Screw It.png This user reserves the right to completely screw up his or her edits.

Face-smile.svgWelcome 2019OutlaweD!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 40,206,487 registered editors!
Hello 2019OutlaweD. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:
    Introduction to Wikipedia
    The five pillars of Wikipedia
    Editing tutorial
    How to edit a page
    Simplified Manual of Style
    The basics of Wikicode
    How to develop an article
    How to create an article
    Help pages
    What Wikipedia is not
Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
    Do be bold
    Do assume good faith
    Do be civil
    Do keep cool!
    Do maintain a neutral point of view
    Don't spam
    Don't infringe copyright
    Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
    Don't commit vandalism
    Don't get blocked
If you need further help, you can:
    Ask a question
or you can:
    Get help at the Teahouse
or even:
    Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
    Fight vandalism
    Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
    Help contribute to articles
    Perform maintenance tasks
           
    Become a member of a project that interests you
    Help design new templates
    Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

  • Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the   button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
  • Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!


Thanks Jax, that is very kind and helpful.
I am actually editing on the Dutch Wikipedia page.
I do not expect to be here so often, but I thought I would point out an error in translation.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


84.87.196.163=apdency. 62.119.166.9=robotje? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.152.71 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Het sjabloon inkorten is van Feer 22 Aug 2019 10:17.


het gedrag van agentenEdit

communicatie afdeling moet zijn public relations

onderdrukken van het demonstratierechtEdit

-demonstranten opgaan, moet zijn overspoelden

Hong Kong picturesEdit

You asked at the help desk but I'll continue here instead. Anyone in Hong Kong who has a smart phone might take pictures. If the picture shows faces or other identifying stuff, the user can use a PC program (e.g., Photoshop or GIMP) to blur the faces. Now the bigger issue: getting that picture, with a copyright licence, to you without incriminating the photographer. As it happens, pictures in the form of JPEG image files contain "meta-information" and that information can contain copyright information including a licence.

SO: the original photographer can take the pic and move it to a PC, then use Photoshop or GIMP to do any blurring and also edit the meta-information. Wikipedia is willing to take the word of anyone that they are the original photographer, even if that person does not provide a real name, unless we have reason to believe the person is not telling the truth. A statement of the form "I am the original photographer and I hereby license this picture under CC-BY-SA" will suffice.

If the photographer finds it too awkward to use photoshop or GIMP, then the photographer may choose to send the picture and a separate statement and a separate file, with the statement identifying the picture unambigously (e.g., by including, say, the date and file size.) Since the picture is under CC-BY-SA at that point, you are free to modify it (e.g., by blurring) before putting it up on Wiki Commons. You would attribute it at Commons by quoting the statement and claiming that your image is a derived work under CC-BY-SA.

Since the Commons servers are in the US and under US law, the only recourse the Chinese authorities would have is to claim that they own the. copyright, and demand that WMF take the picture down under provisions of the DMCA. WMF would require that this claim be proven before taking it down. The likelihood of any of this happening is near zero.

How a person in Hong Kong could send a big file to you without it being intercepted or at least noted is beyond my competence.

Good luck with all of this. -Arch dude (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude
I really appreciate all this information Arch dude.
I think there are still ways to anonymously send things out of Hong Kong, although the amount of surveillance is definitely getting worse.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Arch dude
Someone else beat me to it!
Nice to see that people care.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
For sending things more securely, I would highly recommend using "disposable" one-time use e-mail addresses and Pretty Good Privacy ... both the sender and receiver could also utilize the Tor web browser to further obfuscate the transfer of files. It would of course be good to somehow negotiate all that out of band using another encrypted communication method first (like Telegram), and then switching over to the agreed upon exchange.
Alternatively, you could also try SecureDrop or GlobalLeaks which could, in the long run, be better as it would be simpler to solicit a larger number of people to make contributions securely. Good luck! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pagesEdit

Hi there, I'm going to WP:AGF and not just shoot you a templated warning about your comportment on article talk pages because you're new to Wikipedia and I do try to avoid being too harsh with new editors however there are a few issues that I think you probably need clarified about how article talk works. First off, article talk pages are not fora for general discussion - rather they are workshopping space to discuss edits to articles. As such, introducing off-topic material is frowned upon. If your concern is, for instance, that you don't believe a specific incident is being given sufficient coverage, or that the coverage of it is non-neutral, that's fine. But you should find the discussion on the talk page where that is being discussed. If there is no topic related to your concern, you should create a new topic with a concise description of the problem and your proposal to remedy it.

What you should not do is raise unrelated matters in an ongoing discussion that may derail the discussion or that have more to do with your personal feelings regarding an event rather than how Wikipedia, within the bounds of the project, should address the event.

Next, it's very important to remain civil during talk page discussions. Calling other editors pawns of the CCP, insulting other editors, calling other editors liars, etc. This is all frowned upon. And generally, unless you have evidence that another editor has contravened the standards of the Wikipedia project, the only thing that sort of action will do is get you in trouble. Furthermore, Wikipedia maintains strict standards about how we speak about living people and recently deceased people and these standards apply both to article space and to article talk. As such, statements about living persons which are unsupported by reliable sources or which read as explicit insults, may be seen as contravening Wikipedia standards and may be removed. Furthermore these sorts of actions, if they recur, may land you in hot water.

On the topic of reliable sources, which is actually what led me to reach out to you in the first place, it's important to remember that what Wikipedia treats as "reliable" comes with some implicit bias but in general is in service of verifiability and accuracy. So a random vlogger's youtube page is not a RS. Major media outlets on social media may be cited, but there is definitely a hierarchy of major media outlets, and tabloids such as the Sun are kind of the bottom of the barrel. Blogs, social media posts from random people, etc. are not reliable sources. However having a bias is not something that disqualifies a reliable source. So if Xinhua, which has a good background in fact checking, and issuing corrections of factual errors, makes a statement, that can be included, though generally attributed to Xinhua. Likewise with the BBC (which you'll find is equally biased toward China albeit in the opposite direction). I am not personally a fan of using mass media sources as RS - I prefer to work with academic sources - but they are something of a vile necessity when dealing with current events articles like this one. As such, the question shouldn't be, "do I agree with this source?" but rather, "can this source be trusted to report factual matters accurately or to correct itself if it does not?"

I do hope this guidance helps you and I hope you have the opportunity to develop as a Wikipedia editor. This is a weird community - and it's not a good place for political activism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

I'm out of patience with (Personal attack removed). Now (Personal attack removed) Because I tried to help you? Ok, so here's what's going to happen now. I'm going to log off until tomorrow. And if you say absolutely nothing that can be construed as a personal attack about myself or any other editor between now and when I log on again I'll ignore this. But (Personal attack removed), one more (Personal attack removed) and I'll be taking this mess to the admin noticeboard.

I've told you several times to change course. Consider yourself thoroughly cautioned. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I never said that you were paid by Beijing. What gave you that idea?
I can't believe an unbiased person can look at those sources and condone the edits of that user, that is all.
I am trying to talk about it without being unfriendly. I admit that I was unfriendly. That is why I removed the bullshit and left the sources only and started again. I thought it was a good idea. It can all be found inside that crap can, rights?
You don't like that idea, so you come up with an idea to talk it out and make sure that the sources that I supplied are in there. Then we talk about if the police is violent or the demonstrators. While the police is being charged with many many charges for conduct unbecoming an officer and various human rights issues coming from almost all human rights organisations...But we can do that again here.
You start, I'll follow, we edit the violent nature after we talk it out by means of the sources.
@Simonm223:
Removed multiple personal attacks made by simonm223.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN/IEdit

I've initiated a discussion of your comportment at WP:AN/I - it would be in your best interest to participate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 21:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Compare this ANI thread. You have been blocked especially for persistent POV-pushing and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen, I am sorry to see that I have been blocked and, in fact, indefinitely on the first strike. I must say that it hurts my feelings. I sincerely was trying to do good things. Also, if I am not taking the proper form in my appeal, please bear with me, because I sincerely do not understand how things get resolved on both the Dutch and the English Wikipedia...apparently, that is... I will make my case below. I read the rules about appealing, which say that I should not talk about others, but only about myself. In the initial report on the admin page are a lot of things that did not happen. It puts me in a light that I simply do not deserve to be in (in my opinion). So, what I will do is make my case about my own behaviour, completely by my point of view. I will describe what I do/did here (I do have to kind of mention others in order to explain what I did, (It is not meant hateful, I just don't know any other way to explain it) and then appeal with a short compact message. Below that, I will briefly address what happened on the Dutch Wikipedia, which should not have been included in the decision making process here in my own opinion of course. Given that I feel I am unfairly judged there in the first place, I think saying (from my own point of view again) what I think happened there will put me in a different light.

Disclaimer: Only read what you want to read, I wrote the story surrounding the appeal because I have good intentions. If it is too lengthy, please stick to the appeal only!

I am here at the English Wikipedia to translate pages that are here, but are absent on the Dutch Wikipedia. I visited my wife's family in Hong Kong and recently returned home(I am Dutch, and have been born there). When I came home, I wanted to look up things about the demonstrations in Hong Kong, which, a few times, happened in front of our hotel. I saw there was no such page in Dutch. Then I read part of the English page and I decided to translate part of it to the Dutch wiki. I asked for help with translating, but no one did. So, I literally translated that whole thing by myself in around 60-80 hours. The English article was locked and had 600+ references. So, I could not have edited it. I copied the references, thinking that there must have been an edit war here, given news about Chinese fake accounts on facebook, twitter and youtube (links go to news articles) (200000 accounts that were placing Chinese propaganda online, as if they were normal users on social media that is actually blocked in China by the Chinese government, so there should be 0 accounts from people living in China there.). I did not translate the citations in the references, because I did not know that was normal/mandatory. This later led to problems, I will clarify below. On the English Wikipedia I used the sandbox to translate, which I did without any bias, just 1 on 1 translation. I did add a note about numbers of demonstrators that can't be trusted and I think I added the chain of people they call the Hong Kong way protest at a later time; because it happened at that time (23rd of Aug, I think I added it 25th).
So, I started adding stuff because I saw a lot of things in Hong Kong that should never happen there. It sincerely strikes me at the core of my being to see what is happening and how they are slandered by the Chinese state media. Because I know I am bias, I did not add anything not on the English, and not on the Dutch Wikipedia (except for a direct translation). While I was translating, I saw that people were going to split the article, which is a good idea, because it really was a very long article. I decided to monitor that, because I think it is what needs to be done on the Dutch Wikipedia as well. While monitoring, I noticed and IP adding things that are not true and that I know are part of Chinese propaganda, paid for by Beijing. That IP added the same thing time and time again, after it was undone around 7 times by different users; I undid 0 (I stopped counting after that). I decided to get someone involved, because I did not want to have a discussion about who did what. I thought someone with more experience should do that. So, with the intent to prevent bias information (propaganda, no less), to be added to the Wikipedia, I contacted the helpdesk, because I had no idea how to find an admin. At this moment the IP changed into the account that I pointed at in the helpdesk. Before that, it was an IP and I wasn't sure what to do about it. It also hadn't happened so often yet. But instantly, I knew that the contribution was bias (live camera images show it). I have tried to discuss things with this user and I admit that I was not friendly, which was a mistake. I agree that I did that wrong. A more experienced user apparently showed up to handle the situation, but I never understood that this user was there to handle it. From my perspective, that user made it much worse.
The more experienced user undid multiple attempts to try and talk it out. So, I went back to the admin page and looked for an admin name (at random) and asked for help. Because that admin said I had to get through it with the experienced user, I tried again and got a ban over it.
Please understand that I am not describing a conspiracy by users, but I am saying that multiple users contributed to that fact (unjustly in my opinion).
My appeal:
 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2019OutlaweD (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

* I have, [once], edited 2019 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Bill Protests on the English Wikipedia (fixing a mistake, the difference between immigration and emigration). I was here to translate it. I translated it in my sandbox (also in the Dutch version thereof). Therefore, I did not vandalise or add bias things in it. I have never pushed my POV; I argued against it by showing a live video of the incident. Somehow, this has been explained as if I was pushing my own POV. While my version is equal to the live video.. * I have at no point had an account that was blocked permanently, nor do I have multiple accounts. I did use the Wikipedia in the past to add philosophical and psychological pages, when I saw there was none, because I studied both. * I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia in the past due to the same crap that is happening there now, which has (literally) followed me here. * I admit that I approached the user(s) that I see as a destructive influence badly. The contributions made clear that the user has not checked the facts. However, I admit that I made comments that I should never have made. This I will not do again. * I would like to propose to contact you when I run into something, because I honestly don't know how things are done in a lot of cases (both on the Dutch and English Wikipedia) and that way you can point me in the right direction OR I will feel comfortable enough to stay out of it. It was lack of knowledge on how to get an admin to take a look that led to this disaster, actually. * I will likely not be here much, only to translate a page that has not been created on the Dutch Wikipedia, I guess, although I have not actually planned it into my future.

Decline reason:

The more you write the more you demonstrate a lack of self-awareness, and an inability to understand what the problems with your editing have been. That does not suggest that you will succeed in avoiding the same problems in the future if you are unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the Dutch Wikipedia:
I started translating a page concerning the demonstrations in Hong Kong, because there was none in Dutch and I wanted to read up about it, having just returned from visiting my wife's family there (I am Dutch) and having seen a whole lot that simply should never happen. It is an incredibly long page and I put in 60-80 hours translating it. I was happily adding stuff; including a page about the lennon wall, which also did not exist in Dutch, when a user sends me a message, saying that I had used a translating machine and that he should undo my work (which was the lennon wall page; effectively saying to delete this colourful page that I had made), because I had not translated the citations of the references! That kind of hit a nerve with me, especially because I was talking it over with another user in a normal manner already. So, I left a message at that user's talkpage asking to please leave me alone. That user never left me alone after that and I kept asking to be left alone. I also referred to that user by a name of a mythological creature that I should not feed. That got me blocked for 6 hours. After that block, I contacted the admin that blocked me and explained that I felt he was led astray and I contacted that same user to ask to please leave me alone. And I removed crap referring to this stuff from my talkpage. Apparently this was completely wrong of me and I got banned for 1 week. That is what happened. Now, what that admin that apparently followed me here has said, is 100% untrue. I just don't understand that. Literally everything is untrue. Even to the point of being allowed to give me an indefinite block for no reason. Go figure. But I will have to talk about that on the Dutch Wikipedia.
If I did not supply enough evidence to support my case, please ask for it. I have purposefully left out many things that led up to this moment, because I read that I should keep my appeal as short as possible (limited time of volunteers)....and it is already way too long. I have pondered to remove the explanations about what I am doing on the English wiki and about what happened on the Dutch wiki, but I think it is needed to put things in a different light. Apologies for the long appeal.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
2019OutlaweD, what admins want to see in an unblock request is that a) an editor knows what conduct was causing a problem and b) what they will do in the future to avoid this disruption. Your loooooong explanation is not reassuring to admins that you will not seek out or put yourself into the middle of future disputes. In fact, it looks like you are blaming others for your problems and are seeking out controversial subjects to edit in. This is not an unblock request that will be granted. I advise you to read over guide to appealing blocks for guidance on what you should consider before requesting another unblock request. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Liz:
Liz, I thank you for your response. I knew writing this that it might be perceived that way. However, the fact is that the block is for "supposedly not wanting to contribute to an encyclopedia". The reasons to conclude to that are supposedly pov editing (I did not do so; I edited the article 1 time correcting a word); pov pushing (I did not do so; proof is the live video that I used to confront another user not to place pov edits) and not to be offensive in talk pages; I did that, because I did not know where to contact an admin to take a look at it. I asked at the helpdesk where to find one, but no one pointed me to one. Because this is the fact, I got involved myself. So, the thing that I did wrong I admit to, I deny the part that I did not do and am supplying evidence to show that I didn't and I am saying that, now that I know some admins, I can stay out of pov editing and immediately alert an admin. It should not happen again.
Another important part to my block is the fact that an admin from the Dutch Wikipedia left a message here, claiming things that are untrue. That admin believed it at that time, but no, because I am discussing it on the Dutch Wikipedia with her, she is coming to see (step by step) that she really was wrong about things. I am not complaining, just getting the truth on table there. The idea is to have her come back to her comment on the English Wikipedia....which is already crazy that she made it in my opinion, so that the whole situation can be shown as utter nonsense. Quite literally, I got a block for trying to prevent POV edits..
So, given that you took the time to read and respond, I would like to ask you how you would approach the situation then? The way this is explained in the guide requires me to confess to things that I did not do: lying. I do not think that this is proper behaviour. So, how do you think I should do this, then?
p.s. I am not claiming any admin (here or on the Dutch Wikipedia) literally lied, on both wikipedia's they were led astray by false claims in the section where admins are asked to help out. And I supplied proof of this.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Floortje Désirée:: You've got mail. Sorry for the late response.

Unblock Request 2Edit

 
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2019OutlaweD (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked, because I was blocked because I was trying to find a way to prevent propaganda from mainland China being added to articles about the Hong Kong protestes in 2019. I tried to get an admin involved, I asked in the helpdesk and I tried to discuss it repeatedly on the talk page of the article....which have disappeared so far into the history that I stopped looking for it. Judging from the responses, I should have tried to get attention to this user in a different way. I would like to be unblocked to discuss how to do that. Please note that: :(1) I have edited the article only 1 time (correcting the word immigration to emigration), so I have not added any POV idea. :(2) The user Ltyl (that I was talking about is also being noticed by others , and is either the same as IP 65.60.163.223, or adding the exact same things. That IP is now mentioned for a block request. :(3) TLtyl; IP 65.60.163.223 has/have in fact edited in a way that is contrary to NPOV, as I pointed out. :If you have any questions or remarks, please do ask. 2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That's not really how it works. You don't get unblocked to discuss how you plan to change your approach to things. Tell us specifically first how you plan to correct that, and then an unblock can be considered based on that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:
In the first attempt I wrote specifically That I would not comment on such things publicly again (as in the second attempt). I also suggested to contact one of the admins in order to point such things out, because I sincerely don't know how to work stuff like this out. That didn't get me unblocked either.
In my opinion, it is due to the fact that the NPOV rule does not include preventing propaganda and censorship (it's goal is to subvertively convince people of untrue things: preventing the spreakd of knowledge. This leads to people repeating nonesense, believing it's true, which leads to soures full of nonesense start appearing, which make the nonesense seem true. And this is done on purpose and planned.), but I am not allowed to comment on this while blocked. The reality is that I am an inexperienced user. I don't know a lot of things. It is my first block, which ocured after NOT having edited an article, noticing propaganda being placed AND while trying to obtain help in order to prevent the propaganda from being added (which other users have now also noticed). I think that the permanent nature of the block is somewhat unfair, given the uncommon circomstances of propaganda in the mix, it being my first ban and me being right about the propaganda, and me being inexperienced and actually trying to get more experienced users (like admins) to take over.
I actually think that, given the circumstances, I did great. The thing that I can learn is not to specifically say what I see, because being honest can hurt people's feelings and that ruins the athmosphere. And that is why I said that in both unblock requests. More can't be reasonably expected from an inexperienced user such as myself, imho.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:: You've got mail.
I already gave you the answer to your last unblock request. That answer was "No", not "No, but please leave me a ping here and then send me an email." Since you said that you "sincerely don't get the problem", let's put it so you can't miss it: Your constant pushing and refusal to drop anything IS the problem. That's what got you into trouble in the first place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:
I am not pushing a POV, I am pushing to prevent POV edits. Why is that punished? Isn't that a good thing? If I stop pushing, the neutrality on the wikipedia about this topic (and all China related topics) is as good as gone. And that is because there is no rule to cover for propaganda news. It is in the news, it is a known lie, but the NPOV rule is allowing us to place it without mentioning it is propaganda/censorship. Even to the point that, if someone notices the neutrality is gone and actually cares about that, that person gets blocked indefinately, while intending good things and actually never having blocked before. Isn't that a bit unreasonable at least? Because that is what I think. A block: ok, I apparently did this the wrong way. But indefinately? That is like saying that the wikipedia is intended to be a propaganda channel.
One thing that a block is for is to discuss what to change in order to become a normal and productive editor. So, since the only thing I am blocked for is insisting on the neutrality of the wikipedia, I ask: how do I act in order to make these articles neutral?
Please note that, while my choice of words was not so polite, I am blocked for asking this question.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Everyone thinks their version is NPOV and the other guy's version is the wrong version. If consensus is not in your favor, however, what you do at that point is walk away. You can walk away thinking they're idiots not to recognize how right you were, but you don't win 'em all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for you patience and your reply Seraphimblade, I appreciate it.
In the cases mentioned, there are iive camera's and people marking the other version as Chinese propaganda. No one in their right mind can call it NPOV. If 50 people say A, while camera's prove B, while A is internationally recognised as propaganda (proven!), it can still be in the article, but it should be mentioned that it is proven to be just that: untrue and propaganda. Walking away is leaving the wikipedia to become a propaganda outlet for a country that has no regard for human rights whatsoever, even to the point of using tanks to shoot down peacefully demonstrating students, like at tiananmen square; given that tanks are already surrounding HK, as shown on satellite images, I have a real problem with that. Now, I think I am not the one to keep this from happening, which is why I was looking for a way to do so. The NPOV rule does not supply for cases of purposefully lying in order to disinform. That is what I think has to happen. After a more experienced and unbiased person agrees to keep an eye on it, I have no problem walking away. But how do I get that going? And, now that we are on the subject, how do I start a process to add something to the NPOV rules about this?
I don't know if you have the time, but I can definately use a coach for this kind of formal wikipedia stuff. Would you be willing to answer my probably obvious questions in order to prevent the most disastrous mistakes?
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, doing something like watching video yourself, and drawing conclusions from it that sources are wrong, is textbook original research. Now, I'd generally agree that we should be very cautious using sources that are official state mouthpieces (and in totalitarian countries, that might be any source from that country in matters of substantial concern to the government.) But if other sources have also said the same, they generally will have independently verified it. So, basically, when a bunch of people are telling you that you're doing something you shouldn't be, step back, take a deep breath, and consider that they could be right. Basically, you should not be using your own observations of primary source material, such as video, to dispute sources. If the only thing available for a given claim is a source of questionable reliability, we don't put into the article "But they're wrong", but we might decide to omit the material entirely until a better quality source weighs in. On the other hand, if a very high-quality and reliable source says something but you think they're wrong, the thing to do there is tell that to whatever source it is, and try to have them publish a correction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Seraphimblade, but I already knew and it is not the situation exactly.
I understand your comment, but that is not what I am doing. I have not edit the article. I did cite free press articles and I showed camera footage backing that up, and showed sources of the other version being marked as propaganda. The camera footage actually shows that the propaganda is a 100% reversal of the facts. So, no original research on my part. The propaganda can be called original research though; although the users placing it here are merele parrotting it. Honestly, I understand that you think that news sources verify information, but I know for a fact that ofthe they don't. The fact that camera's show a 100% reversal and some free press still parrot it proves that. But regardless of that fact, if it can be proven to be marked as propaganda and be proven to be a complete reversal of facts, it should be included as such in the article as being that: lies and propaganda. Failing to mention that, especially after seeing evidence of the real facts with your own eyes, is placing a POV, no matter how hard a user tries to get others blocked. IF a user would have changed it's position after being confronted with camera footage, public announcements of their version being fabricated for propaganda purposes, or discussed what to put in the article rationally, I could have thought it to be an honest mistake. But that is not what happened. The discussions were avoided after seeing the facts, no attempts at making the edits neutral were made and instead, the users called for a ban of the user that didn't edit the article (except for that emigration/immigration thing) that was discussing what and how things should be put into the article.
To dot the I's: I don't think that state run media (paid to publish propaganda) will redact their publications. Often this kind of thing is also seen in western media, because mainland China purchased an advert. It just looks like a news article. Between the 2, and government leaders from China saying the same, honest people (and honest journalists) are being fooled. Some propaganda is easy enough to catch on to, but there are way more subversive and harder to spot ones as well. This is why I am saying that the NPOV rule is correct, but not sufficient for cases involving propaganda.
Perhaps superfluous, but the wikipedia is actually blocked in China. Then the question becomes who these editors are, voicing the propaganda of mainland China?
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I am going to try one more time, and then I'm just going to figure you're not listening. You absolutely may not, ever, use your own interpretations of primary material to dispute secondary sources. No matter how you rephrase the question, that will be the answer. This is not a unique case where that becomes okay. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade
I have never done so. I am pointing out that someone else has done so. I got blocked for pointing that out. That is why I think the block is unreasonable. Did you not understand that before? --2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)