Chadsnook

Welcome

Since you haven't received a greeting yet...

Welcome...

Hello, Chadsnook, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! +A.0u 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chadsnook (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Return" of Taiwan to "China" by Japan.

On the Talk:One-China policy Hmortar 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 surrendering troops is the same as returning the island, etc. are much disputed.

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 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. Hmortar (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Readin (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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). Chadsnook (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there..

R u somehow related to china or taiwan? Gumuhua (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I appreciate that.

I can't help but noticing that there is a quote by User:Hmortar on your talk page in the above section. For some reason, User:Hmortar is here on Wikipedia 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 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.

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 any government as a "Chinese government in exile" or a "Taiwanese government".--pyl (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Tibet, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). 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. Gimme danger (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad habit i always mark my edit minor, for the first year i edited on Wikipedia, I did not do any editing other than minor edits, I will change that habit. Chadsnook (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. I just noticed and thought I'd let you know. Welcome to WikiProject Tibet, by the way. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Chadsnook (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Chadsnook. You have new messages at Gimme danger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mencius

Hi, where did Mencius refer to dog meat in this treatise? I did a search and cannot find it (though he mentions dogs as servants to humans in several chapters). Badagnani (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, In Chapter 1, in the verse that the third time number 4 shows up, the line that starts with "Let mulberry trees be planted...", the second sentence: "In keeping fowls, pigs, dogs, and swine, let not their times of breeding be neglected, and persons of seventy years may eat flesh. ". Chadsnook (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dzungar people

I totally agree with the changes. Thanks, Chadsnook 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 something I was reading at the time. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

I just wanted to remind you not to label good faith edits as vandalism, as you did here. 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, Gimme danger (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but I disagree it was a good faith edit.

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 Wikipedia and have insufficient knowledge or research in some areas he attempted to edit, which i don't mind explaining 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 Wikipedia. It does compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

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 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.

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, 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 Wikipedia, # 3, The "wiki process" and discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism for all content.

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 edit.

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 already rejected by other editors, i found it reasonable to call such edits Vandalism. Chadsnook (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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 clearly be critical for the preservation of future generations. Or something like that.)

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 vandalism policy, 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 Tibet.

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 Wikipedia? 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 information should probably be on the Tibet article or perhaps one of the upper-level Tibet articles like Tibetan sovereignty debate. (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, Gimme danger (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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. ROC's claim over Tibet, 2. ROC and PRC both regard Tibet as a part of China 3. territory dispute of South Tibet. 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.

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 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.

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 discussion. There is no excuse to violate this rule anymore. Chadsnook (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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 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? :-) --Gimme danger (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards of where to put ROC's claim in Tibet, 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. Chadsnook (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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 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 Tibet 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 can.

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 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. Chadsnook (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tibet on South Asia

Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute

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 following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. 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 Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon 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 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. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge 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 The Africa Destubathon, 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 The North America Destubathon 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. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)