User talk:Chilee0222

March 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Taipei. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.. Per Wikipedia policy, "Republic of China" is to be used in political contexts (...is a municipality of the...), "Taiwan" in a geographical context. For more, read this page. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Taipei. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Are you deaf? -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * how am I deaf if you didn't "talk" to me? Regarding the San Francisco Treaty, it's all history facts, why can't I add it on the page sir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilee0222 (talk • contribs)
 * by not responding to me in either an edit summary or here, and instead continuing to edit like you were, you were acting as if you did not heed my warnings (explains the deaf part).
 * WP:TRUTH...what is the truth to one side may not be the truth for another. Your addition of the SF Treaty was unsourced and editorialising ("ironic"). -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My bad I didn't see your warning the first time, I'm new. How about I rephrase it with no personal opinion by using word like "ironically", would that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilee0222 (talk • contribs)


 * No. It is still your own unsourced interpretation of the text of the Peace Treaty, which is not tolerated under Wikipedia policy. Neither representatives of Mao Zedong nor Jiang Jieshi attended the talks in San Francisco, so the treaty does NOT specify which government has legitimate control of areas (not in mainland China) that Imperial Japan took from China. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Treaty
 * It says 48 nations signed the treaty, and only 2 of them you said did not sign. Majority VS. Minority, what do you say?
 * The majority is not always right, and if you read the article very clearly, it says "Neither the Republic of China in Taiwan nor the People's Republic of China in mainland China were invited because of the Chinese Civil War and the controversy over which government was legitimate, and as a consequence of U.S.-U.K. disagreement over the Chinese participation" -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)