User talk:69.156.38.113

Query about an edit
Regarding this edit here, if you object to the inclusion of that material in the lead, is there any way you might be able to replace it with something else that still "rounds off" the lead like that did? Even if inaccurate and undue weight as you say, it still lent some structure to the lead. Anyway, that's all from me, Cheerio and happy editing! 🙂 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Australo-Melanesian. 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. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2022 (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.

Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gaels, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 23:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A user who is vandalizing pages and partaking in trolling behaviour is reverting valid sourced edits. You should provide a warning to their page as well. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is your understanding of BRD, please read it again. You were Bold, they Reverted so the next step is that you Discuss to reach a consensus. Do not reinstate your edits unless and until. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They reverted edits from valid sources. It is incumbent upon them to discuss as well. My edits at Shetland dialect were in place for a fair amount of time until "the Banner" decided to be bold and remove them. I reverted that edit. It is now incumbent upon them to properly discuss and explain themselves. Either give the warning to them as well, or you are showing evidence of bias and/or incompetence. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits appear to be unsourced and there is no place for unsourced material on Wikipedia, whether it has been there for "a fair amount of time" (if a few days can be termed so) or not. If you are claiming that your edits are reliant on existing sources, explain that at the talk page; it's not evident from your edits. And, per below, stop slinging out the insults as that's hardly going to make collaboration easier. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Scots language that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 08:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shetland dialect. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Irish Catholics, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 18:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Scots language. The Banner talk 18:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shetland. The Banner talk 18:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Book of Numbers 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&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. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. 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:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:51, 11 September 2022 (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.

Request for Unblock

 * Are your other accounts blocked? If not, log in and you may edit Wikipedia. Otherwise, see Unblock Ticket Request System. But you should know that I could foresee that you get blocked, given the way you behave I would say it was unavoidable. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried the ticket request system. It never worked and no one ever got back to me. Editors have prevented me from ever properly resolving this issue to explain how this mess all started. There were one or two accounts blocked previously, because it all began with a false assertion that it was connected to "Sprayitchyo" and related socks. Thus, what should have been say 1 month or at most 3 month blocks for one time of, I admit, edit warring that violated 3RR, was turned into permanent blocking and shadow banning of any time I ever edit. To be honest, this has been extremely frustrating and, you must understand how hard it is when countless hours of work and discussion have been ruined because of this false accusation of guilt by association. I have tried all avenues I can to explain how it was all down to an inaccurate association with other socks and horrible accounts like "Spraytichyo" who I never had any association with. I also repeatedly made clear my apologies for any past behaviour or mistakes that I always had admitted to I was responsible for. But the constant "sock evasions" accusation all stems from this original false accusation. I am simply fed up because there are a lot of articles I was editing with extremely reputable, scholarly content that are now in the form of terrible, biased or outright inaccurate formats. I am not even referring to the articles that you and I disagreed upon. Those could have been fairly easily resolved. Unblock request didn't work. Ticket request system did not work (never received an email back despite numerous queries). I need a direct discussion with upper level administrators. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of Sprayitchyo, you were heading towards a block anyway. Unless you can address such behavior, there is no point in unblocking your IP. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not heading toward a block. I did not violate 3RR. I only wish to follow the correct procedure via the talk pages and dispute resolution. I don't want to edit war or anything like that. I know the resolution process to edit conflicts. But I am hampered from doing so by not being able to correctly show my innocence in false accusations of connections to "Spraytichyo" and many socks of that person. The very few accounts I did create which were socks, years ago out of immense frustration at an inability to resolve this original problem, I always admitted to being responsible for and as being wrong to do. But again those were NOT and NEVER were connected to "Spraytichyo" and associated socks with that person. I merely want a chance for a clean start after being prevented from being able to properly edit and discuss on Wikipedia for the past 4 or 5 years because of this problem. I want to resolve it. The ticket request system for unblock does not return by e-mails. And I am needed at a lot of articles. For example, there are editors like User:Austronesier and User:Sirfurboy who are entering very inaccurate information and biased original research on several pages like, for example, Australo-Melanesian, that are incompatible with the scientific literature in their current formats. That article claims it is as an "obsolete term", along with numerous other false statements, despite the fact that both that term and similar terms referring to that human genetic subgroup, are repeatedly used in nearly all relevant genetic studies as of 2022. 69.156.38.113 (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have made a few quick checks of editing history, looking for evidence one way or the other as to whether the accounts you list are likely to be the same person as other accounts identified as Sprayitchyo's sockpuppets. I've formed some preliminary impressions, but it will need much more thorough checking, especially since the block on Greumaich is a checkuser block. For several reasons it isn't possible for me to do the necessary work now, but I'll try to get onto it soon. JBW (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * JBW. I hadn't realised you were looking into this, so I have already checked back on the accounts. They all have been engaged in disruptive editing despite several warnings, and all have been block evading. Regardless of any connections with Sprayitchyo, considering the long history of disruptive behaviour and persistent block evasion this is not an account I would consider unblocking. I was about to decline and was considering a one month talkpage block to stop admins time being further wasted, when I saw your above note. As you are already handling this I leave it to you to make the final decision. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have already admitted to such wrongful behaviour as explained above. As has been explained, I was extremely upset due to false accusations of being accused as being a sock for 'Sprayitchyo', which resulted in the original block years ago. I was never given a fair hearing as to this accusation, which was extremely upsetting since it resulted in a great loss of my tireless research, editing and lack of access. It was extremely damaging to me personally and my quality of life. If you research the account history yourself, there was never any good evidence for me being a sock of 'Sprayitchyo', because I never was, but that was what I was originally blocked for. And despite repeated attempts through unblock requests, WP:UTRS and attempts to contact via e-mail, I was never heard. I never received an e-mail reply. I am not justifying my evasions after this initial false accusation, but imagine how upsetting it is for you to be blocked completely and indefinitely for a false claim of association with a known vandal like 'Sprayitchyo', and all appeals either unanswered or ignored without any proper consideration of the evidence. Check the IPs of 'Sprayitchyo' and actual known socks of it, then compare it to me and my admitted past accounts. Do you want my actual real identity and personal information to verify who I am, and as something to rest on to take my word? I can provide this to show my sincerity about this. I am merely asking for a way to be given a chance to start fresh and prove myself. Am I to be banned permanently with no chance ever to come back to Wikipedia?? Can I not be given one chance to prove myself, and if I commit any violation you mention here as the reasons for the block (i.e. sock puppetry or 3RR violation), I can then be blocked indefinitely? I am giving you assurance of my intention to create a new account and edit properly following BRD and all other Wikipedia policies. There is no need for a talk page block, as I am merely following the process to honestly have myself finally, properly heard, either through page unblock requests or UTRS. I do not wish to waste anyone's time at all, and I sincerely apologize for any disruption I may have caused in the past. I only want a fair hearing and a chance to prove myself. Please consider what I have stated here, and I just ask to at least be provided a timeline and opportunity to clear my name and demonstrate my intention for only good editing behaviour. Kind regards, 69.156.38.113 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already admitted to such wrongful behaviour as explained above. As has been explained, I was extremely upset due to false accusations of being accused as being a sock for 'Sprayitchyo', which resulted in the original block years ago. I was never given a fair hearing as to this accusation, which was extremely upsetting since it resulted in a great loss of my tireless research, editing and lack of access. It was extremely damaging to me personally and my quality of life. If you research the account history yourself, there was never any good evidence for me being a sock of 'Sprayitchyo', because I never was, but that was what I was originally blocked for. And despite repeated attempts through unblock requests, WP:UTRS and attempts to contact via e-mail, I was never heard. I never received an e-mail reply. I am not justifying my evasions after this initial false accusation, but imagine how upsetting it is for you to be blocked completely and indefinitely for a false claim of association with a known vandal like 'Sprayitchyo', and all appeals either unanswered or ignored without any proper consideration of the evidence. Check the IPs of 'Sprayitchyo' and actual known socks of it, then compare it to me and my admitted past accounts. Do you want my actual real identity and personal information to verify who I am, and as something to rest on to take my word? I can provide this to show my sincerity about this. I am merely asking for a way to be given a chance to start fresh and prove myself. Am I to be banned permanently with no chance ever to come back to Wikipedia?? Can I not be given one chance to prove myself, and if I commit any violation you mention here as the reasons for the block (i.e. sock puppetry or 3RR violation), I can then be blocked indefinitely? I am giving you assurance of my intention to create a new account and edit properly following BRD and all other Wikipedia policies. There is no need for a talk page block, as I am merely following the process to honestly have myself finally, properly heard, either through page unblock requests or UTRS. I do not wish to waste anyone's time at all, and I sincerely apologize for any disruption I may have caused in the past. I only want a fair hearing and a chance to prove myself. Please consider what I have stated here, and I just ask to at least be provided a timeline and opportunity to clear my name and demonstrate my intention for only good editing behaviour. Kind regards, 69.156.38.113 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)