Talk:China Times

message: according to this link, it's based in Taiwan, as opposed to the PRoC, per previous edit. --Confuzion 03:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  worth it - an article by a more knowing one... thanks?? --Sieb (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Based in Taiwan

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:China Airlines - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 16:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227020757/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/ to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removed: The paper is also printed in San Gabriel, California.  Any evidence for this? DrIdiot (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  printed in san gabriel? 

message: ACPARC, could you please explain why you keep attempting to remove sourced material from the article? Thanks. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: (Unrelated, but thanks for reminding me to turn ping notifications back on.) As far as I can see (including their talk page), it seems to be a new editor who isn't used to the edit policies. Liliana (UwU) 03:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @sundawn I’m very new to this (as you can tell). How do we go about trying to get a balanced article? If we cannot/should not remove content then is there a way to present both sides? I’m open to learning! ACPARC (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @SunDawn @LilianaUwU is this how I get messages through to you? Is there a more efficient way of communicating? ACPARC (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: To ping, use , which will result in said user being pinged. Liliana (UwU) 03:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Concerning this particular article, using this page (the talk page of the article) is the most efficient way of communicating. If you have any other questions outside the scope of the article, it is possible to contact us individually by visiting our talk pages (for me, click the blue contact thing beside my name). But if you want to discuss this article specifically, this page is the most appropriate and efficient way to communicate. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  how do we request edits to the said article? If sections removed are considered worthy of remaining can we then add another perspective? It doesn’t have to be a major rebuttal, just wording to indicate this issue is not as cut and dried as appears in the article ACPARC (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, can you give us reliable sources such as a news article? Liliana (UwU) 03:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACPARC