Horse Eye's Back (talk | contribs) |
Mickie-Mickie (talk | contribs) →Ownership issues...: Reply an accusation |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
{{Ping|Mickie-Mickie}} your edit warring over what appear to be appropriate tags would demonstrate that your ownership issues with this page have not abated... We don't seek the truth, see [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
{{Ping|Mickie-Mickie}} your edit warring over what appear to be appropriate tags would demonstrate that your ownership issues with this page have not abated... We don't seek the truth, see [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Ping|Horse Eye's Back}} Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "'''''We don't seek the truth'''''" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either. [[User:Mickie-Mickie|Mickie-Mickie]] ([[User talk:Mickie-Mickie|talk]]) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:13, 6 March 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Potato Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit required
This article suffers from poor English. It urgently requires an edit.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly, Wikipedia is an open resource. Your statements in this comment are concerning, Mickie-Mickie. I sympathize with your motivations, but Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX. "The process of research and edits are to seek the truth", "every clue is open to exam", "filling in the missing link in history" raise concerns based in Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I will also add: with all due respect, and no intention to insult you, but your English is very difficult to understand for me as a native English speaker. I came to this article because I was interested to learn about the subject, but I found about half of the article nearly incomprehensible due to the quality of the English. Normally, I would simply fix any mistakes, but it's honestly very difficult to comprehend what you were intending to say, so I wouldn't know where to start with fixing it. Perhaps a good starting point would be for you to explain what you meant to say in the article in your native language, and someone can help improve the translation quality.
- Good morning, Unsigned anonymous account, Welcome to Wikipedia! You have put the comment on the wrong topic area, so hereby reposition it to the right place to reply:
1. The linguistic quality of article has been a known issue already raised by Royalcourtier since 30, May, 2017 for more improvement contribution. Please feel free to make literature correction for the article or follow up in the topic by all means, however mass deletion on 48 entries of legal references and making comment on the wrong topic with no input after all makes no sense.
2. This article was created by Qrfqr his excellency on 5 August 2013, followed by over 270 edits from 70 more editors' contribution so far, clearly not written by one person's style like mine as you assumed. I simply added a large portion of historical data with references to the existing structure with previous editors' inputs before. Please kindly check on the "View history" tab to see the edits' details before making your assumption.
3. Playing the racism card and launching personal attacks do not work in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is not a place for intelligence warfare. Please behave and respect yourself, thanks. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Taiwan's lack of refugee law
"Over 100 years after its establishment in 1911, Republic of China still doesn't have the Refugee Law today."
Taiwan does posses laws surrounding the treatments of refugees, eg. Art. 19 of the 1999 Immigration Act https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=D0080132
http://aprrn.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Taiwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.145.241 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The 1999 Act applies to the regular immigration applicant, not for the refugees and the Stateless people as the UN Refugee Convention defines. The real Refugee Act of Taiwan ( https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%A3%E6%B0%91%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88 ) was rejected in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020, and several cases such as Kurds have been repatriated back against the international refugee law in 2013 and 2019 -- Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie
Ownership issues...
@Mickie-Mickie: I think you need to review WP:OWN. This. Is. Not. Your. Page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Dear HorseEye's Back, Wikipedia is an open resource, hence nobody claims the ownership on any article here. Please don't put your words on other people's mouths as in your talk page, or in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion before. The entire process of research and edits are to seek the truth whereas the public has the right to know, particularly when the evidences were systematically destroyed and the witnesses were silenced as dead people can't talk with 30 years of denial, ignorance and lies to forge a fake hero prestige covering fascism and protecting privileges till the military literature award still cheating the public last autumn... Every clue of intelligence and forensics is open to exam, and you are surely welcome to join in filling the missing link in history at any time of your preference. However dictating a simplified "gold rule" to eliminate reference unprofessionally against the freedom of media with a hidden agenda in another 30 years will not be possible. We were nobody but little servicemen simply let people know what happened to prevent the history repeating by any excuse again. Thanks for your attention, and hope you have a good day! Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mickie-Mickie: your edit warring over what appear to be appropriate tags would demonstrate that your ownership issues with this page have not abated... We don't seek the truth, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "We don't seek the truth" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)