and educated in the topic, so I wanted you to check out this book; it's a 5-star, critically acclaimed novel on the topic complete with primary sources and historical accounts. It analyzes over forty estimates, and concludes that 40,000-200,000 is the most plausible. If you want to read about John Rabe, please refer to page 103. Link to amazon containing book preview (Contains page 103): http://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Atrocity-1937-38-Asia-Pacific-Studies/dp/1845455002

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to talking to you! I look forward to a positive and educational discussion! :)

Because you wanted to know, to look inside a book on Amazon, click the "click to look inside!" button near the top left of the screen. Banzaiblitz (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No no, you're completely fine. I was just saying that I respect your opinion, and am looking forward to an open-ended discussion. Banzaiblitz (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, was I able to convince you? I've been waiting all day for your input. Thanks! Banzaiblitz (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Although they may be Japanese, the historians mentioned are famous across the globe, and are highly regarded for being unbiased and impartial when reporting. Furthermore, there is simply no better source, because they were the ones who were there to experience it. By that logic almost every historical event should be "worrisome" as it is often the historians of the involved belligerents that write the accounts. Some historians may be biased, but for the most part and particularly in this case their estimates are backed by concrete evidence as well as anecdotal evidence (Primary sources) by the Chinese. Otherwise, thanks for your input! :D Banzaiblitz (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We're done

Hey man, we're done arguing. We established that it was a misunderstanding. Delete your comment about the Asian Studies Professor thing, and everything will be fine. Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

checkuser request

I don't have the tool. You'll have to ask someone who does. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebooted discussion

I agree with your proposal in principle but think the language could be improved a bit. But please don't get too aggressive in pushing for a vote, as this will put some neutrals off. Remotepluto (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you should not push, just more gently, and assume good faith(WP:AGF) even if you know someone doesn't have it. Remotepluto (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's gonna result in a vote. Just read WP:CON. The behavior of "never accept your idea whatever you say" constitutes tendentious editing (WP:TE). Banzaiblitz had 2 accounts blocked for it (See: http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/UserCompare/Banzaiblitz.html) and you should not run the danger of engaging in it yourself. The important thing is that we build a consensus with other editors, and then we can report the unreasonable dissenting behavior if it continues. My debating will not convince it, but it's important to expose the flaws of its arguments to the neutrals. Remotepluto (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Remotepluto (talk)I read your proposal. Actually,I can accept it. This discussion will not be determined by vote and need a consensus so I decide to wait others' opinion. I guess I did not make a good impression to others and my comments will also give some bad impression. Hence, I plan to see others' comments. If the consensus need everyone's support, I guess there will be no help to show attitude now because I still need to wait others' agreement. Actually, I also want to see others' proposals if they offer a better proposal. I have a question for your proposal. The grammar of your proposal should be like "the latter number also the official position of ROC and PRC" or "the latter number is also the official position of ROC and PRC".I am not sure, you can check it. If you make a consensus with others, please remind me. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk)

I used an absolute construction, where the participle "being" could be omitted. Remotepluto (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Remotepluto Thank you for this. I have another thing. I see the current dispute is based on the Japanese government position. I check the article Nanking Massacre of Chinese Wiki. Chinese wiki describe this like "在日本，日本政府承认“发生过杀害非战斗人员和掠夺等行为”，但对遇难人数则暧昧不清。日本学界对遇难人数............." This description is based on the sources"日南京大屠杀答辩书：不能否定对非战斗人员的罪行. 日本共同社" and website"http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/annai/honsho/shiryo/bunsho/h19_2.html". Sorry, I cannot understand Japanese so I don't know what this website talk about. Actually it also has a source from "新华社" but that is Chinese source. I just want to know whether this can be considered as a Japanese official position. You can check this article of Chinese wiki.I also recommend you check Japanese wiki to see what it describes if you can understand Japanese.Miracle dream (talk)