Mababa

Not everyone agrees with zhonghua minzu ("the Chinese nation") - it's a nationalistic concept. For example, supporters of Tibetan or Xinjiang/ET independence don't like to think of themselves of a "Chinese race" in order to justify their cause. --Jiang 08:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please affix the word "the" in front of definite proper nouns. That is, write "He lives in the PRC" instead of "He lives in PRC." This also applies to words/initialisms such as KMT, ROC, U.S., DPP, etc. --Jiang 06:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. It is well taken. Yeah, I have been told that I should pay attention to this part of my grammers. I really appreciated it. :) Mababa 06:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try using microsoft word or some other program to grammar check your edits. I think I see some problems with pluralisms and tense. --Jiang 19:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I found that some of the photos relevant to Taiwan were posted by you at the English Wiki. All of them are wonderful. Many thanks. In case the photo is from public domain, can you store it at the Wikipedia Commons in the future? While putting the image right there, Wiki user of different languages can easily use them without paying more effort to re-store the image at the version of their own Wiki. Best, --Wdshu 07:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can also visit [1] for photos relevant to Taiwan stored at the Wiki Commons.

Thank you for your kind words. Hmm.... I don't know how to upload to that site though. If you teach me or tell me how to do it, I would be delighted to follow what you suggested. I found Reed college has lots of goodies. I am sure that you must have known this site already. Just in case you yet get to know it, here is a link where I found many nice photos.[2] Mababa 07:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, many thanks for your useful information about the 228 Incident of Taiwan, especially the information about another Western witness of this tragedy other than George Kerr. As a "professional" researcher about Taiwanese history, I am so shameful that I did not know the publish of this book (Formosa Calling) until I got your message. I really appreciate this information. Of course, I will add this information to the Wikipedia Commons when my time is available. Thanks again, friend. --Wdshu 03:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't put in that text. I restored that text when someone removed it from the article; I don't know who originally wrote that text. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, the text is accurate. The Romans were more than aware of the British Isles by the time of several centuries BC. It's not possible that the Chinese weren't aware of Taiwan by the third century AD. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I did not visit the English Wiki quite often and happened to find your discussion about the status of Taiwan in the ANCIENT Chinese record. You are right, there is NO clear evidence at all to support the statement that "Chinese knew the existence of Taiwan at the third century AD." Please also refer to my contribution at Chinese Wiki [3]. Best, --Wdshu 03:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on Taiwan photography. I do indeed need to make a comment on the age of these photos! Amazingly, though, there was no photo for fortune teller and only light descriptions! So I thought the addition was the least I could do.

It is indeed addictive!

Why not get outside and grab some photos of Taiwan!

Jeremykemp 22:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mind interpretting the wedding photo I posted? I guessed that the couple was at the park to gte their photos taken ONLY. But I see the child and flowers and wonder if maybe there WAS a ceremony in the park? What do you think? How would you caption this photo?

It could be a ceremony. However, out-door wedding in Taiwan are unusual. Therefore, it is more likely that the couple were taking wedding portraits in a park which is an extremely common practice. Many couples getting married would talk formal indoor and outdoor portraits. This is a huge bussiness in Taiwan for a long time that Taiwan has accumulated some expertise and is regionally famous for. Therefore, if I were the one captioning the picture, I would probably say something like : "a couple taking outdoor wedding portrait. etc. etc." I hope I have been helpful so far.Mababa 00:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My favorite is the religions of china photo with incense. Do you know what religion this temple practices? I can't figure that out.

It is not very obvious which deity the temple is dedicated to, by looking at the photo. However it seemed to me that all the temples with a setting in this style belong to Taoism, which worships various forms of deities. This type of religion is quite common in Taiwan.Mababa 00:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of Taiwan-related topics

Snow Red & Moon Angel http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,792979,00.html

Please don't mark changes in content as "minor" edits. For example, these series of edits were not minor at all. Also, if you tag images as "public domain" {{pd}}, please explain why they are public domain or they risk getting deleted (i wont go around nominating them for deletion but some people will). --Jiang 09:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I apologize for the confusion. :) The reason I mark them as minor editing was because that I only put in tiny bit of evidence each time and it wasn't really dramatic when I hit the save bottom. I saved them quick every time since the server seemed to be slow and I do not want to lose the input. However, I seemed to found a better way to rearrange my edit later or another tiny sentence I want to contribute ot the article. With the accumulation of small contribute each time, it appears to be a major change. I will make sure not to save edits as minor edit with change longer than one sentence in the future. As for the images, I will find some time and sit down and have a closer examination on their source. I thought the ones I contribute are old enough though or weren't claimed by hosting server....:) Thanks for your reminder. Really appreciated.Mababa 02:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

put those pages on my watchlist--Jiang 03:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!!! :) Without other contributers, I felt that I have built a house and I am the only one living there!!Mababa 04:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mababa, thanks for your hard work of making the Taiwan Project. I will see what I can help regarding this GREAT idea. However, I am not quite active in English Wiki most of the time. Since I am working on my dissertation about Taiwan at this moment, I don't want to spend my "leisure" time in doing the similar business for English Wiki:) Anyhow, let me know if you need any help. I am interested in anything about Taiwan, my country. Thanks again. --Wdshu 14:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I might not be able to come over as often as before since I am quite occupied, but I am still doing my best and see what I can do for her. I think I would have to thank you, too, for all of your hard works. I am sure that we can have more fun here in the future. :) Mababa 05:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Mababa. Thanks for your invitation. I'm glad that I have this chance to contribute my work to Taiwan. I'll sign as a contributor.

As you may know, I didn't spend too much time in here, because of the busy daily work. (I'm a POOR R&D ENGINEER in Taiwan.) But I'll try my best. :-)

BTW, just curious. Did you have any relationship with our Mayor Ma ?  :-P

Morton Lin 16:30, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks your stopping by. I will be looking forward to interact with you. I am also in a very miserable situation and therefore I am also trying to do my best to aliquote my leasure times here. let's see what can we do for our land. No, I am absolutely unrelated with him.Mababa 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. My position is still the same, to title according to the scope of its content, as follows:

• "China" for things about China in general, such as history, calligraphy,
• "People's Republic of China" (PRC) for things about the PRC,
• "Republic of China" (ROC) for things about the ROC, which include ROC from 1911 to 1949, and from 1949 onwards, including Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, and probably Pratas and all other territories under ROC control...,
• "Taiwan" for things about the island or the province of Taiwan (including Pescadores and perhaps Tiaoyutai, but excluding Matsu, Quemoy and probably Pratas and Spratlys), the best example would perhaps be Taiwanese cuisine.., and
• "Hong Kong" and "Macao" for Hong Kong- and Macao-related topics. — Instantnood 21:04, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested to have a look of the article Demographics of China and see its way of treatment. — Instantnood 23:10, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)

replied on Instantnood talk page.Mababa 01:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re:NPOV regarding China-related articles, categories and templates

Quote: "Some people might argue no need for creating HK and Macao templates since they are PRC related. My support would all be conditional since I am fine with the current pratical usage when no obvious political POV is implicated. The new priniciple would have to be fairly applied on both side if there is any. So far your rename proposals seem to majorly be heading on articles on Taiwan.

"I do not understand your example of Taiwanese cuisine though.

"One more comment, I do not see any merit on most of your change name proposals. I am not sure what the outcome of your proposals would be. However, almost of them could be solved by creating an corresponding page with a title of ROC. There is no reason why the articles with names of Taiwan can not exist. In my opinion, no POV were contained in them.Mababa 01:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

My proposal is not only heading on Taiwan-related articles, templates and categories, but also mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao. The templates related to Hong Kong already exists before I start editing on Wikipedia.

Taiwan is home to Taiwanese cuisine, but not Matsu Islands or Quemoy. The History of Taiwan article deals with the early naval history of Portugal and Spain, colonisation by the Netherlands, the Cheng Ch'eng Kung era, prefecture and later province of Qing, and later Japanese occupation, which Matsu Islands and Quemoy are not included. These two articles are example of where "Taiwan" is more appropriate than "ROC" as the title.

The merit of changes to the names is that with an accurate title we can tell what an article is about. — Instantnood 15:14, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Re: Demographics of China

Quote: "Let's be focused and comment on my proposal on the political divisions of China first.Mababa 01:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

My comment on political divisions of China follows the current treatment of Demographics of China. — Instantnood 15:16, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your proposed moves

Quote: "If the current two proposals on List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan & Politics of Taiwan do not reach a consensus (meaning no consensus on the reason similiar to other new move proposals), do you still intend to go on your other proposals puting these titles on trial? Just being curious.Mababa 02:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)"

Frankly I don't know how to deal with the comments by contributors who are not familiar with the real situation, and insist "Republic of China" as a confusing term. They fail to understand that "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are not two equivalent terms and cannot be used interchangeably. — Instantnood 15:19, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

I do not mind. A page on Taiwan under Dutch rule could be a possibility. I do not have any idea on the pictur. Gangulf 09:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. It's not really urgent. — Instantnood 07:16 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

If you have contributed to discussion on this page you may want to comment here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood (left by SchmuckyTheCat at 15:53, Mar 1 2005)

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:54 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your views. :-P — Instantnood 09:42 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

I welcome any comment, and I believe that is necessary for a fair judgment on the RfC. Being honest is a good thing. :-D As MarkSweep has already pointed out, part of the dispute was because of ignorant, and it is a must to have all these been clarified. Frankly, I don't care if there is any plans to do anything, as you might already have noticed. I am just sticking to the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and especially an innovative one. To be the best encyclopedia entries and contents have to be accurate and unbiased. I am sure with your effort and everybody else's, this goal could be achieved. — Instantnood 09:14 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:08 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for helping provide insight on the 228 incident article, history and international law are not my main field of study so I'm very grateful for your input. I felt the need to redo the article since it seemed to be getting rather bloated and partisan.

Also, I'm not sure if you were addressing me or Xuanwu on the discussion page regarding the status of Taiwan and the nuances of occupation. Just wanted to let you know that I am aware of the distinction and tend to agree with your definition of the situation. I'm just doing my best to remain neutral and keep the article from turning into an edit war.

Thanks again!--Loren 07:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to have made you confused about the proposal. I compromised with Grutness' proposal at #Geo-stubs proposal, to have the islands tagged with Template:Taiwan-geo-stub. This template will link the articles to Category:Republic of China (Taiwan) geography stubs (08:26 Mar 5). The inline text of this template would tell readers "This Republic of China (Taiwan) location article is a stub, you can help...".

I supported this proposal, and I suggested to have Template:ROC-geo-stub redirected to Template:Taiwan-geo-stub, if not the other way round (09:52 Mar 5). See also my bottom line at 00:25 Mar 2, right above the section "Is any consensus likely?".

I objected to subcategorisation. Alternatively I suggested to have hyperlinks. — Instantnood 05:56 Mar 10 2005 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I have created Template:ROC-geo-stub as a redirect to Template:Taiwan-geo-stub. I am using {{ROC-geo-stub}} to tag articles such as Wuchiu, Taiping, Pratas and Lesser Quemoy. For other cases I use {{Taiwan-geo-stub}}. I hope this will satisfy more people. And in case there's a proposal to differentiate them in the future, it will be easier. Enjoy editing~! :-D — Instantnood 18:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I've done my bit... now it's time for some help! I need you to help go through Category:China geography stubs to depopulate it. This involves opneing each article and clicking edit. If it's a mainland China article, you just need to resave (so that the template diverts it to the new category). if it's a RoC article, you need to change the stub to Taiwan-geo-stub. Category:Taiwan-related stubs needs sorting for taiwan-geo-stubs, too. There's about 250 articles in all, which is a big job for one person, so I'm roping you and Instantnood in as well :) Grutness|^hello?   07:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - Instantnood's just pointed out that I can request a 'bot for the main part of the job. All that requires doing by hand is going through Category:Taiwan-related stubs and removing any Taiwan geo stubs from Category:China geography stubs. Grutness|^hello?   08:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a very rough trial on how the list can be split into two.

• List of Republic of China-related topics, compare
• List of Taiwan-related topics, compare

Please take a look and tell me what you think about it. :-P — Instantnood 19:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for putting effort into the resorting. I have skimed through them and thinks they look fine. I hope you would not mind if I can take a closer look later next week and let you know if I have any other suggestions by then.Mababa 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure! :-P — Instantnood 12:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Is it time now? :-) — Instantnood 21:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are so quick to catch me!! Yes, I have not forgot my promise. I will look at them this week. Thank you for your reminder. Really appreciated it. :) Mababa 21:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coz it's like 10 days have past already. :-D And thanks for the appreciation.. indeeed. It sparked off many fires around. :-) — Instantnood 10:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

By the way I am now facing a similar battle in "mainland China" vs. "People's Republic of China". — Instantnood 19:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Someone proposed something at Talk:Taiwan#Proposal_for_New_Organization_.283.2F19.2F2005.29.2C_Please_Comment, if you would take a look and comment....--Jiang 01:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. The discussion was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#The China-Taiwan mess. — Instantnood 08:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mababa. Despite the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) over the use of the terms "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China", SchmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei have listed category:Cities in mainland China, category:Companies of mainland China and category:Laws of mainland China onto Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

Your vote is now essential and vital for the survival of these categories, and to avoid attempts to bar the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) from truly enforced. — Instantnood 20:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Update: there's also a poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 01:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Mababa,

I am reporting on Saturday's "326" march and rally in Taipei City over on Wikinews, and need to acquire photos or video from the event. The current story on the event is called Taiwan Democratic Alliance for Peace plans massive rally on Saturday.

I plan to file a new story as the 326 event starts, and to then update it as the event unfolds.

If you have friends in Taipei City with a camera, or are aware of any Public Domain or GFDL content related to today's 326 march and rally, please let me know.

You can reach me on my Wikinews user talk page. Thanks.

Regards,

— DV 06:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A story is now filed on Wikinews about today's march in Taiwan, entitled, Hundreds of thousands protest anti-secession law in Taiwan. — DV 12:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I addessed your concerns about the Taiwan Aborigine photo on the page's discussion area. I hope you can see that this photo is not about race now. jk 23:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• look that :

File:Hualian side (Taïwan).JPG or File:DSCN4440.JPG (I don't know how move it to => [Image:Hualian side (Taïwan).JPG] ) and :  

Yug 15:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are mine, so everybody can use this freely ^0^.

Yug 15:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of ROC-/Taiwan-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 06:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mababa. There's another poll on the scope of the Taiwan article here. The proposal is to include " the geographical and cultural features of the lands controlled by the Republic of China (Taiwan) " into the article. — Instantnood 14:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Mababa I understand that it could be annoying to some Wikipedians to have polls on matters alike again in such short period of time. But if you have recognised, the previous poll on WP:RM, now archived at talk:Economy of Taiwan#Page move, was not done by sticking to the naming conventions. The comments given by the voters revealed what they did not agree with was the naming conventions, not the enforcement of the naming conventions. The meanings of the two polls are quite different (well, although it seems like ending up in the same way, sigh~). I could anticipate it could be controversial, as some may not understand, and therefore I asked for opinion before proceeding to create the polls. I wish you can understand why the poll at a subpage of the naming conventions talk page had to be started. — Instantnood 06:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I will have to think about your statements. :) Still appreciate your answer. I still belive that we have to cut down repetitive votes in the future. I would also apprecite it if you can also give us some advice in the village pump discussion as to how can we make a regulation to preclude repetitive votes.--Mababa 04:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 12:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution on the Instantnood issue. However, as I am Instantnood's advocate and not a mediator, I do not require opinions that merely state a position rather than introducing new facts to my understanding. My job is to defend my client and not to get to the bottom of anything. Nonetheless I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. Wally 20:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Response here--Mababa 01:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding your message

Again, to reiterate what our jobs are as advocates, it is to ADVOCATE on behalf of Instanthood, that's what we signed on for. Second, it's not our intention to be "imbroiding Arbcoms into the side (sic) of Instantnood" but to defend him. We didn't bring this to arbitration, it is jguk and Schmucky that brought the case and we are responding. Everyone is entitled to have their side heard and that is what we will ensure. --Wgfinley 01:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Response here--Mababa 01:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mababa. I don't want to be repetitive and I guess my position is pretty clear. My advocates have advised me to avoid, for the duration of the case, contentious discussions on this subject. — Instantnood 19:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Response--Mababa 02:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mababa -- I don't know how much clearer I can make this so let me try again. Your position is that the vote was unfounded and we respectfully disagree, that is a part of a pending arbitration case. You continue to try to argue this issue via multiple postings on discussion pages, my client's page, and virtually anywhere else you can find it. I don't find your actions to be doing anything to build a consensus and quite frankly I think you're just out to antagonize my client.

The case is in arbitration, if you feel strongly about that case feel free to contact Snowspinner about various positions you would like to see included against Instantnood. I'm sure he will be happy to consider your suggestions. Continuing to harp and haggle over items that are in an arbitration case is not at all useful. Finally, having been involved in cases before I have a thorough understanding of the Arbitration process and our position is the enforcement of WP policies, specifically a policy that was in place for almost three years without any problems until this recent spat is something they can be involved in. I know you don't agree so please, you don't have to state it again. Let's let the case go forward, let the issues be heard, and go forward from there. --Wgfinley 03:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Response here

I regard this illogical post as a response confusing the voting rule debate with the unrelated arbitration case. --Mababa

Hello Mababa. My position has always been the same. I am open to any change to the passing rule. I created the page, but I am not conducting the polls. The polls belong to Wikipedia. And as the polls have been started and votes were cast, any change to the passing rule has to be discussed and agreed by the participants, i.e. I cannot, and I'm not in a position, to change it unilaterally.

The issue is now part of a pending arbitration case, and people involved should refrain from likely contentious discussions. — Instantnood 06:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Replied here

The unknown user has been persistenly trying to get his views back on the Taipei American School article. Every time someone among us edit his stuff out he edits back in. And now he writes that the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump! Whether the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump sounds irrelevant. Allentchang 19:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Mababa, thanks for helping out with Instantnood and clearly arguing out how redundant and deviant his poll was. I know you've been doing a lot of work with him, and you're nice about it, but he's done some pretty ridiculous things.

When you're more free, could you take a look at the applicability of the term nation to the Taiwan article? Jiang is on this rampage of reverting anything I do, providing short responses to the evidence and discussion I provide, I think essentially to waste my time enough that he'll get his way. I think he's afraid of the term nation because it sounds like country (but of course it's not), and he sort of gets it, but he's still afraid of it. There is too much particular Taiwanese culture plus, the real clincher being the shared political institution of ROC (whether or not it is legitimate) that I can't see what there is to disagree about... a separate voice that is not me or Jiang would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--160.39.195.88 05:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mababa, I'm not sure I understand your comment on my page. If you're asking about the {{cleanup}} tag, I put it there a while ago because I thought the template might encourage Wikipedia editors to make the article better by correcting the inconsistent capitalization, grammar, and verb tense throughout the article. I improved those aspects somewhat, but I think more could still be done. Also, the article would be better with an overall analysis of the demands instead of using a series of bullet points detailing each demand of the 32 Demands. Hope that helps. —Lowellian (talk) 02:36, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Reference

My main goal is just to make sure that all the facts are out in the open. I don't want to give you the impression that I'm fully on Instantnood's side; I have no real strong opinions on what the conventions should be (if you look back at the statements proposed by SchmuckyTheCat, I actually agreed with statement 3), but I do feel that whatever conventions exist should be enforced. Multiple polling by Instantnood was disruptive, but I defended Instantnood on that account because they resulted from the failure to enforce the conventions. The first poll originated because opponents reverted attempts to enforce the naming convention, and note that it was the opponents who called for a subsequent round because they felt the original block poll did not apply. Instantnood handled this situation badly, but I feel that many of the opponents share some of the responsibility in what happened. --Umofomia 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mababa - I thought I'd try to preempt all the problems we had with China-geo-stub etc earlier by coming to you directly with this... there is now a new stub category: {{China-bio-stub}}. The hope is that this can be used for all of the one or two (whichever you prefer) China(s). Let's face it, a large proportion of the stubs in here are likely to be historical figures from before 1948 or during the period of schism between the mainland and Taiwan/ROC. The wording of the stub template has been left deliberately vagues ("this biography of a Chinese person..."). I've also spoken to Instantnood as well, BTW - he seems happy enough with it, though he does point out that not all Taiwanese people think of themselves primarily as Chinese. However, I suspect that the editors who address these articles are likely to know at least something about people from both sides of the strait, and the size of a separate category for Taiwan is likely to be quite small at present. Can we try to make do with one template, at least for now? :) Grutness...wha? 13:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello there, Long time no see. Anyway, about dispositive treaties, something that came to my mind that would support the doctrine is a basic matter of property law. I don't know if this is original research or not, but anyhow here goes. If country cedes X, or gives amount of money Y to another country in a treaty, and the action somehow could of been nullified by alleged future misbehavior of the recipient country, one would reach the absurd conclusion that the recipient would never be able to receive clear title. In other words, the recipient would never truly own the given items as a regular property owner in that it can do basically whatever it pleased with it. This absurdity, it seems, can only be avoided by making such so-called gifts and completed actions final.

I conducted google searches about "dispositive treaties," but have turned up nothing. Perhaps I can check the actual libraries when the chance presents itself, though I'm currently too busy to do much. Please let me know if you find something too. Thanks. Ngchen 12:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Chiang passaway.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Formosa surrender02.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tzuhu.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tzhu.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Shigeru YOSHIDA 1951.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Formosa surrender03.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply