User talk:Xingdong

To-Xingdong I must say that I dont like your personal attacks on other wiki users and now me for just providing references and in my case for citing article itself!I dont know what your point of attacking/flaming everyone on talkpage of Sino-india war is but seriously it just gives a bad name to country you are from.

Kampfgruppe.lehr (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Xingdong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Changting.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Changting.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Changting1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Changting1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Changting2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Changting2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked for edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sino-Indian War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bertport (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked 72 hours for violating Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy by inappropriately using an alternate account to edit war on the same article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a residential building which more than 500 academic folks sharing the same IP. I have no liaison with the offending user.Xingdong (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The term "rogue editor" is one that you should avoid bandying about. It is also considered impolite to threaten to report editors, especially for non-existent personal attacks, as you threatened me on Talk:2008 Tibetan unrest in this edit. I will remember that you consider "excellent editor" a personal attack and remember never to apply the phrase to you. Gimme danger (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments without citations

Unless you can provide a citation from a verified source about the Sino-Indian war "destroying" India's credibility in the NAM, don't make a comment or I will report you to the administrators for vandalism. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC) As I posted in your talk page, there are lots of reliable sources saying India's credibility in the NAM. It is a fact. Xingdong (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there arent otherwise you wouldn't have given an old citation which leads to a dead end. Either post a valid source from a neutral site (Read: not Xinhua or People's Daily for example) or don't make false claims.Vedant 03:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs)

Editing of my talk page

If you make any unwanted edits to my talk page, I will report you. You have been warned. 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You made a revert to my talk page and that constitutes as unwanted behaviour. I can report you for being a disruption. Are you aware that you also made a threat? Vedant (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can characterize your edits as being unhelpful too especially when you attempted to add blatantly POV statements like "debacle brutally exposed the Indian weakness" and its "tacit alliance with the United States". You are guilty of the same crime.Vedant (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'll also state that I read your message before blanking it. You can go and claim that I blanked my talk page and that the history will show it. I am not particularly afraid or concerned about that as I was well aware it would show in the page history before blanking it. If I also may add, I can choose what I want to do with my talk page and if that includes deleting comments I can certainly do that. You on the other hand, made a revision modification to MY talk page without consulting me. I recommend you think on this matter.Vedant (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to blank their own talk pages. Don't unblank them or you are out of line. GSMR (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to report me. You had me excited for a while there :( Vedant (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Dear Xandong, I was really happy to read your comments at Sino-Indian war talk page. It was good to hear the story and viewpoints of the other side in these controversial cases.It gives the points to think and verify our knowledge, Hardly any country exists where Government do not try to modify the public opinion, more or less.Recently i read The 14th Dalai Lama's autobiography ,'Freedom in Exile' in which he stated the facts of what happened in Tibet after Communist win in the Civil War. He also said that the delegation he sent to Beijing to negotiate with Mao ,was not given the power and authority to sign any treaty, but to just negotiate and inform Lhasa of the results, whereas Lama himself had gone to a monastery close to Indian Border in case he might have to flee to India, keeping the seal of the state with him , so that all agreements have to be made in his presence. There one day he learned through a portable radio set that a 17- point agreement has been signed between the Communist Govt of PRC and the local Govt of Tibet . on returning to Lhasa he was told that the representatives were forced to sign the agreement . What are your opinions about Dalai Lama? Do you too think him as a 'wolf in monk's Robes?' are not the Tibetan and Uighurs(of Xinxiang) ethnically different from the Chinese Haan People? Do you approve of the atrocities usually cast in the non-democratic countries on the minorities? Don' you think India had tried to be a good friend of China before the war, Supporting it everywhere across UN and International community when most of the countries didn't even recognise its coomunist govt.? was not China denied the UN membership, And India supported it there? Do not try to paint China and India as eternal enemies, it was only due to certain developments and leaderships that such an unwanted war resulted, harming more of China itself, Although she won the war ultimately.Samitus mallicus 11:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your post Samitus. Yes, I agree with you more communication is alway good. Well, in my opinion, the Dalai Lama should stay a spiritual leader, not a political person. Last time when he came to my place, I wanted to listen to his lecture but didn't get a ticket.

I didn't read his autobiography but based on what you said, it looks like his guys signed an unauthorized agreement and sealed with fake seal. But if you think in another way, how did the Chinese know the signature and seal were not real? It should be between Dalai and his folks. Anyway, the fact that the communist regained control over Tibet is indisputable and the Dalai Lama accepted that fact (willingly or unwillingly).

Yes, I agree Tibetans and Uighurs are ethnically different and that is why the Chinese make them "autonomy regions". I don't know what atrocities you refer to but let me tell you the Han Chinese respect their minority friends more than any other countries. There is no segregations, no chastes. They could have done a better job if they could improve their communication skills, like what we are doing now. Financial aid can't solve everything. Human beings need spiritual things but apprarently atheist Chinese can't "comprehend" that(forgive me for that word, I don't know where did I pick up this habit).

I know India and China were good friends and India(especially Nehru personally) had helped China a lot when China was isolated. And now China is committed to supporting India for permenent seat in UN security council, but is India ready yet?

It is quite clear that regarding this war, the blames should lay on Nehru and his clique's door steps. There is generally misunderstanding that china was the aggressor in this war. Indian public still strongly believe that China "invaded" India in 1962. I think after almost 50 years, we should correct this. Let the truth be told. Xingdong (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009(UTC)

Dear Xin, i have left a message for you in the message box of your e-mail. please reply.Samitus mallicus 06:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Comment on My Reverts

Dude, I have seen you reverting edits with invalid reasons, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Following is a typical example as it shows up in the entry "Sino-Indian War":

19:02, 13 November 2009 Qwrk (talk | contribs) m (88,497 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Yingguolao identified as vandalism to last revision by 86.162.70.112. (TW)) (undo)

The 86.162.70.112 is a blocked user. Xingdong (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xingdong, thanks for bringing this to my attention. There are some points that spring to mind though. I've checked the history of that very page and there are more editors that revert disruptive edits without further explanation, as the edits in themselves are obvious vandalisms. I can be though that reverting an edit, ending up with an edit of a blocked user, is a violation. I wasn't aware and shall take this at heart, so again, thanks for that. My learning curve has just started.

You appear to be a contributor though that specifically focuses on the theme of Sino-Indian War and I've seen many an edit made by your account that comes close to pushing your POV, which is a violation in itself if I'm correct. "Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." as the quote goes.

Finally, your wording isn't the friendliest so I suggest you work on that. Best of greetings, Qwrk (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic, who is this?

Have a nice day!

Vedant (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try me ;-) Qwrk (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, Xingdong, I'm amazed that Wikipedia let's you get away with your disruptive and opinionated edits. Honest, if Wikipedia had any sense of 'truth' in its innermost workings they'd kick you off, no doubt. Fact of the matter is, when you are able to keep pushing your POV it can only mean one thing [IMHO]; you appear to have access to sensitive pages so you might be a government appointed no-no that's trying to get the Party Line across. Try and get your fellow countrymen informed on issues like Tiananmen Square, the Tibetan uprising, or God knows what, and if you succeed I'll be the first to believe you are and independent soul. Thusfar you're stuck in a CPC prison and I'm sorry for that, but don't try and poison these articles with rubbish! Qwrk (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qwrk, see comments I left on your talk page. Xingdong (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xingdong, I might be mistaken, but threats are none contained in my words. Believe me.

Just for the sake of the argument, this afternoon I've been reading up on the Sino-Indian Border disputes as published by the Foreign Languages Press in Peking, and several interviews with Maxwell. If there's one point I agree on with Maxwell it is the fact that this border dispute could've been settled a long time ago, had Nehru only been willing to swap the Aksai Chin for their claim on Arunachal Pradesh. They were certainly right on that, and not just for Mao's quote on 'a war is worth thirty years of peace'.

Furthermore, there is no absolute "right or wrong" as I believe it [prove me wrong], but I really think there's enough knowledgeable people involved in the forming of this article that a true and honest consensus can be found.

True honest and greetings, Qwrk (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sino-Indian War. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --70.119.100.122 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal from IP 70.119.100.122. Xingdong (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]