Hello, Liu Tao, 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) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Liu Tao. I've responded to your comment on Sun Yat-sen vs. Sun Zhongshan, and pointed out that 孫逸仙 and 孫中山 are, in fact, not the same. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I dunno all the details of the new policy regarding "old names", but we will know about it as it develops.. I guess...
"we will have to keep those names UNTIL they are officially changed to Hanyu romanisation" Absolutely agreed... Now the problem is, how do we know? Shall we wait till they update their official sites? Do u live in Taiwan? If so, u can tell us about it as it evolves...
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. do u believe the linguistics box should go below the KMT infobox? if so, please, move it.. cheers... Gumuhua (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aye, I do. It's how it's always been. It's the same for the other articles with linguistics boxes too, they are placed below the infobox. Liu Tao (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
RENAME THE PINYIN ARTICLE REGARDING THOSE 2 HISTORICAL FIGURES, THEN ILL ACCEPT UR POV...edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
SAID..
Names are names, they are proper nouns, those don't change. My Legal name is Liou Tau, but I like using the Liu Tao better. I use Liu Tao in just about every case unless I need to use my legal name. Until their official names have been changed, don't think about changing them. Liu Tao (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Empire of Japan acquired the Island of Taiwan from Empire of Great Qing of China, then Empire of Japan gave it to Republic of China after WII. As China was literally slipt into 2 nations (ROC & PRC), although PRC has acquire mainland, but PRC has nothing to do with the transfer of sovereignty between Empire of Japan and Republic of China. PRC can't claim Taiwan as inheritance from ROC because ROC still still "alive".
Wasn't that's the fact? Where is the controversy apart from PRC's claim on the island as their acquisition from a "transfer of sovereignty" which PRC themselve didn't even involved? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
.Hey, I don't like it either, but I don't want another 2 page argument on this issue with the Taiwan Independence supporters. Let's just keep it politically neutral, for now. Liu Tao (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article Chiang Kai-shek is under destroy by IP 122.121.xx.xxx , please to protect the article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.192 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion
Please do some basic research when asked to. In the end, I have to do the research for you.
See Country "Some entities which constitute cohesive geographical entities, and may be former states, but which are not presently sovereign states (such as England, Scotland and Wales), are commonly regarded and referred to as countries."
See State "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population."
In other words, a country doesn't have to be sovereign but a state is always sovereign.--pyl (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have a government textbook, you think I didn't do research? That's not how you compare a Country and State, the point is not if they're are sovereign or not. And what exactly do you mean by "sovereign"? Sovereign from what? A State in general is just a political entity that has a government to govern it. It can be basically anything, a province, a city, a county, a country. Those are all states. A Country is a country, at least that's how I've learned it.
Here's the definition from my textbook for State: A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority.
As I've said, based on this definition, a state can be just about anything. A City, a county, a province, a country, anything that has a defined territory with people with a government with the power to make laws without consent from higher authorities. A city can make its own laws, it's called city laws. A county can make its own laws, it's called county laws. A province can make its own laws, it's called provincial laws. A country can make its own laws, it's called federal laws. All of these political entities can make their own laws without having the consent of a higher power. Liu Tao (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please let me apologise if you have done your research. I should have been politer.
The definition of "state" in the government textbook is a general definition, but it does say a state can "enforce law without consent of any higher authority". A country like Wales cannot, as it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom. In a federation like the US, a state can also make laws without consent of any higher authority as long as the state has exclusive powers in these matters.
Sovereignty (please read the article) makes a state legitimate. And this is essentially the core issue in the disputes between the PRC and the ROC over who has the Chinese sovereignty. Under 1992 Consensus, the two Chinese governments agreed that China's sovereignty is undivided, but each government can represent to the other world that they have the Chinese sovereignty while considering the other as an illegitimate entity. That's why it is important to describe the ROC as a state, instead of just being a country.
You will note that your passport will say "issuing state" instead of "issuing country", as the term State is a much more precise and accurate term.--pyl (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It was pretty definite for me. It doesn't say anything about enforcing laws. Based on this definition, Wales is not a state, as they have to request for permission to pass laws. I'm currently re-reading the Wikipedia definitions. Apparently, these 3 terms, States, Countries, and Nations, though they are usually thought of as the same things, they are not. There is no "level" for determining States, Countries, and Nations. A territory can be a combination of any of these. So technically speaking, you're can't just replace "country" with "state". You can only add "state" into the introductory paragraph, not replace something. Liu Tao (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your own definition mentions enforcement of law.
"Here's the definition from my textbook for State: A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority."
A state's definition covers a country's. A state has everything that a country has plus sovereignty. It becomes redundant to say "state and country". But I am not into edit wars so let's sort it out here before making more changes in the main text.--pyl (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, then explain Wales. Wales is not a state, they can't make their own laws without the permission of the British Parliament. Though they are not a state, they are a Country, therefore not all countries are states and not all states are countries. Liu Tao (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your reasoning only supports a correct conclusion up to "therefore not all countries are states". Your reasoning didn't explain "not all states are countries". All states are countries, plus sovereignty. It is really as simple as that. Saying "country and state" are redundant.--pyl (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I did, using Wales as an example. Wales is a Country, but not a State because they don't fit the definition of one. Not all States are countries either, Counties and Provinces can be States, but are not Countries. Therefor, state and country are not the same thing nor do they cover each other. Liu Tao (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not all States are countries either, Counties and Provinces can be States, but are not Countries.
You are talking about states within a federation (ie sub nation-state), and that's different from this situation. You seem to have the concepts confused. The definitions offered by State, the article, already includes the definition of country, ie territory.--pyl (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's the same concept. A state is a state, a country is a country, they are 2 different things. It has nothing to do with a federation or not. The State article itself says that the 3 definitions of "State", "Country", and "Nation" are different and don't cover each other. Liu Tao (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The article never says "don't cover each other". Please read carefully. It says "but in a more strict usage they can be distinguished" (ie they are different). Country and State are indeed different. State includes Country (territory), plus sovereignty.--pyl (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
But not all Countries are sovereign, therefore not all Countries are states, and States do not cover Country. I thought I've said it like 3 times already. Wales is an example, unless you of course are gonna try to say that Wales is not a country, then I'd back off. Liu Tao (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes not all countries are sovereign. But the ROC is sovereign so there is no need to describe it as a country, it is a state. State covers country, but country does not cover state. A state has more than A country. Wales can only be called a country, not a state, as it doesn't have sovereignty. Once an entity is called a state, then there is an implication that it is also a country, as a state must have territory (country) in its definition.--pyl (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, not all states are countries either. I've told you, provinces and counties may be states as well. If they have defined territory and have the ability to make and enforce their own laws without the intervention of a higher power, they are states. Wales is not a state not because they're not "sovereign", but because they cannot make their own laws. In a federal system, like the United States, the States/Provinces are States, the Counties/Districts are States, and the Cities are States. They may not be entirely sovereign, but enough to make and enforce their own laws without the intervention of a higher power. Liu Tao (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You seriously have got the concepts confused. Now this is an easy solution. Go search google and type "state and country" and see if anyone uses "state" in the sense you are using.--pyl (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's casual talking. It's not formal and distinct. I see things based on True and False. Something either is or is not. What I know is that a not all States are Countries, and not all Countries are States, therefore Countries and States are different things and cannot take the place of each other however similar and synonymously they are used. I don't care what other people say, I just know what the facts are and how to compile then. I don't have the concepts confused, it's simply simple logic of true and falses and if then elses. Liu Tao (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
HI, please help change the article Taipei country item to ROC, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.94 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
That is not the problem. The problem is that in order to change it back to Nanking, you must show official documents that the ROC government has declared Nanking as their Official Capital, otherwise we won't accept the change. This letter isn't considered "official", by official, I mean it's declared by the government and that it's become law, not just by an official. We had people read the constitution multiple times, and we could not find anything that says that the Capital is Nanking. The original 1947 constitution did state that the capital is Nanking, but when the Constitution was revised, it was taken out. Only thing we have left to go on was the ROC yearbook that states the Capital is Taipei. Besides, this letter is from 1998, the source we're currently going by is from 2003, meaning the Taipei source is more current and updated. Liu Tao (talk)
最後，請閣下以負責的態度編輯維基百科，注意資料的正確性，尊重中華民囯憲法，尊重維基百科的公信力。Huang Sir (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm... you better be sure about this... But is it possible for you make a link? You can't just copy and paste an e-mail message, you have to make it so that others can have access to the message somehow or they'd think you're making it up. Liu Tao (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
如果你不相信，你可以親自致信内政部部長信箱詢問，也可以聯絡本案聯絡人員，電話號碼也有，你可以去問啊，不要總是堅持一個錯誤觀點，並且我也沒找到政府關於中華民囯首都在臺北的任何文件。Huang Sir (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's not that I don't believe you, I want to believe you, but you don't have actual evidence. Nobody's going to believe you if you can't "prove" that you really got the message from the government. If nobody believes you, you wouldn't be allowed to change the Capital from Taipei to Nanjing. Liu Tao (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan. 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. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Despite the warning above, you've continued to engage in an edit war. I understand how things can be, especially if the other party isn't receptive, however as noted above there are dispute resolution procedures including request for comment which should be used rather than you participating in the continued disruption of Wikipedia. Because of this, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Nja247 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Further, before you begin editing again I'd highly suggest you read over the guidance on use of 'undo' and reverting in general. This essay is also likely to be beneficial to you. Nja247 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need stop this guy, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeeeeewtw (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
He's been warned, if he continues with his edits, then I'll deal with him. Liu Tao (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Mr.Liu Tao, These article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article, and hoped that you can pay attention these article with the connection of ROC, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.162 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
You just got off a suspension for edit warring and you've gone right back to the practice. Demanding a source is not edit warring, it is following policy. On several articles you are ignoring the reliable source policy in favor of writing your own opinions. If you continue I will bring this to the attention of an admin board.
In a couple of the cases, a 1 minute Google search should be enough to find a source. If you care enough about the information that you have time to edit war, surely you care enough to do some quick research and provide a reference. Readin (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm actually counting the number of times I'm doing reversions. I was warned not to do more then 3 undos from an article a day, I've reached my limit and will proceed no more, I suggest for you to do the same. Liu Tao (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
While Readin has broken 3RR at Chiang Kai-shek, just because you haven't exceeded 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, Liu Tao, this does not mean that you aren't engaged in disruptive revert warring. You were blocked this last time for fewer than 3 reverts in 24 hours, and you will be blocked again if you continue revert warring. Ceasing reverts to discuss is not seen as capitulation, and in fact many editors adopt a personal policy of 1RR or even 0RR. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I am not disrupting the articles. I'm reverting to articles to their original state and asking to discuss. I've even stopped my reversions despite that they have changed it back to what they had changed it to. I have taken this to the talk pages as well. If you're talking about revert warring, they've reverted more then I have, how come they are not given warnings like I am? Logically speaking, discussion should be done FIRST before making the final edits and changes, unless of course Wiki-rules says something different. There is the 3-revert rule which I'm following, and I have only done 2 reverts, not even 3 and stopped myself there in case I accidentally miscount or something. Why am I the one making the disruptions? My reversions make just as much sense to me as their reversions makes sense to them. Plus, I'm reverting them to their original state before their changes, then asking for them to go to the talk pages to discuss. But anyways, to prevent more problems I'll adopt the 1RR rule then. Liu Tao (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'd already warned Readin. You don't have to adopt a restrictive reverting policy for yourself- I was just mentioning those as examples of what some editors do to avoid revert wars. Strictly defined 3RR is 3 reverts in 24 hours, but editors who regularly hit that limit in such a way that it appears they're deliberately doing so may end up blocked. WP:BRD is a relevant essay for what logically should happen, but doesn't always. Suffice it to say that if you revert to request discussion, and the other editor reverts again, try to kick off the discussion and give the other editor a chance to respond. Generally, the wrong thing to do is to immediately revert saying you reverted to discuss the edit, as that's almost guaranteed to kick off a revert war.
Anyway, I'm sorry if I came off aggressively, but it struck me you may have been falling into a really counterproductive editing habit that would eventually result in another block. Best of luck in your edits! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thank you. I will keep that in mind. Liu Tao (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
```
Liu Tao, watch your quick reverts. You need to discuss, not simply cite yourself on talk pages as a basis for reverts. DownUnder555 (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, you have to discuss. Issue has been discussed and quite recently too. Why don't you read the talk page and start new discussion instead? I don't feel that I should repeat everything all over again when it's already right there for everyone to see. Liu Tao (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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, 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) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Mr.Liu Tao, I think you have got my E-mail. It have reflected the attitude of the government of R.O.C. to the issue of the captial. And I think you will agree to me. Please help me edit the captial, then add the reliable source to the references. Because of my poor English,so complex are something professional, that I can't translate them into English.Huang Sir (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hate to write this because you've been willing to discuss and negotiate, which shows maturity. And your discussions have shown you have a good mind. But to make negotiations useful and productive for everyone who cares about a good Wikipedia, the discussions and negotiations need to have some guidelines.
The three core content policies of Wikipedia are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. In numerous discussions you have brushed aside verifiability in favor of your own reasoning. You have ignored or simply been unaware of the part of NPOV that says competing views must be included. When you have made an effort to abide by verifiability you have done so with apparent distaste for it and by providing sources that don't fit the standard. You have led myself and at least one other person to openly question whether you have looked at the policies.
Please read the policies. They are important.
If the pattern of ignoring the core content policies continues , I will look for administrator intervention. Readin (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kuomintang. 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. Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 11:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why am I the one to blame? I'm not the only person engaged in this issue. As far as I know, THEY were the ones who refused to discuss. I've stated my points in my discussion, but they choose to ignore it and when I change the article, they change it back and start the edit war. How come I am the one to blame? It's them who refuses to discuss, not me. Liu Tao (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion
Hi, I've noticed that you've added back two unreliable sources on the Republic of China article in this edit, even though we discussed them on the talk page and dismissed them as being unreliable. So, once again, could you please read WP:V and WP:R and understand what an acceptable source is on Wikipedia. Note that this is not a matter of opinion, this is not about what you (or I) think - this is about Wikipedia's policies, which we must follow if we want to build a proper article. Thank you, Laurent (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I though we agreed that they were? Liu Tao (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think there's a sort of agreement on the encyclopedia.com source, but the 123-cams.com and MIT sources are definitely not good. The first one takes its content from encyclopedia.com (and so is a quaternary source), and the second one is a self published source. Laurent (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Okay, then I'll forget about the MIT site then and just stick with the encyclopedia source. But why is the 123 site not good? Liu Tao (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Have a look at the text on 123-cams.com and compare it to the one on encyclopedia.com. It's exactly the same text, which is why I assume that 123-cams takes its content from encyclopedia.com. That makes it a quaternary source, which we definitely can't use. Laurent (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Huh, I never noticed it... Thanks for pointing that out. Liu Tao (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Taiwan Province has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Bah! I have stated my reasons and rebuttals in talk MULTIPLE times and have even complained against people who refused to continue discussion. I've no need to summarise what my reasons as it's been done, see talk, it's that simple. You people have chose to ignore my requests for discussion and go about your way, you guys are the ones who refuse to discuss, NOT ME. NO LONGER WILL I STAND BY LIKE AN IDIOT BEING TREATED LIKE THIS, I'VE DISCUSSED AND REQUESTED FOR DISCUSSION, BUT NOOOOO YOU GUYS CHOOSE TO AVOID DISCUSSION AND MAKE ME LOOK LIKE THE VILLAIN, WELL, GUESS WHAT?! MY SPIRIT DOESN'T BREAK THAT EASILY, IF IT'S WAR THAT YOU WANT, IT'S WAR THAT YOU'LL GET. I will NOT got down without a fight, and I won't go down that easily as well. I am sick of tired of being the villain when it is YOU FOLKS who are refusing discussion, NOT ME. Liu Tao (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, didn't notice you were an admin and not one of the guys I'm having issues with. I kind of lost it after that undo you've made, thanks for the heads up. I know what you did was to help me, and I will remember it. The edit was constructive, I was deleting superfulous and largely irrelevant text. It's already discussed and fought over in talk. I was just frustrated that they stopped discussing even though I've asked why they've stopped and continue to revert my edits though they chose to stop responding to my rebuttals. Can you do something about this? This isn't the only time it's happened, it's happened in multiple other instances and articles. Liu Tao (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
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).
I did not violate rules, I have not succeeded the 3 revert limits. Also, I did attempt to seek discussion, THEY are the ones who refuses to discuss. I state my reasons and statements and wait a day and a half for them to respond, but no, they choose to ignore me and go ahead with their changes, and when I try to change them back, now I'm the one at blamed. I have complained and complained and complained and complained, but nobody listens. They should be the ones bocked, not me
Decline reason:
Edit warring (including statements that you intended to edit war). No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
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.
Then why am I the only one blocked? How come the others are not blocked?! They edit warred as well, why am I the only who's being punished, what, because I never complained or reported the others? This is NOT Justice! I have done NOTHING wrong, I AM NOT THE VILLAIN HERE, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO BEGAN THE EDIT WARS, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO REFUSED TO DISCUSS. HOW COME THEY ARE NOT BLOCKED WHILE I AM?! THEY HAVE EVEN MORE REVERSIONS THEN I DO! WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEM INSTEAD? WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT THEM? WHAT, IS IT BECAUSE YOU ONLY PUNISH THE QUITE ONES? Liu Tao (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
First, stop with caps. That's annoying. Second, in regards to you requesting discussion, (1) at Talk:Taiwan#Infobox_ROC_vs_TWN, you have three different editors disagreeing with you none of whom have even edited against you in the last few days; (2) Talk:Chinese_Civil_War#ROC_was_not_.22reduced.22_to_Taiwan seems somewhat sensible (and you aren't alone in your views); (3) For Kuomintang, do you have a source for your claim that the party isn't actually limited? [1][2]. On the talk page, you have been arguing about its address instead. Your attitude is the issue here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's because they make everything an issue. I wasn't talking about the Taiwan info-box. That I'm not even arguing about. I've did a couple statements, but that was it. That had nothing to do with this block. As for the Chinese Civil War, I didn't do any reversions at all, if I did, it was only a couple. I kept my calm in that one as well. For KMT, what do you mean the party isn't actually limited? If you're talking about the KMT not being a "Taiwanese Party", that's true. Of course I have sources to back up my claims. The KMT are not limited to only Taiwan, they are a party of the ROC, which doesn't include just Taiwan, but includes Kinmen and Matsu as well. Even their Chinese name, 中國國民黨 itself states that they're not a party of Taiwan, but a Party of China. And last about the Address, that was a complete different and older issue. They claim that the name of the state is "Taiwan (ROC)", and I claim that it is "Republic of China". My attitude only became so poor was because they kept ignoring my statements and rebuttals. As I've said, I'd rebute their statements and would wait for their reply, but they kept choosing to ignore me and edit the article the way they wanted to be. I wait a day and a half, sometimes even 3 days and they still have not yet replied. What would a typical person think if someone doesn't reply to their rebuttals? They'd think that the other party(s) no longer have anything to say and had given in to the rebuttal and that's exactly what I had thought so I changed it only for them to change it back 10 minutes later. You can check the talk, there are many times when I have even REQUESTED for them to reply, but they never do. I have asked and begged for them to reply to my rebuttals, but they refuse to, so what do I do? I take it that they agree with me and change it to the way I had suggested it to be. I at least have tried to get them to respond so wars like this don't happen, but no, they choose to ignore me. Their attitude is just as bad as mine. Liu Tao (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Right now, I only seem you screaming in all caps at everyone. This is precisely the wrong attitude; you don't get to yell and scream at some people and not at others. I don't care if you are in a dispute with someone. Admin or not, you treat everyone the same. Second, you want to provide diffs as to your attempts to discuss with them. I don't care about the actual disputes, if you are making claim, provide sources. That's a basic rule. If they don't respond, follow dispute resolution, not edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I did provide my sources, and I do treat everyone the same, but not the same as in same same. I treat everyone using the same principles, if they blow my top off, then I treat them angrily and etc. etc. As for the admin, I didn't suddenly turned polite because he was an admin, I turned polite because he wasn't one of the people who are ignoring my statements and reasons, therefore he did not deserve to be treated as harshly as I do to others. I treat everyone with the same set of rules. And for edit warring, they edit warred just as I have done, but how come they are not blocked like I am? Why am I the only one blocked? If you took a look at the warring records, you should see that they warred just as I did, but I don't see them getting blocked, I don't see anyone getting blocked except for me. Liu Tao (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, our rules on civility say be civil to everyone, not be civil to everyone, except those you get mad at. And let's review the sources you claim your keep providing. At Talk:Taiwan#Infobox_ROC_vs_TWN, you provided a reference.com translation, which was inappropriate, and then followed with wapedia.mobi, a mirror of the article. I hope you aren't trying to a semantic game with me that you provided sources, even if dismissed legitimately, that allows you to do whatever you want. Going backwards on that page, I don't see any sources with [3][4][5][6][7] and that's going back quite a while. If you actually believed in those sources for a second, you would be arguing the sources, not ignoring them and arguing your own personal views. Look, if you want to keep on making the same arguments, that's on you. I don't care. However, it's clear what you're doing to any outsider and you'll probably find yourself either blocked from this specific topic or just blocked completely from this site. Just being honest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
And they were civil towards me? The fact that they ignored my statements and requests for discussion? If they treat me like trash, why should I treat them like a gentleman? Why do you not criticise them but only me?
And those sources you speak of were of a long long time ago, at the time I had no idea that they were not reliable. If you've noticed, my most recent sources were nothing like that. Reason I don't have any sources for those other stuff is simply because nobody asked for them, and they're all common sense. And for the international law, I've said it, it does not affect how the ROC splits up and divides their administration heirarchy and whatever. What kind of international law tells a state how to divide administer themselves? How to split up and name their provinces? I'm stating things from pure logic and reasoning, the sources are there themselves, I use the sources to back-up what my reasonings, I don't take other people's views and source them. I speak things of truth, and they can all be verified, only that nobody asked me to present my sources. I have presented many sources, but they are just buried somewhere in there, if you've read EVERYTHING I've discussed, including all of the sources, then you'd know that I've long had cited sources and stuff, but instead you're here trying to make me look bad by taking out and criticising me for all of the bad stuff I've done, instead of looking at the entire broad picture. Why don't you take a look at the GOOD sources I've provided? Why don't you look at my statements when I was pleading for them respond? Why don't you look at the "civil" discussions I had? No, you don't, why? Because you're just here trying to make me the villain and look bad. Liu Tao (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Look, I really don't care. If you don't want to listen, then sit here blocked until it lifts, you do the same things, and you find yourself blocked again. You claim you provided sources, I question you about it, noting only long ago source attempts, you say that's from long long ago, you don't actually provide me examples, and you continue to complain that because a large number of people disagree with you, everyone and not you are at fault. I'll drop it. If you end up blocked again, don't say I didn't warn you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then all I'm going to say is that you're not a very good admin, not caring about what people tell you, even when they are asking you to do something. You have the time to go in and flip through my edits to see what I have done wrong, yet you don't have the time to see what I've done right? I find that pretty surprising too, as you happen to ONLY find bad things I've done, yet you fail to find any good things I've done. You block me for edit war, yet you don't block the others even though they started it as well as participated in just as I did. You shouldn't be an admin, not the way you do things. You don't treat the editors fairly, nor do you listen to them even when they complain to you, just saying that you don't care.
Well, I'll just sit here until block ends then, but I'm still telling you, you and the other admins are going to hear from me a lot now. You guys want me to be a b****, then I'll be a b****. Besides, block's only 24 hours, it's going to be lifted soon. Liu Tao (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I actually believe it's been 24 hours. However, I really would suggest you think twice before acting in the same manner. Blocks tend to escalate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hello. You're obviously annoyed about your block, which is no great surprise, people often are. For you this is a new and exciting (if irritating) experience; for us it is just another block of someone impatient of restraint. If you behave, you won't get re-blocked. If you misbehave, you'll get re-blocked. And yes, the standards of "behave" may well differ from what you consider correct. In that case, the wise procedure is to slow down and do nothing in haste until you have worked out the rules, both written and unwritten and unfindable. Do not kick against the pricks is good advice, even if I don't always take it myself. WP:1RR is also good advice William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Liu Tao, These article Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by clown of taiwan independence , so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Another bit of advice. Ignore editors like this if you actually want to stay here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Then what exactly do you want me to do then? You speak as if I'm full of controversial theories and views and all that stuff. All of my views and information are thought and derived from verifiable sources. Their problem is not with me "breaking the rules" or whatever, they do the same thing. Their problem with me is of my views, and how I percieve things. I see things from a White Black point of view, something either is or is not, and apparently, while dealing with the ROC stuff, my technical and legal views tend to fall in line with the viewpoints supported by the Pan-Blue. I do not have these views because I'm Pan-Blue, I have these views because they're the only thing that makes sense and they're exactly what they are. Anyways, as I've said, next time stuff like this happens, it's very simple, I'll play their game instead. I've been pretty nice and lax with not reporting and complaining about them to you guys, but apparently that's not working, because I've been blocked while I was the victim and they get away with everything. I'm just saying, you guys are gonna hear a hell lot from me, because I'm not standing down, no way. Everytime they ignore my statements and continue with their own edits, I'm going to complain to you guys, and you guys better do something about it because I refuse to be the villain anymore. I'm not the villain, I was never the villain, yet I'm treated like one while those who were the ones actually messing things up gets away with everything. No, this is unacceptable, if they want to play like the way they do, then it's simple, I'll play with them at their own game. You are the same, you claim I was blocked because of edit war, yet you refuse to punish the others even though they were the ones who started the edit wars, refused to discuss, and participated in the edit wars themselves. You want me to be civil, I'll be civil, I'll keep my calm, but I will not allow injustices like these go forgotten or forgiven. I am sick and tired of this, and I refuse to let this happen to me anymore. Liu Tao (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
For someone who's views and information are from verifiable sources, you are making it quite difficult to find examples of that. Repeating that statement again and again to me isn't going to convince me. From a quick review of one argument, I don't see it. You may in fact be right but you need to prove your statements, not just argue logic with people. You are the one blocked now, so I thought I'd offer some help in case you don't want to be blocked again. Nobody else was doing things the wrong way here. My concern is how you are acting, not what you are arguing about. I don't even have a clue what the arguments are about. If you question others again, I'll drop this and leave you to yourself. You'll probably find yourself here again in a little while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
"I see things from a White Black point of view"
That is part of the problem. Cross-straights issues are never black and white. They are very nuanced, and the nuances have up to a century of history behind them and very modern weapons enforcing them. Wikipedia's job is to express those nuances and describe why they are there. The arguments about how to accurately describe these things on Wikipedia are as old as the project, so old they pre-date the database that tracks article histories.
It is very unlikely that you are raising new arguments never heard before on Wikipedia. Coming in guns blazing with what you perceive as unimpeachable logic has been done, it happens all the time. Editors who have been banned from the project because they could not come to terms that their partisan ideals must conform to Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality have been banned on this issue more times than I can count.
As an example, the very name, is it "Taiwan", or is it "Republic of China" has no definitive answer. Wikipedia consensus, currently, is that either is acceptable in the text. So Wikipedia treats stubborn insistence on one term or the other, making unannounced changes to one term or the other, as problematic behavior - not right or wrong in fact, but as problematic behavior in the user who is edit warring.
If you want to continuing battling over extremely high level content like the name of the country, you will find yourself blocked, I'm sure. If you want to do something constructive, actually make an impact, and learn about how Wikipedia is built, then start going through some of the older articles and minor articles that are begging for sourcing. There are hundreds of articles under Category:Republic of China with sourcing problems.
There is only one OFFICIAL name of the ROC. Look, if Taiwan and the ROC are NOT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, then I wouldn't make such a big deal, but here they are 2 different things. Taiwan is a Province/Island. The State is ROC. There is only 1 way of how things are split up and all that kind of stuff, how the ROC is divided into the Provinces, and what the names of the Provinces are. This is either is or is not, there's no consensus with this kind of stuff. Something's either a Province or it's not, it's that simple. Same with the name of the island, there is an island, and the name of the island is Taiwan. Sure, I can find sources, it's somewhere, I just have to find it, but problem is you are telling me to source all this stuff while it's basically common sense. No offense, but this stuff is common sense. Liu Tao (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Even the long-time editors don't have a black-and-white agree on the terms of consensus. Wikipedia consensus, currently, is that either is acceptable in the text. I would say that it all depends on context, and that in political contexts we always use "Republic of China" while in non-political context the more common term "Taiwan" is usually used.
As for the "OFFICIAL" name. Please take a moment to consider what makes something "official". Is something official because it is correct? Is it official because some source of great wisdom made it so? Is it official because someone with a gun says it is? Is it official because someone said it was and a lot of other people listened? Is it official because someone said it was and a lot of other people with guns listened?
You know some years back the state of Indiana seriously considered making Pi officially equal to 3.0 so that math would be easier for Indiana students. In many places throughout history the leader of the state has officially been a god. "Official" is not a synonym for "correct". "Official" is not a synonym for "neutral".
Knowing the official Point of View (POV) is important - it is almost always a notable POV. But it is not the only POV and it is not by itself the end of discussion. Readin (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
If something is official, then it is correct, as far as the laws and government stuff like this goes. Official means that it is defined to be so, we're talking about the ROC here, and I think it's up to them to define what their official name is. And for political/non-political context stuff, as I've said, that's an opinion. Only some people use "Taiwan" instead of "ROC", there are people who never uses "Taiwan" in place of "ROC". I'm not talking just about the English speaking world, I'm talking about the Chinese speaking world as well. One of main factors why people use "Taiwan" instead of "ROC" is because Taiwan is short and more easily used while saying "Republic of China" time after time gets annoying and sometimes people get muddled up and stuff. However, in Chinese, saying 中華民國 is much more common then in English because it's short unlike "Republic of China". Sure, it may still be longer then 臺灣, but 4 characters and 2 doesn't make much of a difference, it's only 2 extra syllables and is not a pain to repeat over and over again. Plus, people know exactly what you're talking about, generally speaking. "Official" may not be "neutral" in many cases, but in yes/no cases like this, it is. I remember while digging around wikipedia, there was something that was said about Wikipedia supporting what is is, not what should. I can't remember exactly where, I'm still trying to look for it... Liu Tao (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia follows a well defined naming convention that I encourage you to read. The most commonly used name is usually prefered to any other (including official) name. Look for example at Al Pacino or Clint Eastwood - well it's not their official name, yet it's the title of the article. Everybody accepts it it because this is how they are most commonly known. Here we have two names - Republic of China and Taiwan, one official, one commonly used. Both have to be given at least the same weight in Wikipedia's articles. The same goes for using Taiwanese as an adjective or to talk about people of the ROC - saying that it's "poor form" or "incorrect" goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions. You seem to be quite knowledgeable in history and politics and your contribution would certainly be appreciated, however you need to make yourself more familiar with the way Wikipedia works, and start accepting notable point of views without dismissing them as "incorrect" (actually, the next time you use the word "correct", "incorrect" or "logic" try to remember that truth is not a criterium for inclusion on Wikipedia). Laurent (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
(outdent for easier reading)
Please forgive me for writing on your personal discussion page, if you find me rude for doing so. I think I have several points to make in this matter and hopefuly we can understand our differences a bit better. For someone like me who lives in both the Chinese and English speaking worlds, I must confess, I realise that there is quite a big gap between the understanding of the Republic of China in these worlds. And I think many of the disagreements that we have here relate to that. In the English speaking world, it is quite plain that the country is commonly known as Taiwan and nothing else really. The ROC is a confusing and rarely used term. Must people think of the ROC as mainland China, if you mention the ROC. If you say that you are from the ROC, most people would think you are from the mainland. If you say Taiwan is part of China, most people would find it offensive. Most people in the English speaking world don't even know Taiwan that well. They quite likely assume that people in Taiwan speak Taiwanese and people there are ethnic Taiwanese.
Most of the above is untrue of course, especially for someone from a Chinese speaking perspective, if we are talking about the official usage. It has a lot to do, in my view, with the ROC's diplomatic status, and it also has something to do with the powerful Taiwan independence lobby in the west. It is becoming harder to find sources to back up the official usage in English.
In the Chinese speaking world, most people understand the ROC, even if they don't like it, such as the people on the mainland or those who support Taiwan independence. This shows in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. The "ROC (Taiwan)" usage is not common. "Taiwan" is hardly ever used as the name of the country. No one would seriously argue that Taiwanese cousine is not part of the Chinese counsine. And no one would seriously argue that the demonym for the people on Taiwan cannot be Chinese as well as Taiwanese. I think that's where Liu Tao is coming from.
One thing I would like to raise is the law. I find it interesting that some Taiwan independence supporters keep dismissing the law of the ROC regarding the naming of the ROC instrumentality, describing the law as the tools for the people with the gun. Yet, I often find the same people using the "Treaty of San Francisco" to dismiss the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. I think it is common knowledge that the Treaty of San Francisco really is the tool for the people with the gun. I think we need to apply the same standard in relation to the treatment of the law.
Perhaps we can try to understand where everyone is coming from and tolerate the differences?--pyl (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Most people and organizations that I know of who support Taiwan independence do so for reasons having nothing to do with the Treaty of San Francisco. If they mention it at all, it is usually because they are dealing with someone with a lapsed sense of right and wrong who thinks that words written long ago by people with guns or by people under duress (from people with guns) are more important than thinks like libery, freedom, human rights, morals, etc.. The other side of the argument does the same thing. The Cairo Declaration - completely lacking as force of law or treaty, is pulled out again and again. It isn't the Cairo declaration that leads the Chinese imperialists to want to annihilate Taiwan, but they pull it out because they believe it supports their preferred conclusion. When treaties and agreements don't support them, they dismiss those treaties and agreements as "unequal" treaties or find some other reason to disregard them.
You should not attempt to discredit one view because its adherents are willing to try to persuade people with different values. Not only do all sides do it, but its a bit like faulting a man who uses violence to defend himself from a murderer simply because the man believes his right to life should not depend on violence.
We all know that the "Treaty of San Francisco" and "Cairo declaration" both have their followers. And I don't think what I said above criticised anyone just because they follow the "Treaty of San Francisco". The central message was that we should apply "the same standard in relation to the treatment of the law". What I have issues with is those people who dismiss the ROC law by describing it as the tool of the ones with the gun yet at the same time these people prefer the "Treaty of San Francisco", which really is well-known as the tool of the ones with the gun. That position is contradictory.--pyl (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is also the "Treaty of Taipei", "Japanese Instrument of Surrender", and the "Yalta Conference" you've not mentioned. Reason why I take the side of the Pan-Blue in this is because the Treaty of San Francisco was never signed or participated in by any of the 2 Chinas at the time, so in a sense it does not involve China. Also, it does not mention what happens to Taiwan, only that it no longer belongs to Japan, that's all the treaty says. The Treaty of Taipei and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the other hand, do specifically state that Taiwan was to be given and incorporated into the ROC, and they were both signed by the ROC, so this is like the capital issue again, of all the treaties and agreements signed by Japan, they all relinquish Japan's control over Taiwan, but they either neglect to specify what happens to Taiwan, or they specifically say that Taiwan was to handed over to the ROC, so in a way, none of these treaties come in conflict with each other, they all fit together in a puzzle. Anyways, this is just my POV, think what you want of it, and as I've said, I don't have these views because I'm Pan-Blue, I have these views because they make sense to me. Liu Tao (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I just wanted to answer your comment above: "And no one would seriously argue that the demonym for the people on Taiwan cannot be Chinese as well as Taiwanese." - Well, there are plenty of Taiwanese people who would never call themselves Chinese, and some may feel quite offended if you call them that. In Mainland China, I presume ROC citizens are indeed called Chinese though. Laurent (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree that some people may be offended if you call them Chinese. But these people, if they are in Taiwan, would most likely understand that there is also a significant section of the society who feel strongly about being Chinese. And that's why I said they wouldn't seriously argue to eliminate Chinese as demonym altogether.--pyl (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not offended, not at all. You've explained things well, exactly the way I see it as well (I lived in both the eastern and western worlds). It has become harder to find English sources, which is why I'm going to start digging into Chinese sources, which is gonna be a pain because my reading's a bit rusty... I can tolerate the differences, but problem is the consensus, what to agree on. We may be able to accept that we each have our own differences, but the main problem lies in how to deal with the differences. Liu Tao (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's even more difficult to find sources for both sides when so many reporters and scholars are based in China and when it is known that writing bad things about China can make it more difficult for a scholar or reporter to get access to China. If you're a bilingual scholar who specializes in China and Taiwan and you write something negative about China or write about Taiwan being independent, your access to China can be very limited in the future. Not having access to the very topic you study can severely dent your career. Readin (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not talking about those kinds of sources, I've already said, I don't rely on media sources to deal with history and law, they're some of the most horrible and unreliable sources you can find concerning history and law. You have no idea how ignorant journalists are toward the law and history especially when writing about foreign nations. What I'm looking for is for sources that define the technicalities and stuff, and for that I've to look for things dealing with the law, either records, official documents like treaties, and preferably the law itself. Usually these sources will be in the language of the state unless it involves other states as well. Liu Tao (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!I think you should change your words in the talk page immediately. The constitution doesn't mentioned Nanking is the capital. Except for the constitution, the constitution in the Xun-zheng(训政) period make a declaration that Nanking is the capital. And it hasn't been abolished officially, while the sentence "Nanking is the capital" doesn't break the constitution. So it is legal.Huang Sir (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me, Huang Sir. ""訓政時期約法"" is a form of regulation during the specific period (from 1927 to 1947) before the country has its own first version of constitution in Jan.1 1947; therefore, such a regulation was then replaced by the formal constitution. The previous mayor of Taipei City which is currently the President of the R.O.C. Ma Ying-jeou and other top government officials have claimed that Taipei City is the country's capital. Do understand this, and do not mislead people, please. Sorry to Mr. Liu Tao if it bothered you.--Earl of China (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Taiwanese aborigines, 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. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Republic of China Armed Forces. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Rule not broken, only 2 reversions were made. Reversions have stopped.
Your third edit was a reversion because you removed it after I had restored it to its previous wording. A reversion for the purposes of 3RR can be partial or total.
Moreover, your allegation that "commonly known as Taiwan" never got consensus is nonsense as it has been used for two years in the article - look at the page history. John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, only 2 undos were made. The 3rd was a completely different edit of removing text due to the lack of consensus, a point previously made by you. Liu Tao (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Consensus has been reached on the talk page by at least three users. You are the only one who wants to add the "also" part (or to remove the mention of Taiwan), but as of yet you haven't convinced anybody that this change would improve the article. Laurent (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Liu, read the policy. It clearly stops you from making a series of reverts, they do not have to be the same revert and removing text counts as a revert. You also made the edit before the third one I listed because you restored text that had previously been removed re the list of battles.
I also said that YOU did not have consensus for changing the text - you certainly do not have it for removing it. It has been on the page for two years so that's consensus through acceptance.
I am now reporting you for breaking the 3RR policy (again). John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your "consensus" has no evidence to back up your claim. Your claim is that "Taiwan" is the only common reference towards the ROC, my claim was that it is not the only common reference towards the ROC. You did not have evidence to back up your claims, nor have you said anything to de-credit my claims. No consensus was reached, debate never ended. The restored text is called fixing earlier vandalisations dome by you. The removal of text is due to unsupported claims as well as lack of consensus. Liu Tao (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
What?! Why am I blocked?! I did not break the rules. Exactly why am I blocked? I have a right to know the reason, what rule I have broken, and how I have broken. Liu Tao (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Chunghwa Post. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Gzyeah (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
This makes no sense, I made only 1 undo. The last edit I did on that article was on the 22nd, over a week ago. Liu Tao (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Slow edit warring is still edit warring.
Lashing out at people on talk pages is not constructive. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I'm not edit warring, that was the only edit I have done on that article for over a week. And I'm not the only one lashing out, I'm speaking my points. You don't like the way I debate, that's your problem, not mine. And you guys have no right to tell me that lashing out at people is not constructive. You guys ignoring my requests for a discussion is inconstructive as well, not to mention the multiple strawmen you guys use as well as refusing to debate my points. Liu Tao (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Because your debates are not inline with Wikipedia policy. You want to assert facts. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. It is a problem if you lash out, because Wikipedia has a civility policy so that participants aren't hounded away by rudeness and yelling. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Reliable sources? Where are your reliable sources? I have still yet to see your sources. As for rudeness, you say I'm rude, what about you guys ignoring and refusing to give debate, but then refuses to go with my edits. Not only are you guys 'rude', you guys are also despicable, disgusting, and to think of what you guys do make me want to throw up. To think what you guys have done to me makes me want to spit blood. And as for yelling, just how do I 'yell' when everything is typed as words on your computer screen? What, do you use some kind of text reading device and that for some reason it 'yells' when it reads my script? Or are you talking about the CAPS that I use for emphasizing things the same way you guys use italics? Liu Tao (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Using ALL CAPS is generally considered equivalent to yelling. This is true for Wikipedia discussions and for written electronic communications such as email and forums. If you want to emphasis something you're almost always better off using bold or italics but you still need to be careful as their overuse can still offend. Readin (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Offend, you speak as if you guys don't offend me by refusing to discuss matters. Sure, I'll start using bold and italics, then I'll see how the heck can you say that I'm "yelling" again. Liu Tao (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Since you've stated you are vomiting blood while you deal with our edits, that is my mental picture while reading your talk page comments. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Generally you shouldn't use bold for more than half a sentence at a time. If you're bolding the whole sentence you'll be viewed as substituting emphasis over logic. Rather, bold should be used in a situation where you want to emphasize this as opposed to that. You can use italic a bit more, but you need to be careful because italic is harder to read and you can end up with just the opposite of what you want - people may just glance over it rather than taking time to read it.
For example you'll get your point across much better if you say
The Republic of China is a important country that is legitimate and whose name should always be emphasized and promoted while Taiwan is an insignificant hunk of dirt and rock whose name we should avoid using whenever possible.
instead of
The Republic of China is a important country that is legitimate and whose name should always be emphasized and promoted while Taiwan is an insignificant hunk of dirt and rock whose name we should avoid using whenever possible.
Of course you still won't persuade us until you have better sources and better logic, but you'll have a much better chance of being taken seriously and having your arguments considered by people with less patience and less knowledge of the subject. And it will definitely help you when you discuss issues of bans, 3RR, and such with administrators who are looking at civility and rule-following rather than at who has better arguments. Readin (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh my god, you still don't get it. I'm not talking about the Frikin names, I'm talking about the different entities. You seriously need to get things straight. Personally, right now I can really care less about what the name of the ROC article should be. I'm talking about the different entities known as "Taiwan" and differentiating between them. And as for sources, you never gave sources yourself and you're telling me. And as for civility, you guys are no more uncivil then I am. You act without honour with no shame in yourself. Liu Tao (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why do you always come and focusing on this page?! Why not doing same thing on China Post and/or other pages about TW or ROC?! It's really hard for me to get the reasons of your own mind and/or political points. No more unreasonable or foolish works done, OK? I don't wanna play with you on struggling these chicky things in such long time. Wee...
Please you do remember, here is Wikipedia, where primary accepting objective events and records, not the place for you to express you own idea without any limitation. Thank you. --Gzyeah (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I'm expressing my own ideas and you're not? I'm doing things by the book, you're messing up the links to make it fullfil your POV desires. Liu Tao (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've blocked you for 72 hrs for edit warring on the Chunghwa Post article. I'll unblock you immediately if you agree to stay away from that article for a while or agree to confine your comments to the talk page. You may request an unblock using {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Regards, --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have already stopped editing the article and engaged in discussion in the talk page. Liu Tao (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK. I have unblocked you on the understanding that you won't edit the article for the time being. Please seek other means of dispute resolution or you may end up being blocked again. Thanks. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Aye, I have agreed to not edit the article in question before settling the issue in the talk page. Thank you for your generosity and understanding. Liu Tao (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, looks like you're correct. I was misreading the map at Taiwan Province and thought that Yunlin County was not in Taiwan Province; I just noticed that it actually is. Apologies for the miscommunication. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's fine. Happens all the time. Liu Tao (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please see WP:BRD; now that your changes to Teresa Teng have been challenged, you should refrain from reinstating them and instead start a discussion at the talk page, seeking outside input if necessary. Since you are already familiar with the edit warring policy, I need not repeat it here. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
WDF, I did not edit war. I only reverted once. Liu Tao (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It was totally appropriate. Archives can be created and talk pages archived whenever someone deems the discussions obsolete or the page is extremely long. See WP:ARCHIVE. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then I guess we're just gonna have to start a discussion about it then. Liu Tao (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Liu Tao, I think you can read chinese. I was active in both chinese & english version of article Government in exile in the past few days, actually I had also written already lots in chinese about the same things & arguments. But it seems that today Mafia don't want to know about & answer it in chinese version of the talk page about 流亡政府, see 讨论:流亡政府. so, if you have interest about what had happened there, please check it, thanks. --SH9002 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Mafia makes this issue a court case issue, something based on 'international law'. The lad is a heavy green, he won't stop until he gets what he wants no matter how unreasonable he gets. First what we need to do is to stop his edits, issue a 3RR complaint against him. Personally I don't like it, but it's what must be done. Second, Mafia's own interpretation and actions are in direct violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia's NPOV policy states that all major standpoints should be listed and explained. What Mafia is obviously doing is that he is pushing through his own POV and dissing every other POV's. Issue a complaint about it and seek help and meditation from a 3rd party. Liu Tao (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
No need for rational conversations with some fundamentalists. The beast way to stop fundamentalist's vandalism to try to classify the ROC as GiE only is to find some good references which support the classification of ROC as a rump state, I have just found some, and give the links to you, which articles says ROC is a rump state. (1) Guns for Peace, by Doug Bandow, www.nationalinterest.org, 01.11.2010 (2) Taiwan's environmental struggle: toward a green silicon island, By J. F. Williams, Ch'ang-yi David Chang, Press: Routledge, UK, 2008 btw, I know what those fundamentalist will and can do for their beliefs. So, just let it be. --SH9002 (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
And then what? That makes you no different than Mafia himself. He's pushing his own POV, which is against NPOV policy. For you to do the same with is also a violation. NPOV policy states to state both POV, that means we can only advocate to put in our POV, not replace the opposing POV. That is what we will do. Liu Tao (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
OMG, you misunderstood what I had said, "to stop .. to classify the ROC as GiEonly is to find some good references which support the classification of ROC as a rump state". I didn't say, I want to classify ROC as rump stateonly. I found some refereneces, which there are also POVs thinking ROC as rump state. (btw, it's not my POV. My personal POV is, the changing of territoies of any state doesn't affact the fact it is still a state as long as that state still has territorial sovereinity under its effecitive control. I don't care about this term "rump state"). What I want to tell you here is we can give the guys like Mafia some evidences (which meet their criteria, as evidence) to prevent they to delete any text in wikipedia says "ROC is a rump state". --SH9002 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
He's going to be dismissing the evidence as soon as he comes back, watch. Liu Tao (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Taiwan Civil Government in exile since Sept. 8 2010edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If ROC is in exile is very disputed, however a new government in exile is 100% on doubt. please check this webpage of Taiwan Civil Government. It's definitely that this government goes in exile, exists at monument only on web & may be in USA since Septemeber 8. 2010. LOL --SH9002 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's not exactly a government-in-exile. You can only be a GiE if you're kicked out of the country. Groups like these are allowed to be exist in the RoC. This would just be a scessionist group is all. Liu Tao (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Taiwan being part of ROC and being ruled by ROC is a fact, not POV. Are you not from Taiwan? Unless you got ROC mistaken with PRC. Please revert my changes back.--Mistakefinder (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh no, that's a fact, but it wasn't what you said. You said it belonged to the RoC. Whom Taiwan 'belongs' to itself is an opinion and in turn POV. It's best not to get politics involved and keep this article as geologically based as possible. Besides, in the second sentence we're saying that it makes up 99% of the RoC's territory, as well as saying that it is being administered by the ROC in the hapnote. There is no need to put in anymore statements. Liu Tao (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Are you talking about when I revised to "island of the Republic of China" and that was POV? And is it POV because of the claim from PR China only, or also because the Taiwanese Independence movement people (the argument about the US/Allies improper handover to ROC)? Since it is ruled by ROC I didn't think it would be a problem and would be straight forward for any reader who would naturally want to know what country it belongs to. If the concern is due to Taiwan independence argument (or even PRC's, even though I dont't think is legitamate), then we can insert a statement with the political status of Taiwan entry, and refer to the related section below. What do you think? Btw, I'll copy this discussion to the Taiwan talk page. --Mistakefinder (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hohoho, it's POV if it's an opinion. Believe me, anyone can turn something around and make it POV. Believe me, the view that Taiwan 'belongs' to the ROC is disputed amongst many. You can say that it's 'administered' by the ROC, but you can't say that it 'belongs' to the ROC. There's one of em Greens, Mafia who's been making a great deal of fuss about it, there was like a 5 page long argument in the GiE article about it. I don't want to antagonise anything, it's best to keep it as politically neutral as possible. Saying that it's administered by the RoC is enough. They can't do anything about it, nor does it 'mislead' the readers. Liu Tao (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The issue has been more than resolved! There's clear consensus for the changes I have implemented in the exact way I have implemented them. You haven't been able to convince even a single editor to support your position, again seven who have supported my counter proposal. Please do not make edits against the clear consensus on the talk page. — Blue-Haired Lawyert 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Debate was still going, end of story. And edits were not against consensus, the information can still be in the article and still be with consensus. Consensus is that state as a polity can be both a sovereign or a federated state. All information in original article is within consensus. Liu Tao (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Debate is always ongoing. My changes to the article reflect current consensus. I proposed not merging the articles and had, in my proposal, indicated exactly what I thought the lead should be. Everybody agreed with my proposal except you. You are a minority of one. Your edits were clearly against the express approval of my changes by every editor who contributed to the discussion except yourself. — Blue-Haired Lawyert 01:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually my edits don't face any opposition at all. You're the only one opposing the edits. The information I am retaining in the article does not go against consensus. Liu Tao (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I saw that you intended to write an article about the Chinese army corps which fought during WW-2 under the title "Army Corps". I think you will need to write your article with a more specific name than just "Army Corps" because "Army Corps" can be applied to many armies in the world. If you read this discussion page, you will see that there was a consensus to change "Army Corps" in to a redirect to Corps. I have undone your edits to "Army Corps" and changed it back to a redirect. The article you intend to write already exists at NRA Army Corps. - Takeaway (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I apologise. I meant to change it back, but I could not remember the specific article name, and the link I found took me to the NRA Army Corps article. Thank you for changing it back and notifying me. Liu Tao (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why capatalize "J" in Fujian? Do you have any proof? --阿pp (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's everywhere in the talk page... There's a whole page of discussion there, and quite recent too. ROC uses different capitalisation standards than the PRC. I've already contacted the FK Governemnt for confirmation, still waiting for their reply. Liu Tao (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki chinaedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china too.
Those pages are too koreancentric. And Buyeo isnt even korean as they are manchurian. And the kingdom of Buyeo should be listed as history of china and Balhae should be listed as history of china and korea.
I think its best wiki China project should be involved in those pages. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Seriously? Lad, they're Korean Kingdoms with people speaking non-Han languages, you can wiki China it because they encompassed parts of modern day China, but for the general part keeping it Koreancentric is correct. Liu Tao (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
File:Howard County flag.jpg listed for deletionedit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Howard County flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Disambiguation link notification for January 16edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan. 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. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Taiwan Province has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Taiwanese aborigines, 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. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
