Epf2018
Welcome!
editHello, Epf2018, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 09:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit wars
editI suspect you are aware of this, but you need to read WP:BRD -----Snowded TALK 10:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
November 2018
edit
Your recent editing history at English people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See obviously related Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:6C0:962B:BFC1:8B29:138C:FD1F for earlier reverts. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
edit This is your only warning; if you continue to disrupt Scientific racism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I did not disrupt the article whatsoever. I made constructive edits in line with WP. I also removed uncited content, as per WP, and an unacceptable and invalid citation. Please stop threatening users, or you will be reported. Epf2018 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Copying licensed material requires attribution
editHi. I see in a recent addition to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"Papuans"
editSorry, but half your alleged "Papuans" are Austronesian. If you can't tell the difference, you have no business writing the article. The genetic info can go in the Melanesians article. (Oh, right, it's already there. So that would be a content fork.) Also, is there any genetic evidence that the Bunaq etc. are Papuan, or is that just another spurious reification of linguistic classification? — kwami (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Instead of blanking the article, why don't you make constructive edits to it. Which Papuans in the article are Austronesian? Are you referring to the list of famous Papuans? I added other genetic studies not mentioned in the Melanesians article, and I further elaborated on what the studies state. Austronesian Melanesians are clearly distinguished from Papuan-speakers in all the studies, culturally and linguistically, and are genetically different. Austronesian Melanesians often have significant Austronesian admixture, about 20% in the studies cited, which is absent or nearly absent from Papuans. They are distinct groups. Epf2018 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you are referring to the Bunak people of East Timor, they are clearly a Papuan people, as their native language is a Papuan language, not an Austronesian language. It is evident that they are also Papuan genetically, based on their clear physical differences (very dark skin, facial features, etc.) from the Austronesians on East Timor, though clearly with some Austronesian gene flow not found in indigenous Papuans in New Guinea or the Bismarck archipelago.Epf2018 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- "they are clearly Papuan" - you're talking in circles. They're Papuan because they don't speak an Austronesian language, and we know this because they speak a Papuan language. By that argument, native Australians are Papuan. There are other peoples in Indonesia with dark skin etc., but who speak an Austronesian language. Race doesn't reliably follow language, so are they Papuan? How do we know? What about the 'negritos' of the Philippines? Isn't it "evident that they are also Papuan genetically"? If not, why? because they don't live within the 20th-century borders of Indonesia? Unless there's a Papuan genetic signature present in the Bunaq that is not present in the others, or there's a clear cultural connection, you have no reason for including them except OR. And if the "Austronesians" of Melanesia are 80% Papuan, why are we calling them Austronesian and not Papuan? Aren't they just Papuans with a bit of AN admixture? Should we split Cherokee people into two because English-speakers have greater European admixture than Cherokee-speakers? Does that make them "distinct groups"? And unlike the Bunaq vs other Timorese, The 'Papuans' and 'Austronesians' are not physically distinct, and there's generally no ethnic distinction either.
- As for fixing the article, that's exactly what I did. Melanesians covers the topic perfectly well, and we don't need two articles to cover the same topic. Thus a rd is the appropriate fix. As for which specifics are problematic, if I told you that, you could delete them and claim that the problem is fixed. But it's likely that the cases I don't know anything about are no more reliable than the ones I do, so 'fixing' the article that way would just be whitewashing it. Even if the article were perfectly accurate, it's still a content fork and so should be merged into 'Melanesians'.
- "their native language is a Papuan language". There's no such thing as a "Papuan language" except as shorthand for "non-Austronesian". But language is not race, and -- since the term is arbitrary -- we could easily have defined "Papuan" to include Australian. Would that make the Bunaq aboriginal Australian?
- If the distinction is genetic (it can't be linguistic, as that would be a content fork of Papuan languages), then you need genetic evidence for every people claimed to be Papuan, and every one claimed to be Austronesian, and then we should note that the Austronesians aren't Austronesian, but Papuan with Austronesian admixture. And any individuals claimed to be Papuan would need to be verified to come from an ethnos that has no AN admixture. That's an incredible amount of work just to bolster an OR distinction between "Papuan" and "Melanesian", which after all are essentially the same thing. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree that [Papuan = native of New Guinea] may be usefully distinguished from other Melenesians, such as the Fijians. They aren't synonyms in that sense. But within New Guinea, trying to distinguish "real" Papuans from "faux" Papuans is not tenable. Especially given that the source you use to justify the distinction does just the opposite. If we can agree that the Austronesian-speakers of New Guinea are also Papuans, then I don't have a problem with restoring the list of notable Papuans (most of whom were apparently Austronesian-speaking), though we would need to decide which neighboring islands count as part of Papua. How do we do that? Many of the islands to the north actually are Austronesian, and not just linguistically. This includes many islands within the legal borders of Indonesian Papua and PNG. Do your genetics articles indicate where we should draw the line?
Note that the EB article used as a ref for the lead discusses "Papuans" in its Melanesia article, which was my first response. If we're going to have a separate article on Papuan peoples (plural, there is no one "Papuan people", as you ref emphasizes), then we need a RS to distinguish who counts as Papuan. It can't be which languages they speak (that's not ethnography) and it can't just be "they look Papuan to me", or we're back to 19th-century racialist theories.
BTW, if there were an ethnic distinction between "Papuans" and "Austronesians" in PNG, then there should be words for them in Tok Pisin. AFAICT, there are not. Can't prove a negative, but I'm not finding anything, just wansolwara (Pacific Islander, including PNG), blakskin (Melanesian). You can say 'islander', 'lowlander', 'highlander', ect, but those are just phrases -- s.o. from the highlands, coast, island, not an apparent ethnic distinction. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I see that in the Tok Pisin article on PNG, under 'People', there's no mention of any divide into 'Papuan' and 'Austronesian', though under languages of course they do note the families. They define the word "Papua" with Dispela nem "Papua Niugini" i kamap long tok "Papua", hap tok bilong Malesia long kain gras bilong ol manmeri bilong Melanesia, ... That is, 'Papua' is the Malay word for the kind of hair that Melanesians have. There's no indication that the word 'Papua' should apply to only some Melanesians, or to only some PNG-ers.
In the Indonesian article, they say the same.. Kata papua diturunkan dari pepuah kata dari bahasa Melayu yang menggambarkan rambut orang Melanesia yang keriting, though they mention that pəpuah is specifically curly hair. When noting that "New Guinea" was coined by Ortiz de Retez, they say mencatat kemiripan orang-orang Papua dibandingkan dengan orang-orang yang pernah dilihatnya di sepanjang pesisir Guinea 'he noted a resemblance of the Papuan people to the people of the Guinea Coast.' But the people he say were surely Austronesian-speakers, so again "Papuan" is just an inhabitant of Papua, not a speaker of a particular kind of language. Though, granted, in the history section they do reify the historical and linguistic distinction as if it were an ethnic distinction. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2019
- What a load of nonsense. Papuan languages are the indigenous non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea and neighbouring islands. Papuans are a DISTINCT genetic cluster from Austronesian Melanesians in EVERY genetic study done, and they do have a distinct physical appearance. Negritos and other groups are genetically distinct from Papuans, despite having some similar physical features, so that is a false equivalency. Austronesian-speaking groups of Melanesia have a different physical appearance, showing clear signs of Austronesian admixture and every genetic study has shown them to have about 20% of genetic Austronesian admixture. They have a different culture from Papuan groups as well, and of course a different language. They are a different ethnic grouping within Melanesia, based on language, genetics, appearance and culture. A comparison with Cherokees and admixed Cherokees is also foolish, who are also clearly defined as a separate ethnic sub-grouping based on a variety of factors, as they are mixed European-Amerindian (e.g. Mestizo). So stop. Epf2018 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from New Guinea into People of New Guinea. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Unblock request
edit
Epf2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I haven't been on wikipedia for three weeks because of work. I come back to find my editing blocked. Why?? BereanHunter seems to think I'm a sock of some user? Who? A user named "Sprayitchyo"? Who the heck is that? What possible similarity is there in our edits? I can assure you I have no idea who that is, or any connection to that person. I think I edited a few things logged out under an IP on one day, thinking I was already logged in, and that's it. That warrants me being banned forever? What's with this Orwellian BS wikipedia has become? These out of control 'administrators' are now arbitrarily blocking people they consider thought criminals? Epf2018 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2019 (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.
Epf2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia because there was no justification for the block in the first place. I have no connection whatsoever to the user "Sprayitchyo". Thus, I was not abusing multiple accounts, as the blocking admin erroneously asserted. Epf2018 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't even mention your established connection to CdnGael2018, your established and acknowledged block evasion as an IP address, and is not generally plausible in any case. Your abuse of multiple accounts is not in debate. Yamla (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2019 (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.
Epf2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Where have I abused multiple accounts? I am not related to "CdnGael", and you have no evidence to show otherwise because there is none. If you are saying there is, I'd like to see what evidence you have that I or my IP is associated with that user. The accusation of block evasion claimed I was a sockpuppet specifically of "Spraytichyo", which is also false. My use of IP 99.251.88.76 was not a deliberate block evasion, but an accidental one as I already told you, in which I was thought to be already logged in. This happens to people in Wiki all the time. This does not support a block of any sort, and for sure not for the time limit given. I am not evading any blocks, and I want other administrators to review this. The tag showing the block says "This account is a suspected sock puppet of Sprayitchyo". This is garbage and a giant lie. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience in this mistake, but I am not abusing multiple accounts. Monitor my future activity if you will.
Decline reason:
Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲水 07:50, 16 May 2019 (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.
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo/Archive which establishes this account was created by CdnGael2018. No other technical information will be shared. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is nothing there "establishing" I am this "CdnGael" person, or "Sprayitchyo". I am neither. This is just sad that editors are attacked as being associated with other editors, and I am requesting other administrators look into this. I have not damaged Wiki, or edited in any way not in line with its principles. I have engaged in dialogue, despite facing personal attacks and insults, not edit warring. Provide technical information to support your accusations if you are so certain. Otherwise, your lies should stop here and now. Epf2018 (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- All the tools there to compare me with these other users which are listed do not show any correlation between any of our accounts or edit activity. Not only this, but even if there was some correlation, that wouldn't be grounds to imply causation. I am being unfairly targeted here. Epf2018 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I
A
M
R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
I
N
G
A
N
U N B L O C K ! ! ! ! !
H E L L O ? ? ? ?