User talk:24.200.146.73

January 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Thai Chinese. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block.

Please also avoid using the word "vandalism" in this context, see Avoid the word "vandal", thanks. IamNotU (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

In the future, how would you like me to resolve this issue of a user constantly insisting that Thai Chinese are autochthonous when I have already explained on multiple occasions that they are not? You seem to agree with me based on the last edit but disagree with how I went about it. Is there a place where I can raise the issue with third parties rather than constantly revert the misinformation? 24.200.146.73 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your question! If you're having a dispute with another editor, you should create a new section on the article's talk page, explain your concerns, and notify them to join the discussion using one of the templates such as  or  . Editors should usually follow the bold, revert, discuss practice. When someone doesn't, but just reinstates their edit after you revert it, it can be frustrating. However, there's no rush, and even if you're right, it's better to wait a little until something can be worked out on the talk page, rather than just reverting again, as that leads to edit warring, which leads to people getting blocked from editing, or the page being protected. If you're unable to come to an agreement, you can ask for a third opinion, ping other users who have edited the article in the past, or use one of the other methods described in Dispute resolution. The goal - in fact, the requirement - is to achieve consensus. That can often take time, and sometimes needs several people to participate.
 * One thing that can be helpful is to try to look beyond the specific wording that someone is using, and try to understand what their larger concern is. Sometimes you may find that it's more reasonable than it might appear. There can be complex issues with culture and identity regarding minority groups. For example, people may sometimes object to being described as "migrants" or their descendents, which might imply that they're foreigners in comparison with the majority - even when the majority were also migrants not that much earlier. On the other hand, I can see a possible objection to being referred to as "Thai people", as that can have two meanings, a straightforward one meaning "a citizen of Thailand", and another one that is more about cultural and ethnic identity, as described in the linked article. In any case, it's best to try to keep an open mind, even if it seems the other person doesn't, and in general to take the approach that the identity of minority groups is determined by how they describe themselves. That may sometimes be contradictory - both migrant and native, both Chinese and Thai, the same, but different... I hope that helps, and good luck! --IamNotU (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I will follow those guidelines the next time an issue like this pops up.24.200.146.73 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like you do not understand the above advice, Since over at James Ma you are engaging in edit warring on the same issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see evidence of edit-warring there. The second edit is significantly different from the first and shows a willingness to compromise. If you still object to it, you can revert again and open a discussion on the article's talk page. --IamNotU (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)