Why is my editing is vandalizing page? Please express your reason, or I'll take it as an insult and threat. --
Rocbot02:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You've been making a number of changes to
Template:Republic of China infobox that were previously proposed, rejected, re-inserted, reverted as vandalism, and so on. The current consensus is to base the statistics on the territories under the effective control of the ROC, not the territiories it claims. If you have a convincing argument why things should be done differently, please discuss it on the talk page. --
MarkSweep02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
No, my newly editing was reverted by someone immediately, so I reverted it back. Where is the consensus? The section "The territory of ROC" in Talk page doesn't seem to be any consensus.
Rocbot03:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What an insult? If you disagree with any opinion, just make your point at the Talk page. I just add my opinion in the "The territory of ROC." Not to threaten madly here.
Rocbot03:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Why is my editing is vandalizing page? Please express your reason, or I'll take it as an insult and threat. --
Rocbot02:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
You've been making a number of changes to
Template:Republic of China infobox that were previously proposed, rejected, re-inserted, reverted as vandalism, and so on. The current consensus is to base the statistics on the territories under the effective control of the ROC, not the territiories it claims. If you have a convincing argument why things should be done differently, please discuss it on the talk page. --
MarkSweep02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
No, my newly editing was reverted by someone immediately, so I reverted it back. Where is the consensus? The section "The territory of ROC" in Talk page doesn't seem to be any consensus.
Rocbot03:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply
What an insult? If you disagree with any opinion, just make your point at the Talk page. I just add my opinion in the "The territory of ROC." Not to threaten madly here.
Rocbot03:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)reply