User talk:Zmflavius

Drive by revert - When God Writes Your Love Story

You did a drive by revert of me without specifying any reason why on the talk page or in an edit summary. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Kazoku has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For the discussion about Nanking

I started that discussion but I didn't involve the discussion. I plan to wait maybe 3 days or no more than one week (Or may be 2 weeks like the article deletion nomination) so that each side can offer more sources about this. During this time, I hope editor can apply more sources about it. After this, I will invite all editors who joined this discussion before to find a solution for this discussion. I think in that time, there maybe lots of sources for this discussion. Maybe I will find a way to vote. Is that OK for this?Miracle dream (talk)14:55, 14 February 2014

the new discussion about Nanking Massacre

I saw your remark on the talk page. I am very glad that you affirm my effort on the table and that we are agree that the upper limit of death toll should be push edup. However, I still want to say a few things about the subject. I hope this would not bother you too much. First I think 200,000+ is not an over-estimating figure. Maybe 300,000+ would be a little over but given what I listed in the table, I think 200,000+ is well accepted among worldwide scholars as the result of IMFTE. I have many side proofs on this specific point if you would like to acquaint more. Second, Ikuhiko Hata's estimate has been strongly doubted by different scholars. For example Lee En-Han criticized that Hata used a quasi-quibbling method to cut down the number by using "illegal kill", "quasi-fight-to-death" and "legal kill" to classify the massacred Chinese citizens and only admit the 38000 to 42000 "illegal killed number". Hata's estimate is not that widely accepted.

But after all, I think we are on the way to solve the problem. I do not know how to deal with Banzaiblitz given his wild behavior on the talk page so I choose to leave my comment here. Hope you don't mind. --Snorri (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I will admit, that much of what I have learned about the detailed scholarship about the Nanjing Massacre is stuff which I have only learned in detail in the past few days, so I cannot off the top of my head comment with great authority, but I do appreciate the sentiment in your coming here. My greater experience is mostly in accessing sources for their reliability, and that too is limited (but right now, I think yours seem to be fairly reliable, and should be added to the page following discussion). If it is indeed the case that Hata is actually more of a fringe viewpoint, then I think that if this claim can be reliably sourced then (in the form of the criticism of his viewpoints by other scholars), it would have a place in the article. Generally, I would advocate that we keep this on the talk page, but yes, conversation has soured somewhat there. It seems that Banzaiblitz has proposed a moratorium on discussion for a week; I do not think a whole week is necessary, but a brief delay may be fine, so that both sides can prepare their arguments and cool off. In say a few days, or a week, we can return calmly to discussion on the talk page, and present the new arguments peacefully. However, if the conversation takes a turn for the worse yet again, with not only angry words, but also violations of the code of conduct, then we may need to request mediation or arbitration.

(In addition, I would like to apologize in advance if I am posting less, but right now, I'm finding myself more and more busy in real life, and have less and less time to devote to wikipedia than I would like.Zmflavius (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I too like most of us do not have many time devoted to Wikipedia. I can understand that we are actually all making the greatest effort possible in our limited time to help build a better Wikipedia. I am a general history lover, not an expert on the Nanking Massacre. I was never so clear about the different studies on this issue. I think this is one of the reasons that make me like editing Wikipedia.

As of Hata's estimate, as far as I know, Hata's estimate is not a very fringe one, although his opinion was criticized by some other historians. In fact, there is a major disagreement between the two main schools on the Nanking Massacre issue, the Chinese one and the Japanese one. The West was not so keen with the issue and research interest was not raised until Iris Chang's book in 1997. And nowadays researchers actually have less scholarly interest in making overall estimates of death toll because most main evidences were already found and tested in 1946 during the Nanking and Tokyo Tribunes. Different estimates exist because some adopt more evidence while others adopt less. They put more interest in the study of new found side evidence or collecting survivors' oral narrations. Scholars making new overall estimates are actually showing their criteria of adoption for existing evidences. And honestly this is rather a show of political stance than a pure scholar act.

Concerning the little break, I would suggest that during the break we first move the leading section of the article back to the original version before drawing to the final consensus? --Snorri (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ehhh...I would prefer avoiding doing anything drastic (that could easily set off an edit war). Let's wait for the discussion, in the meantime, examine our sources, and then present our case.Zmflavius (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I don't want to your debate but just hope for a attitude. Did you accept my proposal" The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000". Just give me a reply for this. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk)

Right now, based n what I have read so far, it seems to have more credence. I would support it tentatively, but only after conclusion of debate.Zmflavius (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

You are removing sourced content related to the entry,if you have some good reason to do so,give it.If you just revert it again,I will take it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have repeated stated, the content is neither encyclopedic, nor properly sourced. If you have either a proper source or some good reason for it to be included on the page, feel free to include it.Zmflavius (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have repeated stated, Zhu's BOOK is PROPER SOURCE.You have no right to say anything about"neither encyclopedic, nor properly sourced"