User talk:Jiang

Note: Unless you specify that you will be monitoring this page, I will respond to you on your talk page instead of mine. But if you want a speedier response or any response at all, answer on this page since I will probably forget to check yours.

POST A COMMENT

Archived versions: 18VIII03 | 21X03 | 30XII03 | 21II04 | 17IV04 | 07VI04 | 28VII04

---

Rambot

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Disambiguation_Bot_.2F_Rambot_data. -- User:Docu

Canton vs. Guangzhou

Which one is more commonly used in English, Canton or Guangzhou? --Yacht (talk) 04:39, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

UK

Whenever anyone wants to know about the nation, culture or society of United Kingdom or Britain, it is all explained on the United Kingdom page in terms of the last 200 years and more. All the esoteric nuances are explained.

Authors and editors make so many errors (e.g. suggesting that Great Britain is a member of the United Nations) that it is simpler if all general references goes to the current country article. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to link general references to the current country article, even if the country has changed territorial area.
Bobblewik 20:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The United Kingdom article is an article on the [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]. There is nothing misleading about linking to [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland] when that is the name of the state in a historical context. What is misleading is linking to [United Kingdom] when the name of the state was [Kingdom of Great Britain]. Destroying links to [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland] is almost link doing exactly that. This has nothing to do with the Great Britain vs. United Kingdom issue. It's standard practice to link to the historical entity in the proper context, eg, People's Republic of Poland as opposed to simply Poland when we speak of the communist state. --Jiang 20:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Christmas Island article referred to United Kingdom ownership from 1888 to 1958. The link that was there only covered a part of that period. The link to the United Kingdom page covers the entire period and explains the decrease in Irish territory for those that are interested. The detailed issues relating to Ireland are not important to the article about Christmas Island, but if the author wanted to refer specifically to the specialist page, then logically another link would have to be provided for the later part of the period.

I would expect to go to just the Poland page if there were a generic reference covering a period of communist and non-communist rule.

Thanks.
Bobblewik 21:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The link at First Opium War doesn't seem like a generic reference. Why should that be changed? Are you suggesting that we state the American Colonies fought a war with the United Kingdom? --Jiang 21:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The time period issue that applies with Christmas Island (i.e. up to 1958) clearly does not apply with First Opium War. However, the author had written United Kingdom in the readable text and the author explicitly states that the First Opium War was with the United Kingdom.
Bobblewik 21:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Are you saying there's something wrong with typing [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]]? Why? --Jiang 01:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not saying there is something wrong with typing [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] for a particular date range, just that [[United Kingdom]] is an improvement that suits a greater date range.

I understand that you are focussing on particular instances where the date range is appropriate. However, many of the edits that I have done have corrected text where the date range is incorrect.

Many of the edits (e.g. First Opium War, Treaty of Nanjing) changed a more specific link to a more general link with the date range is correct. That is no improvement.

[Dealing with your first point] Generic references to the nation, culture, society and citizens of the United Kingdom should link to the United Kingdom. The nuances of territorial change in the United Kingdom are covered in that page if anyone is interested enough to go beyond the issues in the source article. The changes in UK territory are not relevant to the First Opium War, the Treaty of Nanjing or Christmas Island. Bobblewik 12:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A treaty is signed by the parties in question using their official names. (Notice that we also mentioned the Qing Dynasty) Even though former names are mentioned, the [United Kingdom] article still begins with "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The fact that the party that signed the treaty of fought the war is now known by a different name is relevant, and it is hardly misleading to link to an article on the historical entity. That's why the article exists in the first place! Or else, we would have it redirect. It is not merely an article on the name change or changes in UK territory. It is on the historical entity, that for the most part, was not wholly synonymous with the current entity. --Jiang 22:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the case of [Christmas Island], the link in the context of that sentence was not used wrongly. It's just that the second mention of "UK" was more general than the first. --Jiang 09:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You could be right. But we are misleading the reader by using the term 'UK' to mean different things each time it is used. In this case, the sentences are connected by the idea of continuous ownership by the nation between 1888 and 1958. It is clear that the text is attempting to convey that message. I cannot imagine a reader knowing that two uses of the term 'UK' have different meanings. We probably would not be discussing this if the link was on the second mention of UK rather than the first. If we are to be helpful to readers, terms and links should be appropriate for the whole article, not just one sentence. Bobblewik 12:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to respond to your point about the American Colonies. I am not suggesting that anyone should state that wars predating the existing of the United Kingdom should refer to the United Kingdom. However, I would state that the Americans fought against the British in the 1770's and fought alongside the British in the first and second world wars.
Bobblewik 21:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying The 13 Colonies declared their independence from [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]]? --Jiang 01:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I merely told you my form of words to convey the message.
Bobblewik 09:03, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

which, IMO, seems to shove the Kingdom of Great Britain under the table when we could otherwise bring a confusing situation to light. --Jiang 22:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have created a Wikipedia:Request for comment page on Bobblewik Mintguy (T) 01:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert my additions of (accurate) templates to the United Kingdom article? If you revert something you should explain why (and removing something is not a minor edit!) Rls 23:21, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Again, removing something (particularly something which is disputed) is not a minor edit. See Wikipedia:Minor edit. It makes articles hard to keep track of. Rls 19:49, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Australia

I have looked over your changes and must admit most of them make sense, it's just I thought you removed the Pronunciation section from the page. I feel the Pronunciation section should be at the top because it is how we Australians pronounce our country's name, and you should alway pronounce a name the way locals do. It is there for the Americans and other English speakers. I feel it would better to put it back. --203.220.171.74 10:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: No source text please!

Since wikipedia is not a repository for source texts, so if Guidelines for National Unification can I move it to wikisource ?, wenziwenzi

Any hints on doing the big5 encoding for the pages ? i.e., how to get chinese into the pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Shan

You put the two together, but it is not clear. "Yushan of Jade Mountain" doesn't make sense as Yushan is jade mountan in chinese.

re:disambiguation

Okay, but looking at Columbia it has interesting eytemology and stuff. oh well, Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz article

Hi, Jiang. You were right about the opening of the 6.9 article being out of proportion. It looked weird to me as well. Could I impose on you to take another look at it now that I've broken it up? Please feel free to suggest other changes. - Lucky 6.9 01:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleting stuff

Hiya.. oops, well spotted, I did miss the deletion of the talk page for Arghoslent and also a couple of the other pages I worked through from VFD. They're gone now, and I'll be more careful in future! —Stormie 07:05, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Asian Cup 2004

Your expertise is appreciated on Asian Cup 2004 (history), where POV has become a problem with User:Nanshu and User:TakuyaMurata. Fuzheado | Talk 02:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

zhonghua minzu

the article has so much dis-information. Do you think it's a good idea that I translate stuff from (http://www.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/IA/091/IA-R-091-078.htm) and write up some summary since it's got a pretty good analysis on zhonghua minzu. The article is really long and complicated though. Wareware 02:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Iraq

Jiang, I'm assuming good faith or your reverts: if you say a given article couldn't be salvaged, that's good enough for me. Hastily, --Uncle Ed 15:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Hi, Jiang:

David Cannon has been kind enough to nominate me for adminship. Although you mainly edit China-related articles and I Korea-related articles, I'm asking Wikpedians who frequently contribute to East Asian topics—some of whom have quite different opinions from me—to voice their opinions one way or another regarding my nomination on adminship. Yours, Sewing 20:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article of the Week

I have nominated Yuan Dynasty on WP:AOTW, support would be great. [[User:Colipon|Colipon -- (Talk)]] 17:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

unicode problems

I am trying to put the link for the traditional chinese main page on the main page, but I am havine trouble with the unicode again. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/首� any help would be appreciated user:wenzi

Olympic archery - names

Could you do me a favor and check the Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics page to see if the names are correct for the Chinese/Korean archers? I have sources that give different names, so I'm not sure if the guy who set the WR for 72 arrows is Dong Hyun Im or Im Dong Hyun or Im Dong-Hyun. Thanks - Jonel 05:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Olympic pages - flags

Hi Jiang,

Your updates of old versions of national flags on the Summer Olympic pages are great! I just added the current flags for most countries, and thought I would never get time to check them all :) -- Chuq 07:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2000 medal count

I moved the medal counts to seperate pages for two reasons. First, this shortens the Olympic Games articles. As you will notice, there is only a shortened version on the 2000 Summer Olympics article now. The second reason was to connect the medal counts with a seperate template ({{Template:Olympic games medal count}}). Yardcock 22:11, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

adminship

I've nominated you for adminship (janitorial duties). Please go to WP:RFA#PFHLai_.2810.2F0.2F0.29_Ends_04:56.2C_29_Aug_2004_.28UTC.29 and accept. Cheers, Jiang 22:35, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Jiang,

I am pleasantly surprised by your nomination for adminship. I accept. Thank you very much.

I'll read Wikipedia:Administrators carefully before I do anything at WP:RFA.

Thanks, again.

-- PFHLai 01:26, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

NPOV disputes

Hi Jiang,

I just wanted to make sure you know that my reasons for reverting your edits to Unit 731 are not that I disagree with your views on the dispute and the article, but rather that it is unacceptable to remove NPOV and Disputed Article notices from pages unless 1. you put them there yourself in the first place or 2. the issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Thanks. Node 01:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unit 731 protected

I've protected Unit 731 and moved the disputed text/photo to the talk page. Please discuss there. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 02:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:University of California

I just wanted to stay that it looks horribly uneven with the list of campuses on two lines, with the bottom line much much smaller than the top. The 6 campuses on the top, and the 4 campuses on the bottom made it at least a bit nicer. It just looks so... uneven to me with the 8 campuses on top and the 2 campuses on the bottom.

Perhaps it would be better to include a table within a table and put five campus on top and five campuses on the bottom? Right now, I think it looks messy. Not having it one line or not having it look even just doesn't really work.

Please see Template_talk:University_of_California about some of the possible looks. - Allyunion 07:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please be advised that I updated the page since you lasted look at it and put your comment. -- Allyunion 22:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, Jiang: Thanks for supporting my nomination as admin. I know from observation that you, User:Menchi and others appear to take a nonconfrontational approach to their positions as sysops (if that makes sense...; in other words, you don't apply your admin privileges on topics that you are actively editing), and I would strive to exercise my adminship privileges in the same judicious and conservative manner. --Sewing 01:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jiang.

Thanks for helping build the Legislative Yuan article. I noticed that you reverted my changes here, replacing "consists of" (a somewhat neutral term) with "controls" (a word that to me implies illegitimacy). Would you object strongly if I changed it to "consists of"? Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instead of either "controls," or "consists of," how do you feel about "administers"? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When to use flags

I noticed that you removed the flags that I added to the list of 30 largest cities, but all of the ones that I added to the medal counts on the Winter Olympic pages (for example 1964) are still there. The edit comment said something about a non-political list. When is it appropriate to use flags on a list? Rascalb 06:50, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi again, Jiang: I am now officially an admin. Thanks again for your support. BTW, good luck in your ongoing disputes with you-know-who! (Tibet, Unit 731, etc...; I promised I wouldn't get involved in those kinds of issues, so it's between you, you-know-who, and Fuzheado, I guess....) Yours, 山道子 (Sewing) - talk 14:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interwikis

Most of them are not "cn" or "tw". They use both SC and TC.--[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 01:53, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

The title of other one was always redirected... --[[User:Zy26|zy26 (Talk)]] 01:53, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

US vs U.S.

Please don't change the US division articles to use the dreadful periods - the use of "US" is already well-established, and you're turning scads of perfectly fine links into redirs. Not only that, but you're not even doing all of hundred-odd division articles, so now we have a mystifying situation where some are one way, and some the other. Stan 03:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of countries by date of nationhood

I just saw this article, and I was shocked! I saw some of your comments, and obviously that article is not somewhat silly. It is complety stupid. -Pedro 00:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004

You accidentially deleted the whole page for Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004. I don't know what you were trying to do with the page, so I haven't reverted your changes. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tamil language

Hi Jiang, I assume you have Tamil language on your watchlist as have I. Unfortunately my knowledge of Tamil is limited to say the least, I'm only on some (english language) mailing list about Tamil character encoding but got some background information by this.

You reverted an anonymous edit [1] and I'm concerned that the anonymous may have been right in changing

The Tamil script evolved from the Grantha script of the Southern Indian group of scripts.

to

The Tamil script evolved from the Tamil calender script of the Southern Indian group of scripts.

IMHO, in today use, Grantha refers to those characters in Tamil script which aren't (or shouldn't) be used to write the Tamil language, but only to transcript foreign words. So I'm most unclear whether our article about Grantha is right, taking into account the fact, that there are not may WWW sources for this usage. I've already mentioned this on Talk:Grantha. Anyway, I assume that The Tamil script evolved from the Grantha script must look rather illogical to contemporary speakers of Tamil.

Pjacobi 10:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the other edits of the anon. Clearly nonsense. So the issue has to wait until a field expert comments on Talk:Grantha or I'm finally willing to spend $200.75 on Peter T. Daniels' The World's Writing Systems. -- Pjacobi 12:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

photos

I am getting very tired of being nagged by copyright bores over photos. I think all this paranoia about copyright is greatly exaggerated. Having worked in media on and off for many years, my view is that apart from current news photos from media websites and photos by identifiable commercial photographers, I don't think anyone cares about the re-use of old photos from websites, and if they do care the most they will do is ask that they be withdrawn. You are however right that I should identify my own photos in some way. Adam 08:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

India

I have made modifications to the India page regarding the lead-in and the Culture section. Please see if this is sufficient to overturn your objection. Regarding the map; you had no objections when the latest text was written a month back. What is so 'POV' about it? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Jiang,

If you have time, please vote on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Survey. Thanks. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 23:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Chinese military ranks during ww II

Hey Jiang, this is a list i found for chinese military ranks during wwii. I dunno how to add or correspond to Comparative military ranks of World War II though so please take a look. They're at my talk page user talk:wareware-- Wareware 03:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I got the info from "China Handbook (1937-1945) A Comprehensive Survey of Major Developments in China in Eight Years of War," by the ROC in 1947 Wareware 06:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wiki request: dump Leon Bibel page for clean slate

OK, the original version of the Leon Bibel page borrowed too heavily from the Sutherland bio. Once informed of the copyright violation, I have been trying to revise the biosketch with an original...original....original biography. But I can't since the temp/copyright alert pages were not eliminated after a week as it should, or so stated in the Wiki policy notes.

So dump it already, please. Allow a clean slate.

Thank you.

Jan Bibel (niece) jbibel@arg.org (642-5208 campus exchange)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Political figures

Hi. I would like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Political figures. What we do is to create a database within Wikipedia about every single governmental and political figure in the world. If you want to join, sign your name on the Members section of the page. Thank you. --Lst27 23:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Greetings fellow Cal student!

I go to UC Berkeley too! I have an EMS major if you're wondering. --Ixfd64 01:13, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Leon Bibel problem fixed; please act

OK. I got your message, posted my reply on Discussion page, had revised the text on the /Temp page. Please purge the problematic page from the History and post the revised, proper page. Thank you. jbibel

Photo captions

Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert me again? I put in alternative text, it just isn't visible. Can you clarify? I think I might be confused about the proper image policy. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass or anything — I'm just a little confused. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

spelling mistake

Thank you for pointing it out to me. user:J.J.

When you edit something specify the reason, dont click the "minor edit" plz --Themata 03:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paralympics article and COTW

Erm, today is the 12th, Jiang. The Paralympics start on the 17th, and end on the 28th. This is currently third or fourth in line, which means it's almost definitely going to end a week or two after the Paralympics conclude, which is perfect.

If it had been nominated any later, it would've actually got to be COTW so late that it would be practically useless, as they would have been over so long before that all the interest would have passed. In that context, your comment really doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense. Ambi 10:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

great job, but....

Although you have done well about having a NPOV in most occasions, the picture you posted here is quite disturbing.... All I have to say is "please face the fact that pan-blue is losing." :-)

We can look over some NPOV issues later. I have put this page on my watch list. Tp kde 05:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categories

On my Talk Page, you said:

Chinese surnames appear before given names. The surname of [[Soong 
May-ling]] is Soong. Please take this into account when inserting categories. 
--Jiang 20:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are completely right. I humbly apologize. In my enthusiasm, I forgot that simple fact. I'll make sure I won't forget it again in the future. Thanks for correcting me. Aecis 16:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An Audience

Comrade, I request an audience. Please sign on. --Xiaopo ℑ 00:36, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Objection in India

Is your objection to India as a FA solely based on the map caption? If so, then please take a look at the current version, I have added a footnote (hopefully a NPOV) plus the new image. If Rranjbiah, reverts any edits, let me know, I'll handle it by talking to him, instead of blank edit wars. (PS I don't monitor this page) [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Chinese names

I added Wikipedia:People by year with an explanation how the default sort key is going to be fixed. -- User:Docu

India and the wars

I originally had it written like you did, but I think it might be confusing, since most of the other years simply link to the year page (like 1947), whereas those three link to the wars of those years. What do you think about changing it back to how it was and ignoring LordSuryaofShropshire? --Xiaopo ℑ 02:29, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

New Korean name template

Hi, Jiang: I replied on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). I admit the new table looks better, and using variables is probably a good idea.... -Sewing - talk 01:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi Jiang,

Xiaopo has started a new survey on Chinese naming conventions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#New survey. Please come and take a look. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Keep your eyes open

I just noticed a User:Jlang pop up on my watchlist. I don't know if it's just an oddly similar name or an attempt at impersonation. The user's been behaving himself, so I'm leaving him alone, but you might want to make sure there's no confusion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice

Thanks for the NPOV advice. I appreciated it. I will stick to the principle of stating facts. Mababa 05:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question raised

Hello. I am new to wilipedia. I have already posted my question in Chiang Kai-shek discussion page. Please point out explicitly as to why a defeated general moving to an island is not considered escape. Please also tell me who determines the definition of NPOV as opposed to the general guideline. Thank you.

Opentasks

Hearing no objection on Template talk:Opentask, I'm adding the parenting link back to Template:Opentask. I just thought I'd drop a note here since you were the one who deleted it, in case you wanted to comment on the issue and hadn't noticed the (attempted) discussion. Thanks, Beland 22:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan's International Status

Hello:

Could someone help me verify the international status of Taiwan? According to what I have learned, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in perpetuity in an 1895 Treaty. After WWII, Gen. MacArthur directed the troops of CKS (i.e. Republic of China military troops) to come to Taiwan to accept the surrender of Japanese troops. This surrender happened on October 25, 1945, however international law does not recognize that day of concluding a "transfer of sovereignty." In fact, that day is only the beginning of military occupation.

As far as I can figure out, the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations have no stand-alone legal validity. In the post WWII, the sovereignty of Taiwan WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

Hence, I am wondering what Taiwan's claims to being a "sovereign country", or the PRC's claims to having ownership of Taiwan, are actually based on?

Sincerely,

Harry Sept. 29, 2004 tai.midway@gmail.com

Antics

Nanshu is up to his antics again, on Guoyu, Unit 731, Iris Chang and Asian_Cup_2004. He's techincally violated the three revert rule on the latter, and this would not be the only time. Fuzheado | Talk 04:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Emperor's names

I just added some comments on the talk page about the emperor's names on Wikipedia: Wikipedia_talk:History_standards_for_China-related_articles#Emperor_naming_conventions. You can check if you want. Hardouin 14:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I WILL BE MONITORING THIS PAGE

Please explain the changes and how they relate to some Wikipedia formatting convention. thank you --Philaleth

Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "simply linking the first time the word appears will usually be enough" --Jiang 03:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand your point. I am requesting review of the title of the article so as to rename it to the full, formal and sole internationally accepted name for the country, for the same reason for which I made the changes to the article: To avoid creating the misleading impression in the international community of Wikipedia readers that it is acceptable to use "Republic of Macedonia" as the proper name for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". In that light, I believe that my edits should remain. --Philaleth

Discussion belongs at Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Until there is consensus to change the current convention, your edits should not remain. --Jiang 04:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Understood, thank you Philaleth 05:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)