Hello! If you think your edits have been wrongly reverted you can go to Administrator's noticeboard to report. However, I do not think your source is unbiased either. They openly supports the dictatorial Chinese government. As you know, Tibet was once an independent nation during the Qing Dynasty but annexed later by China. The current communist government have done many atrocity in Tibet, so it's not unusual to see pro-Tibet information on Wikipedia. Remember the Tiananmen Massacre and the brutal persecution of Falun Gong committed by the current regime. If you want to present the information in that website as the position of the Chinese government, you can, but presenting them as facts is probably not a good idea. Wooyi 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this person. No source from China can be seen as unbiased. I myself have plenty of information to disprive any notion that Tibet is or has been a part of China. Face it, Tibet is NOT historically part of China. ludahai 魯大海 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? Alaska was once part of Russia. Some states in the south USA were once not part of the current union, and some were once a part of Mexico. Borders change, and yes Tibetans is a nationality within the PRC. 81.155.103.36 01:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- List out the references you have on the page you edited, in accordance to Wikipedia:MOS. If your info is still deleted otherwise, I would suggest that you might perhaps ask for Wikipedia:Meditation for a certain answer. Thanks. Mr Tan 07:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
HI Xiaoliang. PLease see the Talk:Tibet page for my comments related to Tibet. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
editHello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Tibet
editHi. Sorry for not explaining myself earlier. I've replied to your comment at Talk:Tibet. In the meantime, please be aware of the three-revert rule, which states that no one can revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. Regards, Khoikhoi 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply to your comment on the TalkTibet page
editFirstly, you seem to keep making edits using this anonymous user - User:66.38.139.129 as your response on the TalkTibet page was done under that user, even though you signed it as Xiaoliang1. Maybe it would help if, before you make changes, edits or post a comment, you firstly check that you are signed in on wikipedia. That is not a criticism by the way, as I speak from experience of having done it myself when I first joined up. Just maybe have a quick check when you load wikipedia, before you edit or post a comment that you are signed on as Xiaoliang1.
In answer to your questions, it would take a lot more than just a few lines on here to give you fully the answer that is needed. However, what is truth for you might not be truth for someone else. And what I care about on wikipedia is that it presents a neutral point of view with no article showing bias, one way or the other. So, therefore, with regard to the Tibet issue, that means I believe there should be no bias toward either the PRC view nor that of the Tibetan Government in Exile and others. By all means both views should be presented, but it has to be done carefully and not just editing an article with your own view and presenting that as pure unadulterated, unquestionable fact, which is why I think, that someone suggested that you use words like, According to the PRC".
I could go into great detail about my thoughts on the history of Tibet, but I seriously doubt that you and I would ever really fully agree about that. I will say one thing though - no-one has complete kowledge of every truth and every reality. And most "truths" are actually just opinions put forward as fact and truth.
Enjoy your time on wikipedia, I am sure I will continue to question your edits, but hey it should be fun! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tangerines. Thanks for your reply and suggestion. In my opinion, truth is truth. What varies from person to person is the analysis process and the conclusion drawing from the raw materials, such as, incomplete truth, misleading truth or even lied facts. But I resptect your opinion although I do not argee with. I fully accepted your opinion that I should present those facts as the Chinese point of view. Anyway, glad to talk with you. Cheers. Talk, 7 April 2007
Is it the truth that the land, known to some, as Tibet is now a part of the polity some call China now in the year 2007CE?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.102.201 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2007
Your version of truth may be very different from another person's version of truth.