User talk:5.151.21.128

Welcome!


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia (Tutorial)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * Rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
 * Utilize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome! Sm8900 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tafurs. lavender &#124;(formerly HMSSolent )&#124; lambast 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Genocide of indigenous peoples, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. &mdash; SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Not the talk page I stayed my reason in the edit descriptions. On the other hand is circumventing the 3 revert rule by switching users allowed? 5.151.21.128 (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By doing what? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you guys had been taking turn every 2 reverts so no one violates the 3-revert rule. That's a brilliant tactic I gotta admit. 5.151.21.128 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't take the three-revert rule into account when making the block decision. That multiple people can disagree with you, putting you in a position of having to seek a consensus on the article's talk page, is how Wikipedia works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess nothing else in the article was more controversial than adding a UN POV given there's barely anything in the talk session. Well manufactured consensus you have there. 5.151.21.128 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You could argue. Be bold, but not reckless. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The initial deletion was perhaps a bit, but how's adding a UN report reckless? 5.151.21.128 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the talk part. I think the English Community had been used to get informed and discussed before any controversial edits (BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it controversial to provide a UN perspective? 5.151.21.128 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So I'll answer this question in two ways: on the one hand, "providing the UN perspective" is definitely not a problem, but you shouldn't use the UN perspective as the only one and leave out the rest, which is against DUE (unless you can reach a consensus with the other editors on how to handle it); on the other hand, essentially, the UN report is not necessarily enough to override the influence of other sources. (At least it's not always the case here.) ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "leaving out the rest"? "The rest" of POVs had been sufficiently provided and I was doing more than supplementing third party POV. 5.151.21.128 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is about your initial edit. Your later edits seem to want to emphasize the benefits of pro-poor policies (Targeted Poverty Alleviation), but you don't explain how it is in your internal text. Plus your previous edits make it hard to AGF, so there you go. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright I didn't elaborate on the poverty alleviation part, so why couldn't they just deleted this part and spare the UN report and official-family pair-up part, both of which u provided explanations. 5.151.21.128 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this has been added, it should not be removed at will without proper reason, which would make it look like censorship. But even with the UN report and the various Chinese sources, the topic is still a difficult one to navigate on Wikipedia because China holds a completely different view, with China (at least in terms of propaganda) putting the right to life at the top of human rights, but others do not. So it becomes a matter of each side saying its own thing on these kinds of issues. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I apologize for the initial block deletion. However it l still doesn't explain why *adding a UN POV alongside all other existing POVs* is something worthy of a ban. 5.151.21.128 (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again the AGF problem. Besides, most editors here will assume other editors had read the guidance. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.