User talk:206.45.2.52

Recent edits at 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Lol you're repeatedly ignoring violations of Wikipedia's content editing policy, failing to establish consensus on the talk page (ignoring messages on talk, actually), and have now broken the 3RR rule. Keep it up. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Your recent editing history at 2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. IanDBeacon (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

ANI Discussion re: Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As I see that discussions of the changes you would like on this article has not yet reached consensus (a policy you seem to already be aware of, yet inexplicably aren't following yourself), you would be wise to not start another edit war there – especially since you've already been warned and blocked for doing so before.

I would also advise against removing sources; what benefit can that have to the verifiability of the article, unless they are wholly irrelevant?

And above all, especially in a case of disputed changes like this, an edit summary of merely "Revert" is just not good enough – you need to explain your removal of so much content. After seeing your past edit summaries attempting to push this to ArbCom, the only reason anyone would need to take anything here to ArbCom is you and your insistence on getting your way with the article, and I'm not even sure why you seem to be taking this article so personally. Do you have some kind of COI? Either way, your approach and attitude is not healthy here.

For now, I and Darryl have picked through your "Revert" and restored the parts that shouldn't have been removed. And honestly, with how much has been changed recently, I'm not even confident that the state of the article now is ideal and not missing any important details.

Anyway, I was going to warn you that I would report you if you did any more disruptive editing or edit warring, but as you have now been reported to WP:AN/I, I'll just say this: I don't know if anything will come of that report, but if nothing does, just know that I will be watching for any bad behavior and will not hesitate to report you elsewhere (such as WP:AN/EW) as needed. &mdash; Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Touch grass. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello, I'm Peaceray. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yuen Pau Woo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain on the talk page why this is NPOV OR. Peaceray (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They can't; they're blocked. See above. &mdash; Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Canadian Indian residential school gravesites, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. See talk page. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#c-206.45.2.52-20230915173000-Elfangor9-20230911201800
 * Not sure why you are talking to me about original research. Instead, you can delete the entire section about church fires with your administrative authority, as (per my argument on the talk page) the entire section constitutes OR at best and innuendo at worst. Regards. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you a bot? See above. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please inform yourself before continuing to abuse the revert feature. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. 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: 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. ''You have been reverted multiple times, by multiple editors. Stop adding your unsourced commentary about the possible arsons.'' Meters (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * You have made this edit 6 times now, and despite your edit summary claim, I see no discussion of this point on the talk page. Write it neutrally and source it properly, or discuss it on the talk page. Meters (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Take it to arbcom. The link was provided above days ago so I'm going to request you stop harassing me on my talk page. Thank you. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Meters (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Meters/unprotected. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I asked you to stop harassing me 3 messages ago. You are not an admin, so please stop harassing me. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Meters/unprotected. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. —asparagusus  (interaction)  sprouts!  01:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for six months for contravening Wikipedia's personal attacks and harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.
 * Your misconduct is reprehensible. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you continue to use your talk page to make personal attacks, you will be prevented from editing your talk page for as long as you are blocked.  Eye snore  01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Average Wikipedian busybody. Oh noes! My precious dynamic ip 206.45.2.52 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: Should you revoke this IP's TPA for continuing to make personal attacks while blocked?  Eye snore  01:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Cullen328, revoke this IP's talk page access immediately.  Eye snore  01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , this talk page has been semioprotected by another administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328, the protection lasts for only 24 hours. The user might return to abusing their talk page once the protection on this page expires.  Eye snore  02:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , let me know and I will take whatever action is appropriate at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am now watching this page, in which I will return 24 hours later to see how this IP would behave on their talk page once the protection expires. This diff is an admission that the anonymous user would hop IP addresses to evade blocks and further disrupt Wikipedia (the text added in the diff says "Go ahead and ban my dynamic IP if it makes you feel better").  Eye snore  02:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * appears to be a sock. Meters (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WHOIS report for shows that it is in a different location but is also a Bell IP.
 * 206.45.0.0/16 is located in Ottawa, Ontario.
 * 2605:b100:1100::/41 is located in Montreal, Quebec.
 *  Eye snore  02:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't necessarily mean anything. Blocked for block evasion. Meters (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your talk page access has been revoked. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * IP predictably returned to making disruptive edits on their talk page while blocked when the protection expired. See the edit history of this page for details. For a graphical message of a user losing their ability to edit their talk page while blocked, you can use Blocked talk-revoked-notice.  Eye  snore  15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)