I have a question about Nationalist's assertion of "... if you have Republic of China (Taiwan), some people dispute that because () is equating ROC to Taiwan and to people that is not true": who is "some people" here besides you? Could you provide the diff link as proof of that? Vic₂₂₆ 02:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea behind including it in parentheses is as a disambig since "Taiwan" is commonly used interchangebly with the ROC in common English speech. As long as it is in the context of disambiguation (usually once in the intro), then it is generally considered to be neutral. A non neutral usage would be asserting that the official title is "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and replacing that everywhere as seen here. -Loren 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think his issue stems from article titles like Tiffany (Singer), asserting that Tiffany is in fact a singer (a contentious assertion for some). He appears to misunderstand the purpose of article titles and parenthetical disambiguations. Flakeloaf 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I should everyone know, on account of this. Nationalist has been blocked for a period of 1 month on account of his disruption. --Borgarde (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's naming convention on China and Chinese topics appears to prefer "Republic of China" over "Taiwan" in political contexts, which could be another source of Nationalist's confusion. The term "ROC" is misleading in articles that do not specifically seek to address to the political situation between these two states. "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" are not misleading in other-than-political discussion. Flakeloaf 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that this message has gone through. After observing the developments of the last week or so, it has become apparent that Nationalist is the latest variation of the uncompromising POV pusher that periodically shows up on Taiwan/ROC articles. Continued use of sockpuppets, even after several warnings and blocks suggests that this editor does not plan on modifying his/her behavior anytime soon. -Loren 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been proven by the community for making disrupting edits and pushing POV, identified as sockpuppeteer, and making assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks especially on Jerrypp772000. The only thing worse than those above is that, even under the condition of him being RfCed, he's strongly unwilling to join the discussion to achieve a consensus with us.

Only 1 edit is done by Nationalist in the main Wikipedia article of it. Since there's no apparent way we can get him to sit down and discuss, I am considering any other alternatives (such as conducting a survey in WP:DR) before we are forced to send an RfArb report. Vic₂₂₆ 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]