User talk:Breakingchina

Where to discuss things.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for bringing your knowledge and skills to this encyclopedia. As a new editor you probably won't have appreciated that it's really not acceptable practice amongst editors to discuss matters on which anyone disagrees within an article itself. If everyone did this, it would make most of them unreadable! You clearly know your subject, but Wikipedia has related Talk Pages for this - see WP:TALK for guidelines on how these should be used. So, I have deleted content which appears to be pure discussion, and placed this verbatim in a new section within the article's Talk page. Once consensus has been reached on any disputed matters, the article can be amended. Of course, uncited or incorrect information can be edited by anyone, providing those changes are themselves supported by reliable third party sources. Please don't be offended if someone refers to what you added as 'inappropriate' - it's not a reflection on you or your knowledge, even though all editors would regard discussions within an article as being precisely that. Wikipedia has a range of help pages which you might find of use, or you can always get direct answers from the WP:TEAHOUSE. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

TO Nick Moyes I don't mind the editing I do MIND deleting FACTS. I quoted sources, they were deleted, I did it again, ditto. What part of the facts was wrong and why did you NOT just edit this? What would you like me to do? I could rewrite the whole article or I could just accept Chinese propaganda, as I said, no one called the 6th the 9th until the late 1980s. Please help me to correct this false assumptionBreakingchina (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignore above (I'm learning, slowly) I did not know about how to write & was annoyed at cited info being deleted. I asked a few friends if they knew who you were, they all said the same "Stay away from Wikipedia" (those who are awake, dif time zones). I'm trying to work out why at present. sorry one guy loves it & is trying to helpBreakingchina (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Breakingchina. Don't worry - I could tell you were cross, and, yes, it can be frustrating sometimes - especially at the start. I assume you meant you asked your friends who Wikipedia is, not who I am. The answer to the former is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the answer to the latter is on my User Page.


 * Wikipedia, being the 5th most visited website in the world, really is well-worth spending the effort on trying to improve - and you are to be applauded for coming here to do just that. Please understand, I have no knowledge or involvement in the article you were editing, and I recognise you're trying to put things right from a factual perspective. I am not competent to pass any judgement on this, so just deleted the block of text becasue of the editor comments contained within it. I really do know how frustrating it can be when content is deleted, especially as I wasn't trying to censor you, and you probably thought I was. But because I didn't want you to feel your work had been deleted and lost completely, I cut/pasted it into the talk page where discussions can continue, of course. From my perspective, you are free to add back in whatever factual statements you deem appropriate, though not with the personal comments visible to everyone. (You can always look at earlier versions and retrieve deleted content by clicking the 'View History' tab at the top of the page. (See Help:Page history. And you can always leave a short editor comment within the 'edit summary', too, to explain your edit.


 * The aim or Wikipedia is to be a neutral and encylopaedic presenter of facts, supported by reliable references. It is quite legitimate to add a 'citation needed' tag to any statement you think is unsupported by evidence. You can do this directly within the article by adding after a statement you don't believe is correct, or which needs supportive evidence. (See WP:CITENEED) Of course, if you know it to be incorrect, and can cite references to prove this: simply delete the incorrect statement and replace it with the confirmed fact from legitimate sources. Another approach is to edit the article if you believe third party sources are, for whatever reason, trying to distort factual events. Again, as an editor, you must be neutral and leave out your personal views, but it's quite acceptable to refer to their being two versions/interpretation of events presented, and then go on to cite each of those. The aim is always to be neutral and even-handed throughout, no matter how frustrated you may feel. It's quite legitimate - indeed fully encouraged - to discuss contentious matters, first on the article's Talk Page, and then on another editor's WP:TALK Page if it seems one fo them is acting unreasonably. This is how to resolve disagreements, and it can be hard to stay calm, especialy as one can't read 'tone' into another person's sentences. If it comes to you or another editor raising a WP:DISPUTE, this allows other editors/adminstrators to see what attempts have already been made to resolve disagreements. (You should always try to avoid getting into a WP:EDITWAR, as these are not constructive. If one editor feels another editor is acting unreasonably, they may always raise a complaint - see WP:INCIDENT - if their attempts to resolve matters locally have come to nothing. This can lead to a range of sanctions, including permanent blocking for repeated offences.


 * So, don't be discouraged. Do edit neutrally; do correct misinformation with supported factual and reliable sources, and do discuss on an article's talk page those matters you have concerns about, possibly suggesting the changes you propose to make if no one comes back to disagree. After a week or so, it's quite legitimate to go ahead and make those changes. I hope this has helped you, and not put you off. You might also like to consider adding some information about yourself on your user page. It helps establish your credentials in the eyes of other editors. This is where you can get across your experience and demonstrate your own reliability as a new editor. (You should, of course, do this without revealing your identity unless, like me, you're happy to do this.) And, finally, you might like to have a go at editing/improving other articles that are not contentious to begin with. This way you can build up confidence in your abilities and understanding of the way things work, as well as demonstrate your genuine interest in improving Wikipedia. I hope I've not been patronising or caused offense in my follow-up reply. Even after 7 years and nearly 20,000 edits, I still see myself as quite a beginner, and am constantly learning new ways to do my best here on Wikipedia. My actions and feedback here have all been made with the best of intentions and in WP:GOODFAITH, and I wish you well in all your future editing here. Kind regards Nick Moyes (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)