User talk:First time again

Edit warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on July 2009 Ürümqi riots. 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. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, judging by the way your first edit after registering was to revert, I presume you have edited under another account before and are coming back after it was blocked or something. If you are found to be abusing multiple accounts, you will be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like I said, please do not edit war. This is now your fourth revert without discussion; technically you could be blocked for that, but I will let this one go since you seem to be new.
If you think your information should be included, please start a new discussion at the talk page so we can discuss things. Discussing issues is always better than reverting each other back and forth. Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that editors have been discussing these issues for the past several days, and to avoid constant fighting we have reached some consensuses/compromises over what should be included and what should not. Most of the discussion regarding this particular quote is available at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Selectively quoting sources and Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#Jane Macartney and irresponsible journalism, if you'd like to take a look and get familiar with the arguments that have been made by both sides.

I understand the frustration with having your edits removed, but the problem is that Wikipedia operates by consensus—what that essentially means is no matter how right you believe you are, you still have to talk things out with other editors and reach a conclusion on what to do. Because anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, having any other policy would just turn the site into anarchy. Discussion and consensus is the only way we can keep articles stable and neutral. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips and the link to those discussions. I will check them out and see what was going on. I am not frustrated or trying to dispute the rules of wikipedia. I just want to know why it is decided this way. Personally, I do not see any problem with these numbers at all. Again, thank you for the help.First time again (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is less with the numbers and more with the inclusion of Macartney's inflammatory quotation. (Although, to be fair, in an article this controversial most numbers need to be corroborated by multiple sources, and this is just one source...if the numbers are included, we should be making it clear that these are numbers published by Xinhua.) The numbers are relevant to the article, if we can find enough sources for them; quoting Macartney's irresponsible writing is not (in fact, I have just written a letter to The Times criticizing them for allowing Macartney's article to be published with this kind of inflammatory language in it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their language can never be neutral. At the begining, the Han Chinese group was discribed as "mobs" and the Uyghurs were called "demontrators". Is this some kind of inflammatory to the Ugyhur society? I never like the media, either Xinhua, CCTV or CNN, NYT, etc. but we have to live with them and extract information. I do not blame them so much, though we all claim we always try to be neutral, we can in fact only be a biased individual.