LungZeno

Hello LungZeno, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Allan McInnes (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hong Kong on lists of metro systems/tram and light rail transit systems

Hong Kong is not a country, which in the definition of these lists means sovereign nation. It is a part of the PRC whether you want it to be or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please not according to your political think. --LungZeno (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't push HK nationalism on the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and not a country, meaning sovereign nation. Do not modify List of tram and light rail transit systems to remove the statement that "Country" means "independent nation" or "sovereign state" or to change the entry on the Tramways and MTR Light Rail to be under "Hong Kong" instead of "China". Further disruption will result in a block.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

All my text is not according to original research. But your reason is new political rule. --LungZeno (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to change the meaning of "Country" in these articles so you can include Hong Kong rather than have it included under the PRC. Do not make these changes, again. Do I make myself clear?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing of an article does not need consensus before. Or it is a new rule?--LungZeno (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You need consensus when someone disagrees with you, and if you look at the talk page a lot of people disagree with the change already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the topic already. Hong Kong SAR is a part of the PRC. It is not independent. It is not sovereign. It is only vaguely semi-autonomous. This does not make it a "country" which in English means "sovereign state".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the international common practice. The third party that implement this practice don't according to whether the word "Country" equal to "sovereign state" or not, equal to independent or not. The practice is used to resolve conflicts and inconvenience. --LungZeno (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this "international common practice" that you keep referring to? Is it the insistence that a bunch of governments treat Hong Kong differently because they have economic ties? That's not relevant here. This is a list of things organized by their nations and it doesn't matter that the USA and UK deal with Hong Kong separately from the mainland. These are lists of trains on a privately owned website that has its own rules and regulations. Drop the subject already before you end up being blocked for disrupting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I only describe the practice what I saw . I think I don't break any rules of wikipedia. This User talk page is for me. You have no right to order me. --LungZeno (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any arguments based in fact. Just your perceived "international common practice". It's just a list of train systems after all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I had quoted "If you read reputable news magazines, the Economist for instance, you can tell that it is a common practice." in that page. And that IP user also said that GMail account and OSes are also examples. --LungZeno (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

None of this matters when discussing where train systems are. The city is Hong Kong. The country is China. Drop the subject already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had written that 'The "country" concept is not state or nation.' The wikipedia article "Country" has introduction. Repeating of your claim can not prove or disprove the knowledge I had written. This way is not the way of discussion.

A user in that talk page had also mentioned that there are multiple definition of country. I had also written that "This topic is about metro systems. If the list is according to rail system (metro system), it will be more suitable. Similarly, the Economist use economic system." Repeating of you claim is also not the way of resolving of conflict.

You can reply to it in that talk page. Your saying here is not easily known and read by other user reading or writing in that talk page.

--LungZeno (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The articles clearly state that when they say "Country" they mean "sovereign nation" and not the definition you want that makes it so "Hong Kong" is a "country". Hong Kong has never been a country and it meets no definition of "country" no matter how many times you repeat this. I am done talking to you. These circular arguments are getting tiresome because you won't own up to your own biases and the fact that this is not your first time at this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That talk page has three solutions at least. Two of them were written by me. That three solutions all meet what I say and what you say at the same time.

"circular argument" just says that the premises of an argument want to true before argument, but this type of arguments lack of this requirement, and the truth of the premises of that just come from reasoning of the truth of the conclusions of that, although reasoning in the argument is right at all. Because the reasoning in that is right, if the premise is true, then the conclusion is gotten. But when the premise is not true, the conclusion can be not gotten, and then the premise can also be not true. Later situation can be the case in the circular argument. The target of a proving is to get the conclusion. The circular argument is not the way of that.

The solutions I had written are not invented by me. The knowledge I had written comes from third party, are not invented by me in this discussion.

I had not proved nor disproved your claim. You just repeat your claim. I just point out that your sentences do not proved nor disproved what I had written. Whether your political claim is correct or not, can not make my written sentences correct or incorrect. Here are not relationship of proving or disproving.

In my memory, I should talk with you first time. This sentence is not provocation. I just do not extend your meaning.

You just assume what I think. That is not showed any reasoning.

As a Hong Kong people, I have my standpoint. From your claim, I know that you also have your standpoint. Rationality, logic and objectivity are not affected by standpoints. If rationality, logic and objectivity are understood, then consensus can be made by standpoints which conflict each other. This is the value of rationality, logic and objectivity.

--LungZeno (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

appealing unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I see the block: "Block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood"[1].

He is not I. I am I. The block is a mistake.

In the page "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood/Archive#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments_17", the conclusion text is " Likely". I don't know what are concrete meaning and standard of "likely". Do I want to prove further that I am I? Some wikipedians know me.

In the page, I see that only User:Ryulong provided diff of edit and account creation year information.

The edit is just one times. The edit is too small and minor. The reason of that edit is because the old revision is not common that Hong Kong people see and know in living. It has no style. There is no vandal at all.

I don't know whether the account creation year can be the sole reason of sockpuppet block. Even though, I don't know whether it can be a evidence. I provide my cross wikipedia info. The registered date in zhwiki is missing, but I find the date of first edit in zhwiki.

I have join the discussion and decision of a dispute resolution in the Talk:List of metro systems. I wish to I can continue the discussion and decision during the unblocking process, although the discussion and decision unrelated to the block.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Decline reason:

It doesn't matter if "the edit was just one time" or how minor the edit was - socking is socking, and your behavior is sufficiently similar to make that "technically likely" into "confirmed", to the point where "I'm not him" is not going to cut it to get you unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Thank for reply.

The sentence means that the edit is not vandal and is not a action of socking.

My expression may be not good. Later sentence means why I apply the process of unblocking.

I don't know what the "technically likely" depend on.

And I don't know he and how he is, I don't know how to appeal the block if I am felt that my behavior is similar to him.

I think that my behaviors are normal in the persons I know, except my bad ability of English.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Voice from a HongKonger

I'm a HongKonger and I heard the news from plurk. In fact it's so normal that HongKongers fill in HongKong as a country. Although it may be "political not correct", but it is necessary to distinguish HongKong and (mainland) China in the daily life. For example, if you fill in "China" but not "HongKong" at the "country" column on warranties, you may get poor service and simplified Chinese instruction guide. If you're a HongKonger, you should know that these are horriable things. So, maybe you think HongKonger should know that HongKong is not a country, but IN FACT, i mean in the NORMAL DAILY LIFE, we often say HongKong is our country. Thus, I don't think behavior of LungZeno "is sufficiently similar" to the other guy. I cannot believe Wikipedia guys use this point to ban a user. --Tvb10data (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact, for everyday life not related for political issues, Hong Kong is often treated as a country, and Hong Kong is independent from mainland China in many issues, even immigration control and customs. Actually, in the area of postal service, Hong Kong MUST be treated as country, otherwise the mail may be lost. As an evidence, The USPS international mailing manual explicitly says that you must address Hong Kong as a country. ("Although Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, senders should address their mail to Hong Kong directly.")[2]. Treating Hong Kong as a country is a norm in Hong Konger's life, therefore banning a user for sockpuppet activity solely because of the "Hong Kong is a country" edit is not a reason. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 06:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

LungZeno, it is against the rules to request assistance from your friends on Plurk, as both Tv10data and Leecy0 are here just to support you for that reason. You need to realize that while it is sometimes useful to list Hong Kong amongst the various countries of the world, you were pushing for this on an article on train systems. There is nothing unique about Hong Kong's public transportation that means it should be listed separately from other cities in China. Wikipedia seeks to be a neutrally written and free to access encyclopedia. That means you have to leave your ideas on politics and other social issues out of Wikipedia when you edit here.

Now for Leecy0, Tvb10data, and any other people who may come here in an attempt to support LungZeno's side: Because LungZeno performed edits that were inherently indistinguishable from edits perfomed by a banned user, LungZeno is considered to be that banned user. The behavioral evidence of jumping right into the debate on the train lists, and apparently acting exactly the same as a user who was previously banned for making similar edits, which includes the manner of argument and the refusal to listen to other users, means that for all intents and purposes LungZeno is this banned editor. And the fact that he is also asking for people to help him now via an external website, that means that all users who come to help him are now considered meatpuppets, that is users whose behavior advocates for another user even if they are not the same person.

Wikipedia does not work on democracy to make decisions, so no number of people coming here saying "Unblock LungZeno and also change the articles on the metro systems to have Hong Kong as a country" will change how things are being dealt with here on Wikipedia. LungZeno is free to request an unblock, again, and try to address the reasons for why he was blocked instead of being defensive, but further abuse of this talk page, and further interuptions by other friends of his trying to help him, will result in no one being able to edit this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to work on democracy to make decisions on Wikipedia, but just saying the reason of Ryulong that says LungZero, I and Leecy0 are "meatpuppets" is incredible, ridiculous, peculiar and unreasonable. Ryulong is trying to use a normal thing in the daily life of HongKongers, to say it is a particular characteristic for a "meatpuppet". Besides, I just HEAR THIS UNBELIEVABLE NEWS on the plurk, thus wanna see if the English Wikipedia is so ridiculous really or not. If i "against the rules" since I hear a news from plurk, why don't Ryulong ask plurk, and twitter, fb, instagram, weibo etc. as well, to block any news about wikipedia? Do we have the freedom of hearing a news through social network?? I don't know Ryulong's answer on this question, but maybe Ryulong thinks I haven't the right of speech. He reverted my speech at "17:38, 29 August 2014‎" & "17:38, 29 August 2014" directly without any reason!! Is this a normal thing on English Wikipedia?? Does English Wikipedia work on censoring of free speech like the Chinese Communist Party??? --Tvb10data (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no "news" on Plurk. It was postings made by LungZeno. And no, you do not have any right to free speech on Wikipedia. No one does. Wikipedia is a privately owned website where there are rules on what people are and are not allowed to say and you are only given the privilege to edit here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong, I think you know you are not the Wikipedia. And also, you can see five pillar. What you do are inappropriate. They are pillars, policies, guidelines simply. Collaboration is not a adversarial behavior. Although, I can only read very few in numerous pages, it is able to see that texts of pillars, policies and guidelines reveal a tendency to require discipline. It is reasonable because participators of Wikipedia are volunteers. Those texts are not written as a list of commands or weapons. According to what I know, not long after the first splitting of Wikipedia that a reason is afraid of censorship, Jimbo Wales established that Wikipedia is a project operated by public NPO and is open to public. According to what I know, editing articles is just a contribution way but there are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I also think your numerous unfounded reversions is inappropriate because author's copyright of his content is not loss, the content is just licensed by copyleft. Initiatively offensive behaviors are too unrespectful of contributors.

Sorry, Tvb10data did not lie nor overstate. He is a origin of news himself, is a forwarder of news and can make somethings news. I can not expose details because of privacy. When I seek witness, he misunderstood that I want to make this event news at that time.

@Tvb10data, although my some sentences at this page expressed that if a person does not break rule, he can do, but inversion is not absolutely true in Wikipedia ideally. And be cool. I will write the problems welcome to be read.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

what I do

1. I just request witness.

From the texts above of Leecy0 and Tvb10data, they act as witness for me.

From the text of Tvb10data in the talk page of that article, that text explains why I am not the socksuppet of the banned user, he said what he see objectively, and his conclusion is for the banning for me.

From the text above, what we said bases on what we see objectively and the reasoning, we have not edit the article to become non-neutral.

2. I had reply to other people who participate in the talk page of the articles and reply and reply to the user Ryulong. I also provide solutions and join the process of resolving of dispute already.

3. I just had not disproved (nor proved) the political claiming which the user Ryulong repeat and repeat. But the solutions meet what I say and what the user Ryulong claim at both.

--LungZeno (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "acting as witness" on Wikipedia. The solution you want is to include Hong Kong as a country in these tables which no one on the article wants. Stop asking for your friends to come to your aid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

1. They said what they see objectively about what I had said what I see and know, and their conclusion is for the banning to me. Therefore, by understanding normally, their behavior are the behavior of witnesses for the sentences I had said in the process of unblocking.

2. This second paragraph does not relate to my request already. I had said that according to rail system be just like the common way which third party use. Being true of the common way does not make your early political claim true nor untrue. By what I point out at the talk page of that article, other editors had used the common way. And there are second solution and third solution. The second solution is provided by me. The third solution is provided by other Wikipedian on the talk page of that article. The second solution is the common way which some new third party websites use. That solution meets also what you do not want in your comment this times. The third solution is even simpler. In that solution, no column will attract conflict. I join also the discussion of the third solution. That three solutions are the resolving of conflict.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not addressing your first point. Second point, for the umpteenth time the discussion was soured by actual sockpuppets of a banned editor in which you are sort of collateral damage but close enough that the Wikipedia community is at this point better off without you.

There is a consensus there that the MTR is listed as being in China for its country. You have not given any proof that when it comes to metro systems it is necessary to list the MTR as being in Hong Kong as a country. You just keep going on and on about how it's "common way", "international common sense", "international convention", "common knowledge", and the like. You've not given one reason as to why when it comes to just the topic of metro systems Hong Kong should be listed as both city and country for the MTR. All we see is "Hongkongers know" and "it should be separate because Hong Kong is sometimes treated as separate".

So explain to me in 50 words or less what makes the MTR so special that Hong Kong should be used over China in the country column. Do not try to explain to me that the table should be changed to "Region", that the "Country" column should be removed, or that the definition of "Country" includes Hong Kong. Just explain why for this particular topic and no other that the MTR being in Hong Kong is more important than it being in the PRC.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The second solution is the common way that the legend is "country/region". My edit and my grounds are the common way, not the important way. I know edits of two articles from public forum. And I saw that talk page of the later article, I replied to explain why the article attract conflict. And then I am pulled into the conflict of you and I because of the non-discussion skills. And then I provide the solutions to resolving the conflict of the article. Although my ability of English is bad, I think that the meaning of early texts is clear. I think there are no result endlessly. The original intention of this section is to write about my request and my applying of unblocking. --LungZeno (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is more than 50 words and does not answer my question. Stop saying "common way". And there's already a decision not to expand the column to be "country/region". Simply explain to me what makes Hong Kong special when it comes to metro systems that requires the MTR to not be listed as in China.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The common way is also for differences of economic systems, tax systems, law systems, character systems, culture systems, education systems, exam systems, nationality systems, financial systems, postal systems, vehicular systems, public transport systems etc. The common way is also used by third party websites commonly. This talk page is for me. You haven't any right to order me to not do normal behavior. Your behavior is so rude. The meaning of early texts has described clearly. I will not repeat same information endlessly. As far as I know, the changing of a article is normal and common. When I saw that non Hong Kong people in that talk page of the article have not sufficient knowledge of Hong Kong, I contributed my knowledge of Hong Kong to there and Wikipedia. The ideological system of Hong Kong is also different. In Hong Kong's traditional folk stories generally known by Hong Kong people, Hong Kong society is formed by people loving freedom. I think that freedom is a spirit of Hong Kong people. We believe that that people have differences is natural and normal. We believe that people can kept what they love, what religion they believe, what they self-identify and what life-style they yearn, and people should refuse to yield that that differences are changed by power. We believe that collaboration has no need that people are mold out by a same mold. I think the texts should be clear enough already. Tangling with it has no result endlessly.

The original intention of this section is to write about my request and my applying of unblocking. And this talk page is for me. Because of politeness, any more harassing should be stopped.

--LungZeno (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking you a question and you have not answered. Clearly answering this question might have resulted in me seeking that you be unblocked because you are just someone who was bycatch. But all you've one is expound the individuality of Hong Kong instead of addressing the question I asked you. For the intents of describing train systems, Hong Kong's ethnocentrism does not belong.

Editors at Wikipedia understand that in some instances listing Hong Kong as separate is important, but you have not explained to me or anyone in the past several days why this is necessary at List of metro systems. If you sincerely acknowledge the viewpoints of the other people who have been discussing this with you (people who do not live in China or Hong Kong), that in the discussion of public transportation listing Hong Kong as a country is unnecessary I will try to get you unblocked and your name cleared. But if you continue to insist that Hong Kong is special and deserves separate treatment everywhere, then I will request that this talk page be locked because it is not yours, it is Wikipedia's.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If a result of a discussion is accepted by every participator of the discussion, a consensus of the discussion is made. To make a result of a discussion, it is unnecessary that every participator all has same viewpoints or all is changed to have same viewpoints. That ideology I mentioned meet these truths. I do not seek to change your heart.

"common" means that there are many cases which are not different from each other. "special" means that there is a only or few case when there are many cases different from it. According to system meets the difference of metro(rail) systems not only, meets the difference of economic systems not only. The way meets also the differences of the tax systems, law systems, character systems, culture systems, education systems, exam systems, nationality systems, financial systems, postal systems, vehicular systems, public transport systems, etc. These differences are factual knowledge, not a point of view. This factual knowledge is not made by me, by you nor by other editors. (I guess this factual knowledge is not made by you nor by other editors.) These sentences themselves are not the seeking of a action. And I have not written any sentences which seek any other action until now.

"unnecessary" means that it can be or can be not. I had read what sentences other editors reply to me.

I has not written any sentences or any arguments which a action of the article is necessary at that discussion. I just wrote solutions, unknown knowledge, unconsidered knowledge, processes of reasoning, premises of reasoning, conclusions of reasoning, what is not fact, what meaning the sentences are. Until now, no sentences I wrote expresses that I will reject a result of the process of resolving conflict. After adding a few unknown/unconsidered knowledge, the knowledge and the reasonings will be written enough in the process. If a similar conflict happen in future, other editors already can know why it happen from the knowledge and the reasonings. I accept this type of result.

Only you, no other editors insist to reply frequently to me for that conflict edit of that page, and even go to this talk page which is for me to tangle with that. Only you, no other editors accuse me many times without showing any evidence or proof. And only you, no other editors request me to trade.

The applying of the unblocking of sockpeppet bases on that I am not him, my account is not his sockpeppet. Any unblocking should be because I am not him, my account is not a sockpeppet of a banned user, and I has no vandal action. Basing on yielding or trading is meaningless to me. I have no need to be distorted by power, by harassing nor by interest.

--LungZeno (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There was an established consensus on the metro system page to use "China" and not "Hong Kong". However, there was also one user ("Instantnood") who has been disrupting the page to insist that "Hong Kong" be used. Because you also began to argue this, you were blocked.

Just because Hong Kong is considered separate from mainland China in those topics does not mean it should be considered separate from China in all topics.

The solutions you suggested had been already declined by editors of the articles in the past because the only proponents are Hong Kong nationalists who want to be considered separate. Hong Kong has been a part of China since 200 BC and was only under British rule for 150 years. We get that you want to be considered separate, but the solutions are only there to favor Hong Kong and Hongkongers, rather than people interested in the topic of trains.

And fine. I am no longer discussing any matters with you. I will not advocate for your unblocking either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What you said is off-topic not first times in the talking. What I said bases on common doubtless knowledge and logic. If the talking is rational, you should point out where is contradiction, where is not fact, how the meaning of point has problem, how that reasoning is incorrect, or what sentences is useless to get conclusion. And if the talking is rational, you should develop a line of reasoning of your political claim and should not just repeat and repeat your political claim without any proof if your political claim can contradict what I said and can resolve the conflict of edit.

I do not wish to ascribe to particular person. But it seems that these articles attract conflict is also because of another side. Knowledge of another side is also needed to make that if a similar conflict happen in future, other editors already can know why it happen from the knowledge and the reasonings.

There is a phenomenon about a type of behavior that if one or more participator of a discussion is PRC people, and "China" or international relation of PRC is involved in the discussion which subject is not "China" nor international relation of PRC, then PRC participator claims initiatively and irrationally something basing on PRC or want initiatively and irrationally other participator to do a action basing on PRC. This type of behavior is so called 中國民族主義 (zhongguo nationalism that the meaning of nationalism is which PRC people think.).

There is a phenomenon about a group of PRC people behaving as to claim irrationally that something is since ancient times (自古以來), behaving as "you are me, so you need do what we want you to do", behaving as to claim irrationally and repeatedly something like that you are 中國人 (Chinese, Chinese citizen, citizen of PRC, etc.), or behaving as to claim irrationally and repeatedly something like that your home is a part of China that they does not distinguish China, PRC, zhongguo, zhonghua, etc. This group of PRC people is labeled as Fenqing (憤青).

Your(Ryulong) behavior meets this the behavior of Fenqing. Maybe, you are not deliberate, and you just can not think rationally.

A lot of knowledge is unknown by another side. Many sentences written by User:Ryulong are not doubtless factual knowledge, but it is farther away. The unknown/unconsidered knowledge which need to be written is more extensive. I will add a new section for these knowledge. All these knowledge is also for any similar conflict in any article in English Wikipedia. Too many sentences are far away from my intention of this section. The updating of the new section may be slower. Too mush time and too many days are used up on this issue. I want break.

Finally. Responding to being interested in referring and unfounded labeling me many times, I write something. If you love China, join me, can join me. We are new Chunghwa religion. (新中華教. Somethings like "sacred indivisible"(神聖不可分割), "I say it is, so it is"(我說是就是) are characteristics of a religion and other interpretations of Chunghwa have too many contradictions. New Chunghwa religion will be removed all coercive parts, and it is free to believe.) I do not write more. The new section will include some factual knowledge.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with you convincing me or anyone else that when it comes to a list of metro systems around the world Hong Kong must be listed as a separate entity from China when other semi-autonomous regions do not get the same treatment. I am an American citizen with no East Asian ancestry so I do not know why you are calling me anything regarding your political or cultural background. And the fact that you say I cannot think rationally is a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

extensive knowledge of Talk:List of metro systems

This section includes four subsections: ideologies, knowledge of Hong Kong, knowledge of China, irrational factual mistakes. If anyone can not accept what I write, he can introspect first time to whether he can think rationally or not. If anyone can not or does not sure, then talking about these topics with me may let us fall into bad experience, and asking other editors who know may be better choices.

ideologies

The knowledge of this subsection is used to understand the conflict coming from words. The names of the knowledge in this subsection may be controversial, but they are categorized by "logic"(system of thought).

• Nation (民族, min tzu) in nationalism bases on sharing same culture (cultural identity). e.g. Cantonese nation, Hakka nation, Russian nation (bases on Russian language as mother language).
• Mother language means the first language, doesn't mean the language which mother or ancestor speaks.
• Nationalism comes from splitting multinational empire. The opposite side of nationalism(民族主義) is imperialism(帝國主義). Nationalism says that a nation can have sovereignty over their territory (one or more sovereign-states). United Provinces is first country of this type. And its other "logic" is developed from this thought.
• 國族主義 (guo tzu ju yi , civic nationalism) bases on citizenship identity and is about national welfare, civic responsibility, civic eligibility.
• Patriotism (愛國主義, ai guo ju yi) means that a person defend where he raised because he has a unique memory and emotion of there. The defending is to self contribute to protect the environment of there. The environment includes language, culture, tradition, laws, society, such as being origin of his culture and memory.

There is a phenomenon that PRC people always mix up all and can not discern these ideologies, even always call behaviors of imperialism nationalism, and they say any person distinguishing nation identity, citizenship identity or homeland identity from them holds 優越感 (sense of superiority).

knowledge of Hong Kong

The knowledge of this subsection is used to understand why Hong Kong people said it is a common knowledge and why it attracts the conflict coming from Hong Kong.

• Hong Kong SAR is outside the territory border of PRC. Hong Kong SAR has itself border control. If a person want to visit Hong Kong SAR, then Beijing from Japan, after exiting the border checkpoint of Japan, he want to entry the border checkpoint of Hong Kong SAR, then exit that of HKSAR, then entry that of PRC, regardless of which transport. Traditional news medias of HKSAR call PRC "內地"(inland) regardless of Beijing, Zhejiang or Hainan Island because of political correctness. Relatively, the location of HKSAR is at outland of PRC. Whether Hong Kong is in or not in PRC is controversial. It is not like the opinion of PRC people(at least User:Ryulong) without knowledge.
• Nationality systems of PRC and Hong Kong SAR are distinct. Welfare, civic right and civic duty of Hong Kong SAR is accordance with the right of adobe in Hong Kong. Who have the right of adobe in Hong Kong can be able to not hold any citizenship nor nationality of PRC and can be able to hold these of other country like United Kingdom, Japan, Canada. A Hong Kong local person can be able to be not a PRC person nor China person in citizenship and blood.
• The vehicular system of Hong Kong is different from that of PRC. Because vehicles in Hong Kong must drive on the left side of the road, vehicles designed for Hong Kong are right-hand-drive. The converse apply in PRC where left-hand-drive vehicles drive on the right side of the road. There are also many other differences.
• The public transport system of Hong Kong is different from that of PRC. Besides Hong Kong Railway, Hong Kong people go to different places in Hong Kong by double-decker bus mainly. Quantity of double-decker bus in Hong Kong is numerous. Besides bus, there are also so many minibus. Public transport in Hong Kong is vary frequent and busy. In busy time, some lines of bus can be 3 minutes 1 bus. Hong Kong people are very dependent on public transport.
• The metro system of Hong Kong is different from that of PRC. As what is written above, there are territory borders, border controls, border checkpoints respectively. There are also many other differences. e.g. specifications of metro system, pay methods, currency.
• The reason of similarity of metro systems is two.
  • At first, 香港鐵路有限公司 (literally translated as Hong Kong Railway Corporation Limited) which English named MTR Corporation Limited built the phase 2 of the Longhua Line of Shenzhen Metro and operate the whole line. HKRCL has formed many joint-ventures to build or/and operate metros of Beijing, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang. But HKRCL has also formed many joint-ventures to build or/and operate metros/rails of London, Scotland, Newcastle, Stockholm, Melbourne.
  • Secondly, technologies and designs of many metros of PRC are introduced from Hong Kong. There are also many things like that.
• Rail culture is a subculture of Hong Kong. Although, Hong Kong rail subculture is not as crazy as Hong Kong bus subculture. Bus subculture of Hong Kong invents many jargon like 巴膠. Craziness of bus fun of Hong Kong also go into mainstream media of Hong Kong. But rail subculture of Hong Kong also has fanship Internet forums, fun clubs and even wikia.
• Many systems between PRC and Hong Kong are also distinct. e.g. economic systems, tax systems, law systems, court systems, character systems, culture systems, education systems, exam systems, currency systems, financial systems, postal systems, telephone systems, mass media systems(print, recordings, cinema, radio, TV, Internet, mobile phone), holiday systems, government systems, legislative systems, police systems, political ecosystems. They are two different environments. What event of any system of a side happens is not that of another side nor direct experience of anyone in another side.
• The reason to attract conflict and be able to become so serious.:
  • As above knowledge, what Hong Kong people know is that PRC and Hong Kong being listed in same column is a common knowledge such as that in daily life. It is why Hong Kong people (at least I, my witness and members in the public forum I mentioned) think that information in "List of metro systems" and "List of tram and light rail transit systems" is mistake or misinformation.
  • In Basic Law, Hong Kong has the right of representative in international organization, has the right to maintain and develop the status of Hong Kong by using the name "Hong Kong, China" (before transferring of sovereignty, use the name "Hong Kong" simply) which present in a edit in the history of reversions. Basic Law comes from Sino-British Joint Declaration which is a treaty of UK and PRC. PRC promises that Hong Kong remains unchanged for a period of 50 years (五十年不變). Other is also like this, e.g. "made in China" is not "made in Hong Kong", vice versa. It is why Hong Kong people post the mistake( or misinformation) in the public forum. Conflicting with PRC people is because of the status, not the flag itself. (Similarly to many Hong Kong people, I do not like the design of this flag.)
  • Further, people suspect PRC people of having the ambition of invasion.

history of Hong Kong

• The concept of Hong Kong is formed at 1842 years. This event is called 香港開埠 in Traditional Chinese. It is called "birth of Hong Kong" in English.[3] 香港開埠 is common doubtless Knowledge. Before birthing, there are some islands on the southeastern corner of the China subcontinent simply.
• After birthing, territory of Hong Kong was changed many times. At start, it contained Hong Kong Island, Aberdeen Island, Victoria Harbour. After Convention of Peking, it was extended to contain Kowloon Peninsula. After Second Convention of Peking, it was extended to contain New Territory. Afterwards, it was changed minorly a few times until now.
• After birthing, there are a national history(國別史) of Hong Kong and various regional histories(地域史) of Hong Kong varying on geographical areas of Hong Kong according to different periods. Before birthing, there are just regional histories of Hong Kong, no national history of Hong Kong.
• 204 BC–111 BC, these areas are part of Nanyue Kingdom(南越國).
• The western word "China" has many problems.

knowledge of China

• The ideology I mentioned is the thought 和而不同 which is from ancient China(古中華, ancient Chunghwa).
• The knowledge of this subsection is used to understand the conflict coming from "China".

the problem of the name China

England, Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Britain Empire, Commonwealth of Nations, Scotland

comments

• User talk access revoked for inappropriate use of the talk page while blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

LungZeno: Did you want to talk about the sockpuppet issue? I was reviewing your edits and I see why other editors may be convinced you are a sockpuppet.--Nowa (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I want. The experience of being wronged is so bad.

--LungZeno (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem that I see is that your edits to en.wikipedia began 12 April 2007. This is only 6 days after Instantnood was blocked (6 April 2007). That makes you look like him.--Nowa (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing. This just is coincidence. I only use one account name in any language of Wikipedia. In the contributions, many differences between I and him. --LungZeno (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Your edits were primarily related to computer programming and Instantnood's were primarily related to Chinese financial, political and geographic issues.--Nowa (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowa, you're forgetting he also began pushing a POV on List of metro systems identical to other sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that can certainly raise suspicion, but it can also be misleading. I was trying to see what the other evidence might be.--Nowa (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your effort. --LungZeno (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nowa, may I ask a question? Does the seeing go on? Or finished? --LungZeno (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the question.--Nowa (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my English writing is bad. You said that "I was trying to see what the other evidence might be." Are you still seeing? --LungZeno (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are blocked now. That means we have to find evidence that you are NOT a sockpuppet of Instantnood. The only evidence I have found is that Instantnood edited articles about Chinese financial, political and geographic issues. You edited articles about computer programming. That is good evidence, but we need more evidence.--Nowa (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

LungZeno: Your block settings have been changed. You will not be able to respond to me. I am sorry to see that happen. Sincerely--Nowa (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

LungZeno: I requested that your talk page be unlocked. The administrator said no. He said you should contact Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee. He said you can use email. Good luck.--Nowa (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)