User talk:135.0.147.154

March 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page China Uncensored has been reverted. Your edit here to China Uncensored was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/580yb0/china_uncensored_is_the_worst_propaganda_china/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at China Uncensored. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just wanna let you know that I am not having a war or the intention to start one, all I wanted to do is contribute. I edited the page for some extra info, but a bot named “XLinkBot” came and reverted my changes, claiming that my reference link is unreliable. So I followed it’s guide, removed the link and readded those edits. As you can see I am not trying to start a war, just trying to contribute. Now, if you are kind enough, please allow me to readd those reverted edits. Thanks a lot 一135.0.147.154 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources which are WP:Reliable sources respected for their editorial integrity. If you would like to add something to the China Uncensored article, you should be summarizing some information you found in one of these respected sources. Reddit doesn't count as reliable. And if you don't cite a reliable source, that doesn't work, either.
 * Frankly, there isn't much written in reliable, respected sources about China Uncensored. But that doesn't mean we can pick up the slack with reddit or quora.com or other discussion sites. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Does Youtube videos count as a reliable source? This is the most reliable source I’ve found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x15Cmhgb70. However I do think that this is a bit overly biased so I’m not really sure if it fits Wikipedia’s criteria. Also it doesn’t really seems like it mentions the “intentional misleading words”, the only sites I found who mentions the “intentional misleading words” are sites like Reddit and Quora 一135.0.147.154 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Nathan Rich rips into them good in his YouTube video. But the video doesn't meet the requirement at WP:SELFPUB which describes tough limits on self-published sources. There is one opinion piece that generally confirms Nathan Rich's video assessment: "Fake news and the post Trump era" by Vincent Verdonck, published a month ago in The Brussels Times. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well never mind then. I did some more research but I couldn’t find any better reliable sites, so there isn’t really much left to do. Thank you for spending the time to discuss this issue with me 一135.0.147.154 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)