User talk:223.16.153.31

July 2021

Hello, I'm Uranium Site. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hong Kong national security law, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uranium Site (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Uranium Site (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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:223.16.153.31 reported by User:Seloloving (Result: ). Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as done at Hong Kong national security law.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

223.16.153.31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked in my comment for the article for the 'Hong Kong National Security Law', where I explained the reasons for the Chinese government for enacting the National Security measures, where I have placed various and valid references, which has ALL been reverted by the users for no particular reason. They have also complained that I have replaced 'protest' with the term 'riot', and have reverted it. In fact, from my references, which contains references to violent assault, and arson, they have reasoned that this does not in fact agree with the dictionary term for 'riot', which is a 'violent disturbance is peace'. If assault, arson, bomb plots, are not a violent disturbance in peace, what is? I have also made various edits, to improve the neutrality, of the article, and I have been accused of being biased. While other users have not explained their reverts, and have insisted, with no reason at all, that I am working for the CCP. This block is unfair, as well as a biased attempted to obfuscate the truth; They have reverted the very valid references to violent assault, arson, etc, at the riots WITHOUT any valid reasoning. The truth is that the riots are not a call for democracy; it is an attempt for the rioters to achieve their goals through violence, assault, as referenced in my articles; so some of the terms, including, 'pro democracy' has been deleted. It is merely a propaganda and ideological term, used by the US (and their media) to push for their influence within the realm of China-US geopolitics. I have not been involved in any infactual corrections. If in fact they have a problem with individual words, then please edit it out for discussion, but the reverts have also deleted the REAL REFERENCES

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, not the contents of your edits. You'll need to address that, and only that, in future unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UTRS 46136

UTRS appeal #46136 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Hong Kong national security law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. OceanHok (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---