User talk:Liu Tao: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:22, 20 April 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hanyu Pinyin Zhonghua Mingguo

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)[reply]

Hi there... HP in ROC

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)[reply]

Linguistics box..

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)[reply]

Aye, I do. It's how it's always been. It's the same for the other articles with linguistics boxes too, they are placed below the infobox. Liu Tao (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME THE PINYIN ARTICLE REGARDING THOSE 2 HISTORICAL FIGURES, THEN ILL ACCEPT UR POV...

SAID..

Names are names, they are proper nouns, those don't change. My Legal name is Liou Tau, but I like using the Liu Tao better. I use Liu Tao in just about every case unless I need to use my legal name. Until their official names have been changed, don't think about changing them. Liu Tao (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Great Qing of China and Empire of Japan

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.

Empire of Japan acquired the Island of Taiwan from Empire of Great Qing of China, then Empire of Japan gave it to Republic of China after WII. As China was literally slipt into 2 nations (ROC & PRC), although PRC has acquire mainland, but PRC has nothing to do with the transfer of sovereignty between Empire of Japan and Republic of China. PRC can't claim Taiwan as inheritance from ROC because ROC still still "alive".

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)[reply]

Chiang Kai-shek article

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)[reply]

state vs country

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)[reply]

I have a government textbook, you think I didn't do research? That's not how you compare a Country and State, the point is not if they're are sovereign or not. And what exactly do you mean by "sovereign"? Sovereign from what? A State in general is just a political entity that has a government to govern it. It can be basically anything, a province, a city, a county, a country. Those are all states. A Country is a country, at least that's how I've learned it.

Here's the definition from my textbook for State: A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority.

As I've said, based on this definition, a state can be just about anything. A City, a county, a province, a country, anything that has a defined territory with people with a government with the power to make laws without consent from higher authorities. A city can make its own laws, it's called city laws. A county can make its own laws, it's called county laws. A province can make its own laws, it's called provincial laws. A country can make its own laws, it's called federal laws. All of these political entities can make their own laws without having the consent of a higher power. Liu Tao (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me apologise if you have done your research. I should have been politer.

The definition of "state" in the government textbook is a general definition, but it does say a state can "enforce law without consent of any higher authority". A country like Wales cannot, as it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom. In a federation like the US, a state can also make laws without consent of any higher authority as long as the state has exclusive powers in these matters.

Sovereignty (please read the article) makes a state legitimate. And this is essentially the core issue in the disputes between the PRC and the ROC over who has the Chinese sovereignty. Under 1992 Consensus, the two Chinese governments agreed that China's sovereignty is undivided, but each government can represent to the other world that they have the Chinese sovereignty while considering the other as an illegitimate entity. That's why it is important to describe the ROC as a state, instead of just being a country.

You will note that your passport will say "issuing state" instead of "issuing country", as the term State is a much more precise and accurate term.--pyl (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty definite for me. It doesn't say anything about enforcing laws. Based on this definition, Wales is not a state, as they have to request for permission to pass laws. I'm currently re-reading the Wikipedia definitions. Apparently, these 3 terms, States, Countries, and Nations, though they are usually thought of as the same things, they are not. There is no "level" for determining States, Countries, and Nations. A territory can be a combination of any of these. So technically speaking, you're can't just replace "country" with "state". You can only add "state" into the introductory paragraph, not replace something. Liu Tao (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your own definition mentions enforcement of law.

"Here's the definition from my textbook for State: A body of people living in a defined territory who have a government with the power to make and enforce law without the consent of any higher authority."

A state's definition covers a country's. A state has everything that a country has plus sovereignty. It becomes redundant to say "state and country". But I am not into edit wars so let's sort it out here before making more changes in the main text.--pyl (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then explain Wales. Wales is not a state, they can't make their own laws without the permission of the British Parliament. Though they are not a state, they are a Country, therefore not all countries are states and not all states are countries. Liu Tao (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning only supports a correct conclusion up to "therefore not all countries are states". Your reasoning didn't explain "not all states are countries". All states are countries, plus sovereignty. It is really as simple as that. Saying "country and state" are redundant.--pyl (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, using Wales as an example. Wales is a Country, but not a State because they don't fit the definition of one. Not all States are countries either, Counties and Provinces can be States, but are not Countries. Therefor, state and country are not the same thing nor do they cover each other. Liu Tao (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all States are countries either, Counties and Provinces can be States, but are not Countries.

You are talking about states within a federation (ie sub nation-state), and that's different from this situation. You seem to have the concepts confused. The definitions offered by State, the article, already includes the definition of country, ie territory.--pyl (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same concept. A state is a state, a country is a country, they are 2 different things. It has nothing to do with a federation or not. The State article itself says that the 3 definitions of "State", "Country", and "Nation" are different and don't cover each other. Liu Tao (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But not all Countries are sovereign, therefore not all Countries are states, and States do not cover Country. I thought I've said it like 3 times already. Wales is an example, unless you of course are gonna try to say that Wales is not a country, then I'd back off. Liu Tao (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not all countries are sovereign. But the ROC is sovereign so there is no need to describe it as a country, it is a state. State covers country, but country does not cover state. A state has more than A country. Wales can only be called a country, not a state, as it doesn't have sovereignty. Once an entity is called a state, then there is an implication that it is also a country, as a state must have territory (country) in its definition.--pyl (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all states are countries either. I've told you, provinces and counties may be states as well. If they have defined territory and have the ability to make and enforce their own laws without the intervention of a higher power, they are states. Wales is not a state not because they're not "sovereign", but because they cannot make their own laws. In a federal system, like the United States, the States/Provinces are States, the Counties/Districts are States, and the Cities are States. They may not be entirely sovereign, but enough to make and enforce their own laws without the intervention of a higher power. Liu Tao (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously have got the concepts confused. Now this is an easy solution. Go search google and type "state and country" and see if anyone uses "state" in the sense you are using.--pyl (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's casual talking. It's not formal and distinct. I see things based on True and False. Something either is or is not. What I know is that a not all States are Countries, and not all Countries are States, therefore Countries and States are different things and cannot take the place of each other however similar and synonymously they are used. I don't care what other people say, I just know what the facts are and how to compile then. I don't have the concepts confused, it's simply simple logic of true and falses and if then elses. Liu Tao (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei

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)[reply]

The Captial of Republic of China

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)[reply]

That is not the problem. The problem is that in order to change it back to Nanking, you must show official documents that the ROC government has declared Nanking as their Official Capital, otherwise we won't accept the change. This letter isn't considered "official", by official, I mean it's declared by the government and that it's become law, not just by an official. We had people read the constitution multiple times, and we could not find anything that says that the Capital is Nanking. The original 1947 constitution did state that the capital is Nanking, but when the Constitution was revised, it was taken out. Only thing we have left to go on was the ROC yearbook that states the Capital is Taipei. Besides, this letter is from 1998, the source we're currently going by is from 2003, meaning the Taipei source is more current and updated. Liu Tao (talk)

Answer toLiu Tao (talk)

我首先聲明:該信件來自于中華民囯内政部，原信件是由中華民囯行政院轉交内政部處理，因此是政府言論，完全可信。
“98年”乃指“民囯九十八年”也就是2009年，此信在2009年4月13日由地政司處理完畢，因此，我的是最新資料。
1946年制宪之后，按照宪法实施之准备程序，旧有法律与宪法抵触者无效，但国民政府宣言定都于南京并未与宪法抵触（訓政時期約法將南京定位首都），所以仍然有效。
你可以查閲中文維基就此問題，各方已達共識。
並且，你付上的注釋，鏈接錯誤，不是說明的資料。並且，我也沒找到所謂“Yearbook 2003”。所以請您重新提供資料。否則，我將申請保護該條目保護，並建立討論。

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)[reply]

Hmmm... you better be sure about this... But is it possible for you make a link? You can't just copy and paste an e-mail message, you have to make it so that others can have access to the message somehow or they'd think you're making it up. Liu Tao (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

如果你不相信，你可以親自致信内政部部長信箱詢問，也可以聯絡本案聯絡人員，電話號碼也有，你可以去問啊，不要總是堅持一個錯誤觀點，並且我也沒找到政府關於中華民囯首都在臺北的任何文件。Huang Sir (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't believe you, I want to believe you, but you don't have actual evidence. Nobody's going to believe you if you can't "prove" that you really got the message from the government. If nobody believes you, you wouldn't be allowed to change the Capital from Taipei to Nanjing. Liu Tao (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

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)[reply]

Hello

this guy User:Taiwanrox8 have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need stop this guy, thank you.

@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 == April 2009 ==
 [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Taiwan|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Taiwan]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> &mdash;/[[User:Mendaliv|<b>M</b><small>endaliv</small>]]/<sup><small>[[User talk:Mendaliv|2¢]]</small></sup>/<sub><small>[[Special:Contributions/Mendaliv|Δ's]]</small></sub>/ 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
+== Hello ==
+this guy [[User:Taiwanrox8]] have Vandalism a lot of article, i think you need stop this guy, thank you.