C933103

C933103，歡迎來到維基數據！

維基數據是人人可編輯的自由知識庫！其中的內容可以由人或機器閱讀及編輯，您現在就可以前往任一頁面，加入這個日益成長的數據庫！

如果您需要入門幫助，可以先查看以下幾個頁面，使您對維基數據有基本的了解：

• 關於 – 關於維基數據
• 簡介 – 維基數據的簡單介紹
• 幫助目錄 – 如何編輯、使用此站點的一些幫助
• 互助客棧 – 維基數據相關內容的討論
• 工具 – 由用戶開發的一些Javascript工具，可以更方便地完成某些任務

如果您有任何疑問，可以在我的對話頁與我聯系。如果您想試著編輯，可以在沙盒中進行嘗試。最後，再次對您的加入表示歡迎，希望您在這裏過得愉快，成為維基數據的活躍編輯。

Stevenliuyi (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Work and editions of work

Hi,

As the structuration of work and editions of work could be difficult to understand, don't hesitate to read the guidelines on Wikidata:WikiProject Books or to asm me questions if you want more information.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Baidu Baike ID

How do you think about it, this was rejected years ago but now has a lot of users who just make support votes. --117.136.54.99 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Spratly Islands (Q215664)

請提供美日印澳四國沒有在此宣稱主權之理據，不然請勿隨意移除聲稱。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1. @Liuxinyu970226: Please do not do a bracket revert when reverting edits if you're only disagreeing with part of the edit
2. The conflict between Indonesia and China there (and possibly other countries in the region) is a.) unrelated to Spratly Islands (It is in when Indonesia describe as "North Natuna Sea", which is partly within South China Sea and the nine dash line defined by China but that is not part of the Spratly Islands), and b.) not a conflict about sovereignty territory. (China claim historical water right there while Indonesia claim EEZ) See: https://amti.csis.org/will-indonesia-provoked-now-choose-lead-south-china-sea/ .
3. America doesn't claim sovereign right over any part of South China Sea or Spratly Islands, instead it claims they're sailing on international water when they carry out military actions in the area. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-navy-sails-past-disputed-artificial-islands-claimed/story?id=60993256
4. Japan have renounced all their claims to area including Spratly Islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. https://www.manilatimes.net/standing-up-to-ressas-big-ego/534232/
5. Australia doesn't claim any of those islands, instead they describe their action in the Spratly Islands area as exercising freedom of navigation over international airspace. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35099445

C933103 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, C933103: If Indonesia shouldn't be a "claiming sovereignty" country of this, shouldn't we also remove Brunei? FWIW Indonesia does also indeed claiming exclusive economic zone (Q202008) in this sea area. --117.13.95.116 08:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@117.13.95.116: Look at this map: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K_5DQFgWloY/VvJkQuabaZI/AAAAAAAACAA/Th8Ei8H_Xssndii3j7vaHhqCCu1dPSdrQ/s1600/Natuna-1.jpg the shaded area is the area that Indonesia's claimed EEZ overlap with China's claimed historical right area. And as you can see there are no islands nor reefs there, and Spratly Islands is located somewhere to the east outside that disputed area.

As for Brunei, Brunei claim their right over "Louisa Reef" and some other features, but then the question would be the nature of these feature as that would affect whether Brunei can claim them as part of their sovereignty territory or simply claim it as part of their EEZ.

C933103 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

考慮到中華民國至今對黑瞎子島、緬甸北部一些地區甚至是整個蒙古國和俄羅斯庫頁島宣稱主權，甚至毛里求斯也對英國實際管控並設置有美軍基地之查戈斯群島有主權要求，不能以距離過遠為理由簡單排除主權要求，而且專屬經濟區並不是不擁有主權的理由，相當多的亞洲國家都將此作為主權宣稱理由（例如菲律賓和越南）。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I am not saying they are "too far away", I am just saying "that is actually two different places". C933103 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you still remove these probably valid statements with just so-called reasons like too-faraway. --117.14.243.223 06:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I was saying then please hire a translator. C933103 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Golan Heights (Q83210)

And I have to reverse-ask you, that why do you remove country (P17)Syria (Q858)? Are you supporting Trumpism (Q31838499)?? --117.13.95.116 09:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion at the talk page (although I have made a typo there), it was claimed that Syria have de jure ownership on the land but I am not sure what sort of law is it referring to with such a statement. C933103 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In that "talk page", you only provided a number of nonsenses, Therefore I undid your all edits to those items, note that Wikidata doesn't have 3RR policy, therefore my actions are legitimate. --117.14.243.223 06:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That is counterconstructive to say the least. C933103 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong, you just continue providing deconstructive "actions", please, just stop them, Thx. --2409:8902:9021:E391:E6E6:3F77:A39A:C1B3 02:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a meaningless statement.C933103 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May 7

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikidata, you may be blocked from editing. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for just riding on the wave of not inhibiting those IP users to make unhelpful statements in various talk pages instead of acting more constructively.C933103 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Property:P7322

Hello -

I have nominated a property you proposed P7322 (P7322) to be deleted/merged into Marine Regions Geographic ID (P3006)

The discussion is happening here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/P7322

Ozmorph (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)