User talk:DerekHistorian

Welcome!

Hello, DerekHistorian, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when editing talk pages

You recently removed an admin's signature (here) when adding a comment to another user's own talk page. I've restored the signature here. I'm assume it was a good faith error, but please read WP:TPO. It's easy to accidentally overwrite or refactor other people's talk, so do double-check your additions to ensure you haven't deleted part of another post before you post. Cheers, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Keraites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mongolic

Sogdia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sogdian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello

stop add wrong statments and ref weeks or monhts after it has been deleted by other wikipedia users, i have seen that you have done that before on page huns! and i want to say that ref is used several times on the page and if you use more it will not help or be better so you now MeLoveGames (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Teratix. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, J-pop, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 06:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Haplogroup Q-M25 into Turkmens. 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 copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your recent editing history at Hong Kong 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. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have moderators

We have WP:Administrators who deal with conduct issues, we don't have anything like moderators, and Joshua Jonathan is not an Admin. I am. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turkmens; 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:

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. Wario-Man (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

You would have to look a Editor Interaction and compare edits and the summaries. Not all that much of the same....but for some reason same edit summaries a few times --Moxy 🍁 14:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted an edit

I reverted [1] an edit of yours. I understand that you addition was in good faith. However, the older citation seems to be better and more reliable that the one you added. Thank you.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I understand you want to discuss, but please be civil and calm while discussing. No one would want to respond if you post like this [2]. If you want a discussion, please do so in a civil manner and ideally discuss small parts of content.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hello DerekHistorian. From your edit summary here, you said that you waited 24 hours to make a revert. Even though that is technically allowed, it could be seen as evading the three-revert rule. Thanks. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:DerekHistorian reported by User:Nigos (Result: ). Thank you. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 13:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for edit warring on Hong Kong and Singapore

Hello DerekHistorian. Please see the outcome of the compleint about your edits at the edit warring noticeboard. If make more reverts at either Hong Kong or Singapore when the protections expire, you may be blocked with no further notice, unless you have obtained prior consensus for your version on a talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mongoloid; 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:

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.
There's been a lot of back and forth on this page:

This needs to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Mongoloid has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. 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) 21:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you and your opponent for a week from editing Turkmens for persistent edit-warring at that article. You may edit other Wikipedia pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by ST47

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 blocked you for 1 week for edit warring. The day your block expired, you resume that same edit war. I'll also point out that, perhaps unrelated, IPs were engaging in that same edit war during your block. If you continue this behavior, your next block will likely be indefinite. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: This is now their third strike - Ymblanter partial blocked them for a week, they continued on other articles. I reset the block to be a full block for a week, and they've now continued immediately after that expired. And no response at all from them to any of these talk page messages? ST47 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: Good point... still leaning toward keeping it at 2 weeks, but let's see if there's any communication (or if the edit war continues through IPs again...) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: please see [3]. Geolocate says it's likely a network sharing device. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 24 shells is a server provider. I will block the range. ST47 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47:@EvergreenFir: We have more block evasions at this talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#Petition_to_ban_EvergreenFir,_Hunan201p -- Hunan201p (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by 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 with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ST47 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]