User talk:Hunan201p/Archive 3

March 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vulva; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DS alert

Hi Hunan, your recent reverting at Vulva and your posts on talk seemed a little aggressive. I'm leaving you a DS alert to remind you that the topic is under discretionary sanctions as a "gender-related dispute or controversy". I should add that I'm doing this as an editor, not as an admin, because I see that I commented on that talk page last year about the issue under discussion. Best wishes, SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

WP:MEDRS and WP:OR

I have been reverting some of your latest removals of sourced content. You seem to have a massive misunderstanding about WP:MEDRS. It only applies to medical subjects. The origins of ethnic groups are not medical subjects and being blond is not a diagnosis. Also if a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal is cited, it is, ipso facto, not original research. Please refrain from deleting sourced content based on spurious reasons. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, just to be clear, WP:MEDRS does apply to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. Of course, a news report on a celebrity having cancer isn't and doesn't need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. WP:Biomedical information advises editors on what falls under "biomedical information." WP:MEDRS aside, topics about genetics shouldn't be relying heavily on primary sources; this is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So editors shouldn't be relying on single study material. And if reporting on a single study, it's best that this is only done if there is very little research on the topic and/or if the study is reported on in secondary and tertiary sources.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer, it's relieving to know that we've got such a vigilant group of overseers around here. Perhaps the WP:SCIRS page needs a iittle more visibility with regards to the human genetics section. I'd like it if there was a way to put banners on every ethnic/trait/medical related articles advising users about the WP:MEDRS note at WP:SCIRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Biomedical information is quite specific about its scope, listing neatly the subjects intended. The only thing vaguely applicable in the case of blonde (where you claim MEDRS is applicable), is the bit about a ‘genetic study’. The sections deleted applied to prevalence of blond hair in Scandinavians, appearance of the gene for blond hair in mesolithic hunter-gatherers, which are, by no stretch of the imagination, is a medical subject and no genetic study is needed to determine whether or not someone is blond. No cure, ever, has been proposed to “blondism”, au contraire, much effort is spent on becoming blond.

The section in WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources, it does warn to take care not to interpret the results and attribute the claim. If it did, and that standard were applied rigorously, we would not have an article on Fast Radio Burst.

The subject is a grave one, though, and needs to be clear, since in the blond-article alone, nearly 10k was deleted, while applying the standard proposed here quite unevenly. If you disagree, I propose we bring this to WP:RS/N to get some extra opinions on the matter. Kleuske (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, going by your WP:Indentation, I can't tell if you were replying to me, Hunan201p, or to the both of us. But again, I just wanted it to be clear, including to anyone who saw the matter in the Blond edit history, that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical material regardless of what article it's in. As for "WP:SCHOLARSCHIP does not preclude use of primary sources"? No, but it emphasizes the fact that academic articles (and academic material in general) should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. In general, as you know, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources, but this is especially the case for academic topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I understood the first time and I know we prefer secondary and tertiary sources, whenever possible. What I am disputing is that the appearance of a certain gene is Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, origins of ethnic groups and having blond hairs are biomedical matters, that is, they do not appear in the quite explicit listing of topics in the biomedical information article that defines the scope of MEDRS. I also dispute that appropriate usage of a primary source is a reason to delete parts of an article, claiming OR. It is not OR, though secondary sources are preferable. I am not sure how I should have indented here, but went by ‘if the shoe fits, buy shoelaces’. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's in WP:SCIRS. There is often controversy surrounding things like phenotypes, which often relates to ethnonationalism or racism. The WP:MEDRS standard is enforced to prevent low quality references from being used to potentially present incorrect information about people or ancient events, as previously existed on the blond article (and definitely still exists there). Obviously any genetic study is biomedical in scope. What's your obsession with blond hair, Kleuske? - Hunan201p (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

If you are serious about this edit summary, you had better start a investigation and be informed otherwise. Also the WP:HOUND accusation and the term “abuser” can easily be construed as personal attacks. Just FYI, I have been patient, do not push it. Kleuske (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being LightFromABrightStar, just noted that you reverted something a known troll and sockmaster posted. You have obsessively reverted several of my edits across a wide variety of articles, often without explanation. That's the definition of hounding and if you keep it up, you are going to catch a bann.

Please be advised that I am not the least bit bothered by your attempts to threaten me and that you won't be getting me off this site no matter how hard you try (many others have tried very persistently with far greater concerns and failed). - Hunan201p (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rashid al-Din (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genghis Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

List-defined references

Interracial marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) uses a list-defined reference format. The article's history indicates you have recently been removing content and list-defined references. All references defined in the reference list must be invoked in the content. Unused references must be removed or commented out. Otherwise, it creates cite errors as seen here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Some problems regarding Turkic people

Hello Hunan, I have seen that you are improving Turkic related topics, concerning genetics and origin. I want to say thank you for your good work. But there are still problems on Turkic peoples. To much attention is given to Roobbets fringe linguistic theory, which was ignored by other linguists and is purely hypothetical. Next, there is a hidden smell of East Asian supremacy in the article, likely from the socks of Derekhistorian and AsadalEditor. They seem to be hardline vandals with an agenda. We must keep Wikipedia free from their vandalism. You have already done good work. Keep watching. Best greetings.ChampaDroid (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article on Timur

		The Epic Barnstar
		You have done a great research and found interesting information. You stated your argument in a comprehensible way and we appreciate your efforts! Looking for more updates from you.Visioncurve (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk) 07:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red hair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

If you continue to revert, I will be forced to report you for edit warring. Consider this your last warning. Qiushufang (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop restoring

Stop restoring the SPI. If you continue to do so, I will issue a partial block. [1] [2] [3] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased POV by a dude with the last name "Damgaard"?

Article published: 09 May 2018; 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes. Authors: Peter de Barros Damgaard, Nina Marchi, Simon Rasmussen, Michaël Peyrot, Gabriel Renaud, Thorfinn Korneliussen, J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar, Mikkel Winther Pedersen, Amy Goldberg, Emma Usmanova, Nurbol Baimukhanov, Valeriy Loman, Lotte Hedeager, Anders Gorm Pedersen, Kasper Nielsen, Gennady Afanasiev, Kunbolot Akmatov, Almaz Aldashev, Ashyk Alpaslan, Gabit Baimbetov, Vladimir I. Bazaliiskii, Arman Beisenov, Bazartseren Boldbaatar, Bazartseren Boldgiv, Choduraa Dorzhu, Sturla Ellingvag, Diimaajav Erdenebaatar, Rana Dajani, Evgeniy Dmitriev, Valeriy Evdokimov, Karin M. Frei, Andrey Gromov, Alexander Goryachev, Hakon Hakonarson, Tatyana Hegay, Zaruhi Khachatryan, Ruslan Khaskhanov, Egor Kitov, Alina Kolbina, Tabaldiev Kubatbek, Alexey Kukushkin, Igor Kukushkin, Nina Lau, Ashot Margaryan, Inga Merkyte, Ilya V. Mertz, Viktor K. Mertz, Enkhbayar Mijiddorj, Vyacheslav Moiyesev, Gulmira Mukhtarova, Bekmukhanbet Nurmukhanbetov, Z. Orozbekova, Irina Panyushkina, Karol Pieta, Václav Smrčka, Irina Shevnina, Andrey Logvin, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Tereza Štolcová, Angela M. Taravella, Kadicha Tashbaeva, Alexander Tkachev, Turaly Tulegenov, Dmitriy Voyakin, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Sainbileg Undrakhbold, Victor Varfolomeev, Andrzej Weber, Melissa A. Wilson Sayres, Nikolay Kradin, Morten E. Allentoft, Ludovic Orlando, Rasmus Nielsen, Martin Sikora, Evelyne Heyer, Kristian Kristiansen & Eske Willerslev. Do not delete it. Nature (Magazine) is is a multidisciplinary scientific journal, a scientific magazine and reliable source. Peter de Barros Damgaardis not a dude but PhD who works in the Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: in the future, please pay more attention to what you read. The statements in the Wiki were POV, not Domgaard's paper (misrepresented by Krakkos's faulty interpretations). The paper is of course inadmissable in any genetics section on Wikipedia due to its primary research nature. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations on Qiushufang

Hi. Regarding Sockpuppet investigations on Qiushufang, can you identify who the creator of the Reddit thread was? The username is deleted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC) @Gun Powder Ma:

@Gun Powder Ma: Yes, it was endofprivacy. See this link:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

Please inform all admins about it. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ‎Hunan201p's neutral point of view.The discussion is about the topic Genghis Khan. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There is not a consensus

A consensus doesn't exist just because you say it does. The content is disputed, you are removing a critical mention from within the source that you yourself provided, and other editors have said that they aren't endorsing your particular understanding. You could just as easily be accused of vandalism as I. Establish consensus on the talk page FIRST.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@3family6: Sorry, I know you don't like it, but the admins have given me consensus for my edits at the physical appearance section at Genghis Khan. If you continue edit warring, especially in adding low-quality references to the article like a history.com trivia page, as well as denying the consensus I blatantly had at that article in April, I'll have no choice but to take this ANI. You have demonstrated a POV bias with your tendentious editing af Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter has already said that this is not what they did. You are refusing to listen to anyone else. Also, you can't claim that I'm edit warring when you are also reverting contributions that I have made.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This was what Ymblanter said at Talk:Genghis Khan: "I do not think I supported anybody on this page. I just said that admins do not resolve content disputes. If this is not a content dispute but an editing behavioral dispute please go to WP:ANI and make the case there (but try not to use walls of text).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)" They thus are not endorsing either of us. And they certainly haven't declared that one version of the article the definitive one, and any additional content or analysis from reliable sources be removed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have listened to and engaged with you in a constructive way for days, 3family6. Whether Ymblanter thinks they supported me or not doesn't change the fact they gave me a strong form of consensus by restoring my material and keeping it locked for three days, declaring it a "pre-war" version, and later defended it against the ideas of Queenplz. Other editors also reverted to my material, and many admins reviewed it and changed nothing. That's a comprehensive, multiple-layer form of consensus. A History.com trivia page is not a reliable source. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That in no way justifies removing any and all changes and additions. I can understand reverting Queenplz. But now when I've tried to further develop the section and arbitrate the dispute, you've undone my work as well. Wikipedia articles aren't static. "A History.com trivia page is not a reliable source." Why not? I already said that I've opened up this question. "I have listened to and engaged with you in a constructive way for days, 3family6." You have on some things, but you've also been stubborn and intractable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?

Link to this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop disruptively editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Genghis Khan, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to revert any additions or expansions I make if you simply don't like them. That's disruptive. I've repeatedly tried to find a compromise, I've re-read sources and fixed the wording of what I've done, but that doesn't satisfy you. You don't own that article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are edit warring on the Genghis Khan page. You made more than five reverts in 24 hours. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop disruptive editing by removing sources that are reliable and content that goes with it. So far you have misrepresented sources as unreliable and the content that goes with it. Please discuss on the talk page first and gain consensus. This does not mean attacking others by saying their contributions are invalid. Also, consensus is not on your side in the current Fringe Noticeboard discussion Blond. Please do not edit against consensus. If these behaviors don't stop I will take this WP:ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Laughable. I never removed any reliable sources and that noticeboard discussion was three cliquish and shady editors voting for eachother. Clear consensus for the Huangdi material already exists at Huangdi's article. Let me know when you file that ANI noticeboard complaint. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

See you at ANI. [4]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

permalink to ANI thread. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Block and unblock

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for disrupting editing. 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) 09:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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).

Hunan201p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel this block violates Wikipedia's blocking policy, because I believe a more careful examination will show my edits were constructive. Ymblanter made this decision 3 hours after Steve Quinn posted his ANI complaint, which does not seem like a sufficent amount of time to review all the material in question here. Ymblanter also closed the discussion immediately afterward; which didn't allow any other admins to discuss my case. I strongly believe that if Ymblanter had taken more time to review the material, they would realize that my edits were constructive, not disruptive. To begin with, the reference at red hair, which is cited for the claim that a "phenotype study indicates Hmong have red hair", is falsified. It is not published by UCLA American Studies Center, as it is currently listed, but by Lulu.com, as can be seen on the "About this book" page in the reference link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RmW4DwAAQBAJ&dq=Hmong+red+hair&source=gbs_navlinks_s This book is not written by experts, is not published by an academic source, is not a phenotypical study, and cites nothing of the sort. By removing this reference and the statement it was attached to, I improved the quality of the article. I had already exposed the falsification of this reference at talk:blond: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond#Misrepresentation_of_references_by_Shinoshijak This is what I have been blocked for: removing a deliberately falsified reference. Second, I also feel that most will agree that a 1920s quote from the diaries of F.M. Savina, published by Society for the Promotion Christian Knowledge is not a reliable source for the claim that Hmong people have blue eyes and blond hair. This reference is not peer reviewed. By the way, this reference had originally been falsified as coming from "Harvard University Press", at the blond article, as seen in the above link. Third, Queenplz also removed a blue linked reference from the article, from Otto Maenchen-Helfen, and changed the statement about his beard to a "goatee", mimmicking the disruptive edits of a banned IP user at Liu Yuan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu_Yuan_(Han_Zhao)&action=history In the edit which I have now been blocked for, I restored the bluelinked reference and the statement about Liu Yuan's beard (exact statement in the bluelinked reference). How am I the disruptive one here? I rest my case. I feel confident my edits were constructive, and if Steve Quinn disagrees, he didn't delve deep enough in to this material to see that it was falsified. It's just a shame to see that Queenplz has fooled people by falsifying a reference, something he should have been blocked for. Edit: On second thought, I would like add: although he is mistaken about the reliability of the content he restored, Steve Quinn has a point that I should have posted at the talk page after I made my edits. I was going to do this before I was banned, after catching a little rest, and didn't think such a short time would lapse before I was blocked. However I have discussed this content at the talk:blond page, extensively. I feel that a full 3 month block is excessive for my not posting at the red hair talk page soon enough, given my demonstrated propensity for discussing this material at talk:blond. Hunan201p (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may feel the block violates something, but it does not. That there was no further discussion on ANI is irrelevant: an incident was reported, and an admin responded. This is not a community decision, there is no minimum discussion. I looked at the edit to see if you were correct in some obvious way and were being reverted unjustly, but that's not there at all. Whatever you said at some other talk page is irrelevant; discussion should have taken place on Talk:Red hair, or, and this is important, with reference to some discussion about the sources that you claim are "falsified" or whatever--a claim you made in a rather cavalier manner, and even if it had been true wouldn't have been a 3R exemption, for instance. So, if you want to try this again, please do so--but pick valid arguments, and keep it brief. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2020 (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).

Hunan201p (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Very well. I am seeking an unblock on the express permission that I will not revert anyone's edits at the blond and red hair articles, and will only contribute to the talk pages of those articles, and that only after a period of one month will I begin making constructive edits of any kind there, and that I will not 3rr if a dispute continues. I would also like to point out that I do have a history of voluntarily resigning myself from articles that I was involved in heated disputes with, such as Genghis Khan, where I have left it to other editors to sort things out for 2 weeks now. So I promise you can take me for my word when I say I swear I will not edit at blond or red hair for a full month, in recognition of the fact that my edit summaries were cavalier, as Drmies put it. If it's possible to block me from only those articles, that's appropriate, but 3 months seems excessive to me. I'm asking for a reduction from 3 months to 1 month. Thank you for reading my appeals. - Hunan201p (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no consensus to unblock and opposition to unblocking, so I must maintain the status quo.. I'm afraid you will need to wait till the block expires or make another request. (Reviewing admin-- there is extensive discussion on this page with issues not addressed in this request that were raised by those opposed to unblocking. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:01, 22 May 2020 (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.

Unblock discussion

Inclined to unblock under stated conditions. However, this is not appellant's first problem with these issues. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

He can't even be honest in his block appeal. In his appeal to reduce 3 months to 1 months he said I would also like to point out that I do have a history of voluntarily resigning myself from articles that I was involved in heated disputes with, such as Genghis Khan, where I have left it to other editors to sort things out for 2 weeks now.

This is blantatly not true. I can't find any other reason other than thinking everyone would be decieve but it's a good thing I took a look. It took him many warnings on edit warring, the fact is he even escaped one generous block. The last one made by Steven Quinn which warned him, one more edit and he it would be over for him and, he was supposed to be blocked but Steve Quinn gave him a chance.

Repeated warnings made by 3family6

• In the Genghis Khan talk page, he was told not continue edit warring in :29 April 2020 it was written by 3family6
• Hunan201p That still does not justify edit warring. Get consensus from outside editors. And the ANI discussion you mentioned was a question about the Manual of Style for galleries, NOT about the content.--3family6 21:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

After repeatedly reverting. 3family6 talked about concensus disccussion to Hunan201p talkpage, repeatedly telling him to stop edit warring in the Genghis Khan page. 3family6 warned him in 01:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC) and told him (total 4 times) until 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC) to stop doing his own ways. He reverted my edit and his edit many times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#There_is_not_a_consensus

After repeateadly reverting 3family6 again and again, and again in the Genghis Khan page. The first disruptive warning was made by 3 family6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#Please_stop_disruptively_editing

" If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Genghis Khan, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to revert any additions or expansions I make if you simply don't like them. That's disruptive. I've repeatedly tried to find a compromise, I've re-read sources and fixed the wording of what I've done, but that doesn't satisfy you. You don't own that article ".-3family6 03:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR Warning by Steven Quinn

• 05:16, 2 May 2020
• " I have placed a 3RR warning on Hunan201p's talk page. The only thing that stopped me from filing a report on the Edit Warring Admin board is this editor has not received a 3RR warning yet. Now there is one. One more revert without current talk page agreement first and I will file this report. I have five diffs already and I think there is one or two more. "

He than recieved the 3RR warning, where he was told, just one more disruptive edit on Genghis page would get him blocked/banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hunan201p#3RR_warning

"You are edit warring on the Genghis Khan page. You made more than five reverts in 24 hours". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

He did the same thing again and again in red hair and blonde page and finally got blocked. He did not have a history of voluntarily resigning from any articles. Never true. You can see in the Vulva talk page aswell. Queenplz (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

From Steve Quinn

I will also add some hopefully relevant items to show this has been ongoing for awhile.

• March 6, 2020. Edit warring warning [5]
• March 15, 2020. Got into a dispute that wound up at the Edit warring Admins board [6]. -- This [7] and this [8] are related to that Edit warring Admin board dispute. The point is Hunan demonstrated an edit warring mentality and possibly a wp:battleground mentality.
• April 11, 2020. Edit warring warning on talk page [9].
• April 13, 2020. Kept restoring a SPI three times. An Admin/SPI clerk finally warned them to stop or there would be a block [10].

Then, of course, there is my ANI complaint which detailed other stuff [11]. Hopefully this is helpful for making a decision. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think one of the main points is: before the circumstances pertaining to this block, Hunan has had a number of chances to stop, meaningfully engage with others (develop consensus), and edit according to guidelines and principles. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra: thank you for your consideration. Steve Quinn: I have acknowledged that the debate at Genghis Khan was heated, and that I resigned myself from it two weeks ago. I haven't made an edit at Genghis Khan since around late April, and I don't see myself making one in the foreseeable future. I've left it up to 3family6 and others to handle that article, and I think 3family6 later did a great job getting outside opinions for his sources on that article.

As for the other pages, sure, there have been issues. Some of those were resolved, with my edits prevailing, including the occasion on which I was banned after a 3RR with a notorious sockpuppet, WorldCreaterFighter, at Descent from Genghis Khan. It's important to note that not every heated dispute I have been in was in vain, even if I did break the rules. Sometimes I really did undo the dirty work of editors far worse than myself.

But I'm saying I'm not going to to edit blond or red hair for as long as the admins decide it is appropriate, and that I will only engage in concise, orderly talk page discussions and 3rd opinion requests at those articles. I also swear I will never 3RR ever again, anywhere on Wikipedia. That's an ironclad guarantee, as the prospect of being banned for months is my only other option, as has been made very clear to me. I recognize that I must take a time out from editing these articles, and I am only requesting a sentence reduction, which I feel is essential to promote more constructive discussion at the talk pages; not just to satisfy my desire to be unbanned. I hope we can get off to a fresh start at the talk pages. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't wait for 3 months like everyone else. You are still being extremely dishonest about everything here and you know very well what you said isn't true. You keep saying you left 2 weeks for the other editors ( which are 3family and myself ). I stopped on the same day as you ( 2nd May ), only 2 hours different differences too. 3family6 only stopped a day later (3rd of May). The problem was with your edit warring and always changing to the way you preferred. There wasn't much to discuss after you discussed.

Genghis Khan Talk page last edits:

03:04, 2 May 2020‎ Hunan201p

04:46, 2 May 2020‎ Queenplz

16:49, 3 May 2020‎ 3family

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&action=history

There was nothing much to discuss anymore since you've been stopped from editing how you wanted and there wasn't much choice ( you still did the same thing with red hair page though )

You stopped because of this warning by Steven Qinn " You are edit warring on the Genghis Khan page. You made more than five reverts in 24 hours. " 05:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You also stopped because of this aswelll the Genghis Khan wikipedia page was controlled, all edits made had to be reviewed by 3family6 which made it EXTRA IMPOSSIBLE for you to keep doing edit warring.

There isn't much disccussion. What you really wanted to do was to keep placing 14th century history above 13th century, also cherrypicking out the text you liked but removing the ones you didn't like. I have asked you like more than 7 times to give a date verification but you declined and kept placing it on the top, you explained why you kept doing the same thing but I know the reason. Like I said, you only stopped after Steve Quinn gave you a 3RR warning for edit warring in 24 hours and the page under 3family review. Queenplz (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

By Shinoshijak

Hunan201p has a strong history of falsely accusing many editors, admins as socks, by trying to link them up with sockpuppet worldcreaterfighter and other banned accounts based on a few superficial similarity, this always happens only when someone disagrees or take opposition against his edits. I experienced this two times already and had seen how manipulative his accusations are and checked on him a lot before. I believe he does this with the intention of psychologicallythreatening editors from ever disagreeing or challanging him again.

All the people accused here checked are not banned editors or socks (this list does not include IP editors without accounts that he also falsely accused ).

5 February 2020: Accused TrynaMakeADollar of being banned user DerekHistorian [12]

11 April 2020: He accused Qiushufang of being Huaxia than later added Queenplz and that they are all ultimately WorldCreaterFighter in 11 April 2020 [13] simply because they all had a different opinion to Hunan201p

13 March 2020: Accused Kleuske of being of banned LightFromABrightStar [14]

13 April 2020: He accused Tobby72 of being worldcreaterfighter [15]

On the same day: He persist opening the investigation again by saying he is confident that Tobby72 is WorldCreaterfighter [16] On the day again: He suggest that Tobby72 get blocked [17]

Editor DeltaQuad told him to stop restoring the ISP investigation [18]

Someone told him Tobby72 is a respected editor and had been around for 11 years and warned there would be a partial block by Amanda

18 April 2020: He accused me (Shinoshijak) of being worldcreatefighter and other account, and later Queenplz [19] because of difference of opinions. He didn't inform me or Queenplz. In April 28: Queenplz decided to speak about Hunan201p neutral point of view in the noticeboard incident [20]

In April 29: After he found out Queenplz mentioned Hunan201p in the noticeboard he accused Queenplz of being me(Shinoshijak) based on ridicolous exaggerations like Queenplz said. [21]

You can see that he has strong history of randomly accusing anyone that he feels threatened as a sockpuppet and he would add little bits of false evidence and create a story for it. Shinoshijak (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Queenplz and Shinoshijak, I'd like to remind you that you were never cleared of meatpuppetry in those investigations. In every investigation I opened concerning you, it was said that checkuser indicated you weren't WorldCreaterFighter, but that the behavioral evidence was inconclusive. The checkusers encouraged me to make more cases upon finding new behavioral evidence. I'm not sure why you guys would bring this up on my unblock discussion, unless you really wanted me banned from the talk pages, which indicates that you're not interested in discussion. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p, 1st and 2nd was unrelated and 3rd got closed. There was 3 sockpuppet investigations against me, only because of you. You unfairly tried to influence the outcome of the investigations in each of them, just like you're now trying to unfairly influence the outcome in your block appeal. Even in the block appeal, you can't even be honest in the things you had said, you just want to escape. You didn't take none of these warnings seriously, because you always had the chance to escape before. You became more and more brave against everyone as result. This is why you had been able to do unfair things for several months (edit history; full of threats, edit warring, aggressivene comments, sockpuppet accusations). Now your trying to gain sympathy. As long as you tactically get the result you want, you will treat it as a victory for yourself..

You tried making ISP checkers to make them believe I'm Qiushufang, Shinoshijak and Huaxia, all of them proven to be zero percent related. 1st and 2nd investigation resulted in IP check unrelated, result inconclusive. 3rd investigation got closed without a decision. You were unfair and manipulative on many of the people you said were sockpuppets or meatpuppets, have you succeeded in convincing, I wouldn't be here replying to you. Everyone that you claimed to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry always relates with undoing your edits on wikipedia pages. You simply don't want anyone to challange you. Queenplz (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Shinoshijak is right. Hunan201p and the mysterious IP have repeatedly accused me of being a sockpuppet of WorldCreaterFighter,[22], [23], both of them also accused me of being a "malicious account", [24], [25]. Without evidence, without letting me know. They even accused the administrator of being a sockpuppet of WorldCreaterFighter. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just going to note, as was mentioned above, it seems Hunan opened an sock investigation of a heavily experienced Admin who wears many hats [[26], besides the other sock investigations. This would be DeltaQuad AkA Amanda [27]. It's very surprising to me. --Steve Quinn (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I discussed the above matters with Amanda in an email around the time that it happened. I did not make the edits made by the suspicious IP. The re-opening of that SPI three times was an error; Deltaquad had merely deleted it without closing it, which I thought was a system error, as I had not seen her summary. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Discussion between admins seems to have stalled on this unblock request, so I am offering new terms as part of my unblock request. As part of an agreement, I will remain blocked ffom editing articles for 3 months, but retain the privileges of editing talk pages, ANI and related pages, and SPI. Does that sound like a better deal than my original bargain? As always, I appreciate your input. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No. There were problems on talk pages and ANI and SPI. I see no consensus to unblock and opposition to unblocking, so I must maintain the status quo.. I'm afraid you will need to wait till the block expires or make another request. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I support that Hunan201p continued to be blocked for 3 months for all the edit warrings he had done, and also getting away with it for such a long time. He had repeatedly shown his dishonesty two times in his block appeal, saying he left the Genghis Khan page 2 weeks for the other editors (3family6 and myself) which is 100% completely false. I've shown strong evidence that everything stopped from the moment he was given 3RR warning by Steven Quinn, and with the Genghis Khan page being tighly controlled/reviewed by 3family6 for him to even be able to do another edit warring. I stopped 2 hours later on the same day he stopped and 3family6 stopped a day later. There was nothing to discuss after his ways was dealt with. So I disagree with all unblocking requests made by Hunan201p especially when he repeated his false claims. Queenplz (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for this notification. Did you see my reply in the above section? You have made assumptions about my post that aren't there. Nobody was ever asked or encouraged to revert anything. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Permalink to thread that indicated the need to revoke TPA --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Sun, 16 Aug 2020 08:06:13 GMT for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Guy (help!) 08:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving accident?

Hi. I found Talk:Hunan201p/Archive 1, which looks like you created it by accident while trying to archive your talk page. it has essentially the same content as User talk:Hunan201p/Archive 1, so I'm deleting it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vinyl composition tile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Composition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Macedonian (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, you may be blocked from editing. Macedonian (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hajnal line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hunan201p reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Belle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

SPI

I am just as disappointed as you presumably are about the outcome of the second part of the SPI, but note that I have never agreed with the idea that DH and WCF are the same individual – an idea that you have vehemently pressed for (why?). So it's not really a surprise that CheckUser of potential DH socks like Vamlos will yield a negative result. Concentrate on substantial behavioral evidence (I think I am close to having good material for a secure case), overlap in edit range will not be enough. Weakly supported SPI's will only make people become bored with the drama surrounding WCF-sockery, which might have a negative effect on more well-argued cases (like "oh, not this circus again!"). I know ours clerks take things very seriously, but then there's human nature... This is should something you should take into consideration before making quick shots bound to fail. –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:By "DH" do you mean DerekHistorian? Bbb23 is the checkuser I convinced that DerekHistorian was WorldCreaterFighter. DerekHistorian and WCF make the same edits, same ALL CAPS and lengthy rambling talk page comments, same typos, etc.

If you're saying they're not the same person, you will surely agree that they work together, right? They're part of the same group that has been destroying this website and causing needless headache for admins for a decade.

So is there a formal process for having this investigated?

Did you catch Vamlos and DerekHistorian's obsession with Genghis Khan's physical appearance, both minimizing the interpretation thst he is not a stereotypical Mongolian?

• [28] (Vamlos)
• [29] (DerekHistorian)

Anyway, good luck for your future case which I hope you will open soon. It's always an uphill battle and Wikipedia needs to raise its standards for who can edit this website. The "anyone can edit" policy is cruel to people who are aware of the sockpuppetry and trying to slow it down (but never stop it).Hunan201p (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen substantial differences in their diction which makes me think it's not just one person putting up an act pretending to be two, but they certainly belong to the same sphere, and probably also bang each other's heads in other sites. Their ultimate troll fest was here.

For a good behavioral evidence-based case, you need matches in specific content added, sources used, and idiosyncratic phrasing (and even source code idiosyncrasies that come with certain browsers). But, yeah, that's feasible for Vamlos and DH. –Austronesier (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your hard work. And it is a lot of work, isn't it? Having to follow these users around like an unpaid criminal investigator, holding yourself to a high standard of evidence while all they have to do is switch IPs and create a new account...

It's like playing a game of cat and mouse with a ball and chain attached to your ankle.

Thank you for the link to Gyatso1. It's just hilarious and pathetic at the same time, that this website is unable to get a grip around the illicit editing, when all they need to do is require ID authentication to edit higher importance-class articles. It would slow down their efforts greatly and make life on the checkusers easier. Hunan201p (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't put that much effort into it to be hard work. WP:DENY. I just assemble what comes across my path, so to speak. –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

RSN

I have seen your proposal on RSN, I will chime in soon. –Austronesier (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

And oh, you should be careful about canvassing. At least for broader input, you should also inform editors who might have a different perspective, i.e. editors who do use primary sources, but – unlike the CIR sock crowd – use them in a sensible way with proper contextualization (e.g. User:Tewdar or User:Moxy come to my mind). –Austronesier (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your posts

I really think you should stop posting similar messges to so many users. I think you should find a better use of your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I worry more about wasting their time than mine. If none of them are aware of any checkuser stats I might try help, but it's looking like no one knows anything, because the stats probably don't exist. But they definitely should exist. Nevertheless, thanks for the consideration. Hunan201p (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.153.254.189 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Strategery

You are currently carrying on an extended back-and-forth with an IP at ANI. There is basically no upside to doing that: it buries anyone trying to follow what's going on behind a wall of text, makes the situation seem more symmetric (two people who can't stop sniping at each other) when it would be to your benefit for it to look less symmetric (discussion opened by a blocked IP with an impenetrable wall of text, making rather far-fetched accusations), and tends to show you in a negative light (combative, unwilling to step back). I suggest you adopt a different strategy. --JBL (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll:Well, the IP person is creating a web of lies, including SPI joe job material, and several people have been joe blocked here before. The IP person has been harrassing me for weeks. I sure hope they don't actually persuade someone with their malarkey. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand your feelings about what they're saying; but if you're not doing any of the things the IP has accused you of, that will be pretty obvious to people without you carrying on an extended argument. --JBL (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Details on signature masking

Sorry to provoke this now that it's closed at ANI [30], but I didn't understand the original concern. (Better to seem foolish in front of one person than in front of the forum). I didn't think that people editing unregistered through an IP had auto-signature facilities. I could see a copy/paste string inserted into edits to make it seem so, or revision after the edit. I'm curious for an example of how the masking was being done. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Howdy, @Willondon: thanks for stopping by. I know what you mean about not wanting to appear foolish in front of the team... I kind of regret opening that ANI section now, since apparently few admins care about this.

The unregistered editor was actually manually altering the code in their talk page messages.

Here is how they did it. When you post a talk page message without being logged in, your signature code looks like this:

     [[Special:Contributions/274.56.88.88|274.56.88.88]] ([[User talk:274.56.88.88|talk]]) 08:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Which of course produces this standard signature:

274.56.88.88 (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

But when you alter the code to look like this (note the spaces separating the vertical bar from the IP and "Aaron"):

     [[Special:Contributions/274.56.88.88 | Aaron]] 
 08:01 15 April 2022 (UTC) 

You will get this:

Aaron 08:01 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is how the unregistered editor changed their signature. It took them a couple of efforts to correct it but they clearly demonstrated knowledge that only a highly experienced Wikipedian would have. There are indeed no facilities that allow unregistered editors to auto-generate signatures like this. Hope this helps and I'd like to hear your thoughts about this. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was worried I missed something where IPs can configure signatures like registered accounts can. So it's just editing markup.

I have mixed feelings on IP editing. I believe IPs are people, too and have just as much right to editing as registered users, and that their edits are no more suspect than anybody else's. But I believe an IP talk page is a shared resource, so I don't really agree with the notion that an IP editor has a right to curate their talk page, especially deleting notices. Changing the signature is interesting. It does smell a little suspicious. And an IP could even accidentally adopt the name of a registered account, meaning they are impersonating them without knowing it. On the other hand, anybody looking at the actual edit in a diff will see what's going on. On the other hand... _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Hunter-Gatherer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Reich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)