User talk:Zmflavius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talkcontribs) 06:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not, and you really don't seem to understand how wikipedia works.
It is legitimate material, and it is you who don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorkkd (talkcontribs) 06:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Nanking Massacre denial shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ——MelbourneStartalk 07:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gakushūin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (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) 09:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I wonder why claim the western source in hundred regiment article is based on Chinese record. Dose this source claim that? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.229.119 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please reply to my questions on comfort women[edit]

Hello!

I would like to make you two questions in relation to attaching a disambiguation template to the article comfort women.

The first is the question whether you know the fact that the word "comfort women"(慰安婦,i-an-fu) was used even after WWII in Japan and South Korea. This fact can be checked in Recreation and Amusement Association, Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military ( or ja:特殊慰安施設協会, ja:韓国軍慰安婦 or ko:특수위안시설협회, ko:양공주 ).

And the second is the reason why you don't need a disambiguation template.

Please reply to my questions.

Thank you! NiceDay (talk) 07:50,20 March 2014add signiture after

The reason why the disambiguation templates do not belong is that because even though the same term was at times used, they refer to two entirely different concepts; the first towards the system of sexual slavery employed by the Empire of Japan, and the second towards the organized voluntary prostitution of the various Allied occupation (entirely voluntary) and post-war South Korean armies (in the second, with occasional uses of coercion). While the official terms may be similar, overall the fact that they refer to several very different systems means that the disambiguation tags establish a false equivalency contrary to the spirit of all three articles. Especially, there is the issue that while in official documents, the words used (wianbu and ianfu) employ the same characters, in the English vernacular, Comfort women refers almost exclusively to the Imperial Japanese system, with entirely different terms for the Japanese and South Korean system (in particular, I have never seen comfort women used in the English context to refer to the SK prostitution, except to explain the hanja term). Therefore, while it may be worthwhile to establish disambiguations for wianbu for example, it is certainly not accurate to establish redirects for the term comfort women specifically. Having said that, that does not mean that there should be no disambiguation tags, since evidently, there is some overlap in the use of terms, but the current proposed disambiguation tags without a doubt are two vague for usage. Finally, if we are to continue this conversation, I would recommend moving to the talk pages of the Prostitutes in SK article and/or the Comfort Women article, which is the proper place for such discussion.Zmflavius (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?
If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Very well then, if that suits you.Zmflavius (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement. Mr. Binksternet has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I apologize having forgotten the signature by the message the other day.
I created Talk:Comfort women#Proposal about ambiguity evasion, Please join. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your participating in Talk:Comfort women.
Since the talk in Talk:Comfort women is quick, there seems nothing I can do there.
Since the user name was changed, I fix the old signatures.NiceDay (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, howdy![edit]

Is this the same Zmflavius from the Alternate History forums? Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 06:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed, as it happens. Who would you happen to be?Zmflavius (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women[edit]

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion there.NiceDay (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Japanese Culture Channel Sakura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democratic Party (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) 08:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stanislawlemlemlem Michitaro (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Taiwan under Japanese rule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Taiwan independence|Taiwan independence movement]]. Partly as a result, [[some people of Taiwan}bensheng ren]] in general feel much less antipathy, when comparing with the reversion to [[
  • Japan had sought to expand its imperial control over Taiwan (known in Japan as ''Takasago Koku'' (高砂国, "Highland nation") since 1592, when [[Toyotomi Hideyoshi]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spanish nationalism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Spanish irredentism)]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tang Gao may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • born in Yansi town(巖寺鎮), [[She County, Anhui|She county]](歙縣), Huizhou(徽州府), South Zhili(南直隸), in [[Ming Dynasty|Ming] [[China]]. Tang Gao became the [[Zhuangyuan]], or '''Number One Scholar'''(狀元)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

About foreign support in sino-japanese war[edit]

I can't understand why list British Empire as the foreign support but nothing detail in the article. When I read Second Sino-Japanese War, it describes the support from soviet, US and even Germany but doesn't describe any support from Britain. I don't know why list Britain as a foreign support but did not write any detail in the article. Moreover, soviet and US all sent military adviser (Vasily Chuikov and Joseph Stilwell) to China. If you think Britain is one of the major foreign support for sino-Japanese war, can you add a reference to that article. It seems it is unsource contents now. If list Britain as a major support because it is the major power of Allies, then we can also list Netherlands, Australia and Canada because they are all major power of allies in Pacific war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.173.116 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zibo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hui. 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) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Feng Baiju[edit]

Hi there. Just out of curiosity, why remove the infobox? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the infobox as part of a general cleanup of the article itself; when I accessed the article at first, the infobox appeared to be bugged, creating a very large infobox with a number of messages all over the screen. I was unable to fix it by myself except by deleting it entirely, but perhaps someone with greater technical skills than I can do so.Zmflavius (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted the good faith edit by User:Magioladitis and the infobox self-fixed. I still can't figure out why removing invisible comments broke the thing. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am studiokazuyo. I was trying to make your input more balanced because your point is a Chinese view and mine is Japanese. If I cannot edited the Nanking issues would make no balanced view. However you do not allow for me to edit. Japan had a very good news coverage and we have articles in file. Nanking Massacre was not there until the Tokyo Trial you pointed out. The photos were all fake you pointed out so you cannot say that the Japan did not inform Japanese in 1937 about the massacre. Japan is not China. We do not control that much if it happened we inform the citizen but no such news in Japan, US, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. So it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiokazuyo (talkcontribs) 03:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Studiokazuyo[edit]

I am studiokazuyo. I was trying to make your input more balanced because your point is a Chinese view and mine is Japanese. If I cannot edited the Nanking issues would make no balanced view. However you do not allow for me to edit. Japan had a very good news coverage and we have articles in file. Nanking Massacre was not there until the Tokyo Trial you pointed out. The photos were all fake you pointed out so you cannot say that the Japan did not inform Japanese in 1937 about the massacre. Japan is not China. We do not control that much if it happened we inform the citizen but no such news in Japan, US, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. So it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studiokazuyo (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to point out WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not in the habit of pushing a Chinese view or a Japanese view, Wikipedia's role is to publish information that is based on reliable, published sources. However, you did not supply any sources for your claims, such as that the photos were fake. If you wish to learn more about sourcing, it would behoove you to read more of WP:NOR. Finally, in reference to your talk page, while a member of Wikiproject China, I am actually Chinese-American. Nor do I control wikiproject China, and its role is not to push the "Chinese view" on matters. It is simply a group which handles the articles related to China on wikipedia.Zmflavius (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ALOHA SHIRT: Reversing an edit without addressing issue on the talk page (as was requested when original deletion was done)[edit]

Hi, the last thing I want to do is start an edit war with you; but when I took the time to address my concerns on the article's talk page AND gave a weeks notice for comment AND noted the talk page discussion on the Edit History: (cur | prev) 18:19, 22 August 2014‎ Bobsd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,082 bytes) (-2,018)‎ . . (→‎History: see talk page: Discussion of DOMA in an article about shirts) (undo)

then it is rude to revert my edit without any discussion or notice.

FROM THE TALK PAGE:

Discussion of DOMA in an article about shirts?

Okay, I was reading up on Hilo Hatties and found this article. Interesting history of the Aloha shirt style. Then I ran into this:

   The aloha shirt has at times [when?] been associated with the gay community,[by whom?] as made clear [?] in the season 8 episode of The Simpsons Homer's Phobia.[5][6][these articles do not even support the claim, they just reference what Homer said.] The association may stem [opinion?] from the tendency of Magnum, P.I. main character Thomas Magnum, portrayed by Tom Selleck, to regularly wear aloha shirts on the show, as it was set on the island of Oahu, Hawaii.[6] Selleck was rumored to be gay, though he has since denied those rumors.[6][7] Any association with the court case Baehr v. Miike, a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution which later provided an impetus for the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996,[8] is likely secondary at best, as the case wasn't initiated until 1991, roughly three years after the end of the television show's broadcast. [secondary at best? Wow. Just wow.]

This whole thread is rather Stream of Consciousness ... Okay, so maybe the original point of an association with the gay community is valid [reference needed] however a reference to the Simpsons is hardly a valid source, and more than using the Simpsons in an article about pork chops or donuts. And in any case, how is this germane to an article about shirts?

I am going to remove the entire section in a week, unless someone can propose a valid reason why Selleck's orientation or Baehr v. Miike or DOMA adds any value to this article about shirts.

Bobsd (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Consequently I am going to delete the section again. If you want to discuss this, please do so on the TALK page of the article, as directed by wikipedia guidelines.

Regards, Bobsd (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Response on your talk page and the Aloha Shirt talk page.Zmflavius (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation! I was pretty surprised about the deletion, but you know how things get around here sometimes. Happy editing! Bobsd (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comfort women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Takashi Uemura. 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) 09:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

banned sockpuppeteer[edit]

I notice you ran accross User:Rijun1234's edits. He isn't allowed to edit since he is evading a block. See these- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti, User_talk:Rjanag#Same_sockpuppet_keeps_returning_and_apparently_watches_the_article, User_talk:Nlu#Sock_account_keeps_dogging_article_for_yearsRajmaan (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about this, I was not aware at all!-Zmflavius (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kazuo Hirai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Interview. 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) 09:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida Man[edit]

Florida Man is likely to be deleted in the near future. The very few sources provided were all published within the one month - February 2013. So reads like a WP:NOTNEWS page.--Otterathome (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Death toll of Nanking Massacre victims[edit]

Hi, Zmflavius. After a very long discussion last winter, in February we have achieved a consensus on the estimated death toll of Nanking Massacre, which suggests a range from 40,000 to 300,000. However, CurtisNaito, who also participated in that discussion, has re-written a closely related article Battle of Nanking in summer and asserts the range is still 40,000 to 200,000. In the talk page, he even denies that a consensus ever exists and is repeating his arguments which had been refuted in the February discussion. It seems the effort and negotiation that so many users have made is becoming completely useless, for a single user can easily reject any consensus by forging his own "agreement of majority" in another article. May I know your opinion on the February consensus, is it still valid or is it necessary to re-open the debate? --MtBell 06:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are discussing this issue here, but since you are bringing it up, please permit me a lengthy post in order to fully explain my views. A major point that I want to make here is that, while there are certainly other Wikipedia articles where we can deal with the controversy surrounding Nanking Massacre death toll estimates higher than 200,000 and lower than 40,000, the article on the Battle of Nanking is just not the place for it.

Here is the proof that this range is, in fact, a solid scholarly consensus of historians who have specialized in the field of Nanking Massacre studies.

(1.) Bob Tad Wakabayashi wrote a very well-received edited volume in 2007 entitled "The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38" which amalgamated the work of a large number of the leading specialist scholars who have studied the Nanking Massacre. In writing the conclusion of this book, Wakabayashi concludes that 40,000 to 200,000 civilians and POWs massacred is the scholarly valid range of estimates. Even though he expresses some personal disagreement with some of the estimates within this range, he still notes that any estimate within this range is at least numerically possible. To quote Wakabayashi: "an empirically verifiable, scholarly valid victimization range is from over 40,000 to under 200,000." (2.) In the academic journal Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, James Leibold recently concurred that 40,000 to 200,000 constitutes "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". (3.) All Chinese historians who have been interviewed anonymously for their opinion on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre have given the range of 40,000 to 150,000 which is very close to the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000. In China there is some gap between the public views of historians, which are tightly censored, and their private views. In 2006 when historian Kaz Ross investigated the real opinions of Chinese historians in the city of Nanking on an anonymous basis, all of them gave figures between 40,000 and 150,000. (4.) Wakabayashi's argument is bolstered by the fact that almost all scholars outside of China who have written books or peer-reviewed article on the Nanking Massacre have given figures somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000. David Askew, Tokushi Kasahara, Katsuichi Honda, Yoshida Yutaka, Jean-Louis Margolin, Masahiro Yamamoto, and Ikuhiko Hata, etc. all give figures within this general range. (5.) Almost all the individuals who have given figures above or below this range are non-specialists with no particular knowledge of this subject. Marvin Williamsen and Edward L. Dreyer are said to be two historians who have given higher estimates, but neither of them has ever written more than a paragraph about the massacre in their entire careers. Adding all their research together would not fill a single page of text. Furthermore, none of these scholars have ever said how they calculated their figures. An estimate which is not known to be based on any data should not be considered part of the scholarly consensus of specialists. In fact, it seems like many of these scholars merely copied down the verdicts of the postwar war crimes tribunals without analyzing them. Former army officer and non-fiction writer Frank Dorn, who is quoted in the book "China's Bitter Victory" that is being inserted into the Battle of Nanking article, gives "over 200,000 civilians" as the death toll of the massacre, without providing a citation but most likely from the IMTFE verdict. However, in the previous sentence of his book he says the Japanese killed "over 20,000 civilian men" a statement which seems to be taken directly taken from Miner Searle Bates' testimony at the IMTFE. However these two estimates are mutually exclusive because, as David Askew made very clear in his article "The Scale of Japanese Atrocities in Nanjing", Bates did not accept the validity of the Chongshantang burial records which the IMTFE did include. This sort of copying and pasting from a single primary source is not equivalent to the level of research carried out by the historians who have written whole books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre which actually do explain how the death toll was calculated.

My goal is simply to uphold the scholarly consensus, and in doing so I am NOT overturning any consensus reached among Wikipedia users. In a post made on 29 May 2014 Zmflavius acknowledges an important point that, "consensus was reached that... Wakabayashi cites the general scholarly consensus as being a range of 40k-200k". Though Zmflavius did "not recall entirely whether the discussion was completely settled", he agreed that "figures over 200k are to some degree subject to suspicion". What I am saying is that figures "subject to suspicion" don't belong in an article about the Battle of Nanking. In that article the massacre is not the main focus and thus we should stick to the "general scholarly consensus" that the large majority of specialist historians can agree on and that, as Zmflavius noted, the Wikipedia community also agreed upon. As I indicated, 40,000 to 200,000 is a useful range because this range of figures has successfully united almost all specialist scholars in the field, cutting across all ideological and national boundaries. In the same post, Zmflavius stated that, by contrast, the alternative range of 40,000 to 300,000 was based on "a composite of the extensive historiographical study of Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, as well as several noted Chinese historians who cite figures up to 300k". Leaving aside that any "composite" range risks being against Wikipedia's prohibition on synthesis, it's important to note that, so far at least, no Chinese historian interviewed about his views anonymously is known to have ever given an estimate over 150,000, and surely the honest opinions of Chinese historians are more valid than what their government requires them to say publicly. Secondly, Wakabayashi's detailed study rejected figures over 200,000 is no uncertain terms, and so it may not be appropriate to simply combine his estimates with scholarship produced in China. In summarizing the points of view of all the eminent scholars who contributed to his anthology, Wakabayashi also explains in detail that the estimates of the postwar war crimes trials were based off faulty evidence, and that the Chinese government is actually harming itself, "weaken[ing] the hand of Japanese leftists sympathetic to the Chinese cause" as he says, by insisting so adamantly on a death toll estimate that scholars outside China can clearly see is an exaggeration. For an article on the Battle of Nanking, is it really appropriate to use a "composite" figure that simply combines together the Wakabayashi consensus with suspicious figures that the Wakabayashi consensus explicitly says are NOT "empirically verifiable [and] scholarly valid" and are damaging to the credibility of the very country promoting them?

Until very recently, I did not want to put any Nanking Massacre death toll estimate in the Battle of Nanking article at all. I left all specific estimates out of the article precisely in order to avoid having to discuss this controversy a second time, but to my dismay it turns out that not including a death toll estimate is as controversial as including one. Since other editors did want a death toll estimate in that article, I reluctantly agreed with two other editors (a majority of editors) in the talk page that, for the purposes of that article, Wikipedia users should be able to agree that 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims is the general scholarly consensus, as opposed to the minority estimates fished from Google Books searches of non-specialists works or newspaper articles which make no effort to reveal how their numbers were calculated. I know that every Wikipedian has their own personal opinion on this matter, but let's please not ignore the scholarly consensus in that article. I am the primary contributor to the article on the Battle of Nanking and made a great effort in writing up the article to aim for objectivity, balance, and use of the latest and most reliable research. Now I am making an appeal to common sense in saying that, for the purposes of that article, we should use the mainstream "general scholarly consensus" which the Wikipedia community agreed on and not the dubious "composite" range, though there is certainly space in other articles to discuss higher and lower minority points of view. If we can't put such a solidly-founded scholarly consensus into even an article that is not specifically about the Nanking Massacre without provoking this much controversy, then we really do need to re-open the whole debate from scratch.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone; As one of the original participants in the original death toll debate, what I recall was that consensus ultimately was either to list a range of 40,000-200,000 as general scholarly consensus, while noting that certain estimates of the death toll reached as high as 300,000, or to have the range be put forward as 40,000 to 300,000, but with notes indicating that estimates over 200,000 had been called into question. In all honesty, it being the case that I participated in the discussion while preparing also for some fairly difficult exams, with at best divided attention, I must confess to not actually remembering the specific details, though I do recall that the (very extensive) discussion had been archived in the Talk:Nanking Massacre page, and that a basic consensus had been achieved (apparently several times) during this time period. Nevertheless, I believe we can all agree that firstly, our estimates definitely ought to be based on the consensus of reputable academics, Chinese, Japanese, Western, or wherever, and that it is within the ability of us as Wikipedians and mature adults to figure out what this consensus is and who is a reputable academic on this subject.
Having said all of that, it may seem (and is my intention) that I come off as non-committal in the above, because honestly, it is really not my wish to regenerate what was (as I recall), a very acrimonious debate, and one which I in particular, have no desire to rejoin, having since discovered that I am finding much more joy in editing subjects on Wikipedia which also fall within my sphere of interest but are significantly less controversial and politicized. Nevertheless, it is my hope that everyone participating in the discussions you allude to will be able to resolve their disputes peaceably and with little acrimony, and I wish you both good luck in this.Zmflavius (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
First, this is not the place for this discussion. Second, while I lean towards 40,000 to 200,000 as the correct range of possible values, with 300,000 being of interest only as historiography, I am also reluctant to get into it again. But I also see the danger of letting a determined but possibly wrong editor get his way through sheer exhaustion.
Let's take this back to the article talk page where it belongs. --Yaush (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Zmflavius. I was asking to confirm if the consensus exists as you were one of the primary participants. I didn't expect that your talk page would get flooded. In the February debate it was proved that 300K is also a scholarly estimate favored not only by some Chinese but also American scholars. This estimate is at least no less accurate than 40K. Anyway, I didn't want and I am not going to discuss it here, for I can understand your feeling that such a controversial topic is so exhaustive that it may destroy the joy we have ever shared in editing Wikipedia. I wish that one day in the future Wikipedia editors could solve this dispute, neither exaggerating nor mitigating historical facts. I do appreciate your efforts and contribution in the discussion, and actually I am a little envying you that you can finally get rid of such debate :) Wish all the joy and happiness be with you in Wikipedia and in the holiday! --MtBell 19:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and Happy Holidays to you too.Zmflavius (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

SM U-66[edit]

Hello - I reverted your edit at SM U-66 because it messed up the bolding for the first paragraph of the article; I am sure this was unintentional. So, please feel free to make the edit you had intended to make again. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - sorry about the earlier mistake! I had actually intended to make a very small edit, but I think something weird might have happened while using visual editor that led to more changes than I had intended.Zmflavius (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tibet[edit]

I have reverted your recent edit on Tibet. As the page clearly states, this is the historical-ethnic region of Tibet, not the TAR, and is not "in China"; in fact, there are many countries in this area. Ogress smash! 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Second Sino-Japanese War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)