User talk:174.119.80.219

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Plantation of Ulster into Ulster Scots people. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to County of Barcelona. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Drmies (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that book is complete and utter nonsense written from an internationalist, globalist, left-wing bias. Guess what? Genetics, linguistics, culture, history, archaeology completely refute any of his book's nonsensical claims. There are many different races/ethnicities, cultures and languages in the world, including in Europe. There are significant biological and cultural differences between groups resulting from tens of thousands of years of separation, isolation and endogamy (in some ca ses more than 100,000 years). The reason they are different indeed has to do with the differing histories going back to different ancestors. Catalan is spoken in Catalonia just as it was during the Crown of Aragon. Is Catalan spoken in Castile? Nope. Galicia? Nope. Portugal? Nope. Why is it spoken in Catalonia? Because that's what their ancestors spoke who also lived in the region of Catalonia. There is obviously a connection with our past, both direct and indirect, as it's where we come from. Genetics has shown the descent from groups in the past, and the similarity in genetics between modern peoples and their ancestors from thousands to tens of thousands of years ago. A Basque skeleton from 4,000 years ago was found to most closely match genetically a modern Basque person. Where do you think languages came from? The Catalan spoken today is still largely the same language as the Catalan spoken in the Kingdom of Aragaon. Just because there has been changes does not negate that the language is still much the same. Modern Catalan is still intelligible with Old Catalan. Modern Catalan is closer to Occitan than to any language in Spain. Peoples change, but many traditions stay the same. Religion, genetics, cultural practices, etc. can still be traced back to our ancestors. Nice try though, but the globalist and nihilist BS of that book is completely unsupported. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I thought I knew what you were, and you don't disappoint--the usual drivel. (You can argue about Catalan all you want--it's not the point, and I don't care: this book is about nationalism. You should read it! It's also really well-written.) What's next--Geary and I run a pedophilia ring out of a pizza parlor? Ooooooh it's the NEW WORLD ORDER!!! Why do jokers like you always accuse others of "globalism", as if your Trumpian empire isn't globalist? Don't answer that. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't know me at all. I actually have read that book, and it's full of a massive load of nonsense completely unsupported by any academic field. Nationalism, in its modern form, may have roots in the 19th century, but previous forms and national identities have been around for thousands of years, going back to the earliest historical records in Egypt and Sumer. The Egyptians demarcated the ethnic/racial differences, including in appearance, between them and neighbouring Berbers, Nubians and Semitic Canaanites (ancestors of Israelites/Jews). The Japanese had an official policy for centuries to largely isolate themselves from other peoples. National identities existed long before urban societies in the forms of communities, tribes, clans, territories, etc. This was seen in the divisions between peoples in the New World long before Europeans arrived. I have nothing to do with what you accuse me of here. I am merely showing that the book you mentioned has a ridiculous, internationalist and left-wing slant at odds with biology, genetics, anthropology, history, archaeology, linguistics, religion, traditions, etc. Forms of ideology which precursors to nationalism existed long before the 19th century. There were nationalist or identitarian viewpoints held by various states towards groups, including in Europe, going back thousands of years. Brittany and Bretons formed in part because of ethnic Celtic Brythons fleeing Anglo-Saxon settlement and conflicts in Britain. They brought their culture and language to maintain it in Brittany, which still exists today as Breton, despite oppression from the left-wing, oppressive and imperialist French state. There are major differences - biologically, culturally, linguistically, ideologically - between the peoples and nations of the world, going back to their ancestors. Deal with it. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, what do history professors and academic publishers know... Drmies (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geneticists, physical anthropologists, historians and other academics largely disagree with the opinions in that book, which is but one highly biased and neo-Marxist viewpoint not supported by archaeology, anthropology or genetics.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Basques, did not appear constructive and has 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your recent editing history at Basques shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are edit warring original research and content from unreliable sources into the article. The discussion and refutation of your claims has been adequately covered on the article's talk page. Please desist your disruptive editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

- My edits are constructive ones, all with valid citations. Did you even warn the other editor?? 174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Basques. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

- - No, if you continue POV pushing and pushing original research, you will be reported and blocked. You are not an administrator. You removed cited material from a valid source to push your own POV in the case of population numbers. You are not permitted to do so without providing a source or explanation for doing so. Meanwhile, I have a right to contest your arbitrary POV pushing and OR. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

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 notice boards.
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, you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Incorrect. And you are being hypocritical with your threats. If you continue to oppose valid editing based on citations and supported explanations, you will in fact be reported and possibly blocked. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

1) I was not intentionally evading the block, as I thought it had expired, and I'm using a different computer at a different location (also unintentional) 2)The original block was completely unjustified, there was no advance warning given about a potential block (which is standard), and the administrators making the block hurled a personal slur against me, so themselves violated Wikipedia policy (No Personal Attacks). They have a problem with biological science and evolutionary reality ripping apart the fantasy of their radical left, feminist ideology 174.119.80.219 (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block evasion doesn't have to be intentional, and a warning is not required before any block, but especially one for block evasion. Issues with your original block need to be addressed in an unblock request from the name you were blocked under, though such a request must address your behavior only. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

One month is extreme, and I can't use the other IP anymore so I have to use this one until I create an account. Please reduce or remove the block. I can only appeal it from my current location. Regards. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed your inappropriate actions, nor your block evasion. Before you waste any more of our time, please read WP:GAB. Yamla (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

new request

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).

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

Request reason:

What inappropriate actions are you referring to? I didn't violate any editing rules in the initial block on the other IP, and in fact I WAS THE ONE personally attacked with an insult by an administrator with an ideological axe to grind. This is pertinent to why the block was put in place because there was no valid reason other than abuse by a corrupt administrator. I never attacked any other user, and last time I checked, personal opinions are allowed on Wikipedia about topics when providing the explanation of an edit summary. Making statements about biological facts is not a personal attack on someone, and an administrator taking personal offence because his radical far-left ideology is threatened is not an excuse to block someone. There was nothing I did that warranted an immediate block in any sense. As for the "evasion" of that other block, I ALREADY explained I am using a different machine on a different network due to a change of location. So how can I appeal the initial block if I'm no longer using that IP? What more explanation do you need? This is all there is. Was I supposed to contact someone about my situation? I mean, this is getting ridiculous. I've successfully explained why the initial block on the other IP was unjustified, and why I am now using this IP. I'm not sure what else you want here, but muzzling editors for one administrator deciding to "take offence" at something is a dangerous precedent to set. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:block evasion. crappy attitude -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I have revoked your talk page access to prevent any further personal attacks. Another admin will be along shortly to review your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

[[

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]]

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Gaels, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Who are you to threaten me? I made no defamatory edits whatsoever. I am giving you your only warning that abuse of Wikipedia policy and threats will not be tolerated, and your unacceptable and belligerent behaviour will be reported to higher administrators if it continues. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page (User talk:Catrìona)

Why are you constantly re-verting my edits? I have provided academic sources clearly stating Irish and Scots, specifically Gaels, are descended from the aboriginal, indigenous autochthonous population of that area. 'Indigenous' does not need to be approved by some UN body regarding some indigenous peoples in other areas. It is a term used in science and anthropology specifically for populations and cultures who are descended from the first populations of a given region, especially with regards to migrations in the modern period of other foreign peoples. Gaels, Welsh and English are indigenous to the British Isles (the Gaels and Welsh Britons preceding the Anglo-Saxons by millennia). Italians are indigenous to Italy. Basques, Castilians, Catalans and Portuguese are indigenous to Iberia. The Germans are indigenous to Germany. Greeks to Greece. Sardinians to Sardinia. These are peoples whose culture and genetic ancestry has been in these regions for thousands of years, going back to the Bronze Age (Indo-European speakers), Neolithic (Neolithic farmers), Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic even (Western European Hunter-Gatherers). The Gaels ARE indigenous to the area, are referred to as such in my sources and even the Council of Europe considers them as such, as they refer to the language AND culture of the Gaels as indigenous. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your edits because you continue to distort existing sources in the article, and because you are ignoring the technical meaning of the word "indigenous" which is not always synonymous with "native." If the Council of Europe says that Gaels are indigenous to the Scottish Highlands, great, add a note, but don't say so in Wikipedia voice when it's still an issue under considerable scholarly and political debate. Checked your source and it never even mentioned the word "indigenous." Please stop abusing sources and POV-pushing. Catrìona (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue under any scholarly debate and is widely accepted, which is why the Irish and Scottish Gaelic populations are referred to as indigenous populations in the studies I cited. It does not need be stated as such by a certain political council, when it is widely acknowledged in the academic community that they descend from the aboriginal inhabitants of the region. This is stated as such specifically in the genetic study on the Insular Atlantic genome I cited. In any case, the Council of Europe has considered Gaelic languages AND culture to be indigenous, as per that source I also presented. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Can I suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD? If you make an edit or edits and they are reverted by another editor who disputes them, please engage on the talk page to resolve the issue and reach consensus rather than continually adding back your text. I'm not taking any views on the text under discussion, just suggesting a more constructive way of proceeding. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scottish Gaelic. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've engaged with her now on the talk page for Scottish Gaelic. She removed material from valid, academic and official government sources, including a great deal of which has been included in that article for a very long time. If she does not participate in the discussion about her belligerent actions, her edits will be re-verted. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Yamato people. While you are welcome to re-use the content of Wikipedia, here or elsewhere, our licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please either provide attribution in this case, or identify the source article so that someone else can do it. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Please be aware that editors who repeatedly copy content without attribution risk being blocked from editing. It is not the first time that this IP has been warned for such a problem. Please be aware that there are consequences for failing to abide by this guideline. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 08:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I notice a range of edits, removing sources. Your edits are not referenced. Your revisions are disruptive. Your edit comments are written as though your own views are authoritative. It is important to follow policy and good practice. I suggest gaining familiarly with those policies and perhaps focus on using the talk page only. Travelmite (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no more IP editing for you. You have a blocked account and any IP editing is block evasion. You can request an unblock request by logging into your account.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not violated any Wikipedia policy. My IP was not being blocked, so there is no basis for accusations of being a "sock" (a sock of what? I was not blocked in any way, under any account). I was not given any warning or any sufficient reason for the block either. I am not allowed to create a user account because of this. The administrator who blocked me should himself/herself be warned due to their abuse of authority. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This IP is blocked based on advanced technical evidence. If you need to create an account, please see WP:ACC. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There won't be any warnings for block evasion. It will be revert, block and ignore. You are guilty of sockpuppetry and block evasion.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What block evasion was I "avoiding"? I was not under a block until you arbitrarily and abusively decided to do so. Please explain. Also, your link there to WP:RBI is with reference to vandalism. I did not vandalize anything.174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to create an account, I will happily do so. You need to unblock my IP to do that. If there are any other issues please say so. I have not violated any Wikipedia policy in any of my edits. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heard that one before. I can't say that I'm seeing someone who is here to collaborate.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What have I vandalized? Nothing. What account have I evaded? None. What amount of original research have I entered? Zero. I've entered an enormous amount of academic research and contributed positively to numerous articles, improving them enormously. I am here to collaborate. I'm not sure why you decided to block me, but I have appealed on several fronts. You have still failed to explain why you blocked me, since your original reason (block evasion) is completely false. If you want me to create a user account, I will do so. If you want me to discuss on talk pages more before making edits, I will also do so. What else do you want? If you allow me to create a user account, I promise I will do so immediately once being permitted, and will take a break from editing for a few days to show good faith. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

What "advanced technical evidence" is there? I am not the only person who uses this IP. I apologize for whatever reasons you used to block me, and I will no longer edit. I ask that you please unblock this IP. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you will no longer edit. As such, there's no reason to lift this block. If you do wish to edit, you've been told how to do so and there'd still be no reason to lift the block. Yamla (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

72.38.208.188 is Confirmed to 174.119.80.219. The latter was used to evade a block set on the former by Boing! said Zebedee who also blocked the second IP. This editor then used 2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:0:0:0:0/64 ( Confirmed) to evade that block. They have been using that /64 block for exactly one year to the day, July 21 2017. I also believe that this is a sockmaster whose case has not had a new entry since 21 September 2017 and have strong reasons to think so (the CU log for one) but I won't associate any IPs to accounts per the privacy policy. I will add that I believe 174.119.174.88 to be the same editor.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.