"Yes, I was taking a dig at you there.  But in the most mild of ways, and you took the baitas you have previously demonstrated you respond only to what is convenient.  Your use of ""hypocrisy"" here is motivated by the assumption that users of these pages are preoccupied with them.  There is no more reason to assume that an occasional user has multiple monikers than there is to assume that a frequent user does not have multiple monikers.  But you seem not to get the point about erroneous assumptions.   And, among other things, you clearly don't know the difference between an assertion based on factual information and the deriving of a conclusion.  But let's put that aside and look at your presentation of the birth issue, in a non-birth section: 

 Heaven and earth society, overseas travel 
 A ""Heaven and Earth Society"" sect known as Tiandihui has been around for a long time.[41] The group has also been referred to as the ""three cooperating organizations"" as well as the triads.[41] Sun Yat-sen mainly used this group to leverage his overseas travels to gain further financial and resource support for his revolution.[41] 

 According to Lee Yun-ping, chairman of the Chinese historical society, Sun needed a certificate to enter the United States at a time when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 would have otherwise blocked him.[42] However, on Sun's first attempt to enter the US, he was still arrested.[42] He was later bailed out after 17 days.[42] In March 1904, while residing in Kula, Maui, Sun Yat-sen obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating that ""he was born in the Hawaiian Islands on the 24th day of November, A.D. 1870.""[43][44] He renounced it after it served its purpose to circumvent the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.[44] Official files of the United States show that Sun had United States nationality, moved to China with his family at age 4, and returned to Hawaii 10 years later.[45] 

 Several things here:  1.  Concerning the expedience interpretation you cite two people:  one is an anthropologist, who wrote a general book about Macao.  He is definitely not a Sun scholar.   The mention of this issue in his book is incidental, but you cite that singular reference three times.  2.  The other person is not a historian.  She was a civil servant in San Francisco for 30 years, and the publication that is cited is ideologically bent toward the KMT, which takes Sun's purity as essential to the sacred postion he holds among the pro-China advocates.  3.  You then draw a conclusion for the reader (based upon original research?) ""He renounced it after it served its purpose to circumvent the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.""  In other words, you put this information into a context that you are comfortable with.   

 Let's also look at the history of the wiki-war:  the birth information had been there for a long time, until you changed it.  In other words, you started the war.  Why didn't you start with the talk page, especially since the talk page had already dealt with this issue?  As for how many people endorse your view and how many endorse Taichi's, this page has many followers, but only you, your alter, and the wiki editor who clearly knows nothing about the case got involved.   

 A few more things:  if an editor decides to block anyone, he or she should block all parties to this recent dispute.  Use a single, not a double standard.  Also, check the history of edits and the history of what was said and when it was said, in the talk section, before rendering judgment as to who is the trouble-maker.   

 "