Readin

Before you teach me, why don't you wait until there are significant agreement first then move? Not only no one have agree with your proposal or even settled the problem yet you move first? Like I said, if you would like to make a new template, you're welcome to do so. --Lennlin (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have time, could you comment on User talk:Rjanag#Leehom Wang's Nationality? An editor has suggested changing the nationality from "American-born Taiwanese" to "Taiwanese-American"; your input would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to seek your view as to whether we should eliminate from the lists of diplomatic missions by sending/receiving countries all references to representative offices of sending states that do not have formal diplomatic missions with the host states. This would affect a large number of articles which relate to Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo and other states. Please provide your views here. You have received this notice because you have regularly contributed to either kind of article, or have had dealings with editors concerning the conduct of this dispute. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You said: "rv "Taipei, Taiwan" is enough to identify city. "Taipei, Taiwan, ROC" could imply misinformation (use of ROC implies political jurisdictions; while Taipei is in Taiwan, it is not in "Taiwan Province""

Republic of China has to be included because every other entry on the list has its country/state identified. If ROC is to be removed, every other country must be removed too. Our China guidelines say that PRC and ROC must be used when referring to political divisions.

And the "Taiwan" in there literally refers to the island of Taiwan, not Taiwan Province. I.E. I meant Taipei, Island of Taiwan, Republic of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The list contains:

1. Guatemala City, Guatemala
2. Flag of Nicaragua Managua, Nicaragua
3. Flag of Mexico Mexico City, Mexico
4. Flag of Mexico Guadalajara, Mexico
5. Flag of Honduras San Pedro Sula, Honduras
6. Flag of the Republic of China Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China
7. Flag of the United States Los Angeles, California, United States
8. Flag of Colombia Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
9. Flag of Spain Madrid, Spain
10. Flag of Brazil Sao Paulo, Brazil

It says "Guatemala", not "Republic of Guatemala". It says "Mexico", not "United States of Mexico". It says "Honduras", not "Republic of Honduras". It says "Colombia", not "Republic of Colombia". It says "Spain", not "Kingdom of Spain". It says "Brazil", not "Federative Republic of Brazil"

Aside from injecting "Republic of China", the only other state name being used is "United States", presumably because some people believe "America" might be confusing because the Americas are sometimes called simply "America". And even then, "United States" is not the full name of the state "United States of America". In all other cases, we are using the city name and a location that serves to clearly disambiguate the city from other cities that may have the same name. "Taiwan" clearly disambiguates "Taipei". Further, it avoids any POV complaints from fringe beliefs that Taipei is part of the PRC. Whether you believe Taipei is part of the ROC or the PRC, no one disputes that Taipei is in Taiwan. Readin (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

• On Wikipedia "Taiwan" alone is not acceptable shorthand for Republic of China, so "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" is not analogous to United States and United States of America - I will repeat: Taiwan alone is not an acceptable shorthand for the Republic of China - The acceptable shorthand is ROC
• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof says that when identifying the state of the Republic of China one should use "Republic of China" (Taiwan)
• The ROC flag is not analogous to "Taiwan," so the ROC flag should be deleted if you don't want to mention the ROC
• ROC (Taiwan) is also to be used "When identifying nationality (eg. "Lee Teng-hui is a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan).")" - Adding "Germany," "Honduras," etc. unavoidably invokes nationality, even if your intention is just to show geographical location. Sister city relationships are political, not geographic.
• By having it as "Taipei, Taiwan" without mentioning the ROC and while having other countries mention their states, it inadvertently introduces the POV that Taiwan is not a part of China. (Especially with the [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] link) - But it just seems strange when pairing it with the obviously ROC flag
• In summary, as long as country flags are shown and as long as other non-disputed countries are named "Republic of China" is unavoidable here - If you don't want the ROC to be mentioned, then other country labels should be deleted and the flags should be removed. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rather than argue point by point, I think we can go straight to the solution. "Taipei, ROC (Taiwan)" or "Taipei, Taiwan (ROC)" would be acceptable, though the latter is preferable because "Taipei, Taiwan" is far more common usage and clarifies the information most people use to identify Taipei. The latter is definitely preferred if using the spelled out "Republic of China" instead of "ROC" because the longer name will tend to obfuscate the identifying information. Readin (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Taipei, Taiwan (ROC)" works :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In the average wage per country page, Taiwan is not listed because it is not an OECD member and this list ranks only OECD member nations.

Lneal001

I'm attempting to get a unified wiki login.

I have found just now that you were the editor who created {{Taiwan topics}} in 2008, effectively spliting it from {{Republic of China topics}}. The two navboxes are now merged again few days ago. Would you want to share your opinion at Template talk:Republic of China topics? Jeffrey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

 

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

The Military Service Act was actually in place long before 1949. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not removed. It's in the 2nd paragraph. There's actually no reason for it to show up twice. To state and restate the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I read the links. I can see why you wanted to keep that in, that portion is a mess. I'm trying to sort it out and see if it can be written better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you're quite wrong, and the evidence now exists at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Read all of the section titled Continued harassment by other user after repeated requests to stop.

You will see that enough other editors realised where the real fault existed. My firmness and frankness led to that editor clearly showing his true colours and doing even more stupid things, and ultimately being blocked.

I see my strategy of moving beyond false niceness as being in the same vein as basketballers deliberately breaking the rules for their team's benefit. It works that way at Wikipedia too.

BTW - the language I use in those situations that so offends you is language I hear many times daily where I live and work. Different places, different cultures. Whose culture should decide what's acceptable here is an interesting question HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nah, you've lost me there completely. I didn't take the dispute anywhere. Midcent did, and didn't even advise me. I only ever responded, AFTER he had posted his unsigned bullshit in about five different places across Wikipedia, and after I had noticed it, sometimes by pure chance. If you cannot comprehend what actually goes on here, your attempt to educate me has no credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit late to this party (been travelling for work recently) but I noticed your comment on the Taiwan talk page that there's no rule about signing posts. If you're interested, the following line is in our signature guideline: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed", at WP:SIGNHERE. A guideline it may be, but its use of the word 'must', emphasised in the guideline itself, seems unambiguous. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Now having a bout of influenza, or cold, amongst other things, personally, I am not really too "worked up" with the removal of the COI-tag, which is perhaps to be expected, eventually; but, and this is a matter perhaps too delicate, if not inflammatory, but probably not libellous, for the article's talk page, but who is this "Ai changhe"? I don't see how a person who writes for the "Virginia Dare" magazine would have many Chinese, Chinese-speaking or ethnic-Chinese followers. I, as an amateur linguist, who probably can read a bit of Chinese, know that the word "Ai" in Chinese, in the Mandarin tongue, means, besides a surname, amongst other things, "love", "loves", "loved" or "[ I ] love", &c., regardless of the tense, absent in Chinese; and I don't think that her wife's real and legal name, if she is still supposedly a Chinese subject, or a citizen of China, and somehow not yet a naturalised, or naturalized, American citizen, really is "Lynnette Rose". Is "Changhe", or "Chang-he", or "Chang He", the given name of her wife? That was not in fact you, however, I sincerely hope. -- KC9TV 02:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems that his wife's name was, or is, not "Changhe", after all, being more of the name of a Chinese-made car. I shall be intrigued to know as to whether Derbyshire's marriage certificate, presumably Chinese, was deposited (in contrast to "registration", a distinction they are at pains to make) with the British Government, a facility available to the Queen's subjects who are British persons.

Anyhow, if it is "uncredited", then naturally it is unverifiable. We and Derbyshire (perhaps the "Mr." title can now be safely dispensed with, lest it appear any more pompous; this is after all not The Economist.) are not members of a Country Club, or a Gentlemen's Club, be it in London or in New York, and we ought not to "just take HIS word for it", what it ultimately boils down to, without question. In the spirit of democracy, a fair amount of doubt and scepticism ought to be allowed. The word "claim" do not upon (on) its own usually infer a meaning of uttering or writing an untruth, or a lie, although its use is often liable to attract the accusation thereof; the word "purport", however, does, at least in the modern usage, and certainly the word "pretend", for quite some time indeed.

The names of the son and of the daughter (or even that of the wife) ought not (do not really) belong to the article. John Derbyshire is not e.g. a gentleman (with a "coat-of-arms"), a knight, a baronet or a member of the peerage back in England, or in Scotland or Ireland, and the members of his progeny are not of note (notable) in their own right (whereas they would had been if Derbyshire were, due to reasons best explained at a different forum, at a different juncture), especially given their relative minority (young age), and they definitely have not yet made a name for themselves, not even trades or occupations of any sort to speak of. It might had been different if the either of them had authored or published any works of literature, such as what Queen Elizabeth had supposedly done during her minority. This might be the 21st. Century, but I do not see how they could be included into an encyclopaedic, or encyclopedic article, without having been first mentioned or published in Derbyshire's notice of death or obituary. If something was not fit (good enough) to be included by a Mister Hugh Chisholm back in the year nineteen-hundred and eleven, then probably it is not fit (good enough) for inclusion today.

At the risk of offending yourself, John Derbyshire, after all, ultimately cannot be said in good faith to be (or, he is not really) a man of much note, or, much notability, perhaps even in his adopted land; other than being an emigrant originally from the Southern shires and provinces, he certainly has not yet made a name for himself back in his native land, and probably never will, unlike even the likes of Peter Hitchens in North America, simply in or by virtue of his late brother's fame; and not even according to Oxford Dons and other learned men drawn from Her Majesty's College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Oxford, engaged and retained by (in the employ of) The Economist (or so it is claimed by the magazine's adversaries); whose interview was "politely" relegated under "Democracy in America", as a mere American of incidental British birth. -- KC9TV 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how much notability is required for Wikipedia. Surely as the author of "Prime Obsession" (winner of the Association of America's Euler Prize) and formerly a popular long-time contributor to National Review, Derbyshire at least somewhat notable.

As for his wife and children. I don't care much whether their names are included in the article or not. They were originally included as he has frequently referenced them by name in his writings. If you do include them, or any other information that comes directly from Derbyshire, it is good form to not use a loaded word like "claim". It sounds like you are from the UK. If that is the case perhaps this is a difference in dialect. Words may have a different connotation in the UK than in the US as I'm sure you're aware. A more neutral phrasing ("According to John Derbyshire, ...", "John Derbyshire writes...", "John Derbyshire says...", "John Derbyshire has stated...", etc.) would be better.

When discussing territorial claims or even claims of possession ("China claims Taiwan", "he claimed his inheritance") the word is pretty neutral. But when used for simple statements of truth or fiction the word is loaded. Readin (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

• All I wrote, and intended to say, was that John Derbyshire is not of such note (or with such a notability), and probably never will, as to warrant the inclusion of the names of his children, without of course questioning the notability of strictly his person as such.
• As to the Taiwan analogy, well, all I would say is that the word "claim" has MANY DIFFERENT SENSES of the word indeed; it does not necessarily imply "something that he does not have, but ought to have", nor "something that he did not do, but ought to had done". A strange analogy in many ways indeed, and probably an ill-placed one as well. [The word is not "loaded", not at all; in fact, it is as neutral as it can possibly get, for the word is one of the basic words of the English language, and anyone who says otherwise should perhaps have his literacy, or English, refreshed, perhaps with some basic courses of both French and Latin as well. Whilst I am not free from errors of grammar, I don't think that a person living in a NON-ENGLISH-speaking place, possibly with a non-English-speaking home, naturally devoid of the language except in the written form, is naturally best placed to give lectures on the correct use of English. If I may be so frank, how long have you been living in Taiwan?]
• What you are proposing are all simply called "Fanpov". Not (really) allowed. -- KC9TV 19:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Asking that Derbyshire's statements about his family not be written as though he is presumed to be lying is considered a fanpov? Readin (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, we don't know, do we? He is hardly Mark Twain or Charles Dickens, is he? Has the names been changed to "protect" their identities and privacy? Well, we don't know either! Were there notices in the New York Times or the Washington Post announcing their births? Probably not. [P.S.: If you have a personal connection to John, especially by kindred or affinity, I think that you ought to declare it.] -- KC9TV 20:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "John Derbyshire". Thank you. -- KC9TV 19:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Category:Vietnamese expatriates in Taiwan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- KC9TV 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- KC9TV 13:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi I saw you changed the Taiwan disambiguation page! Thanks for contributing. The argument you gave, that "sovereignty is POV" regards the article in the list is mistaken. While any actaul claim (by the encyclopedia itself) as to the sovereignty of Taiwan might be disputed, the fact is that PRC does make a sovereign claim regardless. Please don't change it back, Thanks. --— robbie ^{page talk} 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your recent comments on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. I'd like to draw your attention, in case you're new to the topic, to the fact that the entire field of climate change on Wikipedia is under general sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Please don't use the talk pages, edit summaries or article space for inappropriate comments, in particular attacks on other people or "us and them" style discussions. Stick to the content and discussion of how best to represent the topic, please. Take up interpersonal issues on user talk pages, and so on. If there is a glaring instance of inappropriate behaviour, please take it immediately to WP:AE. --TS 21:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information. I am new to the topic. What do you mean by "under general sanctions". How do such sanctions that apply to the numerous personal attacks that were directed toward me? Is there a page where problematic behavior related to the topic can be directed? You mentioned going to individual user's talk pages but there were so many users engaged in such behavior. I did consider taking J. Johnson dispute resolution but my initial request for a third party intervention was ignored and I decided I could probably just to ignore him. I have been pondering whether this something that should be brought to the group that deals with Systemic Bias but I'm not sure this fits there either.

I looked at the WP:AE page as you suggested. That page seems to be for reporting a breach of a ruling that has already been made. I don't know of any rulings that have been made that have been breached. Readin (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please check the "General sanctions" notice at the top of the talk page. In general, any hostile behaviour towards editors may breach the sanctions, which are intended to foster a collegial environment.

If you're repeatedly finding people expressing disagreement with your proposals and even dismissing them out of hand, that in itself isn't a sign of hostility. It's a sign that you have failed to build consensus. There are appropriate ways to tackle this. It's up to you to read about the editing history of the article, and its talk page, to bring yourself up to speed. You may often find a reason why you're not persuading anyone. --TS 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

for your kind words at Talk:Bopomofo. Of course, I have always had the greatest respect to you as an editor, even when I disagree with you over content. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your recent actions/changes in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile article, in particular in relation to your assertion that Taiwan is a part of ROC territory. Could you please verify what international legal documents and/or scholarly articles you are referencing in your assertion? In the Revision History of Government_in_exile, in regard to the US court case of Sheng v. Rogers ( See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/usg/shengvsro.htm ) you made the rather impolite comment "What does a US court case have to do with opinions of people who think Taiwan was integral to ROC?" I suppose that any college student could reply that "Some people may also think that the world is flat, but that does not make it so." More to the point, the judges in the case mentioned analyzed the international legal record, and conferred with the US State Dept., and came to the conclusion that Taiwan is not a part of ROC national territory. Hence, as qualified legal professionals, their opinion should carry some weight. Again, please provide some solid references for your alternative viewpoint. Hmortar (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not an assertion that Taiwan is part of ROC territory. The assertion is that there are people who do believe Taiwan is part of ROC territory. One particularly significant example of this is the government of Taiwan. Another is Pro-independence former president Chen.

As for the court case - there is the question of whether a US court has jurisdiction over Taiwan. Even if a US court were to rule that it does, would that invalidate ROC and PRC courts that say it doesn't? And even all the courts around the world agreed, that would still be only a legal matter, not necessarily a reality matter. Wikipedia deals in reality and when there are questions it deals in significant views of what the reality is. Legal decisions are certainly a significant view of reality, but they do not alone define reality. There are other viewpoints including the significant views of people who live in Taiwan and support or control the Kuomintang government. Readin (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is also the policy of Wikipedia to provide references for statements and assertions made on its webpages. Wikipedia is involved with verifiable facts, and not speculation. In regard to what the people of Taiwan and China believe, much of it is also falls in the realm of myth, fable, parable, etc. Hence, my insertion of a "Citation Needed" is certainly reasonable, because the readers are entitled to know about FACTS and not just propaganda. Again, please provide some solid references for your alternative viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.166.251.23 (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please take this to the talk page for the article. Readin (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind joining in at Template talk:Countries and territories of East Asia? Thanks much. GotR ^Talk 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've shifted the above posts to this page instead of the talk. I still very much disagree that the IP was attempting to contribute, because of the combination of content and writing style. I also disagree that removing such a post is uncivil. Still, per your post I'll leave it there in good faith and to be gentle and unbitey. It was in line with being gentle and unbitey that I shifted the above here from Talk:Colony. Your message was for me, and I think having it there would be slightly detrimental to any attempt to appear gentle. Does this make sense? Regards, CMD (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's one brilliant turn of phrase. I hope you don't mind if I nick it. :P

Decent response to the whole thing too (as in, one mostly agree with...), which is really well within WP:LAME territory. One nit though—my own entirely unscientific observation is that the pro-independence media tend to use "China", whereas the pro-(re)unification media tend to use "the mainland" or "mainland China", so it's not really all "mainland". Thanks for being open to compromise and not losing your cool. wctaiwan (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not as in touch with happenings in Taiwan as I was even just 5 years ago, so things may have changed. I know I used to find it surprising to hear so many pro-independence folk use "mainland". I'm glad to hear they're not doing it as much anymore. Readin (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your post on User talk:Quickbest5t6 when I went in there to post a reply. I thought perhaps this user was making unintentionally disruptive edits but in good faith, but judging by the edit history the user seems to be intentionall disruptive. I'm not sure of their political persuation but their tactics seem to be stealthy at best and underhanded at worst - the initial edit by an anon (whose edit pattern seems to indicate they may be the same person as Quickbest5t6) on Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall was a wholesale deletion of about half the article but was marked "a minor edit". That user's post on my talk page said it was due to "unicode control characters". It would probably be a good idea to keep an eye on this uer's edits on Taiwan-related articles if you come across them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looking back through his contribution history, every edit I checked was eventually reverted, and it was done by almost as many different people as there were articles he edited (i.e. it wasn't just one or two editors reverting him everywhere).

I'm not quite ready to call it vandalism since it looks more like POV pushing and he did at least make an effort to talk with you. I put a comment on his page encouraging him to read up on some of policies such as NPOV. Readin (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've broken WP:3RR on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. If you're prepared to leave the page alone for a few days, I'm prepared to not bother report you. Since you've already been blocked for 3RR, you ought to know about it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, it was your choice William M. Connolley (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Readin_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't move other peoples comments William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is always nice to hear one's efforts were actually useful. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is just a note to say that I mentioned you at Talk:Republic of China#Article recreation. Please feel free to correct me if I misrepresented your actions. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2013 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect President Lee. Since you had some involvement with the President Lee redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whenever you are editing/correcting/vandalfighting/etc. in an article that has to do with _anything_ that nationalistic POV warriors might edit, please be very careful in your 'fixes'. After one editor changed things, apparently moving the text from 'Taipei' to 'Nanjing', and then your trying to fix things, the net effect was to delete text which has been in the article for awhile (about Taipei for over 1.5 years). I think I understand your deletion of the added Nanjing entry, but the text should've been restored. I've gone and re-added the deleted text, because I think it can/could be useful to the reader unacquainted with the issues. The continual abrasion of POV warriors causes problems for Wikipedia, and the reaction of using too strong cleaning agents is one of the ways damage is caused. Please take care. Shenme (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply