50.100.221.36

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on East Frisians. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I see you've done the same on West Frisians, per WP:BRD you should be initiating a discussion once your initial edit was reverted. Alssa1 (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring at East Frisians, etc. regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 - again

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Australo-Melanesian, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• This was not a disruptive edit. The current form of that article is grossly inaccurate. The term is a valid term used in all modern genetics studies to refer to biologically distinct human subpopulations. 50.100.221.36 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antigonish County. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alssa1 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Australo-Melanesian.
Please do not revert things just because you disagree with them. Please discuss them on the talk page and obtain consensus - Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:English people for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. As I said, once unblocked you can start a new thread using sources. See WP:NOTFORUM. Note that another editor has restored my collapsing of the thread. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 26 December 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not edit warring any more and am now resorting to BRD. I apologize. I did not violate 3RR either. 50.100.221.36 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's a little late to start invoking BRD and claiming you are in fact discussing things. Edit warring is not the same as a 3R block, by the way. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 26 December 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It is not late. Look at my edit history. I was taking part in a discussion at Talk:English people. A 48 hour block is a tad harsh. None of my edits were meant to be disruptive. I am merely seeking to improve the articles. I can assure you I will not go on about reverting edits anymore without prior discussion. I would also note that my discussion at Talk:English people has been reverted inexplicably, and a user is trolling and reverting all my edits on any page without explanation. I am trying to follow WP:BRD there, but the people who disagree with me just remove my discussion completely. How can I go through BRD if these people are deleting my discussion of the edit conflict?? Did you give a warning to any of them? 50.100.221.36 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You started off really well, then veered into WP:NOTTHEM territory. I suggest you review WP:GAB if you will be posting another appeal. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:05, 27 December 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.

See User talk:Doug Weller#Smells like sock spirit Doug Weller talk 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not that I care, but there seems to be a whole group of widely differing accounts there you are attempting to connect together as one guy from years back, but without enough evidence. I'm not him (or her, or any of them). 50.100.221.36 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In any case, I explained about about using talk pages as a forum, and your post was a good example of using a talk page to talk about the subject. As I suggested, if you want to make changes, you need to have reliable sources supporting them. Bring them to the discussion and there shouldn't be any problem. BRD has nothing to do with this. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to reliable sources, which already are in the article. And the opposing user was not using any sources for his argument either, yet you only removed mine. You do not have the authority to unilaterally end an ongoing discussion about an edit conflict. It is not just about sources, but the interpretation of them and how they are displayed in the article. My edits were also about removing unsourced material from the article, but no one has replied to that yet. 50.100.221.36 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not defending anyone else in that thread, which is why I collapsed it. You didn't mention any sources. As I said, start a new thread discussing sources. Your edit didn't mention removing anything unsourced, in fact you didn't use the words unsourced, sourced, etc. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why collapse it? You have no authority to end the discussion. I did mention sources, and specifically those already listed in the article. Notice there is another discussion heading at the bottom of the page where I do refer exactly to removing unsourced material in the article. What I am discussing in terms of including IS ALREADY SOURCED in the article. 50.100.221.36 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please name the sources you mention as I can’t see any in your post. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

Your recent editing history at Lake Smaller Ritsa 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

---