Welcome!
Hello, Liu Tao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Neo-Jay (
talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
The official romanisation used by the ROC is tongyong. FALSE... READ THE HANYU PINYIN ARTICLE... THERE R SOURCES IN THERE...
Ur sources to keep saying that tongyong is still official in the ROC?? Gumuhua ( talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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...
Zaijian Gumuhua ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. do u believe the linguistics box should go below the KMT infobox? if so, please, move it.. cheers... Gumuhua ( talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
SAID..
The controversy wouldn't be there if we stop using the ambiguous word "China", if we be precise and use official names in this particular case such as and Republic of China, Empire of Great Qing of China and People's Republic of China we can save a lot of agruement.
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)
This article Chiang Kai-shek is under destroy by IP 122.121.xx.xxx , please to protect the article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.192 ( talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do some basic research when asked to. In the end, I have to do the research for you.
See Country "Some entities which constitute cohesive geographical entities, and may be former states, but which are not presently sovereign states (such as England, Scotland and Wales), are commonly regarded and referred to as countries."
See State "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population."
In other words, a country doesn't have to be sovereign but a state is always sovereign.-- pyl ( talk) 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
HI, please help change the article Taipei country item to ROC, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.94 ( talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I received a litter from the government of R.O.C. "** 請勿直接回覆本信,若需回覆本信,請至部長信箱網站填寫,造成您的不便敬請見諒 **
處理情形 : 敬啟者 您好 您於98年4月7日的電子郵件所提意見,茲答復如下: 中華民國首都依民國16年國民政府宣言定都於南京。嗣後中央政府曾多次遷移辦公,惟首都並未更迭。目前臺北市為我國中央政府所在地。 本案聯絡人員:林景福 聯絡電話:02-23565281 敬祝 身體健康.萬事如意 內政部部長電子信箱 敬啟 歡迎連結內政部網站填寫滿意度調查問卷 http://service.moi.gov.tw/ecss/bin/ite003q1.asp?IstrMid=010-98010307&IstrUnit=10009000&IstrType=2&mail=hyocean1989@aolchina.com 來信摘要 : [010-98010307] 來信內容 : 敬啟者: 行政院院長電子信箱接獲民眾來函,事屬貴管部分,敬請酌處逕覆,並請副知本小 組結案,至紉公誼。 請確實遵照「行政院暨所屬各機關處理人民陳情案件要點」辦理人民陳情案件,並 對陳情人之身分資料嚴加保密。 敬祝 平安如意 行政院院長電子信箱小組 敬啟 【文號】 [010-98010307] 【受文者】 010內政部 ※回傳「院長電子信箱小組」應注意事項: <收件者> 欄位請填入:********* <副本收件人> 欄位請填入:********* <主 旨> 欄位請填入:[010-98010307] (註):如係總統府總統(副總統)信箱轉來信件,「收件者」欄位請填入: 1.work2@mail.oop.gov.tw及2.民眾E-MAIL位址(如信件內容所附)
【民眾電子信箱位址】********* 【民眾來信內容】 請問中華民?的首都問題,請給民?一個明確的答案
" Huang Sir ( talk) 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
最後,請閣下以負責的態度編輯維基百科,注意資料的正確性,尊重中華民囯憲法,尊重維基百科的公信力。 Huang Sir ( talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Taiwan. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite the warning above, you've continued to engage in an edit war. I understand how things can be, especially if the other party isn't receptive, however as noted above there are dispute resolution procedures including request for comment which should be used rather than you participating in the continued disruption of Wikipedia. Because of this, you have been
blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with
Wikipedia's blocking policy for
edit warring. You are welcome to
make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may
contest this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Nja
247 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need stop this guy, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeeeeewtw ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr.Liu Tao, These article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article, and hoped that you can pay attention these article with the connection of ROC, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.162 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
``` 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)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
You have Nanjing as the capital twice. It's a bit confusing. Readin ( talk) 15:23, 25 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 Wikipedia, the discussions and negotiations need to have some guidelines.
The three core content policies of Wikipedia are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. In numerous discussions you have brushed aside verifiability in favor of your own reasoning. You have ignored or simply been unaware of the part of NPOV that says competing views must be included. When you have made an effort to abide by verifiability you have done so with apparent distaste for it and by providing sources that don't fit the standard. You have led myself and at least one other person to openly question whether you have looked at the policies.
Please read the policies. They are important.
If the pattern of ignoring the core content policies continues , I will look for administrator intervention. Readin ( talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Watch out, Liu Tao is a sock poppet. 140.114.123.119 ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 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)
Hello, I have opened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic_of_China - of which you are a party - If you wish to add any comments, please use the discussion page on the case. Thank-you Wikipedian2 ( talk) 15:17, 1 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 Wikipedia. Note that this is not a matter of opinion, this is not about what you (or I) think - this is about Wikipedia's policies, which we must follow if we want to build a proper article. Thank you, Laurent ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
Taiwan Province has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Liu Tao ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate rules, I have not succeeded the 3 revert limits. Also, I did attempt to seek discussion, THEY are the ones who refuses to discuss. I state my reasons and statements and wait a day and a half for them to respond, but no, they choose to ignore me and go ahead with their changes, and when I try to change them back, now I'm the one at blamed. I have complained and complained and complained and complained, but nobody listens. They should be the ones bocked, not me
Decline reason:
Edit warring (including statements that you intended to edit war). No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Look, I really don't care. If you don't want to listen, then sit here blocked until it lifts, you do the same things, and you find yourself blocked again. You claim you provided sources, I question you about it, noting only long ago source attempts, you say that's from long long ago, you don't actually provide me examples, and you continue to complain that because a large number of people disagree with you, everyone and not you are at fault. I'll drop it. If you end up blocked again, don't say I didn't warn you. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You're obviously annoyed about your block, which is no great surprise, people often are. For you this is a new and exciting (if irritating) experience; for us it is just another block of someone impatient of restraint. If you behave, you won't get re-blocked. If you misbehave, you'll get re-blocked. And yes, the standards of "behave" may well differ from what you consider correct. In that case, the wise procedure is to slow down and do nothing in haste until you have worked out the rules, both written and unwritten and unfindable. Do not kick against the pricks is good advice, even if I don't always take it myself. WP:1RR is also good advice William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've opened an incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chinese_Civil_War_territorial_changes Readin ( talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Liu Tao, These article Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by clown of taiwan independence , so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 ( talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for easier reading) Please forgive me for writing on your personal discussion page, if you find me rude for doing so. I think I have several points to make in this matter and hopefuly we can understand our differences a bit better. For someone like me who lives in both the Chinese and English speaking worlds, I must confess, I realise that there is quite a big gap between the understanding of the Republic of China in these worlds. And I think many of the disagreements that we have here relate to that. In the English speaking world, it is quite plain that the country is commonly known as Taiwan and nothing else really. The ROC is a confusing and rarely used term. Must people think of the ROC as mainland China, if you mention the ROC. If you say that you are from the ROC, most people would think you are from the mainland. If you say Taiwan is part of China, most people would find it offensive. Most people in the English speaking world don't even know Taiwan that well. They quite likely assume that people in Taiwan speak Taiwanese and people there are ethnic Taiwanese.
Most of the above is untrue of course, especially for someone from a Chinese speaking perspective, if we are talking about the official usage. It has a lot to do, in my view, with the ROC's diplomatic status, and it also has something to do with the powerful Taiwan independence lobby in the west. It is becoming harder to find sources to back up the official usage in English.
In the Chinese speaking world, most people understand the ROC, even if they don't like it, such as the people on the mainland or those who support Taiwan independence. This shows in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. The "ROC (Taiwan)" usage is not common. "Taiwan" is hardly ever used as the name of the country. No one would seriously argue that Taiwanese cousine is not part of the Chinese counsine. And no one would seriously argue that the demonym for the people on Taiwan cannot be Chinese as well as Taiwanese. I think that's where Liu Tao is coming from.
One thing I would like to raise is the law. I find it interesting that some Taiwan independence supporters keep dismissing the law of the ROC regarding the naming of the ROC instrumentality, describing the law as the tools for the people with the gun. Yet, I often find the same people using the "Treaty of San Francisco" to dismiss the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. I think it is common knowledge that the Treaty of San Francisco really is the tool for the people with the gun. I think we need to apply the same standard in relation to the treatment of the law.
Perhaps we can try to understand where everyone is coming from and tolerate the differences?-- pyl ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not offended, not at all. You've explained things well, exactly the way I see it as well (I lived in both the eastern and western worlds). It has become harder to find English sources, which is why I'm going to start digging into Chinese sources, which is gonna be a pain because my reading's a bit rusty... I can tolerate the differences, but problem is the consensus, what to agree on. We may be able to accept that we each have our own differences, but the main problem lies in how to deal with the differences. Liu Tao ( talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello!I think you should change your words in the talk page immediately. The constitution doesn't mentioned Nanking is the capital. Except for the constitution, the constitution in the Xun-zheng(训政) period make a declaration that Nanking is the capital. And it hasn't been abolished officially, while the sentence "Nanking is the capital" doesn't break the constitution. So it is legal. Huang Sir ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Taiwanese aborigines, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ling.Nut (
talk) 13:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Republic of China Armed Forces. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Smith's ( talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You have been reported for breaking the 3RR rule. John Smith's ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Chunghwa Post. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Gzyeah ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've blocked you for 72 hrs for edit warring on the
Chunghwa Post article. I'll unblock you immediately if you agree to stay away from that article for a while or agree to confine your comments to the talk page. You may request an unblock using {{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. Regards, --
RegentsPark (
sticks and stones) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like you're correct. I was misreading the map at Taiwan Province and thought that Yunlin County was not in Taiwan Province; I just noticed that it actually is. Apologies for the miscommunication. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD; now that your changes to Teresa Teng have been challenged, you should refrain from reinstating them and instead start a discussion at the talk page, seeking outside input if necessary. Since you are already familiar with the edit warring policy, I need not repeat it here. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It was totally appropriate. Archives can be created and talk pages archived whenever someone deems the discussions obsolete or the page is extremely long. See WP:ARCHIVE. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Liu Tao, I think you can read chinese. I was active in both chinese & english version of article Government in exile in the past few days, actually I had also written already lots in chinese about the same things & arguments. But it seems that today Mafia don't want to know about & answer it in chinese version of the talk page about 流亡政府, see 讨论:流亡政府. so, if you have interest about what had happened there, please check it, thanks. -- SH9002 ( talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If ROC is in exile is very disputed, however a new government in exile is 100% on doubt. please check this webpage of Taiwan Civil Government. It's definitely that this government goes in exile, exists at monument only on web & may be in USA since Septemeber 8. 2010. LOL -- SH9002 ( talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan being part of ROC and being ruled by ROC is a fact, not POV. Are you not from Taiwan? Unless you got ROC mistaken with PRC. Please revert my changes back.-- Mistakefinder ( talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The issue has been more than resolved! There's clear consensus for the changes I have implemented in the exact way I have implemented them. You haven't been able to convince even a single editor to support your position, again seven who have supported my counter proposal. Please do not make edits against the clear consensus on the talk page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you intended to write an article about the Chinese army corps which fought during WW-2 under the title " Army Corps". I think you will need to write your article with a more specific name than just "Army Corps" because "Army Corps" can be applied to many armies in the world. If you read this discussion page, you will see that there was a consensus to change "Army Corps" in to a redirect to Corps. I have undone your edits to " Army Corps" and changed it back to a redirect. The article you intend to write already exists at NRA Army Corps. - Takeaway ( talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As you were a former participant of the late August and early September discussions to rename Standard Mandarin to "Modern Standard Chinese", you may be interested in participating in the proposed move at Talk:Standard Mandarin. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why capatalize "J" in Fujian? Do you have any proof? -- 阿pp ( talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china too.
Those pages are too koreancentric. And Buyeo isnt even korean as they are manchurian. And the kingdom of Buyeo should be listed as history of china and Balhae should be listed as history of china and korea.
I think its best wiki China project should be involved in those pages. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Howard County flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xindian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xindian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Liu Tao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Neo-Jay (
talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
The official romanisation used by the ROC is tongyong. FALSE... READ THE HANYU PINYIN ARTICLE... THERE R SOURCES IN THERE...
Ur sources to keep saying that tongyong is still official in the ROC?? Gumuhua ( talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
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...
Zaijian Gumuhua ( talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. do u believe the linguistics box should go below the KMT infobox? if so, please, move it.. cheers... Gumuhua ( talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
SAID..
The controversy wouldn't be there if we stop using the ambiguous word "China", if we be precise and use official names in this particular case such as and Republic of China, Empire of Great Qing of China and People's Republic of China we can save a lot of agruement.
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)
This article Chiang Kai-shek is under destroy by IP 122.121.xx.xxx , please to protect the article, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.192 ( talk) 01:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do some basic research when asked to. In the end, I have to do the research for you.
See Country "Some entities which constitute cohesive geographical entities, and may be former states, but which are not presently sovereign states (such as England, Scotland and Wales), are commonly regarded and referred to as countries."
See State "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population."
In other words, a country doesn't have to be sovereign but a state is always sovereign.-- pyl ( talk) 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
HI, please help change the article Taipei country item to ROC, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.94 ( talk) 05:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I received a litter from the government of R.O.C. "** 請勿直接回覆本信,若需回覆本信,請至部長信箱網站填寫,造成您的不便敬請見諒 **
處理情形 : 敬啟者 您好 您於98年4月7日的電子郵件所提意見,茲答復如下: 中華民國首都依民國16年國民政府宣言定都於南京。嗣後中央政府曾多次遷移辦公,惟首都並未更迭。目前臺北市為我國中央政府所在地。 本案聯絡人員:林景福 聯絡電話:02-23565281 敬祝 身體健康.萬事如意 內政部部長電子信箱 敬啟 歡迎連結內政部網站填寫滿意度調查問卷 http://service.moi.gov.tw/ecss/bin/ite003q1.asp?IstrMid=010-98010307&IstrUnit=10009000&IstrType=2&mail=hyocean1989@aolchina.com 來信摘要 : [010-98010307] 來信內容 : 敬啟者: 行政院院長電子信箱接獲民眾來函,事屬貴管部分,敬請酌處逕覆,並請副知本小 組結案,至紉公誼。 請確實遵照「行政院暨所屬各機關處理人民陳情案件要點」辦理人民陳情案件,並 對陳情人之身分資料嚴加保密。 敬祝 平安如意 行政院院長電子信箱小組 敬啟 【文號】 [010-98010307] 【受文者】 010內政部 ※回傳「院長電子信箱小組」應注意事項: <收件者> 欄位請填入:********* <副本收件人> 欄位請填入:********* <主 旨> 欄位請填入:[010-98010307] (註):如係總統府總統(副總統)信箱轉來信件,「收件者」欄位請填入: 1.work2@mail.oop.gov.tw及2.民眾E-MAIL位址(如信件內容所附)
【民眾電子信箱位址】********* 【民眾來信內容】 請問中華民?的首都問題,請給民?一個明確的答案
" Huang Sir ( talk) 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
最後,請閣下以負責的態度編輯維基百科,注意資料的正確性,尊重中華民囯憲法,尊重維基百科的公信力。 Huang Sir ( talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Taiwan. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Despite the warning above, you've continued to engage in an edit war. I understand how things can be, especially if the other party isn't receptive, however as noted above there are dispute resolution procedures including request for comment which should be used rather than you participating in the continued disruption of Wikipedia. Because of this, you have been
blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with
Wikipedia's blocking policy for
edit warring. You are welcome to
make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may
contest this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Nja
247 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need stop this guy, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeeeeewtw ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr.Liu Tao, These article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article, and hoped that you can pay attention these article with the connection of ROC, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.162 ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
``` 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)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
You have Nanjing as the capital twice. It's a bit confusing. Readin ( talk) 15:23, 25 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 Wikipedia, the discussions and negotiations need to have some guidelines.
The three core content policies of Wikipedia are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. In numerous discussions you have brushed aside verifiability in favor of your own reasoning. You have ignored or simply been unaware of the part of NPOV that says competing views must be included. When you have made an effort to abide by verifiability you have done so with apparent distaste for it and by providing sources that don't fit the standard. You have led myself and at least one other person to openly question whether you have looked at the policies.
Please read the policies. They are important.
If the pattern of ignoring the core content policies continues , I will look for administrator intervention. Readin ( talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Watch out, Liu Tao is a sock poppet. 140.114.123.119 ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 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)
Hello, I have opened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic_of_China - of which you are a party - If you wish to add any comments, please use the discussion page on the case. Thank-you Wikipedian2 ( talk) 15:17, 1 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 Wikipedia. Note that this is not a matter of opinion, this is not about what you (or I) think - this is about Wikipedia's policies, which we must follow if we want to build a proper article. Thank you, Laurent ( talk) 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
Taiwan Province has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
J.delanoy
gabs
adds 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Liu Tao ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate rules, I have not succeeded the 3 revert limits. Also, I did attempt to seek discussion, THEY are the ones who refuses to discuss. I state my reasons and statements and wait a day and a half for them to respond, but no, they choose to ignore me and go ahead with their changes, and when I try to change them back, now I'm the one at blamed. I have complained and complained and complained and complained, but nobody listens. They should be the ones bocked, not me
Decline reason:
Edit warring (including statements that you intended to edit war). No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
Look, I really don't care. If you don't want to listen, then sit here blocked until it lifts, you do the same things, and you find yourself blocked again. You claim you provided sources, I question you about it, noting only long ago source attempts, you say that's from long long ago, you don't actually provide me examples, and you continue to complain that because a large number of people disagree with you, everyone and not you are at fault. I'll drop it. If you end up blocked again, don't say I didn't warn you. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You're obviously annoyed about your block, which is no great surprise, people often are. For you this is a new and exciting (if irritating) experience; for us it is just another block of someone impatient of restraint. If you behave, you won't get re-blocked. If you misbehave, you'll get re-blocked. And yes, the standards of "behave" may well differ from what you consider correct. In that case, the wise procedure is to slow down and do nothing in haste until you have worked out the rules, both written and unwritten and unfindable. Do not kick against the pricks is good advice, even if I don't always take it myself. WP:1RR is also good advice William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I've opened an incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Chinese_Civil_War_territorial_changes Readin ( talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Liu Tao, These article Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by clown of taiwan independence , so I consider we need to endeavour protect these article. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.23.96 ( talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for easier reading) Please forgive me for writing on your personal discussion page, if you find me rude for doing so. I think I have several points to make in this matter and hopefuly we can understand our differences a bit better. For someone like me who lives in both the Chinese and English speaking worlds, I must confess, I realise that there is quite a big gap between the understanding of the Republic of China in these worlds. And I think many of the disagreements that we have here relate to that. In the English speaking world, it is quite plain that the country is commonly known as Taiwan and nothing else really. The ROC is a confusing and rarely used term. Must people think of the ROC as mainland China, if you mention the ROC. If you say that you are from the ROC, most people would think you are from the mainland. If you say Taiwan is part of China, most people would find it offensive. Most people in the English speaking world don't even know Taiwan that well. They quite likely assume that people in Taiwan speak Taiwanese and people there are ethnic Taiwanese.
Most of the above is untrue of course, especially for someone from a Chinese speaking perspective, if we are talking about the official usage. It has a lot to do, in my view, with the ROC's diplomatic status, and it also has something to do with the powerful Taiwan independence lobby in the west. It is becoming harder to find sources to back up the official usage in English.
In the Chinese speaking world, most people understand the ROC, even if they don't like it, such as the people on the mainland or those who support Taiwan independence. This shows in the Chinese version of Wikipedia. The "ROC (Taiwan)" usage is not common. "Taiwan" is hardly ever used as the name of the country. No one would seriously argue that Taiwanese cousine is not part of the Chinese counsine. And no one would seriously argue that the demonym for the people on Taiwan cannot be Chinese as well as Taiwanese. I think that's where Liu Tao is coming from.
One thing I would like to raise is the law. I find it interesting that some Taiwan independence supporters keep dismissing the law of the ROC regarding the naming of the ROC instrumentality, describing the law as the tools for the people with the gun. Yet, I often find the same people using the "Treaty of San Francisco" to dismiss the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. I think it is common knowledge that the Treaty of San Francisco really is the tool for the people with the gun. I think we need to apply the same standard in relation to the treatment of the law.
Perhaps we can try to understand where everyone is coming from and tolerate the differences?-- pyl ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not offended, not at all. You've explained things well, exactly the way I see it as well (I lived in both the eastern and western worlds). It has become harder to find English sources, which is why I'm going to start digging into Chinese sources, which is gonna be a pain because my reading's a bit rusty... I can tolerate the differences, but problem is the consensus, what to agree on. We may be able to accept that we each have our own differences, but the main problem lies in how to deal with the differences. Liu Tao ( talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Republic of China 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Laurent ( talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello!I think you should change your words in the talk page immediately. The constitution doesn't mentioned Nanking is the capital. Except for the constitution, the constitution in the Xun-zheng(训政) period make a declaration that Nanking is the capital. And it hasn't been abolished officially, while the sentence "Nanking is the capital" doesn't break the constitution. So it is legal. Huang Sir ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Taiwanese aborigines, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ling.Nut (
talk) 13:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Republic of China Armed Forces. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Smith's ( talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You have been reported for breaking the 3RR rule. John Smith's ( talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Chunghwa Post. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-- Gzyeah ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've blocked you for 72 hrs for edit warring on the
Chunghwa Post article. I'll unblock you immediately if you agree to stay away from that article for a while or agree to confine your comments to the talk page. You may request an unblock using {{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below. Regards, --
RegentsPark (
sticks and stones) 10:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like you're correct. I was misreading the map at Taiwan Province and thought that Yunlin County was not in Taiwan Province; I just noticed that it actually is. Apologies for the miscommunication. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD; now that your changes to Teresa Teng have been challenged, you should refrain from reinstating them and instead start a discussion at the talk page, seeking outside input if necessary. Since you are already familiar with the edit warring policy, I need not repeat it here. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It was totally appropriate. Archives can be created and talk pages archived whenever someone deems the discussions obsolete or the page is extremely long. See WP:ARCHIVE. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Liu Tao, I think you can read chinese. I was active in both chinese & english version of article Government in exile in the past few days, actually I had also written already lots in chinese about the same things & arguments. But it seems that today Mafia don't want to know about & answer it in chinese version of the talk page about 流亡政府, see 讨论:流亡政府. so, if you have interest about what had happened there, please check it, thanks. -- SH9002 ( talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If ROC is in exile is very disputed, however a new government in exile is 100% on doubt. please check this webpage of Taiwan Civil Government. It's definitely that this government goes in exile, exists at monument only on web & may be in USA since Septemeber 8. 2010. LOL -- SH9002 ( talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan being part of ROC and being ruled by ROC is a fact, not POV. Are you not from Taiwan? Unless you got ROC mistaken with PRC. Please revert my changes back.-- Mistakefinder ( talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The issue has been more than resolved! There's clear consensus for the changes I have implemented in the exact way I have implemented them. You haven't been able to convince even a single editor to support your position, again seven who have supported my counter proposal. Please do not make edits against the clear consensus on the talk page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you intended to write an article about the Chinese army corps which fought during WW-2 under the title " Army Corps". I think you will need to write your article with a more specific name than just "Army Corps" because "Army Corps" can be applied to many armies in the world. If you read this discussion page, you will see that there was a consensus to change "Army Corps" in to a redirect to Corps. I have undone your edits to " Army Corps" and changed it back to a redirect. The article you intend to write already exists at NRA Army Corps. - Takeaway ( talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As you were a former participant of the late August and early September discussions to rename Standard Mandarin to "Modern Standard Chinese", you may be interested in participating in the proposed move at Talk:Standard Mandarin. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why capatalize "J" in Fujian? Do you have any proof? -- 阿pp ( talk) 13:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Buyeo/Fuyu, Balhae/Bohai should be listed as wiki china too.
Those pages are too koreancentric. And Buyeo isnt even korean as they are manchurian. And the kingdom of Buyeo should be listed as history of china and Balhae should be listed as history of china and korea.
I think its best wiki China project should be involved in those pages. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumber111 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Howard County flag.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xindian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the administrative divisions of China (1912–49), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xindian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)