Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::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. ] (]) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: Well, our rules on ] 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 ], you provided a translation, which was inappropriate, and then followed with , 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 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. -- ] (]) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
== Chinese Civil War ==
== Chinese Civil War ==
Revision as of 09:30, 7 May 2009
Welcome!
Hello, Liu Tao, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
Hanyu Pinyin Zhonghua Mingguo
The official romanisation used by the ROC is tongyong. FALSE... READ THE HANYU PINYIN ARTICLE... THERE R SOURCES IN THERE...
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...
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)
RENAME THE PINYIN ARTICLE REGARDING THOSE 2 HISTORICAL FIGURES, THEN ILL ACCEPT UR POV...
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)
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)
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."
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
April 2009
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//Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Block
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 Misplaced Pages. Because of this, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages'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. Nja21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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. Nja21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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//Δ's/ 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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//Δ's/ 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
```
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages, the discussions and negotiations need to have some guidelines.
The three core content policies of Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. Note that this is not a matter of opinion, this is not about what you (or I) think - this is about Misplaced Pages's policies, which we must follow if we want to build a proper article. Thank you, Laurent (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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? . 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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//Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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.delanoyadds 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
