User talk:Jeff6741

September 2024

Hi Jeff6741! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Human rights in China several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Human rights in China, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as you can see, I have modified the content following your previous suggestion to make it more fair and objective. I hope that if you have any problems to modify, please modify on this basis instead of deleting my contribution, This is a contribution that has cost me a lot of time and energy. Could you please think from my perspective? Thank you for your understanding and cooperation! At the same time, I will publish it on the talk page according to your suggestion to seek the advice of others. Jeff6741 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any suggestions, so I think you're confusing me with someone else. I observed you repeatedly reinstating material that had been removed. Please discuss this issue on the relevant talk page to try to reach consensus with other editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry I have discussed this issue on the relevant talk page, but I also think that building Wikipedia is a continuous process of improvement. The reason why I repeatedly reinstate material that had been removed is that if other editors have problems, they can directly modify or improve the information I added, which can save a lot of trouble. Jeff6741 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily how things work on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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; read about 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. Amigao (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the information I added is true and reliable. There are sources for verification. It took me a lot of time and energy to collect and write this information. Could you please understand the efforts others have made for this and restore the content I added? Thank you very much! Jeff6741 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring about this and seek consensus for your proposed addition on the article's talk page. If you continue to edit war, you're going to land yourself with a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already sought consensus on the content of my proposed addition on the article's talk page, and I have not received any objections. So could you please help me restore the information I added? Everything I have added is true and reliable! All has sources available for verification. It took me a lot of time and energy to add this content. I hope you could understand it, instead of deleting the content that I have worked so hard to add every time. I also want to contribute to Wikipedia! Please help me to restore it, thank you very much! Jeff6741 (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needs to be reached, not simply sought. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But no one has raised any objections, this should be a tacit consensus that has been reached. Jeff6741 (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should thoroughly review WP:CON first. - Amigao (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already viewed WP:CON, and have sought to achieve consensus by publishing content on the talk page, with no objection so far. Hence, in order to seek more consensus, could you please remove the semi-protection of the page I spent a lot of time and effort editing? Jeff6741 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff6741, your editing suggestions are on the way

{{subst:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions/SuggestBot |category1=WikiProject_Human rights issues Special training schools are a special type of school in China, mainly private schools. They tell parents of teenagers that they will quit internet addiction, and they tell parents of adults that they will provide jobs, but in fact they are frauds. Parents are deceived and asked to pay high tuition fees (at least 30,000 yuan for half a year). Most of the instructors there are former members of gangster and are physically strong. They pretend to be police officers outside, and under the pretext of being investigated, they lure, kidnap teenagers or adults and send them to special training schools to be imprisoned for at least half a year. Once locked up, they are unable to come out and are controlled by instructors, being cut off from all contact with the outside world and suffer all kinds of insults and infringements. Moreover, special training schools are located in remote rural areas, surrounded by high walls of barbed wire, like prisons, and have become a lawless place for instructors. The instructors are tyrannical, arrogant and domineering, cruelly oppress, torture and beat up the students, withhold students' property. They are vicious, brutal and commit all kinds of evil, and do not treat the students as human beings at all. They treat the students as slaves and thrash them whenever they want, showing no humanity at all. The instructors punish the students corporally from morning to night, regardless of severe cold or heat, and the students have no right to speak. There are various types of corporal punishment, such as standing motionless from early morning until midnight, running 50 laps along the playground, doing squats for two hours or walking the duckwalk for several hours, etc. If the students are physically weak, they will be thrashed. The students end up physically and mentally exhausted and even vomit blood. The students suffer both physical and mental torture. If students disobey, they will be tied up, kicked, punched, and beaten up with various tools. The instructors will even engage in a beating competition to see who can beat harder. The methods are extremely cruel. The students are kept beaten up until their bodies are covered with bruises and bruises. Many special training schools even use electric shocks and other methods which are horrific and torture students until they are worse than death. Some special training schools have even been reported deaths. There are students' crying and howling inside every day, extremely miserable! It's even darker than hell. The quality of life of the students there is worrying: they only eat vegetables and soup, eat steamed buns or Chinese sauerkraut almost every day, and cannot eat meat all year round; the sanitary conditions are extremely poor, causing mosquitoes to infest; the living facilities are also extremely simple, without any electrical appliances. The students inside all have dark skin (due to being exposed to the sun every day). They are sallow and thin, and are severely malnourished. The students' tableware is very dirty and often contains food residues, causing students to vomit and have diarrhea from time to time. In addition, even students' sleep time is deprived by the instructors, forcing them to be unable to survive. In this way, they are tortured from early morning to midnight like slaves by the instructors day after day. They suffer huge and irreparable damage to their bodies and minds, leaving permanent lingering shadows in their hearts. Amidst this extreme pain and despair, a large number of people fall ill and suffer from mental illness, such as insanity or depression, and many even contemplate suicide. Students' most basic human rights, such as dignity, personality, right to health, and right to personal freedom, are all illegally deprived and trampled upon. However, the China's Education Bureau acquiesces in such school operations. Such schools seriously violate human rights, but they are not supervised and the public has no channel to report them.

3RR

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; read about 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. Polygnotus (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2024 (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:Jeff6741 reported by User:Cordless Larry. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am constantly improving the article according to your requirements, without engaging in editing wars with others. You may have misunderstood me. Jeff6741 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, again

Jeff, you told me you read and will follow WP:3RR right? But then you reverted again. I am not sure what kinda get-out-of-jail-free card you think you have, but you don't. Polygnotus (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me that reverted again, as you can see. I'm just making improvements to it. The content is constantly being deleted so if making improvements, I could only restore and making modifications based on that. Jeff6741 (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you did revert again, and I can foresee you getting blocked. I was hoping you would avoid that. Using the word "restore" instead of "revert" is not going to jedi mind trick the admins. Polygnotus (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't restore the content, how can I make improvements Could you please not delete it all the time? Could you please respect the work of others and revert it? Thank you! Jeff6741 (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make changes to content that has been deleted from the article, on the article. Because something that no longer exists can't be changed. And if you repeatedly restore it, like you did, you will be blocked. You could, in theory, improve content others disagree with in your own WP:USERSPACE or in a WP:DRAFT (like Draft:Special training schools in China). The reason you are not allowed to repeatedly revert is to force you to discuss changes on the WP:TALKPAGE and form a WP:CONSENSUS with other editors. See also WP:BRD. Polygnotus (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting strong WP:IDHT vibes here. When I advised Jeff6741 to ask at the Teahouse for help understanding the verifiability and NPOV rules, their response was they'd "already asked at the Teahouse to get advice", yet their contribution history doesn't show a single edit to the Teahouse page (unless you've got more than one account, Jeff6741?). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask at the Teahouse for help. I only have this account. The content I published is absolutely available for verification. There are a lot of reliable sources, and you can also see it. I've also tried my best to write this from a neutral point of view. Please don't make it difficult for me anymore. I have done what you asked. You keep doing this and it makes me want to give up contributing to Wikipedia and providing absolutely true and reliable information. Could you please put yourself in someone else's shoes? Others have invested so much time and energy into contributing to this, but you keep deleting them. How will this make others feel? Jeff6741 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You finally asked there after my comment above. Please don't take us for fools. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are on the WP:TALKPAGE discussing changes. As you see, I've already published changes in the draft, and I hope to reach a consensus with you, and I hope you could also help me improve the article. Thank you! Jeff6741 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, as you did at Human rights in China.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for you to ask others to edit for you. I've twice reverted such requests. If you do so again, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]