User talk:Ohtx

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing that out. --Ohtx (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. AHRtbA== Talk 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I have added multiple references and removed those information that currently does not have the right references.--Ohtx (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, great! Have a fun time editing on Wikipedia! AHRtbA== Talk 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Repeatedly adding unsourced material, blanking pages, or adding material that contradicts sources to the article Xinjiang is vandalism. You have been warned on three occasions. Please read wikipedia policy on vandalism, sources, and neutral point of view before contributing further. Additionally, do not remove appropriate warnings that were placed on your talk page. If you continue you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Fuzbaby (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been providing valid references to my edits while you just keep making changes at will. Please validate your claims. Thanks.--Ohtx (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * [] [] []. These were reverted as vandalism in light of a breaking news story, which you proceeded to put back in several times after being warned. You then erased your warnings and continued your actions. You then attempted to add an "About.com" article about Uyghurs in Afghanistan as a reference. Then you added [] which directly contradicts the material you tried to put in (that the riots were over a sexual assault, rather, the report says the riots were over falsely circulated rumors of harrassment) and [], the government newsblog that also does not support your claim. See [] [] [] [] [] all contradict the material you are inserting. Inserting deliberate errors and then tagging a reference on them is no different than simply inserting deliberate errors. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't we quote the text directly fromt the sources?

I don't see anything wrong with the sources used, as the information is backed up by other sources as well. For example, according to the NY Daily News, many senior counterterror officials believe the half-dozen Uyghurs eyed for release in Virginia have troubling ties to an Al Qaeda-affiliated terror group, the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), also known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. "Most of the Uyghurs cleared for release, though considered the "least dangerous" of 17 still at Gitmo, were suspected operatives of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. The Treasury Department lists its leader, Abdul Haq, as a member of Osama Bin Laden's Shura Council - Al Qaeda's board of directors.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/07/2009-05-07_several_guantanamo_bay.html#ixzz0KV5HhLPQ&C "

According to Nur Bekri, chairman of the Xinjiang regional government, "the fight (in Guangdong) was triggered by the sexual of a female Han worker assault by a Uygur coworker, he said. ".

If there are conflicting reports from different sources, you should explain and add different opinions for a balanced discussion rather than simply removing others' comments. --Ohtx (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR WARNING
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gtadoc (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I didn't know the rule. Fine. Now tell me why you didn't discipline the other party who kept removing sourced text without any explanation.


 * WP:Vandalism Single-purpose account and WP:EW. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring. Note that repeated posting of confirmed misinformation or repeated large scale removal of content is often considered vandalism, but in general merely editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes, are not necessarily considered vandalism. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. 

Gtadoc (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK now you are quoting a different rule here. You gave me a warning based on the three-revert rule. But now you are quoting the Vandalism rule which I don't see I am violating. Are you making the claim that I am vandalizing? If yes please make a separate claim and prove your claim.--Ohtx (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)