User talk:Thor's Axe
Welcome[edit]
|
September 2018 2[edit]
Thor's Axe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no evidence that Thor's Axe1 is my account. I registered Thor's Axe and Thor's Axe2 only. If you think the other accounts were linked to inappropriate behaviour, my account should not be blocked indefinitely without a valid reason. My choosing the user name Thor's Axe was completely my own decision and I was not aware of a user with similar name. You may check the registration time and IP address used. I did not attempt to register a blocked account. Thor's Axe is my first ever wiki account. I also read your comment about user Kapilitoo. That account was not created by me either. I have only used one IP address recently only, and that is the one of Thor's Axe and Thor's Axe2. Other accounts were not created by me. It now seems that due to a coincidence you believed that I am a user who has been blocked before and just tries to continue disruptive editing. But if you view my past edit history and check the IP addresses involved, you would see my contributions were referenced and I left comment in the talk page. It is a mistake to mix me with the other blocked users were were discussing. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC) The previous 48 hours blocking should have passed already. This account did not have any activity during the period. If there is not a valid reason, and you can confirm that Thor's Axe is not a socking master, the block should be lifted as soon as possible. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC); User Opasney has been editing the talk page of Transition .... and he is using aggressive languages and fabricating facts after the edit war warning. Blocking me one-sidedly and depriving my right of making an argument to defend my points is completely unfair. Opasney is also quoting the statements I made on my personal talk page in the talk page of Transition.... and making false accusations about me. So far I consider your decision to be completely partial and unfair, because you only took actions against me, and consider my behaviour and sources to be inappropriate without investigating what I contributed. Though it is not mandatory for administrators to discuss the materials in a topic, it is not justified to simply interpret my actions as edit warring before verifying the the sources I quoted. Also the original ban is a 48 hours blocking, but now user Dlohcierekim and apparently the admin team is considering making the block indefinite with no reason. This is deeply disappointing, and making me sceptical about your judgement or whether you truly handle the issues on a fair ground. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Right now without a valid reason I am completely unable to let myself be heard, and being attacked without an opportunity of arguing for myself. My contribution with valid references and correct interpretation (as agreed by user Simonm223, who is apparently an objective third party) was just deleted maliciously. I do not think this is what I, a new comer in wikipedia with the aim of contributing, deserve. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Hi, Thor's Axe. I'm responding here to your comments on my talk page, as they're related to the above:
Hi I just wish to clarify a few things. I understand this is a broad for the discussions between administrators, but I still think it would be ideal to let you know my situation. I started my first edit on 23rd September and created my account by that time. Then out of curiosity, and after being warned for edit warring, I was thinking about setting up a back up account (by that time I was not aware that multiple account abusing was prohibited), and that one is Thor's Axe2. I am okay if you wish to keep only one account for me. But my using the same user name as Thor's Axe 1, 3, 5and user Kapilitoo is completely coincidental. When I registered the account I was not given a suggestion to read the names of registered users. And I used to think there were many users and it is fine to have two user names almost exactly the same (which led to confusion in this case).
There was also some debate between me and administrator Kleuske on the talk page on Transition..... I admit that I was rather emotional by that time and was not very clear about the rules. My last few edit based on the suggestion of user Simonm223, and I did a vision of the links.
It would probably be easier if you were to stick with the one account. If you are considering operating an additional account, the policy at WP:SOCKLEGIT outlines the applicable rules.
I understand TA1, TA3, TA5, and Kapilitoo are not operated by yours. They were impersonating you – ie a joe job. There is a user, banned from Wikipedia, who seems to do that occasionally. As my colleagues above have said, I'm sorry for the confusion and hope it does not discourage you from contributing.
The software alerting you to the conflicting names – this may not be a feature. If it isn't, you could suggest it via a feature request. However, in this case it would not have helped; the impersonator accounts were created after yours were.
Finally, there may sometimes be such a temptation to become emotional or heated during a content dispute. Wikipedia has ample guidance for editors in these positions – including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus, which is really important basic reading.
Best regards, AGK [•] 14:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
I have blocked this account indefinitely due to competency concerns, in particular the apparent inability to discuss coherently without bludgeoning discussions needlessly, in addition to continued slow edit warring while falsely making accusation of vandalism, and general tendentious editing with synthesis of sources. To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thor's Axe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To Alex Shih: I would like you to give me an explanation or proof of my breaching synthesis. I have been accused of this for multiple times, and asked for a third party to verify the situation. However no specific feedback has been given, and all you have done is to pin a label on me. Since you claim to be able to read Chinese, I would like you to briefly describe how did I synthesis the resources. While I agree that my previous edits on talk page might be lengthy, but my recent edits have been more concise. I wish you can see the improvement. I stopped the edit warring after Simonm223 reverted my changes. It is unfair to consider all my past edit record without realising the change in my style, especially when I was not familiar with the relevant policies before the first 48 hours block.
Decline reason:
When you're blocked on Wikipedia, the onus is on you to explain how and/or why the block reasons might not be accurate. The above does not address the issues raised by the blocking admin. (Also, looking at the section below: don't do that. That's inappropriate use of a talk page by a blocked editor and continuing it can lead to talk page access being revoked. (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC))) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:46, 18 October 2018 (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.
Thor's Axe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- bludgeoning: I was responding to another user on the talk page, and apparently controverted every point made by that user. However I have read others' comment and made the argument in a logical manner. The other user used lengthy comment and brought up points not relevant to the topic, and I admitted that my responding to all those points may not be necessary. However in the last few edits I cut my comment shorter and pointed out that I would not respond to a discussion that is off-topic. I believe I am able to keep my discussion relevant and concise in my future editing, and you may refer to the latest edit on the talk page of Transition.... to see how I did that. Please note that for this accusation, I am not defending myself by referring to other users, but trying to explain my reason of making comment not wholly relevant on talk page. Hereby I can confirm that I am not going to make irrelevant comment on talk page in the future. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC) edit warring: I stopped the edit warring after receiving the warning on 1 Oct. A few edits were done afterwards but were reverted by another user. After the reversion I no longer made the edit. I think the administrator mixed my edits in different periods. I am currently aware of the procedure of gaining consensus, and my latest edit history does not suggest I have committed edit-warring on a large scale (though I have done so previously, which was followed by a block already. I do not think it is fair for me to receive multiple blocking because of one event). Thor's Axe (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC) tendentious editing: I think there might be a misunderstanding of what happened on page Transition...... While my discussion on talk page may contain some of my views, I presented them as a response to others arguments. These views were not included in the edit I made to the main page. My edit include: inserting the military bride taking part that is relevant to Manchu-Han marriage; Adding more materials about some specific laws or policies. I have expressed views about some other topics (such as the importance of Manchu-Mongolia alliance and Manchu Bannerman, or the importance of Han Chinese women for the population growth of Manchu), these views were NOT presented in the edit to main page. I admit the existence of unnecessary contents, however this is part of the issue in the first paragraph and I will try to avoid it in the future. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC) synthesis: I still do not see an evidence for this conduct. My past edit inserted materials fully based on sources with no personal interpretation. The resources might be primary source, but there was no part created by myself. All I added were either translation of primary source or opinions of historians authoring a second source. I am willing to discuss further on talk page should I be unblocked. I wish this can be reviewed by a neutral party as an isolated case. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Summary: I acknowledge that my current history of editing on wikipedia might have breached several rules. However I wish you can see that I am learning from them. If you refer to my latest edits I am confident that you can see an improvement in style and content, and if you check my editing to the main page you will see I stopped immediate reverting after being reverted. I have more materials and explanations to add, and I am going to edit in a better way and gain consensus should this unblock request be approved. My latest discussion with a user is apparently on a good track. In addition, my past behaviours may not be fully appropriate due to my feeling angry about some aggressive comment and the immediate reverting of other users (it usually happened immediately after my edits, which made me think the other users were taking ownership by deleting all my contribution without reading it). While emotion played a role, my good faith can be assumed and again, I will try to improve my style and gain consensus. This is the third block I have received and the second indefinite block in my short experience of editing wikipedia. I sincerely hope that the management team could assess the situation more thoroughly (especially noticing my improvement) before using an indefinite block. Thor's Axe (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. AGK ■ 20:21, 31 October 2018 (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.
Edit to Transition.... page[edit]
My account is current blocked so I wish you can have a look at this. Though my previous manner of editing may be not appropriate, I do have valid reasons and ideas that I believe will contribute to the edit.
About my claim of Yoto's proposal: I have secondary source. In the same book written by Ding, the end of page 220 explicitly indicated that the policy being discussed is applied mainly to captured women. You may follow this link for the document. The original text listed some events about Hong Taiji offering wives to defected soldiers from all ethnic groups, and claimed "the events above applied to captured women". That section was then followed by a discussion about the treatment of Manchu women specifically. I still do not agree with the "mass marriage" part, and I think Ding's opinion ought to be considered. Thor's Axe (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
About the number of imperial princesses: "Whereas four Manchu princesses married Chinese during the first century manchu rule over China, none did so after 1750" So the number is confirmed here. This is on page 149 of book written by Anne Wathal. The same book was used multiple times already in the page. Link here Thor's Axe (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
About Shunzhi's proposal: I think it is not appropriate to only review part of the original proposal. Shun Zhi's decree was a policy that allows the intermarriage of two ethnic groups without a sexual duality. The current description created the impression that Manchu men were not allowed to marry Han Chinese, which was not the case. As a matter of fact, Manchu women faced more resistance than Han women in intermarriage, since manchus always need the approval and report the marriage, while Han women did not have to if they were not he daughters of officials. The full script can be found on page 221 of Ding's book. Thor's Axe (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
About the time range of official policy applied to intermarriage. In previous discussion I said it is not sure when the sexual duality in marriage policy was started. Now with further research I can confirm that almost throughout the Qing dynasty, and not restricted to KangXi era and after, Han Chinese civilian were NOT allowed to marry women from Banner. And marriage between Manchu men and Han women was not restricted. This may also impact the current interpretation of Shun Zhi's decree. Evidence here: "Non Banner Chinese men could not marry Manchu girls, but Manchu men might might marry the daughters of non-banner Chinese. In a patriarchal society this irregularity would again strengthen Manchu dominance. For two handred and fifty years the general ban on intermarriage remained in effect; it was only lifted a year after the boxing rebellion" Thor's Axe (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
About the military bride taking part: On page 75 to 81 of Ding's book I quoted there were detailed description an discussion about these events. In fact when I first inserted these materials I used Ding's book instead of the primary sources. I then switched to primary sources because I thought that might be reliable, which was shown as wrong by Wiki's policy. Thor's Axe (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)