95.122.136.229

October 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Genocide of indigenous peoples, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your Edits to Genocide of Indigenous Peoples Page

Hi ip,

I am not sure what is happening over at the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples page. I am not trying to be argumentative with you, and I do not think (although I cannot speak for them) other editors are either. I do think, though, that we might all be better off with cooler heads there. Perhaps posting a question regarding your proposed edits on the talk page, and then waiting a few days to make large edits on the main page itself might assuage concerns about those edits? I simply think allowing some time for other editors to weigh-in before making such large edits might help everyone here, and prevent future edit wars. What do you think?--Hobomok (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Spanish colonization of the Americas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I did give a valid reason in the edit summary and in the talk page.95.122.136.229 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I come here because to continue this on a subheading regarding Bangladesh Genocide at Genocide of Indigenous Peoples seems to be confusing other users, and I hope that a more constructive discussion might take place here. Please stop disparaging people and other Wikipedia users on that talk page, as it's not WP: Civility. Clifford Trafzer is a distinguished professor of history at UC Riverside and a scholar of Wyandot descent. The University of Oklahoma is well-known for its Indigenous and Native American Studies Program. Even if he is of North American Native heritage, and that is what his PhD concentration is in, his writing about South American colonial violence is still grounded in Indigenous relationality, despite colonial and Imperial borders. I say all of this because it is unnecessary to disparage someone who does good work from a place of genuine care, so please stop doing so. Please stop negatively attacking people, and further, please go through proper channels before deleting large swaths of Wikipedia pages like you're now doing at Spanish Colonization of the Americas. Especially when the user above has now warned you twice r/t two separate pages. Hobomok (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Genocide of Indigenous Peoples and Spanish colonization of the Americas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_95.122.136.229_reported_by_User:Hobomok_(Result:_). Thank you. —Hobomok (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Genocide of indigenous peoples

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Are you the same person as User:Filologo2? EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 31 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not edited a single article on wikipedia in the last 48 hours and suddenly I'm blocked. I most certainly have not violated any Wikipedia rule. This is very odd behavior by User:EdJohnston considering the individual who reported me did so as part of a wider strategy to WP:OWN articles has continued to edit war with others. You cannot block someone for expressing opinions about an article on its talk page. It seems to me a very clear case of WP:GAME - Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction and, in the case of EdJohnston, it seems there is also an element of WP:INVOLVED - a long history of being unusually involved with this particular article. EdJohnston's given reasons for blocking me are particularly contrived: He says I have been reverted by multiple editors who have claimed I have made unsourced changes to an article. i.e. he knows full well I have not made unsourced changes so is blocking me on the basis of what he knows to be false accusations made by (effectively) one person.

Decline reason:

It is quite clear from the evidence presented here that you were edit warring. This is not acceptable, even if it took place 48 hours ago. I suggest you concentrate on your own actions rather than casting aspersions on other users. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:18, 31 October 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.

---