690:
in the article. In regards of ROC's claim, I think it's more clear to do a "Territorial claims" section and it might be helpful in other things. Sometimes the name "Tibet" in this article seem to be defined as
Tibetan areas defined by the CTA and only talks about these areas, some other times, it seems that the article is defined and tries to talk about a broad topic of all areas influenced by Tibetan culture, but when it comes to the detailed sections, it talks very little about Tibetan culture area outside of China, but they seem to be assumed as "Tibet" as well in this article. I understand the article's main focus is Tibet area administrated by China, but i get confused whether other areas influenced by Tibetan culture is covered by this article or not. May be a territorial claim section can be helpful in clear that out. There is another thing, Bertport mentioned on the talk page that the article being too long, maybe that's something we should keep in mind too.
574:
of "confused about policy or even just being disrespectful", as I said above, I don't mind explaining to him of what I know. I called it
Vandalism because of his attempt to remove information with references from the article using invalid reasons or reasons that have been rejected as a result of discussion on the talk page. If he never saw those discussion on talk page about "ROC's claim over Taiwan" and he deleted those information with a reason "Taiwan doesn't belong in the lede", although misleading, I would certainly have not called it vandalism. But when it is clear he participated in the discussion and he did not oppose to the conclusion that "ROC's claim should not be removed from the article completely", but he still went ahead and removed them with a reason that is invalid to justify the removal. That edit does fit into the category of blanking.
136:
customary laws of warfare is the "conqueror," and that is the United States of
America. Hence, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, the position of the ROC in Taiwan is merely "subordinate occupying power." Then in mid-December 1949 the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan to become a government in exile. CONCLUSIONS: (a) The ROC is neither a legitimate government for mainland China nor for Taiwan. (b) Taiwan is not part of Chinese territory. (c) the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China.
640:, I don't see a very good place in the current format. ROC's continued claim is an important fact to mention, but it's not that important in reality. It seems to me that most articles dealing with disputed areas put all govts' claim in the lede. That's probably why right now ROC's claim is in the lede but only has one sentence. We can work on the citation. I think it's good to keep ROC's claim short, may be we can use a couple sentence to clear out some confusion in the citation section.
318:
511:, is definitely not vandalism, since it could be attributed to a good faith effort by the contributing editor. Being confused about policy or even just being disrespectful doesn't make an editor a vandal. Assume good faith is as much of a core policy as the wiki process and, to me, it definitely seems like Kauffner is acting in good faith and thought that his edit would improve the lede section of
832:. 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
245:
462:
himself was involved in the discussion) (other similar behavior by him were also done in the lede part). This is not only a disrespect to other editors' work, this violate the
Founding principles of Knowledge (XXG), # 3, The "wiki process" and discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism for all content.
836:. 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
655:
That explanation makes sense; it seems like often important information that otherwise doesn't fit in an article gets stuck into lede sections. I agree that the ROC's claim needs to be at least mentioned. I have two thoughts; one is to work a mention of the ROC/PRC divide into the history section and
524:
Somewhat off topic, but related: since you seem very interested in ROC issues, could you have a think on where to put any material relating to the ROC claim to Tibet on
Knowledge (XXG)? I think at some point there ought to be a full on article devoted to the issue, but for the time being this type of
689:
I really support your idea that to make sure all material that needs to be covered is done so properly. "Since what constitutes Tibet is a matter of much debate", this makes it particularly harder to do for this article than for most other articles, but I am glad to have noticed a lot of improvement
614:
Ah, I can see your position much more clearly now, I think. Thank you for explaining. Perhaps he did not realize that he was removing the content from the article entirely or intended to put it back later. Or maybe he was just being a jerk. It might be constructive, since both of you are established
551:
His edit summary was "Taiwan doesn't belong in lede", but instead of moving them out from the lede to somewhere else in the article, what he really did was removing the whole information and their references completely from the article. Furthermore, of the three pieces of information he removed, 1.
449:
Actually, if you check the talk page of Tibet, under the topic # 29 Lede and # 31 claimed by a certain island, not only was
Kauffner not clear about some fundamental rules of Knowledge (XXG) and have insufficient knowledge or research in some areas he attempted to edit, which i don't mind explaining
402:
for picking this up, and apologies for my original mistake. I think "East
Turkestan" was a somewhat fluid name in regards to what territory it covered - but it certainly does not seem to be appropriate here. I can't remember where I took it from - but it looks like I just repeated the statement from
219:
is here on
Knowledge (XXG) to constantly inserting that POV in articles. Some insertions are appropriate, as they give a fuller picture of Taiwan's status. Others, in my view however, are not. It is certainly a POV, but that POV is not considered to be in the mainstream, not even amongest the Taiwan
674:
Thank you for your understanding. I don't have any problem with any editor, it's just happened that ever since i started working on this article about 10 months ago, I had to edit more on
Kauffner's edits than other editors. After i did it for the first few times, in order not to discourage anybody
573:
Therefore, I thought his edit violated the first rule of
Vandalism -- Blanking, where "referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." That's why i considered it as a Vandalism. I am certainly not accusing him of Vandalism because
223:
Also, you are corrected that the ROC government is recognised by 23 countries as a Chinese government, while a majority of countries in the world recognise the PRC as the Chinese government and consider the ROC government the "Taiwan authority". In any event, the ROC government is not recognised by
168:
ok, he really did not explain that well, I had to do a lot of research myself to understand it =) However, ROC is the de facto government of Taiwan, which is really what matter at the end of the day, and it does self recognize as China and it is widely recognized as a Chinese government (in exile).
461:
Furthermore, this is not the first time he edit something, reverted by someone else with reasons, sometimes with detailed discussion on the talk page, then weeks later, he came back do the same edit again ignoring all the discussions left on the edit history or discussion page (as mentioned above,
840:
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
560:. The first one can be considered "Taiwan", the second and third are not just "Taiwan". This edit summary does not reflect the edit in the first place, and the reason for the removal was rejected on the talk page in the past, or, at least that's what it looked like when the discussion ended there.
473:
In the past, i always explain it patiently whenever i eidt any of Kauffner's edits or discuss with him on talk page. However, when it comes to same old things we have discussed on the talk page just a few weeks ago, if he cannot provide new reasons for his edit except using old reasons which were
127:
gave a nice concise explanation of another POV on Taiwan's status following WWII. There are still other ways of looking at it. What is clear is that the ROC took control. Whether it was legitimate for the ROC to maintain control rather than following UN principles of self-determination, whether
529:. (I would hesitate to add more than a sentence to Tibet, since it's so long right now.) I don't know enough about the whole situation to even suggest a good place to slide that in, but it has to be in the body of the article somewhere, citations in the lede being poor practice and all. Cheers,
135:
The One China Policy is easily explained by realizing that under international law, the Oct. 25, 1945 surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops in Taiwan only marked the beginning of Taiwan's military occupation (there was no transfer of sovereignty on that date.) The "occupying power" under the
587:
It is always possible and understandable editors edited something using invalid reasons, and as a fellow editor, i always assume good faith, but through discussion, when it is explained on the talk page that why these reasons are invalid, especially after he stopped offering more points in the
455:
In regarding to that specific edit of his that i reverted. If you check the editing history, within a page or two, he did similar things where he edited materials ignoring the discussion on the talk page. eg. a few editors were involved in this discussion about "ROC's claim over Tibet", i gave
220:
independenence supporters. No mainsteam pro independence media in Taiwan has seriously taken the POV that Taiwan is a US territory, and the Taiwanese should be US nationals. In my view, that POV is worth noting and respected where appropriate, but I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it.
456:
information why it should stay in the article even if not in the lede, Kauffner could not provide reasons why they should be removed, so he left the discussion. A few weeks later, he came back and did the editing acting like he did not see the discussion even though he was involved in it.
467:
I find it very similar with the behavior of Ptr123 when he edited the Geography part of Tibet where he ignored other editors' discussions and comes back in a few weeks do the same edit he does, he was accused of Vandalism several times, well, at least he provided new reasons when he
675:
by reverting them too often and avoiding conflicts, I actually tried to stay away from debate with him even when I disagreed with some of his ideas on talk page. Luckily, there were other editors who discussed with him to sort things out. I think it's perfectly fine editors of
256:). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you.
659:
Right now, I'm not particularly concerned with what goes into the lede, since I think that the Tibet article is still at an early stage of development. I think it's more of a concern to make sure that all the material that needs to be covered is done so properly.
679:
choose to support Dharamsala or Beijing, but I try not to let my own political preference (which is quite complicated on this topic) and that of other editors' to affect the neutrality of the article, and I try to be fair and patient as much as I
492:
I appreciate your explanation of your point of view. (Also thank you for moving the discussion back here. My pack rat/librarian tendencies show themselves worst in discussion threads, which must be kept organized because they will
880:
to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers.
450:
to him, he repeatedly ignores discussions that he was involved in on the talk page, which should not be tolerated especially considering he is not new on Knowledge (XXG). It does compromise the integrity of Knowledge (XXG).
506:
I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of the situation, but I certainly know how frustrating it is to deal with editors that I see as not playing fairly or by the rules. At any rate, the edit in question, by our
877:
781:. 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
615:
editors and make important contributions to the 'pedia, to try and clear up what seems to me to be a conflict between the two of you. Tibet-related issues are contentious enough, you know what I mean? :-) --
656:
insert ROC's claim there. We also could do a "Territorial claims" section or something like that and do a summary of the Tibet sovereignty debate article, which contains a lot of discussion of ROC claims.
742:
As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the
31:
873:
837:
865:
829:
876:, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as
821:
271:
It's a bad habit i always mark my edit minor, for the first year i edited on Knowledge (XXG), I did not do any editing other than minor edits, I will change that habit.
872:
for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like
848:
74:
841:
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. --
833:
886:
806:
426:. I'm assuming that you're using a tool like twinkle to generate an automatic edit summary, but please be aware of what those say. Cheers,
331:
869:
825:
374:
In keeping fowls, pigs, dogs, and swine, let not their times of breeding be neglected, and persons of seventy years may eat flesh.
77:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out
62:
882:
802:
35:
52:
285:
Don't worry too much about it. I just noticed and thought I'd let you know. Welcome to WikiProject Tibet, by the way. --
793:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
67:
842:
798:
526:
47:
42:
743:
728:
665:
620:
534:
525:
information should probably be on the Tibet article or perhaps one of the upper-level Tibet articles like
431:
368:
Hello there, In Chapter 1, in the verse that the third time number 4 shows up, the line that starts with "
324:
317:
290:
261:
794:
724:
353:? I did a search and cannot find it (though he mentions dogs as servants to humans in several chapters).
78:
719:. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on
121:
770:
761:
408:
358:
790:
774:
216:
212:
137:
124:
38:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
751:
661:
616:
530:
427:
286:
257:
194:
141:
786:
778:
508:
158:
789:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
782:
720:
253:
691:
641:
589:
475:
474:
already rejected by other editors, i found it reasonable to call such edits Vandalism.
404:
399:
392:
377:
354:
302:
272:
170:
101:
747:
229:
57:
422:
I just wanted to remind you not to label good faith edits as vandalism, as you did
190:
128:
surrendering troops is the same as returning the island, etc. are much disputed.
350:
738:
South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute
557:
497:
be critical for the preservation of future generations. Or something like that.)
224:
any government as a "Chinese government in exile" or a "Taiwanese government".--
154:
716:
709:
89:
715:
Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in
225:
244:
890:
854:
810:
777:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
755:
732:
699:
669:
649:
624:
597:
538:
483:
435:
412:
385:
362:
346:
339:
310:
294:
280:
265:
233:
198:
178:
162:
145:
109:
94:
552:
ROC's claim over Tibet, 2. ROC and PRC both regard Tibet as a part of
676:
637:
553:
512:
249:
444:
Thanks for the reminder, but I disagree it was a good faith edit.
248:
Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to
252:, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see
85:
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
588:
discussion. There is no excuse to violate this rule anymore.
334:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
316:
208:
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I appreciate that.
838:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon
215:
on your talk page in the above section. For some reason,
866:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge
830:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge
423:
822:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge
211:I can't help but noticing that there is a quote by
403:something I was reading at the time. Best wishes,
769:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
824:has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland
21:Since you haven't received a greeting yet...
8:
323:Hello, Chadsnook. You have new messages at
834:Knowledge (XXG):The 1000 Challenge (Nordic)
636:In regards of where to put ROC's claim in
398:I totally agree with the changes. Thanks,
189:R u somehow related to china or taiwan?
116:"Return" of Taiwan to "China" by Japan.
7:
870:Knowledge (XXG):The 10,000 Challenge
826:Knowledge (XXG):The 10,000 Challenge
81:, ask me on my talk page, or place
48:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
14:
795:review the candidates' statements
370:Let mulberry trees be planted...
243:
860:New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
801:. For the Election committee,
771:Arbitration Committee election
762:ArbCom elections are now open!
1:
891:01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
878:The North America Destubathon
816:Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
811:17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
756:04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
386:19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
363:18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
311:21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
295:21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
281:21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
266:21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
855:01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
234:11:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
63:How to write a great article
868:is up and running based on
797:and submit your choices on
199:12:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
179:08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
163:16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
146:15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
110:18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
95:18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
32:welcome to Knowledge (XXG)!
906:
883:MediaWiki message delivery
803:MediaWiki message delivery
527:Tibetan sovereignty debate
413:22:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
700:03:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
670:00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
650:00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
625:00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
598:00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
539:22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
484:22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
436:21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
372:", the second sentence: "
79:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
733:08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
695:
645:
593:
556:3. territory dispute of
381:
325:Gimme danger's talk page
306:
276:
174:
105:
874:The Africa Destubathon
844:Ser Amantio di Nicolao
321:
30:Hello, Chadsnook, and
775:Arbitration Committee
349:refer to dog meat in
320:
122:Talk:One-China policy
779:arbitration process
850:Lo dicono a Signa.
791:arbitration policy
332:remove this notice
322:
53:How to edit a page
36:your contributions
897:
845:
509:vandalism policy
335:
247:
92:
88:
84:
905:
904:
900:
899:
898:
896:
895:
894:
862:
853:
843:
818:
799:the voting page
765:
740:
721:Talk:South Asia
713:
420:
396:
343:
336:
329:
301:Thank you :-)
254:Help:Minor edit
241:
206:
187:
118:
90:
86:
82:
68:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
903:
901:
861:
858:
847:
817:
814:
768:
764:
759:
744:following poll
739:
736:
725:Thegreyanomaly
712:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
684:
683:
682:
681:
657:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
544:
543:
542:
541:
519:
518:
517:
516:
501:
500:
499:
498:
487:
486:
470:
469:
464:
463:
458:
457:
452:
451:
446:
445:
440:
419:
416:
395:
393:Dzungar people
390:
389:
388:
345:Hi, where did
342:
337:
328:
315:
314:
313:
299:
298:
297:
240:
237:
205:
202:
186:
183:
182:
181:
152:
151:
150:
149:
117:
114:
113:
112:
75:sign your name
71:
70:
65:
60:
55:
50:
45:
34:Thank you for
24:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
902:
893:
892:
888:
884:
879:
875:
871:
867:
859:
857:
856:
852:
851:
846:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
815:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
763:
760:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
737:
735:
734:
730:
726:
723:in the past.
722:
718:
711:
707:
701:
697:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
678:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
647:
643:
639:
626:
622:
618:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
599:
595:
591:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
559:
555:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
520:
514:
510:
505:
504:
503:
502:
496:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
466:
465:
460:
459:
454:
453:
448:
447:
443:
442:
441:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
417:
415:
414:
410:
406:
401:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:this treatise
348:
341:
338:
333:
326:
319:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
239:February 2009
238:
236:
235:
231:
227:
221:
218:
214:
209:
203:
201:
200:
196:
192:
185:Hello there..
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
148:
147:
143:
139:
133:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
123:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
93:
80:
76:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
39:
37:
33:
28:
27:
22:
16:
863:
849:
819:
766:
746:. Thanks, --
741:
714:
662:Gimme danger
635:
617:Gimme danger
531:Gimme danger
494:
479:
439:
428:Gimme danger
421:
397:
373:
369:
344:
287:Gimme danger
258:Gimme danger
242:
222:
217:User:Hmortar
213:User:Hmortar
210:
207:
204:Your comment
188:
153:
134:
119:
72:
43:Introduction
29:
25:
23:
20:
558:South Tibet
787:topic bans
717:South Asia
710:South Asia
100:Thank you
83:{{helpme}}
26:Welcome...
783:site bans
708:Tibet on
692:Chadsnook
642:Chadsnook
590:Chadsnook
476:Chadsnook
405:John Hill
400:Chadsnook
378:Chadsnook
355:Badagnani
303:Chadsnook
273:Chadsnook
171:Chadsnook
102:Chadsnook
820:Hi. The
748:Pseudois
418:Reminder
330:You can
495:clearly
347:Mencius
340:Mencius
191:Gumuhua
138:Hmortar
125:Hmortar
120:On the
73:Please
17:Welcome
773:. The
155:Readin
677:Tibet
638:Tibet
554:China
513:Tibet
468:edit.
250:Tibet
887:talk
864:Hi,
828:and
807:talk
752:talk
729:talk
696:talk
680:can.
666:talk
646:talk
621:talk
594:talk
535:talk
480:talk
432:talk
424:here
409:talk
382:talk
376:".
359:talk
307:talk
291:talk
277:talk
262:talk
230:talk
195:talk
175:talk
159:talk
142:talk
106:talk
91:A.0u
58:Help
767:Hi,
226:pyl
889:)
881:--
809:)
785:,
754:)
731:)
698:)
668:)
660:--
648:)
623:)
596:)
537:)
482:)
434:)
411:)
384:)
361:)
309:)
293:)
279:)
264:)
232:)
197:)
177:)
161:)
144:)
108:)
885:(
805:(
750:(
727:(
694:(
664:(
644:(
619:(
592:(
533:(
515:.
478:(
430:(
407:(
380:(
357:(
327:.
305:(
289:(
275:(
260:(
228:(
193:(
173:(
157:(
140:(
104:(
87:+
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.