User talk:Gurnardmexico66
Welcome
[edit]
|
You might be interested in
[edit][]WP:FTN]] where Falun Gong is being discussed. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
China Hawks Vandalsing and deliberately minimizing the criticism section - will report the next vandal
[edit]- I previously made an edit here in the past after visiting this page and was shocked to see so much information being hidden. It seem likes wikipedia is being corrupted by china hawks making bad faith edits and they have gone too far. Basically there is no evidence for the debt trap diplomacy theory. Data contradicts it. Many studies also contradicts it. Even the hawkish Lowly institute after hard evidence was given, was forced to admit there was no evidence to push the theory. However the criticism sections has basically been edited in such a way that it's basically spun in a way that readers will be unlikely to understand why debt trap diplomacy is not actually a real thing.
Here is the info that is heavily suppressed.
- "An analysis by New York's Rhodium Group of 40 debt renegotiations made by China across 24 countries found "asset seizures are a very rare occurrence". nstead, debt write-off was the most common outcome, happening in 16 cases, including Vanuatu."
- Australian National University senior lecturer Darren Lim said the "debt trap diplomacy" claim was never credible, and had been pushed by the Trump Administration.
- It’s commonly believed that China is sucking all these poor countries into a debt-trap. A peer-reviewed academic study found this perception to be untrue. In a 2019 research paper, Johns Hopkins professor Deborah Brautigam concluded that most of these countries voluntarily signed on to these loans and had positive experiences working with China. Brautigam writes, “The evidence so far, including the Sri Lankan case, shows that the drumbeat of alarm about Chinese banks’ funding of infrastructure across the BRI and beyond is overblown.” She continues, “…a large number of people have favorable opinions of China as an economic model and consider China an attractive partner for their development.
For example, in 2014, 65% in Kenya, 67% in Ghana and 85% in Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria, held favorable views of China.” Hence, when China launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to build infrastructure from Central Asia to Africa (and even to Latin America), most countries signed on. Yes, China has made mistakes with BRI. Mahathir bin Mohamad protested against its terms when he became Prime Minister of Malaysia in 2018. However the deal was quietly renegotiated, and Mahathir became one of the key opening speakers of the BRI Summit in Beijing in 2019.
And basically more. L
I have very little interest in an edit war with "china hawks" as it's a waste of my time to deal with the petty fragile egotistic need to hide information. However this is just wrong to edit it in a way that vast majority of the above info is basically non-existant now. ooking at the article now. The information has been edited in a too biased kind of way that makes it seem like debt trap is A REAL thing despite peer-reivewed studies, hard data and statstics had proved it as not a real thing. But you wouldn;t be able to know that from reading the article now. If Wikipedia is to be neutral, it needs to MINIMALLY write that a peer-reviewed study and hard data disproves the theory and allegatiions. To omit it and deliberately mimiize is just plain messed up. I am adding that hard data and a peer-reviewed study disproved the theory as that is actual facts. Whoever tries to delete real info. I will be watchign and reporting immedaitely to the arb commitee. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
[edit]
Hello Gurnardmexico66, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Debt-trap diplomacy have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is highly unusual. You could have chosen to not delete the whole thing and the edit history archive logs even if it was actually plagiarism. But it doesn't register as plagiarism if you're citing their exact statements if in quotation marks for the sake of historical accuracy. I wrote that Sydney Morning Herald had written an article that disputed the validity of the theory in an article titled "Data doesn't support Belt and Road debt trap claims" and they cited a New York study group who found "asset seizures are a very rare occurrence" and that Australian National University senior lecturer Darren Lim said the "debt trap diplomacy" claim was never credible and instead that was mostly pushed by a trump administration. To call it plagiarism seem really excessive. But I appreciate your feedback and will try to do better next time tomorrow and hope there be no more excuses to delete entire info. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
G'day Diannaa. I have just added my second try and this time was super careful to not accidentally copy or plagiarize. I even completely left out the full quote from Australian National University senior lecturer Darren Lim who was quoted in the article, saying "but once the money is in, much of the leverage shifts to the borrower". As I do want to risk another excuse to delete my entire edits. Below is what I added into the article just now:
A Sydney Morning Herald article titled "Data doesn't support Belt and Road debt trap claims", disputed the validity of the "debt trap diplomacy claims" theory and referred to a report by the Rhodium Group of New York, who after analyzing 40 Chinese debt renegotiations, found that most unpaid debts to China were most commonly resolved by the debt being written off and that "asset seizures are a very rare occurrence". The paper also quoted Australian National University senior lecturer Darren Lim who said the "debt trap diplomacy" claim was never credible and despite that, was being pushed by the Trump Administration.
Hope no rules were broken this time. 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Debt trap diplomacy (start and end) bbb
[edit]Block me
It's ironic. It started off accidentally and innocently when I couldn't remember my username. Later on, got tired of the arbitrary trolling bs and so started switching. I never even had any intentions to add in bad edits to Debt trap diplomacy, but wasn't fond of the heat and arbitrary double standards encountered.
But I am amazed that you actually still remember me. I must have left a real impact to live in your head rent free after so long, and you kinda gave away my surprise gift. 😂 To prove I can have a billion accounts but as long as my edits are factual and solid..
There actually is very little that anyone can do about it. One arbitrary loophole can't keep me down.
P. S.
8 went through the cracks. 5 had different device plus internet. 3 had same device and internet. Only 2 was found. Lmao 😄 Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)