User talk:ILVTW

Welcome!

Hello, ILVTW, 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!

Dan Beale-Cocks 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled vs Governed regarding Republic of China

I don't really object to using "governed" instead of controlled; in fact I think it is a bit more precise. I originally put "controlled" simply to avoid too much repitition of the word "governed". I'm curious though, what are the other meanings of "controlled" that you're concerned about?Readin (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the ROC with "Taiwan"

Hello. I noticed in your editing history that you changed the name of a country from the ROC to Taiwan. One example is that in the ROC article you added "Taiwan" to infer that it is an interchangeable term for the ROC on 1 September 2008.

I accept that Taiwan is a common term for the ROC but it is not an interchangeable term. I believe it is accepted in wikipedia that Taiwan is a general geographic term and the name of the country is the ROC.

To date, there are no law or official papers from the government in Taiwan to call the official name of the country simply "Taiwan". I accept that when most readers read the ROC they will be confused into thinking about the PRC. I, therefore, support that we should qualify that ROC is commonly known as "Taiwan". But I don't think it is appropriate to replace the ROC with "Taiwan" when the context is about the name of a country.

Also, please don't make such edits as minor, like what you did during the 1 Sep 2008 ROC edit. This act can be objectionable.--Pyl (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and China

And POV You wrote "ROC doesn't represent the state of China~ Could you dicuss first within my talking page??" To say that the ROC doesn't represent the state of China breaks the policy of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia has no interest in which, if either or both, Chinese states are China. The only thing that matters is that both the PRC and the ROC claim that Taiwan is a part of China. Consequently, almost any category of "X in Taiwan" will necessarily be a subset of "X in China." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding (Taiwan) to templates

Most readers read the ROC they will be confused into thinking about the PRC. therefore,It's necessary that we should qualify ROC plus (Taiwan)~! In addition, most of contents in this Template describe as Taiwan in chief~ not only politic!

This is just a web-encyclopedia,The main purpose should made readers to be clear about the matter for this subject. we should stand by an angle of vision for some readers who might disunderstand, not only to edit by your own position, but also have misgiving about other readers

Thanks for the message. I understand the situation and discussions have been conducted in Template talk:Politics of the Republic of China#Do_we_need_.28Taiwan.29_for_this_template.3F. I think I cited the discussion in the summary as well. Please understand that I didn't remove the (Taiwan) because of my personal political position.

There is really no likelihood of confusion because the templates also sit at the bottom of the article. According to the Chinese naming convention, (Taiwan) generally only needs to be mentioned once in order to let the users know that the ROC is not the PRC. So the job would be done by the article itself, not by the template.

Also, there are situations where the template will be used for matter exclusively before 1949, when the ROC controlled the whole of China. A template remarking (Taiwan) will be in conflict with that article. If you have further queries, please read the discussion or message me back. Hope that helps with the clarification. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somone is trying to set a guideline that Wiki can state that Taiwan is part of China.

You might want to look at the discussion under Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references. It may interest you. Readin (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Greater China.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Greater China.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits and reverts

Hello! Your recent edits to a number of pages have piqued my interest. It is important that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions, which apply to controversial areas (like China) where a neutral tone must be kept.

The redirect page Taiwan, Province of China is a neutral term used to refer to Taiwan, which can be a province of the PRC or the ROC. Redirecting it (as you did here) to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is biased.
Lists of states by their GDP (nominal, PPP) have always listed the ROC as "China, Republic of (Taiwan)". That adheres to WP:NC-TW, and was agreed upon by editors here and here.

If you feel strongly about making these changes, please propose them on the relevant talk pages and get a consensus from other editors.

Please also note that the great majority of your edits have been incorrectly marked as 'minor'. See WP:MINOR for the cases where this tag is appropriate.

Night w (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Dynasty

How do you think Liao Dynasty is a state in Korean history? It invaded the Korean Goryeo Dynasty, and the latter defeated the Liao's invasions. Just wondering. --173.206.93.172 (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New map: Good job

Good job on the new map! Much better than the arrow version. --Mistakefinder (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is my preasure, I'd like to reform this image for a long time.--ILVTW (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan "disambiguation" or lead

Can you please explain what you mean by "the state which mainly settles in Taiwan?" The statement does not make sense to me. The alternative wording is "the state governing it [Taiwan]." What are you trying to convey with the first wording that the second does not? Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itu Aba Island

WP:NC-TW as you cited specifies that the government is called ROC, not Taiwan. I note that you have been confused by this a couple of times, so please allow me to put it in Chinese for you (since you said that you are mainly a Chinese editor). WP:NC-TW 說當你要說政府時，用"中華民國政府"，而不是"臺灣政府"。而當你要說地點時說"臺灣" ，而不是"中華民國"。

We are dealing with governments in this article, so Republic of China is the correct form, not Taiwan.

Thanks.--pyl (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are able to understand Chinese, and I write my reply in chinese below... 在英文版中，單純用ROC容易造成混淆～這不僅有違中立作法，有偏向zh:兩個中國或zh:兩岸一中的意識型態傾向，並且也不符合現今ROC僅限於台灣地區的現實。而且在此條目中是指整個"國家"，而並非指政府單位，希望您不要混淆這兩者。

Thank you for your notice--ILVTW (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Currently, the country is also called the "Republic of China", as is the constitution. The ROC is explained as "commonly known as Taiwan" (so it is not "單純用ROC") in the article, so there won't be any confusions.

All of the above is specified by WP:NC-TW, as you quoted. I would like to follow the convention. If you think this convention is not correct, please discuss there.--pyl (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC-TW says:-

[Use Republic of China] When referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given.

[Use Republic of China (Taiwan)] When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (eg. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)".

[Use Taiwan]

-When identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan (eg. "Kaohsiung is a large city on the southern coast of Taiwan.")

-When identifying a birthplace or origin in the context of a geographical location (eg. "Lee Teng-hui was born in Sanchih, Taipei County, Taiwan.")

-When referring to an article or subject specific to the island of Taiwan (eg. Culture of Taiwan, Rail transport in Taiwan)

This article in question is clearly not about a geographical location. We are dealing with the state (including government, country).

Hope that clarifies the situation.--pyl (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the ROC

"This topic obviously refers to "Geography", not the "islands". Please do not put your personal political notion into your edit". Well then, re-directing to Geography of TW will imply that ROC and TW are the same, when they are not. Also, even if re-directing to the islands list causes a blur between geography and islands (geographical information on the islands, which form the ROC, can be found on the articles, you know), it is the less worse option compared to re-directing to Geography of Taiwan. This is not about politics, dear; it is about upholding policy as stated at WP:NC-ZH#Political NPOV

File:Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg

May I know whether or not Wuchiu was left out in this map? Thanks. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'control' instead of 'administer'?

Why did you make these changes? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but please consider 1. not changing contentious things if they don't matter (because such changes often start pointless edit wars) and 2. using edit summaries to explain why you do things. Thanks. (I can speak Chinese, so feel free to respond in Chinese if you're not comfortable with English.) wctaiwan (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using "control" rather "administration" only because it reflects the actual rule over the area, "administration" is kinda regarded as official governing by the country. However in this case the ROC proclaims all the area over south China sea islands, so the word "control" is in favour with above factors. --ILVTW (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I said, I don't feel strongly either way. Do consider explaining in edit summaries for the benefit of other editors though. Thanks! wctaiwan (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would do it next time... though, thank for your concern.--ILVTW (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Taiwan link

See the new thread at Talk:China. GotR ^Talk 05:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not go babbling in an edit summary with "Please remain POV point for your edit on wikipedia"—that refers to ALL of my edits here on Wikipedia and is a clear accusation of conflict of interest. If you continue, you will only be destroying any good perception of you that I may have once had. GotR ^Talk 05:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you like to do? block me? you does not have authority to push your own willing against other editors without discussion--ILVTW (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not stuff words into my mouth. YOU are the one who began this ordeal, by failing to explain your removal in the first place. It is up to YOU to adequately challenge the status quo. GotR ^Talk 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented my feedback over this controverse for my previous editing change , therefore it is fair enough to keep discussing in order to built our consensus... does not mean that I "began" the ordeal as an unrelevant information already been shown under this topic--ILVTW (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not change the fact that you were the first person since September 2011 to remove the link, thereby initiating this conflict. GotR ^Talk 06:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan page and English phrasing

Please see this section. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit is neither minor, despite being marked as such, nor is it a "polish" - by contrast, with this and other editing to the lead, you're mucking around with perfectly decent existing content, but changing it so it no longer reads as good English. Please stop. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands

I reverted your change to Senkaku Islands, as I believe that the current ordering more accurately matches the sources we currently have and thus better represents the overall situation. However, I (and I assume other editors) are willing to discuss the matter, so feel free to open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Please do note that the article is under discretionary sanctions, which basically means that you can't now revert back, as all changes need to be shown to have consensus. But, like I said, I'm happy to discuss the matter and could possibly be persuaded. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Water

My apologies. It seems Pub. 161 isn't the source of my information. I guess I need to search harder. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taipei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special municipality. 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) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits of Taiwan page

I reverted some of your recent edits of the Taiwan article, due to grammatical and syntactic errors in your edits. It was easier to revert than to try to fix your errors. If you still want to make these changes, please discuss on the talk page so that I and other editors may understand what you're trying to accomplish, and help you to do so. Phlar (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ILVTW. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ILVTW. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ILVTW. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]