User talk:ACPARC

September 2022

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to China Times, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Want Want, you may be blocked from editing. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at China Times. Liliana ^(UwU) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at China Times 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. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Dawn, I’m glad that you have responded. I did not know how to contact Wikipedia so I just went ahead and edited. I’m just trying to present a balance perspective on current realities. There are two issues that I wish to resolve: 1) the issue with Financial Times reflects poorly on Want Want and has since been resolved so including it gives a biased picture on their current situation 2) The Washington Post issue is blatantly incorrect and Want Want still reserves the right to challenge it. As such, I felt that it should not be included. ACPARC (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should've probably brought it up on the talk page first. Liliana ^(UwU) 03:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So please don’t block me since this is the first time I’ve been able to communicate with you directly!

ACPARC (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana, I didn’t know the edit protocol! Now I know ACPARC (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]