User talk:Oldhand 12

Let's talk about the problem

Instead of hitting the "revert" button, let's try discussing this on the talkpage: Talk:Great Chinese Famine bobrayner (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The issue is that I believe there are so much bias and speculation without credible evidence. All I did was to add certain facts backed by reference I believe reliable. For instance, there is well-documented study bu a reputable researcher that only 2.5 death. Why were you people so afraid to let people know? Another example is that economic embargo is also fact. It should be included. Oldhand 12 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Josh3580. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Great Chinese Famine seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Josh3580_talk/hist 03:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oldhand 12. You have new messages at Josh3580's talk page.
Message added 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[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:Oldhand_12 reported by User:Jack Greenmaven (Result: ). Thank you. Greenmaven (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverts

re Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Great Chinese Famine. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.

Let me detail some of the issues:

Changing the number of deaths from 15 to 10 million requires a source reference but you give none.

You put in "rulling party textbook" in place of "government statistics" which is not a natural way of phrasing the sentence.

You added "...after 1949" to a quote by Frank Dikötter but is that what Dikötter actually said?

The edit to the info box section "relief" needs to be backed by references and is certainly a minority opinion not the general consensus of experts on the subject. Minority views may be included in the body text of an article but not front lined as you have done. They also need to be worded appropriately so that all points of view are induced without excluding other view points.

"According to a textbook published in 2011 for training Chinese communist party leaders," What text book. Name, date, ISBN number, author? In any case, a textbook produced by the CPC is probably not going to be a reliable source of information for this article. Please see WP:V and WP:RS.

You wrote, "Someone also claimed that..." Who is someone?

Likewise, "However, another recent study indicated that there were only 2.5 million death directly linked to malnutrition." begs the question, what other study. Give a reference.

Then again, "by some officials" and again who?

You added "<ref> need reference </ref>" please use the template [[Template:Citation needed

Citation needed]] instead.

The "Further perspectives" section is entirely one sided and lacks balance or neutral points of view.

Talk to the other editors at Talk:Great Chinese Famine before making further edits to the article

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Chinese Famine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Great Chinese Famine was changed by Oldhand 12 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.944727 on 2013-12-16T19:18:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Great Chinese Famine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

It has been found that you have been using another account against Wikipedia policy or have recruited meatpuppets (friends or coworkers who share your point of view and are recruited to support you; see the meatpuppet policy for more information). Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts or recruited people should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area.

Your other account has been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. Please do not repeat this behaviour, or you will be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans will be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]