User talk:5.151.21.128

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 5.151.21.128, is registered to Cablecom: UPP Peverill Wireless and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sm8900 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tafurs. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:5.151.21.128 reported by User:SamX (Result: ). Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

By doing what? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is the talk part. I think the English Community had been used to get informed and discussed before any controversial edits (Wikipedia: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)[reply]

How is it controversial to provide a UN perspective? 5.151.21.128 (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.