User talk:LVTW2

LVTW2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LVTW2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

June 2021

Hi LVTW2! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at List of countries by GDP (PPP) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Renat 02:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Taiwan‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

You can not say Taiwan is a country, it is an island controlled by the government of the Republic of China in Taipei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by take account of (talk • contribs) 01:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mingzhen Wu Then could you please bring your issue to the talk for general consensus? LVTW2 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you call me a socket puppet account?I just added the fact that Taiwan is not recognized by the United Nations and most countries. 梦随飞絮 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is a part of the Republic of China. You should learn the history. China is the People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the exact same discussion is happening on my talk by the same user, would appreciate comments there. Justi yaya 01:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China is my grandparents' country, I will fight for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingzhen Wu (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion of subregional sections from List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

The site is a list of countries by by GDP (PPP) per capita. Who ever told you that we need ANY section with classification of countries by geographical location here? It's completly redundant. This site should give us a straightfrward info about gdp per capita in particular countries territories. A few people? Well, I see you are the ONLY PERSON who ever defended this geoscheme on site like this. It's not "dodging attitude" like you described - it's simply shouldn't be here from the very beggining, and it hasn't been here for years. United Nations Geoscheme is not even close to a seetled standard, has so many flaws and simplifications that the one you have mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg. Including this geoscheme and rank countries by the average of the available estimates unfortunatelly transformed this site into one of the lowest quality content on Wikipiedia we can imagine. My proposition is: Just leave it without this faulty geocheme and let see many users will miss it. NeonFor (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Your recent editing history at Taiwan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Taiwan

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I see many warnings and one block notice on this page that involve your edit warring. This edit can be construed as edit warring. I'm choosing not to block you in the hope that you can find a way to edit here without engaging in edit warring. Please re-read the policies and guidelines, (espcially WP:EW and WP:BRD), so that you will be able to avoid problems going forward. If you have questions please ask. Tiderolls 12:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning behind using projections instead of estimates on the List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Just began a discussion on the talk page regarding your edits in using 2022 projections for the IMF data instead of estimates. It seems like it has been the practice to stick with the estimates and there doesn't seem to be a clear reason why you had to utilize the projections when 2022 is not even half way through. There are projections all the way up to FY 2027 - using the 'latest data available' doesn't seem to be quite reasonable here. Would like to hear your input on this on the talk page if possible. Cheers. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potential superpower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Ryan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been modified. Thanks for noting. LVTW2 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello LVTW2! Your additions to Potential superpower have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General incivility

Calling edits a vandalism and making uncivil comments like here, largely to discredit another editor violate WP:CIVIL. Don't repeat it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Tamil is official in India

In this edit at List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language, you reverted the addition of "India" as a country where Tamil is recognized as official. (Feel free to join the discussion about this on the talk page.) In your edit summary removing "Tamil" from the India list, you asked this question:

then how come other 21 languages are not listed??

I assume you meant, "why are Marathi or Gujarati or Telugu (and the others) not included in the table?" If that was your question, then I think there are two answers:

because this is a volunteer project, and no one has gotten around to adding them. Feel free to do so, yourself, if you wish.
because Marathi (et al.) is official in only one country in the world, which would mean there would be a "1" in column two of the "Marathi" row in the table, for the total world count of countries where Marathi is official. But then the table would need to be hundreds of rows long in order to be neutral, as there are more than 200 countries, and more official languages than countries.

If you want to add hundreds of rows to the table including rows for countries where the count of official languages is "1", I think you could, but I think it would make the table pretty long and maybe not as useful if you use the widgets at the top to sort the table. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you only dared to mention a few languages that have not been designated by other governments as official languages while Bengali, Nepali, or Urdu etc. are also official in other nations. Besides, I said it has to be “federal level” which means a working languages for the entire nation, not just national language or regional language, those are in different definition in legal aspects. Even the main article of India does not endorse your claim about all 22 languages being “official languages” at federal level, and listed as “state level”. You should alter the contents over the main subject before making change to the list. LVTW2 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GDP PPP per capita

Hey we use data from the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF does not have economic data for Monaco and Liechtenstein. In fact, they are not included in the IMF's reports and there is no information about them at all due to time and period. Therefore they cannot be generalized. If we use data from the International Monetary Fund, we should follow them. It is impossible to put them in a list that has no data on them, and that they are not included in the IMF list at all. It is true that Monaco and Liechtenstein are not territories, but they cannot be included in the ranking when they do not appear at all with the IMF. If our source is the IMF, we should rely on its information. Fun71528 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to talk quick!

Look out for User:Bagkbret who had vandalized Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu articles. They are not labeled as "Taiwan". -76.68.77.79 (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China maritime neighbors

I believe your view that Taiwan is not prominently mentioned as sharing a maritime boundary with China is justified. China's releveant section does not mention Taiwan, and neither does the source article for that section. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to involve in that issue anymore, the emphasis on Taiwan in the lede is odd despite plenty of countries also sharing long maritime borders with China which were not mentioned, but I just want to bring up the response about why they Mede this, if other editors think it’s OK then I’m fine. LVTW2 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan has the distinction of sharing a narrow maritime border (boundary) without sharing a land border. All of the other countries that share narrow maritime borders with China simultaneously share land borders with China, making that information generally redundant. Taiwan is the ONLY country that shares a narrow maritime border with China whilst simultaneously not sharing a land border. Obviously, Taiwan is a disputed/de facto state, meaning that this narrow maritime border is in-itself disputed (China effectively views it as an internal border or even non-existent, considering that it views Kinmen and Matsu as parts of Fujian Province; nonetheless, the border between Kinmen and Penghu, which is wider but still relatively narrow, would be regarded by the PRC as China's internal border between Fujian and Taiwan). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Citation Needed" template

At the article about Taiwan, you have several times removed a "Citation Needed" template that has been placed adjacent to information that is (1) uncited and (2) bold (i.e. asserting a strong claim). Given that the information has been marked for needing a citation, it is imperative that the template remain in place until relevant/reliable/sufficient citations are added to support the bold information. Removing the "Citation Needed" template repeatedly is not conducive to improving the academic quality of the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Telephone numbers in Taiwan" needs more help

Hi! The article needs corrections, both grammatically and orthographically. Can you help? Thanks! Note: I am not Taiwanese nor anglophone. [P.S.: are you Anje, owner of Gizmo and Simba, from the YouTube channel LVTW?] Gondolabúrguer (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what assistance in which parts of contents you need to improve? otherwise it seems like you only want someone to do copy-editing, not someone expertising in knowledge about Taiwan-related topics LVTW2 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Korean IP on Global North and Global South

There is a long-term disruptive IP, 117.53.77.84, who is most likely a Korean far-right ultranationalist, that's constantly removing mentions of Singapore and Taiwan (and other like-minded nations/territories like Hong Kong and Macau) from the article despite the fact that they are within the criteria, sources and the map. This same IP has also tried to question Taiwan's status as a developed country on the Taiwan talk page. You seem to have already encountered with this editor before back in January, reverting them, but they haven't stopped since. I have reverted them now but I won't be surprised if they reverted me back. I think this article needs to be more closely watched. 160.86.167.2 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Taiwan, ROC and PRC

First of all, I have to admit that the Republic of China is a fact, but the Republic of China is a country and cannot represent Taiwan as a country. According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, Taiwan is a region under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China, and Taiwan is only an island. The actual jurisdiction of the Republic of China includes Taiwan and Kinmen & Matsu on the mainland, and the mainland is also a part of the Republic of China, It corresponds to the other side's statement that "Taiwan is part of China", so Taiwan cannot be the abbreviation of the Republic of China. In addition, if Taiwan is an independent country, why is it called the "Republic of China"? Why not call it the "Republic of Taiwan"? Why would Taiwan have the Mainland Affairs Council instead of directly establishing diplomatic relations with China? Why can people from other countries use passports to come to Taiwan while China can only use the Taiwan entry permit? Why did the President of Taiwan swear to Sun Yat-sen (Sun Yat-sen is also Chinese)? Why would Taiwan use the flag of the Republic of China? Before the establishment of PRC, it was also ROC. Could it be that the whole of China was Taiwan? This shows that the two sides belong to the same country, and the PRC is only a regime of ROC, just as the other side believes that ROC is a regime of PRC, regardless of the outcome, it is China, regardless of each other. It can only be said that China now has two regimes of PRC and ROC. 58.176.1.159 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tricameral parliament section removed by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct

I am inviting you to discuss at Talk:List of legislatures by number of members#Republic of China to help about the removal of the ROC section. 76.68.77.224 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]