Huang Sir

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. nat.utoronto 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. nat.utoronto 08:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter

Hey, that letter of yours that you say you got from the ROC government, how did you get it? E-mail? Mail? Telegram? Liu Tao (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail 行政院院长信箱 If you don't believe me, you can send a E-mail.大家都懂中文，你就用中文吧，你也可以直接用电邮直接寄内政部部长信箱Huang Sir (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you forward me the e-mail? Liu Tao (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huang Sir. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huang Sir. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Huang Sir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your use of sources. The discussion is about the topic Republic of China. Thank you. --Rodhullandemu 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of email as an article source

Hello, I noticed the ANI thread discussing your behavior on Wikipedia, and I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia's basic verifiability policy. It says that the policy, "in a nutshell" (meaning "put concisely"), says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Specifically, it says published. An email, regardless of who sent it, is not considered published for the purposes of article sourcing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huang Sir. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huang Sir. You have new messages at Laurent1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Laurent (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop being a jerk

You should only make changes based on reliable sources and recognize different POV. Not everyone buys in the one China bullshit.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You failed to find evidences showing that the city where you live is currently the capital of the R.O.C.; and the government of the R.O.C. had never functioned again in your city since 1949. What you're trying so far is to placing your point of view on the Wikipedia, which is ultimately a way of misleading people. Welcome to be the first messenger of mine, I'm glad to speak with you in English--Earl of China (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I am right. The National government is also government of ROC. Without the National government who

You must provide the fact that Nanjing City, the city where you live, is currently the capital city of my country; otherwise, Taipei City is the one. Do not try to mislead poeple by providing misinterpreted sources in your way. That's out of justice.--Earl of China (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to say anytning. "your country"? kidding? I've never seen such a person like you suspect his motherland fantastic. And I've never seen such a person like you so quickchange. You do realise that I will never give up. And your views about constitution is wrong. Never will I argee with anyone betrayed his country. Huang Sir (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be loyal to my country if you do recognize yourself as an informal citizen of the R.O.C. --Earl of China (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a Chinese. As far as I am concerned, I'm a resident of P.R.C. If Republic of China exists, Mr. Ma can regard me as a resident of R.O.C. Loyally, R.O.C. has a hisory of a hundred years, nearly. In my minds, you may prefer to accept a country named Taiwan, not found in any map. Right? As a conclusion, Actually, you do not have the qualification to call yourself a citizen of R.O.C. or Chinese. Give you some recommendation. Change your name. China did not have any earl long long ago.Huang Sir (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

First, it is wise to respect the nationality which I belong to. Second, you're advised to understand that I'm proud of my country, and respect our head of state -- President Ma Ying-jeou, before speaking with me. Third, your suggestion is inappropriate. It can be warned. Fourth, back to the topic, please provide the fact that Nanjing City, the city where you live, is currently the capital city of my country--Earl of China (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Make them simpler. First, the former President, Chiang Kai-shek, was one of the citizens of the R.O.C. He certainly had the right to comment anything regarding the country, and the world. Second, the section relates with the country's capital in the Constitution (1947) has already replaced the one used prior to 1947, therefore it was discussed and rewritten. Third, the R.O.C. is my home country; Taiwan is my homeland. The topic that we're discussing is about the capital city of the R.O.C. Be sensible with these, please.--Earl of China (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Case

Hello, I am just informing you that I have opened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic_of_China - of which you are a party. Please use the discussion page of the case to put any further information forward. Thank-you Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On relation to your post on my talk page, I must say that my job is not to give a third opinion but rather allow the parties to come to their own solution.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Invalid link on Republic of China

Hi, the link you've put as a reference for Nanking is not valid [1] - I'm getting a message box saying something in traditional Chinese. Please, could you fix it so that other editors can take a look at it? Thanks, Laurent (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

links in quote

Thanks for completing the translation of the Nanking dictionary entry, however please could you not add links in the quote itself? The reason is that we need to keep the quote as close as possible to the source material, as suggested by the manual of style. Also could you leave the "[1927]" in? As you may know, when something is between square brackets [] in a quote, it means it has been added by the editor for clarification. Here we need to add the date because most people don't know what the 16th year of the Republic is. Hope you understand my reasons. Laurent (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)